2011 Season Week 10 Clips
TECHNICAL NOTE: For those not aware, when viewing these videos in the YouTube window, you can adjust the resolution for a sharper view. Notice in the lower right hand corner of the video player window a setting such as "240p". Click on that and you can adjust the setting up to 360p, 480p or even 720p in some cases. This will give you a sharper image.
Chop Block ? 2-3-3 defines a chop block. The rule as written requires contact by two blockers. The definition is expanded somewhat by AR 9-1-10-II to include combination blocks where one player is disengaging as a teammate begins to block the opponent. The definition may have been expanded further by some clinicians (and possibly some supervisors) who advocate adding a "lure" component. This likely stems from the NFL where the "lure" is actually written into the rulebook. The "lure" component refers to one blocker not actually contacting the blockee but "luring" the blockee towards him and then a teammate blocking low (thigh or below). Is there a chop block in this play? After you have viewed the video please take the poll below. (Be sure to click on DONE after selecting your choice so your vote is submitted)
Targeting ? this is a play that is generating some controversy in one conference, especially following the recent violent KCI that resulted in a disqualification and suspension involving the potentially offending team in this video. The speed and athleticism of today's players continue to challenge officials. No one official has the benefit of the multiple camera angles available to the TV viewer or the conference observer/evaluator. Did the player hitting the QB "target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet"? (9-1-3 & 4)
Punt with Inadvertent Whistle Some officials believe not talking about inadvertent whistles (IW) can magically ensure there are none in their games. Perhaps that is why some officials are not prepared to deal with the IW when it DOES happen. On most IW's, one team will have an option to accept the result of the play or have the down replayed (4-1-2). However, if there is an IW during a legal forward pass or a free or scrimmage kick, there is no option (assuming no enforced penalty or violation). In those scenarios, the down MUST be replayed. There is no reason to request a team's option. Simply announce and signal the IW and move on. (In many crews the "offending" official will then be paying the penalty at the local watering hole.)
DPI and Possible Targeting Good call for DPI by B23 but B17 may also have committed a targeting foul against the same receiver. Depending on where the foul occurs, it may be more advantageous to enforce the targeting penalty. In the video play, the ball was snapped at the 19 and foul happened in the end zone. The DPI penalty allows ball to be moved to the 4 while a targeting penalty would only take it to the 9 1/2. However, even if the targeting penalty is not enforced, the fouling player could be ejected if his foul was deemed flagrant ( 9-1-1 & 10-1-1-b)
Crew Coordination This is a good example of the crew working together to "get it right". We typically have 2 or 3 officials in position to rule on pass interference calls. When they can help each other "get it right" they should not hesitate to do so.
Roughing the Passer or Targeting/Illegal Contact to Head or Neck Area ? The act of roughing the passer can sometimes be considered a different foul also, i.e. targeting or illegal contact to the head or neck area. The Referee must ensure he classifies the foul appropriately as the penalty enforcement can differ depending on what is called. Since roughing the passer can qualify for "tack on" enforcement at times, it may be more appropriate to classify the hit as that instead of targeting/illegal contact. (In this video play it would have made no difference) (Reminder for announcements: Fouls "offset", penalties "cancel". "Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking leads to sloppy officiating.")
Personal Foul ? It is likely mandatory in most conferences that penalty announcements include the specific personal foul instead of just stating "personal foul". Surely the crew reported a specific foul to the "offending" team coach? Was there even a personal foul here?
Penalty Enforcement on Passing Plays 2d and 30 at the Team A 40. The pass and run were judged to gain 27 yards to the Team B33. There was a foul against B during the pass play part of the down. (Facemask announced but holding signaled.) The penalty includes an automatic 1st down if accepted but yardage enforcement would be from the previous spot. This is definitely a situation where we need a decision from the offended team. Do they choose to accept result of the play and have 3d and 3 at the B33 or do they accept the penalty and have a 1st and 10 at the B45. Apparently this offended team chose the later and gave up 12 yards in field position to gain 2 extra downs.