"Upon Further Review"

                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.

                   Safety?    This video is longer than the normal video clips shown here.  The fundamental question is when the passer is near his own end zone, how do we judge spot of foul for intentional grounding?  Is it where the QB's feet were? Is it where the ball was released from his hand? The conventional ruling for years was that the feet were immaterial.  The position of the ball when released is the governing factor.  The spot where the ball is released is what we should be seeking to identify.   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 and Ejection ?    The continuing emphasis on penalizing high hits on defenseless players does seem to be having the desired effect of penalizing most such hits. Unfortunately an unintended consequence is drawing increasing scrutiny and criticism from coaches, players, media and fans. That unintended result is flags on hits that are truly not fouls.  It is hoped the various supervisors around the country are not unfairly holding their officials accountable for mistakenly flagging these hits, many of which at game speed are near impossible to judge as fouls or not.  When supervisors encourage their crews, week after week, to catch the acts of targeting, it is understandable why we see examples of unwarranted flags.  As per 9-1-3 and 9-1-4, when in question, these hits ARE fouls.  (Although not targeting, observe the actions of A66 also.  Would you flag this if you saw it?  Also, was the pass intercepted by B93? )                           
 

                 "High Hit on the Runner"    Another high hit situation.  It is a foul to use the crown of one's helmet to target and initiate contact with any other player. (9-1-3)  It is also a foul to target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent.  (9-1-4)  By definition, a runner is NOT a defenseless opponent.  (2-27-14)   It is not automatically a foul if  a runner is hit high (head or neck area).   The viewer can decide if there was a "targeting with the helmet" foul on this play. 

                  Explanation of No Call - Intentional Grounding    A good announcement explaining why there was no flag for intentional grounding. 

                  Illegal Shift or False Start ?    The rules regarding false starts, illegal motion, and illegal shifts are sometimes misapplied.  Even if 2 Team A players are moving at the snap, this is not automatically just an illegal shift.  Depending on how the players move, it could be called a false start.  7-1-2-b describes what a false start is.  One of the most important components is 7-1-2-b-1 which says "Any movement by one or more players that simulates the start of the play."  Observe the actions of the running back on the right side of the formation (A44).  Does he start moving prior to the snap?  If so, then there is clearly an illegal shift.  The difficult part is judging whether he is moving forward or whether he has missed the snap count.  Some officials and conferences have opted to call illegal shifts when there is any such movement by one player that is near simultaneous with the snap while another player is also in motion.  If judged an illegal shift, play continues, if judged to be a false start, play is shut down immediately and penalized as a false start (a dead ball foul).    
 

                Illegal Shift or False Start  "of the 2d Variety" ?    Recall this year's rule change requiring us to classify some illegal shifts as false starts  (7-1-2-b-5) .   If Team A never comes to a complete one second stop prior to the snap after the ball is ready for play, this should be shut down at the snap and penalized as a false start. 

                Getting it Right     The best officials know the most important thing is to "get it right".  Therefore, they do not hesitate to provide input when they see an act flagged that they know should not have been.  Lesser officials will not speak up even when they have positive knowledge and lesser officials will not accept help from their crew mates.  In this play, the L flagged a hold by the tight end (A84) who was the B's key.  The B, having been watching the player more closely than the L, stepped up to take the L off the flag who took the input and allowed the flag to be waved off.   

               "Hands to the Face"    There is no NCAA signal for "hands to the face."  If  the official deems a player used his hand to strike an opponent's helmet, the foul is simply a personal foul, Signal 38.  A similar foul is when a player continuously contacts an opponent's helmet (including the facemask).  Again, that is simply a personal foul, Signal 38.  When the foul is announced, it should be announced either as a striking of the helmet or continuous contact with the helmet.  "Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking leads to sloppy officiating."

               Block in the Back    The viewer can decide if there was a block in the back by B5 on this play.  Note that B5 is in "chase mode",  A44 likely had no idea B5 was there, and the reaction of A44's body after contact.  While these are not always indicative of an illegal block, they certainly can be in some cases.  Some are calling this a shoulder block and no foul. 

               Punch and No Ejection ?    Football officials are notoriously reluctant to eject players from  a contest.  However, acts that are clearly unrelated to the game of football should be ones that we strongly consider ejectable offenses.    These are the acts that often lead to more serious retaliation and game management issues.  They deserve the strongest punishment possible.