2012 Post-Season Week 5 Clips
TECHNICAL NOTE: For those not aware, when viewing these videos in the You Tube window, you can adjust the resolution for a sharper view. Notice in the lower right hand corner of the video player window a setting icon that looks like a gear. 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.
Poll Results:
Last week we looked at intentional grounding (IG). There is still wide variance among officials as to what constitutes IG. The guidance from CFO seems to suggest passers should be given greater leeway than many of us are used to giving. Last week's poll definitely reinforced that reality. 51% of you judged the play to be IG and 49% judged it not to be. Nothing like consistency! This variation clearly shows just how confused we are as a group over the rule and hopefully we will see some clarification from CFO or NCAA to help us in the future. (It is worth noting that many of you commented that while you did not agree with the ruling of NO Intentional Grounding, you believed it should apply in this play.)
Clipping ?
Although interior offensive linemen have quite a bit of freedom in their
blocking methods, it is not unlimited. In fact, some of the most
serious fouls on the field, with the most severe penalties, stem from illegal
blocks thrown by these players. In this video, observe the actions of RG
A54. Is his block legal or illegal? The block is clearly low.
9-1-6-a-1 prevents Team A players who are beyond the NZ from blocking low back
towards their own goal line. This block was clearly behind the NZ, so that
rule does not apply. The next possibility is clipping. Clipping is a
block against an opponent in which the force of the
initial contact is from behind and at or below the waist. The position of the
blocker’s head or feet does not necessarily indicate the point
of initial contact. (2-5) Please view the video and take the
poll below. (Please remember to scroll down and click on
the DONE button after making your choice.)
"Tripping" 2-28 defines tripping as using the foot or lower leg intentionally to obstruct an opponent below the knees. But all tripping in NCAA games is NOT illegal, even if it is in another League. In our game, the runner can be tripped and there is no foul. (9-1-2-c Exception).
KO and Ejection The crew was not expecting an onside kick in this situation. Nonetheless they did a good job covering the action and ruling on the play. More importantly, they tried to get in and stay on top of any potential extracurricular very quickly. Nonetheless, players did get a bit excited and there was dead ball personal foul activity. Observers can make their own opinion on the seriousness of A32's contact which resulted in him "excusing himself for the rest of the game." (The "clipper" and others still prefer this announcement for ejections over "ejected" or "disqualified").
Targeting ? The receiver in this play was attempting to complete the catch when he was violently contacted. By definition, he was a "defenseless player" (2-27-14). Therefore he should not be contacted in the head or neck area. (9-1-4) However, do you ignore that contact if the receiver goes down low himself in such a way that the defender has little choice but to contact his head or neck area? The rules do not appear to make a provision that permits you that latitude.
Running Into or Roughing Kicker When judging contact on a kicker, R's are supposed to be guided by the principle that when the contact endangers the kicker, it is roughing. Other contact that does not endanger but displaces the kicker can be called running into. (9-1-16) If the R deems the contact was caused by the defender being blocked into the kicker, there is NO foul, roughing nor running into. Some who have seen this clip opined that the running into was an appropriate call as the defender would have hit the kicker even without the block by A74 so this should be called running into as the block made it worse than it would have been. That is NOT how the rule is written or interpreted. Viewers can decide if the kicker was endangered here.
Yes, Legal Shots ARE Possible Despite the hysterical cries of many fans, commentators, coaches, players, and even some officials...Legal big hits are still perfectly possible under the spirit and intent of the rules. The defender here used the correct part of his body (shoulder) against the correct part of the receiver's body (mid-section) to break up the play. Good job not to flag this contact.
TD Called & Overturned This crew had the video review booth available to them to help them get the call right despite the initial ruling of TD. Crews without the video review cannot rely on that technology and it is even more critically important that they be mechanically sound so that they are in position to make these types of calls. Since this L was unable to stay ahead of the runner, he was not in position to make the close call required on the play. L's and F's and H's and S' often have to switch "lead" and "trail" on runners. Plays like this demonstrate why the "lead" is just so important.
Roughing the Passer and Possible IW Good job to catch the roughing foul on this play. Since the runner was ruled down at the B-23, the penalty was enforced from that spot. There is question as to whether the runner was truly down. However, since the ruling on the field was "down" and there was no question about the line to gain, there is nothing that permits instant replay review in this situation.