2012 Season Week 3 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:
Week 1's poll featured a play where there was potential KCI. Of those 240 who voted, 87% said no and 13% said yes. In Week 2 we had a slightly more involved play 82% of the 77 who answered said neither A24 nor B25 fouled during their head-to-head collision but 65% did judge B89 fouled when he hit A24 just after A24's helmet came off.
Aiding the Runner 9-3-2-b prohibits a ball carrier's teammates from grasping, pulling, pushing, lifting, or charging into him to assist in forward progress. Many officials still appear reluctant to flag this activity despite a 2011 NCAA Play Interpretations Bulletin which also indicated activity like this should be flagged. Please view the video and then take the poll that follows.
"Sideline Interference" It is possible this video does not show all that transpired on the sideline. Based on what is shown, there was no contact between an official and anyone in the restricted area on the sideline. There clearly were people in that area, contrary to 9-2-5 (Game Administration Interference). This was the 1st such infraction of the game on Team B. The R signalled using the "sideline warning " signal which is no longer used in NCAA games. If this was a 9-2-5 foul, the penalty should have been 5 yards from the succeeding spot (try or KO). The signal would have been the Delay of Game signal followed by the Sideline Interference signal. If the official judged he was interfered with, then the act could have been judged to be Unsportsmanlike Conduct under 9-2-3-a. The R could award any penalty he deems equitable and the Unsportsmanlike Conduct signal would be used to signal the foul. If coaches, substitutes or attendants left the team box and went past the 25 yard line or on to the field of play, the act could be penalized under 9-2-1-b-1 as Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
Helmet Off and Continued Participation Teams and officials continue to learn the nuances of the new rule regarding helmets coming off through play. In this play, the defender's helmet came off (perhaps as the result of a foul but not flagged, so no foul). The defender continued to try to get past the blocker and was flagged for doing so. Players without a helmet are permitted to continue to engage in the "immediate action" . Did the defender go beyond that? If so, then the flag is warranted. But if you judge he fouled in this play, don't you also have to judge the offensive lineman also fouled by also engaging the same activity?
Illegally Kicking a Loose Ball The result of this play is a safety. But there was a foul, which if accepted, would erase the safety. In this play, the penalty was announced as a 5 yard penalty although it actually carries a 10-yard penalty (and loss of down in many instances). In this specific play, the foul happened at the 11 or the 12 so could only be penalized 1/2 the distance anyway. Since the ball was snapped at the 6 it appears there was a 5 yard penalty from the 11 or a 1/2 the distance penalty from the 12. This is definitely one of those plays where the offended team's choice to accept or decline a penalty may not be obvious.
It's a Tough World Inside There Hopefully SWAC Umpire William Gant has recovered from this tough hit. 13 definitely is an unlucky number in this play.