2012 Season Week 9 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 8's poll featured a play which involved a huge hit on a player that was not high but which may or may not have been a foul. 171 viewers registered an opinion on the play with 83% saying the hit was a foul and 17% saying it was not. The most frequently given reason for calling it a foul was the lateness of the contact and the judgment of the officials that the player could have avoided the contact but chose not to do so.
Tackling the Fair Catch Signaler Rule 6-5-5 prohibits players from tackling the player who has completed a "fair catch." By definition (2-8-1) a fair catch of a scrimmage kick is the catch of a kick by a player who has made a valid signal during a scrimmage kick that is untouched beyond the neutral zone. The fair catch signal is essentially a promise by the receiving team player that nobody on his team will try to advance the ball after completing the catch of the kick. Whether the signal given is valid or invalid, the receivers cannot advance the ball after it is caught or recovered, therefore the ball is dead as soon as it is caught or recovered. In this play, viewers should assess the validity of the signal given by B4. Also, did A21's contact on B4 constitute a foul? Please view the video and then take the poll that follows.
Textbook KCI Perhaps the coach was watching something else but it is hard to understand what he could be unhappy about in this play. Contrary to the commentator's remarks, it does not matter if the catch is made or not. This is a textbook example of kick catch interference with the kicking team player clearly within this season's newly created "prohibited area." (6-4-1-b) Officials are reminded of the National Coordinator's continuing guidance that coaches should be dealt with when the have clearly crossed the line and become verbally abusive.
Defensive Holding on a Screen Pass Play Although the defender correctly read what was taking place in this play, he incorrectly tried to break it up by tackling the intended receiver before the ball arrived. This is not pass interference as the pass did not cross the neutral zone. It also does not qualify for the automatic 1st down that comes when an eligible receiver is held during a pass play because the receiver was held BEHIND the line of scrimmage AND the pass did not cross the neutral zone. (9-3-4-e)The foul has to have happened BEYOND the line of scrimmage AND the legal forward pass had to cross the neutral zone in order to qualify for an automatic 1st down. This was a good catch by the crew on a foul that is sometimes missed by officials who incorrectly presume the defense can do almost anything behind the neutral zone. In this 2d play, although the R announced an automatic 1st down as part of the penalty, in reality it would not have qualified for that penalty. The holding WAS on an eligible receiver, but there was never a pass thrown during the down. The 10 yard penalty from the previous spot was sufficient for a 1st down in this play but it should not have been an "automatic 1st down."
Why Postscrimmage Kick Enforcement ? Contrary to this commentator's "understanding" of the rules, just because the Team B foul happened after the ball was kicked does not automatically mean the penalty should be enforced from the end of the kick. Postscrimmage kick enforcement (PSKE) only applies when: 1 - the kick is not during a try, a successful field goal, or in an extra period; 2 - The ball crosses the neutral zone; 3 - The foul occurs 3 or more yards beyond the neutral zone; 4 - The foul occurs before the end of the kick; and 5 - Team B will next put the ball in play. All 5 conditions must be met to have PSKE. (10-2-3) In this play, Team A had 4th and 9 at their own 49. Team B was flagged for holding which appeared to take place at the 50. The penalty was enforced from the PSKE spot (end of the kick) although the 3d condition above was not met. Enforcement of the penalty from the previous spot would have resulted in a 1st down for Team A. Although we do not know what was said in the crew huddle when the foul was reported, it is extremely critical that calling officials give the R all the key information about what they saw so the R can ensure correct enforcement. Since many R's are accustomed to the F and S reporting fouls on scrimmage kicks that DO qualify for PSKE, perhaps this R was not told the spot of the foul and mistakenly assumed it had happened while the "gunner" was running down field.
Touched the Kick or Blocked Into It? There are 2 plays this week that highlight the importance of correctly judging whether a player was blocked into a kick or he touched it without being blocked into it. If a player is deemed to have been blocked into a kick , then, by rule, he has not touched it. (6-3-4) AR 6-3-4-IV concerns a situation where 2 players are engaged at the moment the ball hits one of them. By the AR, unless you judge the contact caused the touching of the ball, then the touching is considered to NOT be "forced touching." In the 1st play the "gunner" is engaged with a Team B blocker as he moves downfield. The kicked ball strikes the "gunner's" foot at the A-20 before bouncing out of bounds at the B-1. The covering official deemed the contact was NOT the result of the Team A player being blocked so the ball was spotted at the spot of illegal touching for the next play. In the 2d play a Team B blocker is apparently oblivious of the ball's location as he starts to engage an opponent. The ball strikes the Team B player on the back and is recovered by Team A. the covering official judged the touching of the kick was not forced touching so Team A was awarded a 1st down at the spot of their recovery of the kick.
Intentional Grounding, Deja Vu All Over Again Regular viewers of this page will recall just last week there was discussion of the intentional grounding rule and how recent changes have caused greater disadvantage to the defenses as QB's are given more and more latitude with regards to how they get rid of the all while under pressure. In this 1st play, the QB is under heavy pressure and is outside the tackle box when he throws the pass. The ball did not reach the neutral zone. While this would seem like a time when there would be a foul for intentional grounding, no flag was thrown. Perhaps the R judged the contact by the defender on the QB caused the pass to land short of the neutral zone. In the 2d play, a flag is thrown, although there is an eligible receiver moving in the direction of the ball's trajectory, the receiver was momentarily slowed by a defender's block, and the ball landed a "mere" 5 yards in front of the receiver. Under current intentional grounding philosophies, this would not normally qualify as a foul for intentional grounding.
Onside Kick and the Sidelines We knew teams would have to be innovative to come up with new onside kick strategies in light of this year's rule changes which took some of their previous methods away from them. This play may be an example of one such new method. The kick is caused to bounce multiple times before taking a very high bounce near the sideline. Team A players know that is what the ball will be expected to do and they know where that bounce should occur so they try to run to a spot that allows them to leap and get the ball. In this particular play, there are many things to look at. These are things which are fairly easy to review as we enjoy the luxury of watching a video we can run forward and backward. A very grizzled old veteran official described this play best when he said: "The A player gets blocked out of bounds, returns inbounds immediately (legal), then steps out of bounds voluntarily, jumps, and bats the ball while airborne. The ball is touched in advance of the spot of the batting, making it illegal batting, while the A player returns to the ground out of bounds. So, no foul for illegal return. No illegal touching. Foul for illegal batting. You'd be all-frickin'-world if you got all that in real time. And you'd be all-frickin'-universe if you started the game clock on the legal touch/illegal batting by the A player (along with the all-world stuff)." It was a challenging play to officiate to be sure, but now you have all seen it and will be ready when it happens to you, right ? Some officials may believe that when a Team A player goes out of bounds voluntarily during a kick down, any subsequent participation by that player is/should be a foul. However, the current rules do not provide for any such foul except for the foul that occurs if and when that Team A player comes back in bounds, which he did not do here.