The Pigskin
Page
2015 Post-Season Clips (1)
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.
Send your clip or play suggestions to videos@romgilbert.us.
The video page will continue bringing you clips which are good learning material as we all work together to understand and enforce the sometimes complicated NCAA football rules. The videos are not meant to demean or belittle any official. They are used so that ALL officials can learn from the situations and issues other officials encounter in their games. No official has ever completed a career error-free. But by sharing our errors with others we help them avoid the same pitfalls. NCAA football officials at all levels exhibit incredible rule knowledge week in and week out. We can always get better and this page hopes to serve in that effort.
This video was submitted from a Texas contributor. As the regulars know, Texas and Massachusetts remain the 2 states using NCAA football rules in high school games. And just like many NCAA games, they do not have benefit of instant replay to help them get it right. They also have reduced crew sizes (5 in this game) so have to make the call in many cases with very limited angles observed. Please look at the clip and then vote in our poll. Should the targeting foul have remained and the penalty assessed? (Please remember to scroll down and click on the DONE button after making your choice.)
Create your own user feedback survey
The targeting foul remains the subject of much conversation between officials, players, coaches, fans, and the media. Despite significant efforts by the NCAA and CFO to educate all these groups, there is still widespread disagreement within and between them as to what constitutes an act of targeting that should be penalized by one of the most severe actions possible, player disqualification. The play in this video clip has generated considerable controversy and perhaps will be featured on a CFO video soon to give officials and others feedback on whether or not the act flagged here was worthy of a player disqualification. Another confusing point to the play was the Referee's announcement that the fouled team chose "not to use the 10 second runoff". The foul did not qualify for the 10 second subtraction. Furthermore, if the crew actually thought the 10 second subtraction was in play, once it had been refused, why was the game clock started on the ready instead of the snap?
As we know, there was nearly a rule change this year to limit the distance ineligible receivers could go downfield from the current 3 yards to a new standard of 1 yard. The rule change was not implemented however the NCAA survey for next year's rule changes made clear this issue is still very much under study. We understand that many conferences followed the NCAA guidance to enforce the current rule much stricter than in the past. There was even a CFO mechanics change made midseason to address the issue. Perhaps all that emphasis has led some officials to be too strict. In this clip, the team A lineman who was flagged for being downfield on the pass was clearly in a legal position when the ball was released by the passer. And that is the key...where was the ineligible receiver at the moment the pass as released? In this play he had not yet moved 3 yards downfield
Another rule that continues to challenge officials is the illegal forward pass thrown to conserve yardage (intentional grounding). In recent years passers were given more and more latitude thus depriving the defense of the benefit of making a great defensive play. Viewers can decide for themselves if the action in this play should have been flagged as intentional grounding. The passer was under duress (he even transferred the ball to his left hand to get rid of it), he was not outside the tackle box, and the ball did not cross or land beyond the line of scrimmage. The only question is..was there an eligible receiver in the area where pass went? One informed observer said: "If there was an eligible receiver in the area, he was under the ground." We report, you decide.
Intentional Grounding (Part 2)
In this example, the passer WAS flagged for intentional grounding, although a bit late. Referees are so concerned with action on the passer, they are often not even aware of where the pass goes or who is in the area of it. Luckily there are others on the crew able to help by providing information about where the pass landed and who may or may not have been in the area. Although the Referee here did a good job of ensuring he had the correct spot for penalty enforcement, when the Referee is not immediately judging the pass to be illegal it is easy to lose that spot.
When Team A is moving at a fast pace, it is well known that if they substitute, they must give Team B a chance to respond. Officials control this by trying to prevent the snap . When Team A still snaps and B has not yet completed their substitution, officials stop the action and warn Team A that any further actions like that will result in them being penalized. That seems like an acceptable way to handle the situation but what about in a situation like this? By simply shutting the play down, the officials effectively prevented team A from fouling since their own replaced player had not even left the field before they snapped.