Crazy calls or non calls by officials

[56BISON73]

I think because it's a live ball penalty the defense has the option to take the result of the play or the penalty. Just like they could decline a holding call if they intercept the pass they could decline this penalty as well.

That would make sense.

[23Bison]

Good football play. What was the defender supposed to do? Not tackle him?

Looks like he ear holed him to me. Crown of the helmet to the side for the head. I thought it was pretty obvious considering how he was out before he hit the ground. And this was the only time that I have ever rooted for Minn.

[Professor Chaos]

Back to the non call.

So what should have been the correct call??

Illegal forward pass. What ever yards penalty. Loss of down. No interception. 4th down?

Wheres Indy????

I'd need Indy to confirm but I know illegal forward passes are sometimes misinterpreted as being a penalty when it isn't since I believe it requires the QBs entire body to be across the LOS. So the ball could be released clearly beyond the LOS but it would still be legal if the QB's back foot was still behind or on the LOS.

EDIT: Just saw the video and his entire body is definitely across the LOS: https://youtu.be/rVvbpdFtYZc?t=767

[23Bison]

Correct, if any part of the body is behind the line of scrimmage when the ball is released, it’s a legal forward pass.

[56BISON73]

I'd need Indy to confirm but I know illegal forward passes are sometimes misinterpreted as being a penalty when it isn't since I believe it requires the QBs entire body to be across the LOS. So the ball could be released clearly beyond the LOS but it would still be legal if the QB's back foot was still behind or on the LOS.

EDIT: Just saw the video and his entire body is definitely across the LOS: https://youtu.be/rVvbpdFtYZc?t=767

Oh yeah he was 2 yards past.

[OrygunBison]

Fuck him.

I think that would have drawn an "illegal touching" penalty.

[mtoutfitter]

Plus the talking heads didnt even catch it.

My wife did.

Not surprising PL....she spotted more antelope than you when she was here.....

[IndyBison]

Lots to discuss here. Thanks for asking.

Bad read 56. I disagree. If he had come in with arms wide ready to wrap and put his face guard in rather than the crown I would agree. But he tried to drill his crown in. No wrap attempt. And he knocked the player out cold.

Lots of judgement on this play. First you have to determine catch/no catch. If you go with catch/fumble you likely take off the defenseless option of targeting because you have to determine if he had an opportunity to defend himself. If you have no catch then he's definitely defenseless because he hasn't completed the process of the catch. The crew on the field went with catch/down and replay went with catch/fumble. In real time on the field I imagine this looked like shoulder to shoulder. You have to watch it on replay to see there was contact to the helmet as well. You can't go by the injury because I've seen players knocked out from hitting the ground with their head.

If replay felt he was no longer defenseless then you can only have targeting on leading with the crown of his helmet. Did he lead with his crown or did he lean with the shoulder? The philosophy of the crown is broadened to include the front of the helmet so it does appear the defender's crown is what contacts the receiver's helmet. But was it initiating contact or incidental with his shoulder being the primary force? If you consider him defenseless then the crown doesn't need to be involved and you can have targeting with forcible contact above the shoulder.

So lots of combinations of factors there to consider. With replay you have to be technical and you have very clear video that could take you off targeting on a play like this because most of the contact was shoulder to shoulder. But the action of this defender is exactly what the targeting rule is trying to prevent. Wrap up rather than blow up. If he didn't commit targeting for lack of trying. In my D3 games this would probably be called targeting and the fuzzy video it would definitely be supported. They may be technically right based what judgements they made, but both the on field and replay officials may get downgrades. Sometimes the gray is hard.

So what should have been the correct call??

Illegal forward pass. What ever yards penalty. Loss of down. No interception. 4th down?

But does the pass even happen? It's illegal??

I'd need Indy to confirm but I know illegal forward passes are sometimes misinterpreted as being a penalty when it isn't since I believe it requires the QBs entire body to be across the LOS. So the ball could be released clearly beyond the LOS but it would still be legal if the QB's back foot was still behind or on the LOS.
EDIT: Just saw the video and his entire body is definitely across the LOS: https://youtu.be/rVvbpdFtYZc?t=767

This is definitely a foul. With the QB rolling this way the wing has to retreat to cover the play and gives up the LOS. He should still possibly be focused on WHERE the ball is thrown, but he's also watching the blocks around the runner and focused on whether or not he stays in bounds. Lots to digest for him, but he has the benefit of a big line being the LOS. The U or wing on the opposite side could help but with players in the way it's hard to see where the pass is thrown from their perspective. I believe this is reviewable, but since it was intercepted the result would be the same. It is an illegal forward pass, but it can still be intercepted. This just takes off DPI, ineligible downfield, etc. The penalty would be 5 yards from the spot of the throw and a loss of down. With the interception UCF would decline the penalty and keep the ball.

Funny call in the Jayhawk Yote game

False Start---"Everyone but the center"

I've had this several times. The center misses or forgets the snap count and everyone else goes.

[oldmantutters]

Lots to discuss here. Thanks for asking.


Lots of judgement on this play. First you have to determine catch/no catch. If you go with catch/fumble you likely take off the defenseless option of targeting because you have to determine if he had an opportunity to defend himself. If you have no catch then he's definitely defenseless because he hasn't completed the process of the catch. The crew on the field went with catch/down and replay went with catch/fumble. In real time on the field I imagine this looked like shoulder to shoulder. You have to watch it on replay to see there was contact to the helmet as well. You can't go by the injury because I've seen players knocked out from hitting the ground with their head.

If replay felt he was no longer defenseless then you can only have targeting on leading with the crown of his helmet. Did he lead with his crown or did he lean with the shoulder? The philosophy of the crown is broadened to include the front of the helmet so it does appear the defender's crown is what contacts the receiver's helmet. But was it initiating contact or incidental with his shoulder being the primary force? If you consider him defenseless then the crown doesn't need to be involved and you can have targeting with forcible contact above the shoulder.

So lots of combinations of factors there to consider. With replay you have to be technical and you have very clear video that could take you off targeting on a play like this because most of the contact was shoulder to shoulder. But the action of this defender is exactly what the targeting rule is trying to prevent. Wrap up rather than blow up. If he didn't commit targeting for lack of trying. In my D3 games this would probably be called targeting and the fuzzy video it would definitely be supported. They may be technically right based what judgements they made, but both the on field and replay officials may get downgrades. Sometimes the gray is hard.





This is definitely a foul. With the QB rolling this way the wing has to retreat to cover the play and gives up the LOS. He should still possibly be focused on WHERE the ball is thrown, but he's also watching the blocks around the runner and focused on whether or not he stays in bounds. Lots to digest for him, but he has the benefit of a big line being the LOS. The U or wing on the opposite side could help but with players in the way it's hard to see where the pass is thrown from their perspective. I believe this is reviewable, but since it was intercepted the result would be the same. It is an illegal forward pass, but it can still be intercepted. This just takes off DPI, ineligible downfield, etc. The penalty would be 5 yards from the spot of the throw and a loss of down. With the interception UCF would decline the penalty and keep the ball.



I've had this several times. The center misses or forgets the snap count and everyone else goes.

Thanks for your thoughts on this Indy. Do you think both of the defenders arms/hands shooting through the contact make any difference in the decision?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[IndyBison]

Thanks for your thoughts on this Indy. Do you think both of the defenders arms/hands shooting through the contact make any difference in the decision?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Not sure what you mean by arms/hands shooting through the contact, but in general if you try to wrap up you are much less likely to commit targeting. If you come like a missile leading with the top of your body you have a high potential for targeting. They want defender to tackle. not blow up. I thought we would see less of it with targeting but players don't seem to understand that.