Re: Crazy calls or non calls by officials
Originally Posted by
IndyBison
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.
Thank you!!!!!
If we concentrated on the really important stuff in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles"
When you play football, you gotta like the taste of blood, And 50 percent of the time, it's your blood.
It is characteristic of the unlearned that they are forever proposing something which is old, and because it has recently come to their own attention, supposing it to be new.
"The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer."
Reply With Quote
