2023 MVFC Season

[EC8CH]

On the late MSU not-TD the QB was a yard past the line of scrimmage when he threw ... and the officials missed it.

Meh... close enough for a no call. Receiver was obviously out which they corrected on replay. Ridiculous SDSU was even in that spot, they shot themselves in the foot so many times and MSU just couldn't close the deal.

[IndyBison]

On the late MSU not-TD the QB was a yard past the line of scrimmage when he threw ... and the officials missed it.

Do you know the actual rule? Most fans commenting obviously don't.

The neutral zone is the distance from the offensive line of scrimmage to the defensive line of scrimmage (who knew there were 2?). The rule states in order for the passer to commit a foul here he has to have his entire body completely beyond the neutral zone. The ball was snapped at the B24. When he starts his motion, you can clearly see his back foot is still on the other side of the B24. As he throws, he lifts his foot, and it MAY be beyond the back of the B24 (and thus the neutral zone), but it's close. This is one of those they want it to be obviously beyond in order to flag it. You could argue the foot is slightly beyond, and this could be a foul. But it's far from an obvious error. I would grade this a good no call. If it was called, it would probably be graded marginal or too technical.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Gully]

Do you know the actual rule? Most fans commenting obviously don't.

The neutral zone is the distance from the offensive line of scrimmage to the defensive line of scrimmage (who knew there were 2?). The rule states in order for the passer to commit a foul here he has to have his entire body completely beyond the neutral zone. The ball was snapped at the B24. When he starts his motion, you can clearly see his back foot is still on the other side of the B24. As he throws, he lifts his foot, and it MAY be beyond the back of the B24 (and thus the neutral zone), but it's close. This is one of those they want it to be obviously beyond in order to flag it. You could argue the foot is slightly beyond, and this could be a foul. But it's far from an obvious error. I would grade this a good no call. If it was called, it would probably be graded marginal or too technical.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Beat me to it. I actually knew this rule but was surprised how many people didn't. As for the catch, it was incredibly close and I could see it going either way.

The only thing that surprised me was the overturn. It didn't seem clear to me, in which case they generally go with the call on the field. Maybe they had another angle I didn't see though.

Great game. MSU has to be kicking themselves. They had plenty of chances to win it.

[TAILG8R]

Do you know the actual rule? Most fans commenting obviously don't.

The neutral zone is the distance from the offensive line of scrimmage to the defensive line of scrimmage (who knew there were 2?). The rule states in order for the passer to commit a foul here he has to have his entire body completely beyond the neutral zone. The ball was snapped at the B24. When he starts his motion, you can clearly see his back foot is still on the other side of the B24. As he throws, he lifts his foot, and it MAY be beyond the back of the B24 (and thus the neutral zone), but it's close. This is one of those they want it to be obviously beyond in order to flag it. You could argue the foot is slightly beyond, and this could be a foul. But it's far from an obvious error. I would grade this a good no call. If it was called, it would probably be graded marginal or too technical.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I rewatched it because the first time through I was sure his entire body was past the 24. After watching again you’re right it’s very close. His back foot starts on the offensive side of the 24 as he winds up and then lifts up and forward past the 24 as he throws.

Hard to tell on my phone right now where his foot is when he lets go of the ball but I agree after the rewatch it was very close and probably a solid non call.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IndyBison]

Beat me to it. I actually knew this rule but was surprised how many people didn't. As for the catch, it was incredibly close and I could see it going either way.

The only thing that surprised me was the overturn. It didn't seem clear to me, in which case they generally go with the call on the field. Maybe they had another angle I didn't see though.

Great game. MSU has to be kicking themselves. They had plenty of chances to win it.

You make me proud young Jedi!

I'm not surprised many fans don't know the nuances of a rule like this. It doesn't happen that often and the rule is different at different levels. The key thing announcers and coaches and fans should try to understand is the officials on the field almost definitely know the rules better than you (moreso the higher you go). Your assumption should be the official is right. Judgement calls are different, but there could still be a rule element or philosophy you don't know that applies.

Good example from my college game last week. A runs a play from their own 32 where QB11 throws the ball to RB24. Clearly before the ball gets there, LB44 hits RB24 at offense 21. The pass falls incomplete.

One of the offensive lineman asks why that wasn't DPI. I explained because you can't have PI in or behind the neutral zone. He had no idea. You could still have defensive holding or a personal foul. Your garden variety action that would be PI is not a foul.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[gavin2126]

You make me proud young Jedi!

I'm not surprised many fans don't know the nuances of a rule like this. It doesn't happen that often and the rule is different at different levels. The key thing announcers and coaches and fans should try to understand is the officials on the field almost definitely know the rules better than you (moreso the higher you go). Your assumption should be the official is right. Judgement calls are different, but there could still be a rule element or philosophy you don't know that applies.

Good example from my college game last week. A runs a play from their own 32 where QB11 throws the ball to RB24. Clearly before the ball gets there, LB44 hits RB24 at offense 21. The pass falls incomplete.

One of the offensive lineman asks why that wasn't DPI. I explained because you can't have PI in or behind the neutral zone. He had no idea. You could still have defensive holding or a personal foul. Your garden variety action that would be PI is not a foul.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

What did you think of overturning the catch? I thought it was the right call but many thought it was too close to change.

[td577]

Any idea where this can be seen?

Also I didn't think the rabbits could find uglier uniforms but boy did they outdo themselves with those fugly "all blacks" things. We're talking UND bad.

The more I think about this, and this includes Bison football too, the dumber it is to have an alternative uniform. Helmet, jersey, pants, socks, shoes, and gloves have got to be around 100k for an fcs program. Imagine what you could do with 100k in the athletic budget.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[56BISON73]

The more I think about this, and this includes Bison football too, the dumber it is to have an alternative uniform. Helmet, jersey, pants, socks, shoes, and gloves have got to be around 100k for an fcs program. Imagine what you could do with 100k in the athletic budget.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Never could understand it. I guess because one team did it it was the shiney new thing and you had to do it because it was supposedly cool.

[IndyBison]

What did you think of overturning the catch? I thought it was the right call but many thought it was too close to change.

The angles I saw it did appear the foot was up before the ball was controlled. But it was a video I couldn't look at frame by frame. I assume they were able to clearly see the back foot up when he got control and the next foot down was clearly out.

I like replay in general but this is another good example of an amazing athletic play that looked like a catch in real time on the field, but with the quality of video gets wiped out as incomplete.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[southcliffbison]

The angles I saw it did appear the foot was up before the ball was controlled. But it was a video I couldn't look at frame by frame. I assume they were able to clearly see the back foot up when he got control and the next foot down was clearly out.

I like replay in general but this is another good example of an amazing athletic play that looked like a catch in real time on the field, but with the quality of video gets wiped out as incomplete.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Indy, please explain the "expanded neutral zone" term and how does the EN zone relate to pass protection and offensive linemen down field.