First Series PUNT

[WDG 109]

#14 Roberts clearly called for a fair catch why was Ark not penalized for hitting Roberts?

[au_bsci_04 407]

Assumed it was bc he was hit by AU player. Debatable as to whether he was pushing into by Arky player.

[jared52 4,354]

Yeah, not reviewable I don't think and it seems they thought the contact came from the AU player or that since he was engaged with the AU player, the block took him into Roberts.

[WarEagleTW2 6]

It looked to me like the ball bounced off Ruffin's helmet instead of Roberts muffing it.  So it was a live ball.

[jared52 4,354]

27 minutes ago, WarEagleTW2 said:

It looked to me like the ball bounced off Ruffin's helmet instead of Roberts muffing it.  So it was a live ball.

I think the rub is that the Arky defender still interfered with Roberts' ability to make the catch by driving Ruffin into him. Weird play either way and maybe not clearly covered in the rule book?

[WarTiger 3,896]

1 hour ago, WarEagleTW2 said:

It looked to me like the ball bounced off Ruffin's helmet instead of Roberts muffing it.  So it was a live ball.

Of course it was a live ball.  If it wasn't, the receiving team couldn't return a kick.

In my opinion, it should have been kick catching Interference.     But let  me correct something mentioned above in a different post.    The receiving team does NOT have to call for a fair catch to get that protection.  

Interference With Opportunity
ARTICLE 1. a. A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines
attempting to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free
kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an
unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick (A.R. 6-3-1-III, A.R. 6-4-1-V,
VI and IX).  Note there's nothing there about a fair catch.   He has to be given an opportunity to catch the ball and that includes blocking his path to the ball. 

My take on this is that its highly possible since our blocker was engaged with the player that hit Roberts the backjudge ruled the blocking action is what caused the contact.   No way to know without his exact view of the play.  It's possible that he couldn't see the contact by the kicking team player.   People often forget angles and such matter here.  Since it was a muff, it was a FREE ball for either team to recover, but since there was no recovery and the ball went out of the back of the endzone, it was (by rule) a touchback.  The kick never ended and the kick is what put it in the endzone.

[WarTiger 3,896]

3 hours ago, jared52 said:

Yeah, not reviewable I don't think and it seems they thought the contact came from the AU player or that since he was engaged with the AU player, the block took him into Roberts.

I believe its absolutely reviewable.   Here's the provisions for KICK review from the rule book:

Kicks
ARTICLE 4. Reviewable plays involving kicks include:
a. Touching of a kick.
b. Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball.
c. Kicking team player advancing a ball after a potential muffed kick/
fumble by the receiving team.
d. Scrimmage kick crossing the neutral zone.
e. Blocking by Team A players before they are eligible to touch the ball on
an on-side kick.

 

Since touching a kick is reviewable, they could absolutely review it to make sure it didn't hit off of a Kicking team player before hitting a Receiving team player.     Hypothetical here....If it had hit the Arkansas player first, then the Auburn player, then arkansas recovered it in the endzone, what do we have here?    Think about it a bit and I'll answer it when I get back home.

[Southwest 186]

I also think thats what happen,the players were engaged and the ball bounced off our players helmet sending it into the endzone.

[WarTiger 3,896]

This is a perfect example of why I started this thread at the beginning of the season.  I had hoped with it pinned that people would post these questions in there, but apparently not..

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

29 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

I believe its absolutely reviewable.   Here's the provisions for KICK review from the rule book:

Kicks
ARTICLE 4. Reviewable plays involving kicks include:
a. Touching of a kick.
b. Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball.
c. Kicking team player advancing a ball after a potential muffed kick/
fumble by the receiving team.
d. Scrimmage kick crossing the neutral zone.
e. Blocking by Team A players before they are eligible to touch the ball on
an on-side kick.

 

Since touching a kick is reviewable, they could absolutely review it to make sure it didn't hit off of a Kicking team player before hitting a Receiving team player.     Hypothetical here....If it had hit the Arkansas player first, then the Auburn player, then arkansas recovered it in the endzone, what do we have here?    Think about it a bit and I'll answer it when I get back home.

Would it be Auburn ball at the spot the Arky player first touched it just as when the kicking team picks it up after it rolls?

[Always4Auburn 8]

yes...first touching rule

 

[WarTiger 3,896]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Would it be Auburn ball at the spot the Arky player first touched it just as when the kicking team picks it up after it rolls?

Exactly right.  Once the kicking team touches a kick that hasn't ended, it doesn't matter what happens the rest of the play.  The receiving team can elect to take the ball at that spot.  It's call ILLEGAL TOUCHING in college.  It's referred to as First Touching under National Federation rules.

[around4ever 4,139]

5 hours ago, WarTiger said:

I believe its absolutely reviewable.   Here's the provisions for KICK review from the rule book:

Kicks
ARTICLE 4. Reviewable plays involving kicks include:
a. Touching of a kick.
b. Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball.
c. Kicking team player advancing a ball after a potential muffed kick/
fumble by the receiving team.
d. Scrimmage kick crossing the neutral zone.
e. Blocking by Team A players before they are eligible to touch the ball on
an on-side kick.

 

Since touching a kick is reviewable, they could absolutely review it to make sure it didn't hit off of a Kicking team player before hitting a Receiving team player.     Hypothetical here....If it had hit the Arkansas player first, then the Auburn player, then arkansas recovered it in the endzone, what do we have here?    Think about it a bit and I'll answer it when I get back home.

I don't think it matters if the kicking team player is blocked into the punt receiver.  It is his responsibility to not be in position to be that close to the catch.  The receiver clearly called for a fair catch so the guy had no reason to be that close at full speed. This should have been called kick catch interference. 

[WarTiger 3,896]

6 hours ago, around4ever said:

I don't think it matters if the kicking team player is blocked into the punt receiver.  It is his responsibility to not be in position to be that close to the catch.  The receiver clearly called for a fair catch so the guy had no reason to be that close at full speed. This should have been called kick catch interference. 

It absolutely  matters and that's why this is in the rule book:

d. If interference with a potential receiver is the result of a player being
blocked by an opponent, it is not a foul.

As I mentioned above, him calling for a fair catch has NOTHING to do with it.    Whether he should have been there or not isn't relevant. In fact he can be anywhere he wants to be on the field in that situation except within one yard in front of the receiver which he wasn't.  He came from the side (and got that close because he drove the Auburn blocker backwards).  All I'm saying is that he WAS engaged with an Auburn blocker and that could have been the reason why the backjudge didn't flag it.   I think it should have been flagged but I can see why it was passed on as well.

[jared52 4,354]

15 hours ago, WarTiger said:

I believe its absolutely reviewable.   Here's the provisions for KICK review from the rule book:

Kicks
ARTICLE 4. Reviewable plays involving kicks include:
a. Touching of a kick.
b. Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball.
c. Kicking team player advancing a ball after a potential muffed kick/
fumble by the receiving team.
d. Scrimmage kick crossing the neutral zone.
e. Blocking by Team A players before they are eligible to touch the ball on
an on-side kick.

I meant the kick catch interference part, not who touched it first.

[LKEEL75 2,566]

16 hours ago, WarTiger said:

I believe its absolutely reviewable.   Here's the provisions for KICK review from the rule book:

Kicks
ARTICLE 4. Reviewable plays involving kicks include:
a. Touching of a kick.
b. Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball.
c. Kicking team player advancing a ball after a potential muffed kick/
fumble by the receiving team.
d. Scrimmage kick crossing the neutral zone.
e. Blocking by Team A players before they are eligible to touch the ball on
an on-side kick.

 

Since touching a kick is reviewable, they could absolutely review it to make sure it didn't hit off of a Kicking team player before hitting a Receiving team player.     Hypothetical here....If it had hit the Arkansas player first, then the Auburn player, then arkansas recovered it in the endzone, what do we have here?    Think about it a bit and I'll answer it when I get back home.

I understand that you can review to see if it touched the Arky player first, but you can't review it to throw a flag for catch interference.  Can you?  I have never seen them review a play and throw a flag because of the review.  If they can't throw a flag for the interference then the review would not result in any benefit to either team.

[rtftiger 40]

Usually, the blocking that results in a no call happens when the kicking team pursuer is in between the blocker and the punt receiver. They were engaged here, but you can't rightly say that the engagement caused the interference.

Every year, it seems that the SEC refs have trouble with some particular area. I'm thinking that the kicking game is this year's trouble spot. I, of course, was disappointed that no block in the backs were called on the 2 kick returns we have given up for TDs, even though it looks pretty plain. Then, in the UT-UA game, there was a phantom block in the back called on Alabama. It obviously didn't effect the outcome, but it brought back a very nice return. 

[Scotty2Hotty 520]

21 hours ago, WarEagleTW2 said:

So it was a live ball.

The ball rolled out of the back of the endzone, having not been possessed by either team. Touchback was the correct call. 

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

21 hours ago, WarTiger said:

I believe its absolutely reviewable.   Here's the provisions for KICK review from the rule book:

Kicks
ARTICLE 4. Reviewable plays involving kicks include:
a. Touching of a kick.
b. Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball.
c. Kicking team player advancing a ball after a potential muffed kick/
fumble by the receiving team.
d. Scrimmage kick crossing the neutral zone.
e. Blocking by Team A players before they are eligible to touch the ball on
an on-side kick.

 

Since touching a kick is reviewable, they could absolutely review it to make sure it didn't hit off of a Kicking team player before hitting a Receiving team player.     Hypothetical here....If it had hit the Arkansas player first, then the Auburn player, then arkansas recovered it in the endzone, what do we have here?    Think about it a bit and I'll answer it when I get back home.

In your example case if Arky hit it first then it would be dead where he touched it I believe. So if you closely when the refs huddled you could see one say that he should have called interference with the catch but either way resulted in about the same thing. Interfering would have been 15 from the spot which was inside the ten I believe, as opposed to a TB which took it back to the twenty only a couple of yards difference.

[WarTiger 3,896]

6 hours ago, rtftiger said:

Usually, the blocking that results in a no call happens when the kicking team pursuer is in between the blocker and the punt receiver. They were engaged here, but you can't rightly say that the engagement caused the interference.  It's pretty clear in the video that the Arkansas blocker was pushing our guy back toward Roberts, so yes, you can say the engagement caused the interference.

Every year, it seems that the SEC refs have trouble with some particular area. I'm thinking that the kicking game is this year's trouble spot. I, of course, was disappointed that no block in the backs were called on the 2 kick returns we have given up for TDs, even though it looks pretty plain. Then, in the UT-UA game, there was a phantom block in the back called on Alabama. It obviously didn't effect the outcome, but it brought back a very nice return. 

 

2 hours ago, Eagle Eye 7 said:

In your example case if Arky hit it first then it would be dead where he touched it I believe. So if you closely when the refs huddled you could see one say that he should have called interference with the catch but either way resulted in about the same thing. Interfering would have been 15 from the spot which was inside the ten I believe, as opposed to a TB which took it back to the twenty only a couple of yards difference.   The ball hit Roberts at the 22 1/2 yard line.    The penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul, which would have been the 23. Officials are taught to start every new series on a yard line, so the ball would have been spotted at the 23 and penalty enforced from there.  Auburn would have started their possession at the 38.

Dead? Absolutely not.  I explained it above.  It's called ILLEGAL TOUCHING (college) or First Touching (high school rules).  The ball is NOT dead when K touches it.  It means that the receiving team can recover and advance without repercussions.  So, if after the kicking team touches it, the Receivers can advance it and take the results of the play.  However, if the receiving team fumbles the ball (for instance) and the kicking team recovers, the Receiving team can take the results of the play OR they can take the spot of Illegal touching that occurred prior to the Receiving team possessing the kick.

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

1 hour ago, WarTiger said:

 

Dead? Absolutely not.  I explained it above.  It's called ILLEGAL TOUCHING (college) or First Touching (high school rules).  The ball is NOT dead when K touches it.  It means that the receiving team can recover and advance without repercussions.  So, if after the kicking team touches it, the Receivers can advance it and take the results of the play.  However, if the receiving team fumbles the ball (for instance) and the kicking team recovers, the Receiving team can take the results of the play OR they can take the spot of Illegal touching that occurred prior to the Receiving team possessing the kick.

Thanks. I meant it was dead if nothing else happens. Which it actually is if the receiving team decides that way. I was not aware that the receiving team could move it forward. So your saying if a kicking team bats a ball at the one back towards the two yard line in an attempt to down it, and a receiving team player could then pick it up and run it for a TD ?

[WarTiger 3,896]

3 minutes ago, Eagle Eye 7 said:

Thanks. I meant it was dead if nothing else happens. Which it actually is if the receiving team decides that way. I was not aware that the receiving team could move it forward. So your saying if a kicking team bats a ball at the one back towards the two yard line in an attempt to down it, and a receiving team player could then pick it up and run it for a TD ?

Yep.  And without penalty.  Should they fumble and lose possession they can come back to the spot of the touch at the 1 yard line.   Crazy isn't it?  Most people don't know that rule exists.  College and High school rule is exactly the same.

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

9 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

Yep.  And without penalty.  Should they fumble and lose possession they can come back to the spot of the touch at the 1 yard line.   Crazy isn't it?  Most people don't know that rule exists.  College and High school rule is exactly the same.

I have seen a lot of teams fail to use that especially when they are down at the goal line.

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

Something else I see a lot I don’t understand maybe you can explain. When they K team tries to down it at the goal. Some time they hit it at the one and it rolls to the five and they mark it at the five. Next time they hit it at the five and it rolls to the one and they still mark it at the five. What gives?

[Randman5000 4,223]

7 hours ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

The ball rolled out of the back of the endzone, having not been possessed by either team. Touchback was the correct call. 

I would have to watch it again but it seemed like Arkansas actually recovered it and slid out of the back of the end zone...however the refs said that Auburn touched it out of bounds. Weird way to call it. 

I think Roberts was interfered with but if I were a hogs fan, I would be pissed.