First Series PUNT

[Scotty2Hotty 520]

1 hour ago, Randman5000 said:

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. 

Arkansas did not recover it in-bounds. Ball AND defender were out of bounds:

 

[Randman5000 4,224]

1 hour ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

Arkansas did not recover it in-bounds. Ball AND defender were out of bounds:

 

I just don't see it. the ball could be out of bounds but the Arkansas player is totally in bounds and slides through the end zone in slow motion. There's not a good angle for the ball. Either way there is no Auburn player touching the ball out of bounds in the end zone. Pause it at 6:54. Looks in but we cannot see the ball. Should have been reviewed IMO. This all moot because Roberts was interfered with.

 

[WarTiger 3,896]

10 hours ago, Eagle Eye 7 said:

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?

Same principle we have been talking about in the entire thread.   When K hits it at the 1 yard line, its not possessed, therefore the kick isn't over.  When they down it at the 5 its dead because they possessed it.    When K hits it at the 5 its not dead, but when possessed at the 1 it is dead because its in possession of the kicking team.   The hit at the 1 and the hit at the 5 are both spots of illegal touching.   In both cases the 5 is the most advantageous spot so that's where the ball will be spotted for the receiving team.  Technically the receiving team has the option of taking it at the 1 or the 5 but no team is going to take it at their own 1 yard line.  Officials will signal first touching/illegal touching by tapping both shoulders and then pointing in the direction the receiving team is going. That indicates spot of first/illegal touching.

Beyond the Neutral Zone
ARTICLE 2. a. No inbounds player of the kicking team shall touch a
scrimmage kick that has crossed the neutral zone before it touches an
opponent. Such illegal touching is a violation that, when the ball becomes
dead, gives the receiving team the privilege of taking the ball at the spot
of the violation

 

[WarTiger 3,896]

5 hours ago, Randman5000 said:

I just don't see it. the ball could be out of bounds but the Arkansas player is totally in bounds and slides through the end zone in slow motion. There's not a good angle for the ball. Either way there is no Auburn player touching the ball out of bounds in the end zone. Pause it at 6:54. Looks in but we cannot see the ball. Should have been reviewed IMO. This all moot because Roberts was interfered with.

 

There was never any possession by either team...TOUCHBACK.    Also, non of it is moot because the interference wasn't called, so everything that happens in the endzone matters, but there's still nobody in possession of the ball before it goes out of bounds.

[WarTiger 3,896]

20 hours ago, lkeel75 said:

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.

There are several instances they can go back and throw a flag for after review.  This is not one of them, but they can absolutely review it if there was a question on who touched it first.

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

1 hour ago, WarTiger said:

Same principle we have been talking about in the entire thread.   When K hits it at the 1 yard line, its not possessed, therefore the kick isn't over.  When they down it at the 5 its dead because they possessed it.    When K hits it at the 5 its not dead, but when possessed at the 1 it is dead because its in possession of the kicking team.   The hit at the 1 and the hit at the 5 are both spots of illegal touching.   In both cases the 5 is the most advantageous spot so that's where the ball will be spotted for the receiving team.  Technically the receiving team has the option of taking it at the 1 or the 5 but no team is going to take it at their own 1 yard line.  Officials will signal first touching/illegal touching by tapping both shoulders and then pointing in the direction the receiving team is going. That indicates spot of first/illegal touching.

Beyond the Neutral Zone
ARTICLE 2. a. No inbounds player of the kicking team shall touch a
scrimmage kick that has crossed the neutral zone before it touches an
opponent. Such illegal touching is a violation that, when the ball becomes
dead, gives the receiving team the privilege of taking the ball at the spot
of the violation

 

Thanks makes sense now that you explained that it favors the Recieving team. Appreciate the info.

[LKEEL75 2,566]

4 hours ago, WarTiger said:

There are several instances they can go back and throw a flag for after review.  This is not one of them, but they can absolutely review it if there was a question on who touched it first.

After reading this, I have seen them review and throw flag for targeting, but that is the only one that I have seen.  But thanks for the info.

[Scotty2Hotty 520]

11 hours ago, Randman5000 said:

I just don't see it. the ball could be out of bounds but the Arkansas player is totally in bounds and slides through the end zone in slow motion. There's not a good angle for the ball. Either way there is no Auburn player touching the ball out of bounds in the end zone. Pause it at 6:54. Looks in but we cannot see the ball. Should have been reviewed IMO. This all moot because Roberts was interfered with.

 

Both the player's arm AND ball are touching the end line at the very first frame the player gains possession of the ball. I'll post a still frame later tonight. 

[rtftiger 40]

20 hours ago, WarTiger said:

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.

So, is it true that if a punt receiving team player is touching the kick team player at all, there is never interference? That is a strange interpretation of this rule.

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

There is no way that this was not penalized because the interference was "the result of" the Arkansas player "being blocked by" the Auburn player. 

 

[WarTiger 3,896]

3 hours ago, rtftiger said:

So, is it true that if a punt receiving team player is touching the kick team player at all, there is never interference? That is a strange interpretation of this rule.

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

There is no way that this was not penalized because the interference was "the result of" the Arkansas player "being blocked by" the Auburn player. 

 

Actually, there is, but there's no way we will ever know since we don't have access to the officials discussion after the play was over.  It's also very possible that it was just a missed call.  Again, we will never know for sure.   

[Randman5000 4,224]

19 hours ago, WarTiger said:

There was never any possession by either team...TOUCHBACK.    Also, non of it is moot because the interference wasn't called, so everything that happens in the endzone matters, but there's still nobody in possession of the ball before it goes out of bounds.

The moot is a matter of opinion. By most auburn fans, and most objective fans.

Possession gained wasn't called but from the the photo it looks like the opposing player has it. We never get a clear look at the ball so we'll never know. In slow motion it looks like the player gets it from that angle  right before he slides out. I'm just saying if this had happened to auburn this board would be ballistic. It seemed to close to not review it. I'll wait for Scotty before final judgement

[Randman5000 4,224]

13 hours ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

Both the player's arm AND ball are touching the end line at the very first frame the player gains possession of the ball. I'll post a still frame later tonight. 

Yeah post it. I've watched it two dozen times and it looks like the guy grabs it right before it goes through. The refs ruling just didn't add up because there's no auburn player out of bounds, maybe they meant the ball went out of bounds?

[Scotty2Hotty 520]

On 10/26/2017 at 12:55 AM, Randman5000 said:

Yeah post it. I've watched it two dozen times and it looks like the guy grabs it right before it goes through. The refs ruling just didn't add up because there's no auburn player out of bounds, maybe they meant the ball went out of bounds?

Here's the first frame where the ball touches the end line:

Here's a frame that shows the defender does not have possession of the ball yet (defender's hand in white glove is not clinching the ball / ball is touching ground):

Here's the first frame that the defender has irrefutable proof of possession of the ball because the ball is no longer touching the ground:

Here's a slow motion gif:

[WarTiger 3,896]

31 minutes ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

Here's the first frame where the ball touches the end line:

Here's a frame that shows the defender does not have possession of the ball yet (defender's hand in white glove is not clinching the ball / ball is touching ground):

Here's the first frame that the defender has irrefutable proof of possession of the ball because the ball is no longer touching the ground:

Here's a slow motion gif:

Nice work.  I thought it was pretty obvious in real time that nobody secured possession before it went over the endline.  Good work.

[Scotty2Hotty 520]

58 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

I thought it was pretty obvious in real time that nobody secured possession before it went over the endline.  Good work.

Of course. Every time I've watched it in real time, the defender falls on the ball with the ball AND hand touching the end line. If just one of the two are out of bounds, the defender is ineligible to recover the ball, but they BOTH were out of bounds. Doesn't matter if he had possession or not.

I recall an Auburn game a few years back (circa 2005-2009) where the ball was still live in-bounds, but the defender's legs were out of bounds when he recovered the fumble. Defender ineligible. Ball becomes dead. Possession to the offense. And upon review, the call was overturned, awarding possession to the offense.

[WarTiger 3,896]

5 hours ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

Of course. Every time I've watched it in real time, the defender falls on the ball with the ball AND hand touching the end line. If just one of the two are out of bounds, the defender is ineligible to recover the ball, but they BOTH were out of bounds. Doesn't matter if he had possession or not.

I recall an Auburn game a few years back (circa 2005-2009) where the ball was still live in-bounds, but the defender's legs were out of bounds when he recovered the fumble. Defender ineligible. Ball becomes dead. Possession to the offense. And upon review, the call was overturned, awarding possession to the offense.

Not the way I would explain gaining possession but fairly accurate. However, Ineligible is probably not a good word to use in this situation.  The player isn't technically ineligible, he's just out of bounds and when he touches the ball [in both of your plays above] and the ball is simply dead because he is/was out of bounds when he touched it. 

[Scotty2Hotty 520]

1 minute ago, WarTiger said:

Not the way I would explain gaining possession but fairly accurate. However, Ineligible is probably not a good word to use in this situation.  The player isn't technically ineligible, he's just out of bounds and when he touches the ball [in both of your plays above] and the ball is simply dead because he is/was out of bounds when he touched it. 

Ball still became dead when the defender touched it. That's the point.

[WarTiger 3,896]

19 minutes ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

Ball still became dead when the defender touched it. That's the point.

Not in the play vs. Arkansas last week.  The ball was dead when it touched the endline.  The touching by the Arkansas player didn't make the ball dead, because he was still in bounds when he touched it.  Both were out of bounds when he possessed it. 

[Scotty2Hotty 520]

7 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

Not in the play vs. Arkansas last week.  The ball was dead when it touched the endline.  The touching by the Arkansas player didn't make the ball dead, because he was still in bounds when he touched it.  Both were out of bounds when he possessed it. 

Wasn't referencing the Arkansas play. Was referencing the Auburn game a few years back (circa 2005-2009).

I know the Arkansas play was dead when the ball touched the endline because I posted the proof.

[WarTiger 3,896]

17 minutes ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

Wasn't referencing the Arkansas play. Was referencing the Auburn game a few years back (circa 2005-2009).

I know the Arkansas play was dead when the ball touched the endline because I posted the proof.

Fair enough.  Good stuff.

[Randman5000 4,224]

On 10/28/2017 at 6:56 AM, Scotty2Hotty said:

Here's the first frame where the ball touches the end line:

Here's a frame that shows the defender does not have possession of the ball yet (defender's hand in white glove is not clinching the ball / ball is touching ground):

Here's the first frame that the defender has irrefutable proof of possession of the ball because the ball is no longer touching the ground:

Here's a slow motion gif:

Nice. Thanks. The frame posting nailed it!