Football Rules and Interpretations

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

4 hours ago, steeleagle said:

The problem I have is that on 2 occasions when there were confusing plays, our players are NOT following through to make sure there is no doubt who is controlling the ball.

In the Ark game, when Bo made that bad spike, the ball bounces back to side, and Jackson has a chance to fall on it, just in case he needs to, but he is passive, and then an Ark player aggresively tries to recover it, while Jackson is kind of standing there reaching out to try to share the ball.

In the OM game, Shivers allows the KO to bounce in front of him(First mistake), and then kind of reaches out with his hands, and the ball kicks and ends up in endzone( on replay it looks like his finger quivers from the ball touching his finger). But Shiver SHOULD have gone back, regardless of the refs whistle, and grabbed the ball to make sure, if something gets changed, he still has control of the ball. He did not do that.

Our players need to control any ball they are of not sure of the end results. This is 2 plays where they are not sure what to do. 

We are very very lucky we didn't lose those 2 balls, and 2 games bc of it.

No argument from me on those very valid points.

[WarTiger 3,901]

20 hours ago, AURex said:

AU vs Ole Miss -- the kickoff call

Here is the way I saw it.

The closest ref was behind Shivers. The ball went past Shivers. Shivers began to pursue. BUT the whistle blew when the ball crossed the goal line. The ref behind Shivers could not see his hands, so assumed that Shivers did not touch the ball, so he blew the play dead when the ball crossed the goal line.  At that point, it was a touchback. End of play. Shivers stopped pursuing the ball.

Okay, we do not know if Shivers actually touched the ball. Only he knows. (The video sure looks like he MIGHT have.) The quick review by the replay officials said they did not see enough evidence to overturn the call on the field.

But what is your take on this? Do you think there was another ref who had a better view? Should the replay officials have stopped play to review?

 

On a freekick, the Line judge and Headlinesman are both on the goal lines on their respective sides of the field. The Referee is usually between the hashmarks also on the goal line.  The official at the goal line on the side where Shivers "MAY" have touched it was still 20-30 yards away.  There's little doubt in my mind that even that official wouldn't be able to see that.   This would leave it entirely up to replay to get a closer look to make that call.     There is also NO DOUBT at all the replay booth should have stopped it for a longer look.  I believe we got away with another one.

[Auburn06 76]

How does the clock work with going "out of bounds"? I have seen plays where a player goes out of bounds & the clock usually stops. I have also seen plays where the player goes out & the clock keeps running. This confuses me.

 

Is it the same across college, NFL, Alabama high school football?

[API 95]

16 hours ago, WarTiger said:

On a freekick, the Line judge and Headlinesman are both on the goal lines on their respective sides of the field. The Referee is usually between the hashmarks also on the goal line.  The official at the goal line on the side where Shivers "MAY" have touched it was still 20-30 yards away.  There's little doubt in my mind that even that official wouldn't be able to see that.   This would leave it entirely up to replay to get a closer look to make that call.     There is also NO DOUBT at all the replay booth should have stopped it for a longer look.  I believe we got away with another one.

So say the booth stops the game and reviews the video. Say they make the determination that Shivers's touched the ball on the way into the end zone. If it's a given that they also determine that the play was also blown dead as Shivers was in the process of retrieving the ball in the end zone, is there anything for the booth to over rule? I think not.

[WarTiger 3,901]

11 hours ago, Auburn06 said:

How does the clock work with going "out of bounds"? I have seen plays where a player goes out of bounds & the clock usually stops. I have also seen plays where the player goes out & the clock keeps running. This confuses me.

 

Is it the same across college, NFL, Alabama high school football?

In high school the clock stops when the ball carrier goes out of bounds and restarts at the next snap.  I sort of  expect this to change in the coming years with the Federation going to the 40 second play clock.   In college the clock stops when the ball carrier goes out of bounds, but restarts a few seconds later (typically with the 40 second play clock).  The NFL, I haven't a clue.  I haven't watched the nfl in over 15 years. 

[WarTiger 3,901]

9 hours ago, API said:

So say the booth stops the game and reviews the video. Say they make the determination that Shivers's touched the ball on the way into the end zone. If it's a given that they also determine that the play was also blown dead as Shivers was in the process of retrieving the ball in the end zone, is there anything for the booth to over rule? I think not.

Well, you have to consider how all of it happened and exactly what happened.  Shivers didn't stop pursuing the ball when the official blew his whistle.  He stopped pursing the ball when he saw it was going into the endzone.  Then you have to remember also that theres no definition for "Immediate recovery" in the rule book.   That means its solely dependent on the crew and replay official if they feel like the recovery of the ball was immediate "enough".  This opens the door to a very gray area because if they determine the recovery was immediate enough then its a touchdown for Ole Miss.  If they don't or Shivers continues to pursue the ball (which he should have done) and falls on it, then its a touchback and ball belongs to Auburn at the 25.    Talk to 10 officials and you are likely to get half that say it was an immediate recovery and half that say it wasn't.  Officials disagree on situations too and during a game even.  It's not an exact science since there's no clear definition for it.  Immediate recovery should be one they have a definition for in the rule book to help remove that gray area.

[jw 4 au 526]

@WarTiger

NFL rules question. At the end of the Chargers game, a TD catch was overruled because the receiver did not maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground out of bounds (the continuation rule, correct?).  But in bounds and with control of the ball he had both feet in THEN his knee separately went down in bounds a whole move after the feet. DB had a hand in there and knocked it loose after the knee as they rolled out of bounds. Is the continuation required after a knee is down in bounds?  Just curious here, I didn’t see them even mention the knee also being down. 

[WarTiger 3,901]

23 hours ago, jw 4 au said:

@WarTiger

NFL rules question. At the end of the Chargers game, a TD catch was overruled because the receiver did not maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground out of bounds (the continuation rule, correct?).  But in bounds and with control of the ball he had both feet in THEN his knee separately went down in bounds a whole move after the feet. DB had a hand in there and knocked it loose after the knee as they rolled out of bounds. Is the continuation required after a knee is down in bounds?  Just curious here, I didn’t see them even mention the knee also being down. 

@jw 4 au  Unfortunately I'm not much help when it comes to NFL stuff.  I haven't watched the NFL in over 15 years.

[jAUSon 2,836]

Who passed on the opportunity to review the incomplete pass called as complete, first half of the aTm game? Is it a league decision or was Gus supposed to call time out and select to review it? 

[WarTiger 3,901]

1 hour ago, jAUSon said:

Who passed on the opportunity to review the incomplete pass called as complete, first half of the aTm game? Is it a league decision or was Gus supposed to call time out and select to review it? 

Head coach can call timeout and ask for a review but its not done very often anymore because every play is basically reviewed between plays anyway.   If the replay official sees enough to make it worth a longer look he will stop the game and it will be reviewed. 

[jAUSon 2,836]

17 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

Head coach can call timeout and ask for a review but its not done very often anymore because every play is basically reviewed between plays anyway.   If the replay official sees enough to make it worth a longer look he will stop the game and it will be reviewed. 

Thank you

 

 

 

[WarTiger 3,901]

Cincinnati vs. Georgia in the bowl game a few minutes ago.  Georgia on the Cincinnati 12 yard line, throws a pass to the endzone, its intercepted by the defense, in the process of attempting to return the interception (still in the endzone) ball is fumbled and goes forward into the field of play.  The defense recovers the fumble at the 1 yard line and his momentum took him back into the endzone.  Ruling:  Since it was fumbled into the field of play and his momentum took him into the endzone the ball is brought out to the spot of the recovery and its first and 10 for Cincinnati at their own 1 yard line.  

Rules expert Bill Lemonier got most everything correct in the explanation of it except he said that if the players knee hadn't gone down at the 1 it would have been a touchdown.     How could it possibly be a touchdown when the defense recovered it and took into their own endzone?  Also, his knee going down doesn't really change much except maybe the spot difference of a half a yard.  Momentum took him into the endzone so it goes back to the spot of the recovery. If the knee does touch (which it appeared to here) its spotted where the ball is when his knee went down.  Nice work by the officiating crew to get this one right.

[triangletiger 1,599]

20 hours ago, WarTiger said:

Cincinnati vs. Georgia in the bowl game a few minutes ago.  Georgia on the Cincinnati 12 yard line, throws a pass to the endzone, its intercepted by the defense, in the process of attempting to return the interception (still in the endzone) ball is fumbled and goes forward into the field of play.  The defense recovers the fumble at the 1 yard line and his momentum took him back into the endzone.  Ruling:  Since it was fumbled into the field of play and his momentum took him into the endzone the ball is brought out to the spot of the recovery and its first and 10 for Cincinnati at their own 1 yard line.  

Rules expert Bill Lemonier got most everything correct in the explanation of it except he said that if the players knee hadn't gone down at the 1 it would have been a touchdown.     How could it possibly be a touchdown when the defense recovered it and took into their own endzone?  Also, his knee going down doesn't really change much except maybe the spot difference of a half a yard.  Momentum took him into the endzone so it goes back to the spot of the recovery. If the knee does touch (which it appeared to here) its spotted where the ball is when his knee went down.  Nice work by the officiating crew to get this one right.

I suspect Lemonnier meant ‘touchback’ rather than ‘touchdown’.  He just misspoke.

[WarTiger 3,901]

3 hours ago, triangletiger said:

I suspect Lemonnier meant ‘touchback’ rather than ‘touchdown’.  He just misspoke.

It wouldnt have been a touchback either and he said touchdown multiple times

[triangletiger 1,599]

40 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

It wouldnt have been a touchback either and he said touchdown multiple times

If he had recovered the fumble in his team’s own end zone, wouldn’t that have been a touchback?

[WarTiger 3,901]

2 hours ago, triangletiger said:

If he had recovered the fumble in his team’s own end zone, wouldn’t that have been a touchback?

IF....but he didn't do that, which was my point in the original post. 

[triangletiger 1,599]

1 hour ago, WarTiger said:

IF....but he didn't do that, which was my point in the original post. 

And that’s why I said that Lemmonier probably was meaning to say Touchback instead of Touchdown.

[WarTiger 3,901]

49 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

And that’s why I said that Lemmonier probably was meaning to say Touchback instead of Touchdown.

I think you misinterpretted my last post.  I meant the PLAYER didn't do that. He clearly recovered the ball in the field of play NOT in the endzone.  By rule that is never going to be a touchback.    It's not the first time Lemonier has butchered that momentum rule when asked about it as a "rules expert".  

[SLAG-91 1,483]

So, CFB has tweaked OT rules again.

First OT, can kick or go for 2 after a TD.

Second OT, have to go for 2 after a TD.

Third OT on, only 2 point attempts...dang near soccer penalty kicks.

Thoughts?

I feel sure I'm in the minority, but I've never really liked college OT...put 10:00 on the clock, each team gets a guaranteed possession, even if first possession is a TD. If it's still a draw after 70 minutes, that's it. Also never had a problem with a tie being part of the matrix of outcomes, even if it's not a particularly desirable one.

[oracle79 3,569]

19 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

Thoughts?

After 3rd OT why not have coaches go to midfield and paly rock/paper/scissors? 2 point conversions are a stupid idea worthy of the NCAA committee intelligence.

[toddc 13,194]

7 minutes ago, oracle79 said:

After 3rd OT why not have coaches go to midfield and paly rock/paper/scissors? 2 point conversions are a stupid idea worthy of the NCAA committee intelligence.

Roshambo would be just as fun to watch!

[WarTiger 3,901]

The obvious thing to shorten the games here would be to eliminate 50% of the commercials. 

I'm not at all a fan of the proposed overtime rule change.  2 point conversions isn't very exciting.  If they want to tweak it the team with first possession should start on their own 25 and they trade possessions (whether they score or punt) until one team runs out of downs.    So, team A with first possession scores a TD, then Team B would have to score a TD to keep the game going or its over. Extra point/2 pt. conversion is teams choice.

[WarTiger 3,901]

Rewatching the Auburn/Ole Miss game from yesterday and happened to catch the play where Ole Miss was flagged for Offensive Pass Interference.   The announcers were clearly disappointed in the call and said, that's not enoug for pass interference.  However, they don't know the entire rule, so I'll outline the rule itself and give my opinion on what may have happened.  

For Pass interference the restrictions for the offense and defense begin at different times.   We all know ( I hope) you can't have defensive pass interference until the pass is actually thrown AND it crosses the line of scrimmage.  But what about the offense.   When do the restrictions begin for the offense on a forward pass?   Answer:  the restrictions for the offense begin AT THE SNAP.  So, if an eligible reciever, blocks a defensive player and knocks him off coverage, then continues downfield and a forward pass is thrown, its going to be Offensive Pass Intereference.   Remember the restriction on that offensive player started at the snap.  It's not offensive pass intereference if the pass is never thrown, but once its thrown AND crosses the neutral zone, it creates a penalty.

What I suspect happen (purely speculation since its not on film anywhere that I've seen), is the offensive player blocked his cover man, then continued downfield.  When the pass was thrown to him, it created the penalty.  No idea if it was there or not since the film didn't get it, but its certainly not something that is called very often.

 

[oracle79 3,569]

23 hours ago, WarTiger said:

We all know ( I hope) you can't have defensive pass interference until the pass is actually thrown

Pardon my ignorance (or NFL knowledge). So, are you saying you can jack up the receiver anywhere on the field before the pass is thrown as long as you aren't holding him?

[bigbird 60,500]

On 10/31/2021 at 5:19 PM, WarTiger said:

Rewatching the Auburn/Ole Miss game from yesterday and happened to catch the play where Ole Miss was flagged for Offensive Pass Interference.   The announcers were clearly disappointed in the call and said, that's not enoug for pass interference.  However, they don't know the entire rule, so I'll outline the rule itself and give my opinion on what may have happened.  

For Pass interference the restrictions for the offense and defense begin at different times.   We all know ( I hope) you can't have defensive pass interference until the pass is actually thrown AND it crosses the line of scrimmage.  But what about the offense.   When do the restrictions begin for the offense on a forward pass?   Answer:  the restrictions for the offense begin AT THE SNAP.  So, if an eligible reciever, blocks a defensive player and knocks him off coverage, then continues downfield and a forward pass is thrown, its going to be Offensive Pass Intereference.   Remember the restriction on that offensive player started at the snap.  It's not offensive pass intereference if the pass is never thrown, but once its thrown AND crosses the neutral zone, it creates a penalty.

What I suspect happen (purely speculation since its not on film anywhere that I've seen), is the offensive player blocked his cover man, then continued downfield.  When the pass was thrown to him, it created the penalty.  No idea if it was there or not since the film didn't get it, but its certainly not something that is called very often.

 

The wr clearly used his hand/arm to push off and create separation. That's what was flagged, I believe.