Football Rules and Interpretations

[WarTiger 3,896]

20 minutes ago, oracle79 said:

I'll just agree to disagree on your first point. If the white hat gets to look at it, there is no need for a replay official in the booth. If there is a need for an independent person to look at the replay then there is no need for the white hat to have any say. The reasons for him making or not making the call are IRRELEVANT. All that matter is that the call is correct and replay should provide that 99% of the time.

Thanks. I'm glad there is some form of accountability and quality control for them.

So, hypothetically speaking here.  Let's say you are a white hat on a football crew. A member of your crew rules a fumble 20 yards down field.  Now tv replays the play for the fans to see and its highly questionable whether it was actually a fumble or not.  You are telling me as a white hat you have no desire to see that play?  Really?  College game is lucky, they have tv cameras all over the place.  Imagine a high school game where replay isn't used.  We have ONE look at every play and have to make a decision.  There's nobody to look at it and make a change or review it for a potential change.  We MAY get a game film the next week to review the game and get to look at it.  At the college level they have instant access to everything. 

We do agree that the only thing that matters is getting the call right.  I fail to see the rationale of not allowing the white hat to see the play though.  That just doesn't seem to make sense.  You do realize that instant replay is done by a committee now, right? 

Why can't the white hat be part of the process and actually see the play being reviewed while the replay committee is looking at it as well?  

[oracle79 3,569]

I'm pretty sure we won't agree but I'll try to answer your question.

4 hours ago, WarTiger said:

Why can't the white hat be part of the process and actually see the play being reviewed while the replay committee is looking at it as well?

The same reason judges recuse themselves from cases they have a personal connection to and the same reason Doctors don't operate on family members - they have too much invested to be objective and unbiased.  Maybe not a good comparison, but it's a lot easier for someone with no attachment to the crew to see a mistake and call it a mistake.  

4 hours ago, WarTiger said:

You do realize that instant replay is done by a committee now, right?

Didn't know for sure, but that explains a heck'uva a lot about the time it takes to review a call and why they don't get it right at times. The ESPN ref consultant got both the fumble by MSU on the kickoff and the nonfumble by Seth and the targeting call correct in about 20 seconds.  Didn't take a committee nor should it. Just an unbiased competent person.

[WarTiger 3,896]

22 hours ago, oracle79 said:

I'm pretty sure we won't agree but I'll try to answer your question.

The same reason judges recuse themselves from cases they have a personal connection to and the same reason Doctors don't operate on family members - they have too much invested to be objective and unbiased.  Maybe not a good comparison, but it's a lot easier for someone with no attachment to the crew to see a mistake and call it a mistake.  Definitely not a good comparison.  This isn't a lawsuit or a surgical procedure. It's FOOTBALL.  Remember I said officials and crews are critiqued every week and they review every call and even non-calls after the games are over.  The white hat has no attachment to this. He didn't make the call or non-call but as crew chief he deserves the right to see the play in question.  During the replay procedure if the white hat can see the play he can offer perspective, but he doesn't have the final say on the decision.  That decision always goes to the replay official even over the committee when they disagree.    

Didn't know for sure, but that explains a heck'uva a lot about the time it takes to review a call and why they don't get it right at times. The ESPN ref consultant got both the fumble by MSU on the kickoff and the nonfumble by Seth and the targeting call correct in about 20 seconds.  Didn't take a committee nor should it. Just an unbiased competent person.   That last statement says everything about your perspective here.   Because you (fans in general) perceive a call is missed you automatically jump all the way to the officials being incompetent or corrupt.   When you are perfect in everything you do, get back to me.  When you make a mistake, do you get called incompetent?  I doubt it, but an official makes a mistake and they are immediately cheating or incompetent.   Again, join your local association and start officiating games. 

Remember I said in my initial that the official responsible for the WR on that play shuld have seen it to flag it.   Again, replay GOT IT RIGHT.  Who cares if it wasn't flagged on the field.  REPLAY WORKED.     Now, we do agree and always have that they missed the Williams fumble.  I'm still not sure what they saw or didn't think they could see that led to them upholding the call.  That one call doesn't signify corruption or incompetence.   This discussion is about 2 plays out of likely over 100 combined between the teams. 

[Linayus 676]

I'm going to assume that we got away with a targeting call (on Britt) this weekend against FL. Mullen tried to challenge it (but couldn't) but I'm surprised the booth didn't call it.

[oracle79 3,569]

11 minutes ago, Linayus said:

I'm going to assume that we got away with a targeting call (on Britt) this weekend against FL. Mullen tried to challenge it (but couldn't) but I'm surprised the booth didn't call it.

It was helmet to helmet, but who initiated it? The RB was getting low to push for yards and Britt came in low with his face up and not with the crown of his helmet.  If they choose to start calling that targeting (either by RB or LB) it will fundamentally change how football is played. Glad to see the no call and no review.

[triangletiger 1,599]

3 hours ago, Linayus said:

I'm going to assume that we got away with a targeting call (on Britt) this weekend against FL. Mullen tried to challenge it (but couldn't) but I'm surprised the booth didn't call it.

Neither one of the players involved was in what I would call a vulnerable position.  

[triangletiger 1,599]

So, I have a complaint/question.  It seems that on almost every passing play when the opposing team is on offense, our d-linemen are being held (particularly, Brown and Davidson).  And not just the subtle, grabbing your jersey under the armpits holding, but the blatant, wrap my arms around your neck/shoulders and hang on for dear life holding.  Can you explain why the penalty is rarely being called on this?  I'm sure if I dug, I could find images showing examples of what I'm talking about, but a prime example is the play in the Florida game where Marlon ran into QB Kyle Trask's leg, resulting in Trask having to leave the game to get his knee examined.  That was pretty clear and blatant holding, but it wasn't called.  Why not?

[WarTiger 3,896]

8 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

So, I have a complaint/question.  It seems that on almost every passing play when the opposing team is on offense, our d-linemen are being held (particularly, Brown and Davidson).  And not just the subtle, grabbing your jersey under the armpits holding, but the blatant, wrap my arms around your neck/shoulders and hang on for dear life holding.  Can you explain why the penalty is rarely being called on this?  I'm sure if I dug, I could find images showing examples of what I'm talking about, but a prime example is the play in the Florida game where Marlon ran into QB Kyle Trask's leg, resulting in Trask having to leave the game to get his knee examined.  That was pretty clear and blatant holding, but it wasn't called.  Why not?

I see that all the time too and I cant understand why they let this go.  This isnt restricted to SEC crews either.   For whatever reason they choose to not flag it and I wish I had an answer.   One thing I will say is we are trained to not flag something like a hold if the player being held makes the tackle anyway.    Now im not talking about 5 yards away making the tackle.  Im talking about a hold that happens basically within a step or two of the tackle.  

[around4ever 4,139]

Many times it is a very blatant hold right in front of and in plain sight of the official that goes uncalled.  Then on a long run or pass play (not just us) they call a very questionable holding penalty on an OL or WR. It'a like they just pick and choose when and where they want to call holding.  

[aufan@una 3]

@WarTiger So I had this question come to mind after seeing Florida carve us up all game with slants and crossing routes to the WR with a LB guarding them. Is there anything rules wise that prevents KJ Britt or any other LB from playing “Bump and Run” but just putting the receiver on his ass as soon as the ball is snapped and completely take the receiver out of the play?

[WarTiger 3,896]

30 minutes ago, aufan@una said:

@WarTiger So I had this question come to mind after seeing Florida carve us up all game with slants and crossing routes to the WR with a LB guarding them. Is there anything rules wise that prevents KJ Britt or any other LB from playing “Bump and Run” but just putting the receiver on his ass as soon as the ball is snapped and completely take the receiver out of the play?

YES.  It's illegal.

It is not defensive pass interference (A.R. 7-3-8-III and 7-3-9-III):
1. When, after the snap, opposing players immediately charge and
establish contact with opponents at a point that is within one yard
beyond the neutral zone.

Defensive players may ward off or legally block an eligible pass receiver
until that player occupies the same yard line as the defender or until the
opponent could not possibly block him. Continuous contact is illegal
 

[aufan@una 3]

7 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

YES.  It's illegal.

It is not defensive pass interference (A.R. 7-3-8-III and 7-3-9-III):
1. When, after the snap, opposing players immediately charge and
establish contact with opponents at a point that is within one yard
beyond the neutral zone.

Defensive players may ward off or legally block an eligible pass receiver
until that player occupies the same yard line as the defender or until the
opponent could not possibly block him. Continuous contact is illegal
 

@WarTiger please forgive my ignorance if I’m making this more complicated than it is, but can you explain that rule more. I had seen it in looking up this question myself. I feel like from the way I am reading it, you could have a larger defender get right up on a small receiver in press coverage at the line and then immediately charge at them at the snap and give them solid contact or almost a 2 handed punch to the chest like lineman do and completely take them out of the play. 

[WarTiger 3,896]

1 hour ago, aufan@una said:

@WarTiger please forgive my ignorance if I’m making this more complicated than it is, but can you explain that rule more. I had seen it in looking up this question myself. I feel like from the way I am reading it, you could have a larger defender get right up on a small receiver in press coverage at the line and then immediately charge at them at the snap and give them solid contact or almost a 2 handed punch to the chest like lineman do and completely take them out of the play. 

To put it simple, you cannot prohibit a WR or back from running their route. 

[oracle79 3,569]

21 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

To put it simple, you cannot prohibit a WR or back from running their route. 

If the defense isn't holding and the ball isn't in the air, what would the call be?

[WarTiger 3,896]

12 minutes ago, oracle79 said:

If the defense isn't holding and the ball isn't in the air, what would the call be?

This would likely be a personal foul but it could be called holding even though there wasn't technically a hold.    Fortunately its nothing I've ever seen in nearly 30 years of officiating. 

[WarTiger 3,896]

new play.  Last saturday  Ole Miss/ Texas A&M.  Ole Miss had the ball toward the end of the game and QB is back to throw.  With everybody covered, he throws the ball away to stop the clock.  But, he threw the ball backwards and he was still inside the pocket.   This is an illegal pass.  Regardless of whether the QB is in the tacklebox or not, he's not allowed to throw the ball backwards out of bounds to stop the clock. 

During Live Ball
ARTICLE 1. A ball carrier may hand or pass the ball backward at any time,
except to throw the ball intentionally out of bounds to conserve time.
PENALTY—Five yards from the spot of the foul; also loss of down if by
Team A before team possession changes during a scrimmage
down (A.R. 3-4-3-III) [S35 and S9].

[Barnacle 9,064]

@WarTiger

Can you explain to me the difference between a heel/toe play and a toe drag play? If a player gets his toe down inbounds, and drags it out of bounds, it counts as getting a foot in bounds? But a toe that comes down in bounds followed by a heel out of bounds is not? Is that correct? 

I don't know why the rules make a distinction between the two. Either both should count as in, or both should count as out. Just my opinion, but they are exactly the same thing. 

[Never2Yield 1,005]

2 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

@WarTiger

Can you explain to me the difference between a heel/toe play and a toe drag play? If a player gets his toe down inbounds, and drags it out of bounds, it counts as getting a foot in bounds? But a toe that comes down in bounds followed by a heel out of bounds is not? Is that correct? 

I don't know why the rules make a distinction between the two. Either both should count as in, or both should count as out. Just my opinion, but they are exactly the same thing. 

^This

[WarTiger 3,896]

18 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

@WarTiger

Can you explain to me the difference between a heel/toe play and a toe drag play? If a player gets his toe down inbounds, and drags it out of bounds, it counts as getting a foot in bounds? But a toe that comes down in bounds followed by a heel out of bounds is not? Is that correct? 

I don't know why the rules make a distinction between the two. Either both should count as in, or both should count as out. Just my opinion, but they are exactly the same thing. 

They aren't at all the same thing.  One is a player going to the sideline to complete the catch (toe drag), whereas the other is typically a player with his back or shoulder to the sideline.  The toe drag is just that.  It's a situation (as you know)  where the player literally drags his toe on the field making a catch.   But the toe/heel touch is completely different and it should be.  I saw the player that is bringing this up.   When dealing with a player completing a catch the toe touching followed by the heel is one process, its not a separate act.    With the players back or shoulders adjacent to the sideline if he leaps to make the catch, the entire foot must come down in bounds even if the toe touches first, the heel touching is continuous motion and if it touches out of bounds its an incomplete pass.   In the toe drag situation the heel never comes down but in the toe/heel touch, the heel does come down and therefore must be entirely in bounds.

[jw 4 au 526]

On 11/2/2019 at 6:15 PM, WarTiger said:

They aren't at all the same thing.  One is a player going to the sideline to complete the catch (toe drag), whereas the other is typically a player with his back or shoulder to the sideline.  The toe drag is just that.  It's a situation (as you know)  where the player literally drags his toe on the field making a catch.   But the toe/heel touch is completely different and it should be.  I saw the player that is bringing this up.   When dealing with a player completing a catch the toe touching followed by the heel is one process, its not a separate act.    With the players back or shoulders adjacent to the sideline if he leaps to make the catch, the entire foot must come down in bounds even if the toe touches first, the heel touching is continuous motion and if it touches out of bounds its an incomplete pass.   In the toe drag situation the heel never comes down but in the toe/heel touch, the heel does come down and therefore must be entirely in bounds.

I think this rule is confusing and unclear, it needs to be amended.  Part a of the rule interpretation says a toe drag is OK facing the field of play, but then says out of bounds if heel touches out, but the positioning of the player doesn’t change in part a or b. So if he dragged the toe backwards while going out of bounds and the heel never touched it is a fair catch???   The position of the player (facing the field of play) doesn’t change between part a and b, only a drag versus toe-heel. What does that mean, in the rule explanation, they don’t change the position of the player but the result is different. 

BUT... and here is my main problem, it clearly says toe in the singular form, and he had BOTH toes down in bounds. I suggest with both toes down, the toe-heel rule while falling backwards out of bounds did not apply.  Should not have been over-ruled in my opinion. 

[bigbird 60,359]

Too of toe = catch

Bottom of toe = no catch

[jw 4 au 526]

11 hours ago, bigbird said:

Too of toe = catch

Bottom of toe = no catch

What about bottom of 10 toes?  
= No catch apparently. 
🤣

[oracle79 3,569]

At what angle does a toe drag become a toe/heel? Say you're running a perpendicular route directly to the sideline; the toe drags, so we'll call that a 90 degree angle and a catch. Now let's look at a comeback pattern and you're laying out back towards the QB at say a 45 degree angle and toe drag; I'll say that's a catch. Now let's look at a flag/corner route and the ball is thrown over the shoulder to the sideline and you lay out and drag the toe at 135 degree angle; I'd say that's a catch also. Now let's say you're on a fade/go route near the sideline and you get a back shoulder throw and have to turn inside to the QB and you jump with your back to the sideline and make the catch and drag the toe; so that's not a catch? I guess unless you complete the pirouette and mange to drag the front of your shoe toe area vs not completing the pirouette and dragging the bottom of your toe? Totally garbage subjective rule.

[Newbomb 193]

Question...  I think it was on either our last kickoff or next to last.  We pooch kicked it an two Bama players were under it at the same time one calls fair catch but another catches and advances the ball.  I say unfair advantage.  What's the rule say?

[WarTiger 3,896]

14 minutes ago, Newbomb said:

Question...  I think it was on either our last kickoff or next to last.  We pooch kicked it an two Bama players were under it at the same time one calls fair catch but another catches and advances the ball.  I say unfair advantage.  What's the rule say?

I saw that too.  Two players next to each other, one signals fair catch, the other catches it.   By rule the play is blown dead if anybody signals for a fair catch.  Only the player that signals fair catch is afforded protection.   It should have been blown dead but for some reason it wasn't.  I'm not sure why.