We all learned something about onside kick

[TigerOne 1,150]

A beautiful executed onside kick can be reviewed for a block before the ball travels 10 yards.

who knew? Another weird thing in this game.

great job by Auburn just didn’t work out.

[WarTim 3,456]

Agree. I thought we had it. 

[AUFriction 1,179]

Right call by the officials. Stupid penalty by the NCAA. If you can’t block downfield, how can you recover an onside kick. It pretty much renders onside kicks useless.

[AUBwins 10,077]

Yep, mentioned in game thread we should just have the trailing team have the ball 4th and 10 from their own 40 yard line to try to gain possession. Give them a chance. I am ok with the high bounce kick being taken away but the dribble kick should be allowed to have interference from the blockers. 

[Michael X 74]

What I’d like to know is what if Schwartz had stopped before making contact so as to “screen” the football from any Georgia players? If a Georgia player made contact with him would it still be a penalty?

Enquiring minds want to know...

[TigerOne 1,150]

6 minutes ago, Michael X said:

What I’d like to know is what if Schwartz had stopped before making contact so as to “screen” the football from any Georgia players? If a Georgia player made contact with him would it still be a penalty?

Enquiring minds want to know...

Well u have to know where the ball is.

its a dumb rule and renders the onside kick chance of being successful very low.

[JMassie11 1,610]

I didn’t know a penalty or lack of could be reviewed. To me it was the same as a TD being reviewed and realizing there was holding so the call changes

[Mims44 1,885]

5 minutes ago, JMassie11 said:

I didn’t know a penalty or lack of could be reviewed. To me it was the same as a TD being revived and realizing there was holding so the call changes

This+1000

 

 

Gus was having a near impossible task of trying to overcome his own inefficiency to win this game. The refs, not just with this call but with a few in the second half made it a for certain "L".

[doug3020 842]

wasn’t there a similar situation a few years back? A play was being reviewed, the offense of the opposing team had a clear penalty and the officials said it wasn’t reviewable and instead hit us for having 12 men in the field or something along those lines. Maybe I dreamt it....

[NoALtiger 3,868]

Well either Schwartz didn’t know about the rule (would clearly fall on the staff shoulders) or he simply made a human error (it happens). Most fans know the basic and generic rules, but obviously there are so many rules that I’d imagine few would know them all. I’d to think our staff does though and drills them in to the guys on these special circumstance plays. 

[WarEagle1982 449]

I’m pretty sure Nick Saban was at the forefront of getting that rule changed after he got punked on it a couple of times.

[WarTiger 3,914]

11 hours ago, JMassie11 said:

I didn’t know a penalty or lack of could be reviewed. To me it was the same as a TD being reviewed and realizing there was holding so the call changes

Really?  You didn't know targeting could be called from the replay booth?  I thought everybody knew that one at least.  There are several penalties or lack of penalties that are reviewable.  Blocking before being eligible to touch the kick is one of them and has been in the book for a few years now.  Here's a complete list from the rule book.

Reviewable Fouls
ARTICLE 8. The following plays are reviewable and the replay official may
create a foul when there is no call by the on-field officials:
a. Player making a forward pass or forward handoff when beyond the neutral
zone or after a change of possession (Rule 12-3-2-c and –d).
b. Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball (Rule 12-3-4-b).
c. Blocking by players of the kicking team before they are eligible to touch
the ball on an onside kick (Rule 12-3-4-e).
d. The number of players on the field for either team during a live ball (Rule
12-3-6-a).
e. Illegal touching of a forward pass by an originally eligible receiver who has
gone out of bounds. (Rules 12-3-2-b and 12-3-3-h).
f. Player who is out of bounds touching a free kick that had not been touched
inbounds (Rule 12-3-4-a).
g. Forward pass that becomes illegal as a second pass after an on-field ruling
of a backward pass is reversed (Rule 12-3-2-e).
h. A clear and obvious targeting foul (Rule 12-3-5-b).

3 hours ago, doug3020 said:

wasn’t there a similar situation a few years back? A play was being reviewed, the offense of the opposing team had a clear penalty and the officials said it wasn’t reviewable and instead hit us for having 12 men in the field or something along those lines. Maybe I dreamt it....

Yes, it was in 2017 in our game with uat.  We had 12 on the field on defense when their center snapped the ball without their offensive players being set prior to the snap. It was a bad snap that went passed the QB and the play lost somewhere around 10-20 yards, but uat did recover the ball.  The 12 on the field is reviewable, but the false start is not reviewable.    

This is a major flaw in the review process.  If you are going to allow one to be reviewable, then by all accounts if another foul (particularly on the other team) occurs as well, then it should be corrected also. 

[autigeremt 6,660]

The reversal of the catch is the call that made me wonder.......how much did the SEC make on that decision in the long run? Lol 

[AUsince72 11,084]

I honestly had no idea you couldn't block before the kick traveled the required yardage.

I can imagine that if all onside kicks were reviewed, most would be penalized.  Granted, it was HS, but we were simply told to crash the area of aim like blind dawgs fighting for a steak.....no mention of "wait and watch the kick travel 10 yards THEN go hit somebody".

Maybe it's a newer rule? ....or an NCAA rule?

My opinion as an aside:  ALL aspects of the game should be reviewable.  And with that, plays should only be reviewed at a team's request.  Like Timeouts....give them 2 or 3 per half or something like that.  For all the bitching and moaning about the length of games, between Commercials constantly growing in number and length & now adding all these reviewed plays per game, THAT is the problem.  But I'm sure they'll institute more rules in the coming years that lessen actual gameplay so the networks can squeeze even more commercials in.

End:  

[AUsince72 11,084]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

The reversal of the catch is the call that made me wonder.......how much did the SEC make on that decision in the long run? Lol 

After various games this year where the one-sided (to the higher ranked team) calls were so bad & so often, that even the talking heads on BSPN have mentioned them, I've added yet another chin-strap to my tin-foil hat.  I truly believe with napoleon getting closer to retirement (in 20 years LOL) they are milking the bellcow that is the SEC for all it's worth this year.

[AUsince72 11,084]

Spellcheck six.  That us all.

                        ^                 ^

[AU64 10,122]

Several years ago the NCAA changed the rule to make it more difficult to have a successful OSK...which means they wanted to discourage them.  I bet if you went back and checked a batch of OSK attempts, you would find violation takes place on the majority of attempts.... but likely nobody gives it a thought unless the OSK is recovered by the kicking team and they then look for everything that could be wrong.

 I mean, why not go back and review each TD pass play to see if some big OL has a hand full of jersey from a defender and call it back.     Just another example of selective enforcement....and nobody took a look at that "almost face mask" grab against Bo near the end of the game.   The fix was in and refs did their job to assure that a top rated SEC team would still have a chance at the playoffs. 

[AUsince72 11,084]

21 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Several years ago the NCAA changed the rule to make it more difficult to have a successful OSK...which means they wanted to discourage them.  I bet if you went back and checked a batch of OSK attempts, you would find violation takes place on the majority of attempts.... but likely nobody gives it a thought unless the OSK is recovered by the kicking team and they then look for everything that could be wrong.

 I mean, why not go back and review each TD pass play to see if some big OL has a hand full of jersey from a defender and call it back.     Just another example of selective enforcement....and nobody took a look at that "almost face mask" grab against Bo near the end of the game.   The fix was in and refs did their job to assure that a top rated SEC team would still have a chance at the playoffs. 

We are in total agreement here, brother. 

[Tigger1985 812]

Did anyone see the Head official yelling and cussing at some of our assistant coaches?

[AUsince72 11,084]

30 minutes ago, Tigger1985 said:

Did anyone see the Head official yelling and cussing at some of our assistant coaches?

 

[WarTim 3,456]

I wish a few of the dozen or so times that Brown and Davidson were obviously held a flag would have flown. I know. I am asking too much.......

[sevenlee36 1,654]

Sec trying to get two teams in the playoff. Look out LSU. I think the sec will be disappointed because they aren’t getting two teams in this year.

[WarTiger 3,914]

6 hours ago, AUsince72 said:

I honestly had no idea you couldn't block before the kick traveled the required yardage.

I can imagine that if all onside kicks were reviewed, most would be penalized.  Granted, it was HS, but we were simply told to crash the area of aim like blind dawgs fighting for a steak.....no mention of "wait and watch the kick travel 10 yards THEN go hit somebody".

Maybe it's a newer rule? ....or an NCAA rule?

My opinion as an aside:  ALL aspects of the game should be reviewable.  And with that, plays should only be reviewed at a team's request.  Like Timeouts....give them 2 or 3 per half or something like that.  For all the bitching and moaning about the length of games, between Commercials constantly growing in number and length & now adding all these reviewed plays per game, THAT is the problem.  But I'm sure they'll institute more rules in the coming years that lessen actual gameplay so the networks can squeeze even more commercials in.

End:  

Well the rule isnt worded that way.  The way its worded is:  A member of the kicking team may not initiate contact with an opponent until they are legally able to recover the kick.    The kick going 10 yards is only one way the kicking team can legally recover it.   The other is after its been touched by a member of the receiving team.   It doesnt necessarily have to go 10 yards for K to legally recover it.   If a member of the receiving team comes up in the free kick neutral zone and touches the ball prior to it going 10 yards then K can recover it and maintain possession.

Its been in the rule book for 4-5 years now, maybe longer.

[AUsince72 11,084]

5 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

Well the rule isnt worded that way.  The way its worded is:  A member of the kicking team may not initiate contact with an opponent until they are legally able to recover the kick.    The kick going 10 yards is only one way the kicking team can legally recover it.   The other is after its been touched by a member of the receiving team.   It doesnt necessarily have to go 10 yards for K to legally recover it.   If a member of the receiving team comes up in the free kick neutral zone and touches the ball prior to it going 10 yards then K can recover it and maintain possession.

Its been in the rule book for 4-5 years now, maybe longer.

Thank you kind sir.

So, I see it does seem to be a newer rule though, so it makes sense that it hasn't come up too often in the past.