The Shivers Kickoff Return Play

[AUFriction 1,179]

The key here is indisputable. It wasn’t called a muff on the field, and no angle conclusively showed him touching it. The right call was made here, and the right call was made against Kentucky. Unless you have an angle that conclusively proves the call on the field wrong, you stick with the call on the field. You can’t rely on logic or physics to overturn a call. It very likely touched his hand, but there just wasn’t an angle to prove it conclusively.
 

If this was Alabama or Georgia instead of Auburn, the commentators would’ve shut up about it already. The only call that legitimately went our way was the play against Arkansas. 

I agree here with some of the previous posters that this doesn’t deserve its own thread. Let the commentators and analysts complain. They already hate us anyway because we are the rival of media darling Alabama. The call, right or wrong, changes nothing about the outward perception of Auburn. 

[EastAl_Tiger 225]

maybe I'm wrong but by rule, whether he touched it or not is a moot point.  Punt different story.

[TigerPAC 965]

1 hour ago, EastAl_Tiger said:

maybe I'm wrong but by rule, whether he touched it or not is a moot point.  Punt different story.

exactly what i was told

[jw 4 au 526]

@WarTiger

Any input on this???  Seems much ado about nothing. 

[gr82b4au 5,568]

From the SEC

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (October 26, 2020) – The SEC has issued the following statement related to the Auburn-Ole Miss football game of October 24:

On the kickoff return in the Auburn at Ole Miss football game at 5:43 in the 4th quarter, the SEC has determined the replay official should have stopped the game for further review of the play. In the football officiating replay process every play is reviewed but, when appropriate, the game is stopped for further review.

Because the play was not appropriately stopped for further review, the necessary slow-motion view of the play was not viewed by the replay official to determine if the ruling on the field should have been reversed.

The SEC Office conducted a review of the play and appropriately communicated its findings above to Ole Miss head football coach Lane Kiffin and other athletics department personnel per conference protocol. However, Mr. Kiffin’s use of social media Saturday following the game to publicly criticize officiating is in violation of Conference Bylaws and Commissioner’s Regulations that govern Sportsmanship and communication with the Conference Office on officiating issues.

Ole Miss head coach Lane Kiffin has been fined $25,000 for his use of social media Saturday after the game made in violation of SEC Bylaw 10.5 related to officiating in the Auburn at Ole Miss football game of October 24.
 

[gr82b4au 5,568]

It’s pretty funny how SEC has to release a Statement after every Auburn win. Ha ha Ha ha ha those other teams are going to hate us. Hopefully there is another statement released after the LSU game. 

[PigskinPat 2,579]

55 minutes ago, gr82b4au said:

On the kickoff return in the Auburn at Ole Miss football game at 5:43 in the 4th quarter, the SEC has determined the replay official should have stopped the game for further review of the play. In the football officiating replay process every play is reviewed but, when appropriate, the game is stopped for further review.

Because the play was not appropriately stopped for further review, the necessary slow-motion view of the play was not viewed by the replay official to determine if the ruling on the field should have been reversed.

Some of you are claiming it doesn’t matter whether or not he touched it. If that’s the case, then what is there to review and possibly reverse? 

[ShocksMyBrain 9,362]

21 minutes ago, gr82b4au said:

It’s pretty funny how SEC has to release a Statement after every Auburn win. Ha ha Ha ha ha those other teams are going to hate us. Hopefully there is another statement released after the LSU game. 

Them crooked refs making sure a middling AU team beats the West bottom dwellers. 
 

Lane should be mad at himself more than anything for not challenging the play. Otherwise he should STFU and focus on something else. 

[Win4AU 4,052]

Saban hears everybody saying that Gus needs to be fired and told the league office to cut Auburn some slack.  I think Kirby was on the call and they all agreed it would be best to keep the Gus Bus rolling as long as possible.

[au701948 998]

11 hours ago, EastAl_Tiger said:

it's in the rule book. near the back. it's in Rule 8, Section 7

Responsibility ARTICLE 1. The team responsible for the ball being out of bounds behind a goal line or being dead in the possession of a player on, above or behind a goal line is the team whose player carries the ball or imparts an impetus to it that forces it on, above or across the goal line, or is responsible for a loose ball being on, above or behind the goal line. Initial Impetus ARTICLE 2. a. The impetus imparted by a player who kicks, passes, snaps or fumbles the ball shall be considered responsible for the ball’s progress in any direction even though its course is deflected or reversed after striking the ground or after touching an official or a player of either team (A.R. 6-3-4-III; A.R. 8-5-1-II, VI and VIII; and A.R. 8-7-2-I-IV).

Part II Interpretations:

Any kick by Team A strikes the ground and a Team B player bats the ball across Team B’s goal line, where Team B recovers it while grounded or it goes out of bounds. RULING: New impetus is given by Team B. Safety, two points for Team A. Batting the kick is considered to have destroyed the impetus of the kick and imparted a new impetus. However, merely touching or deflecting the kick, or being struck by it, does not destroy the impetus of the kick (Rule 8-5-1-a)

With the above rule, it definitively appears that the correct call was made by the on-field official. All this gnashing of teeth and (worse yet) the SEC Office revisiting it and not getting it right, is disheartening. Plain and simple.

[au701948 998]

11 hours ago, gr82be said:

Provided we actually tackle the guy instead of trying to launch at his shins to knock him down. That burned us bad earlier in the game. I hate that style of (non) tackling. 

Amen!

[Mikey 16,576]

10 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

But the tackler could’ve missed, thus the word ‘potential’.

If you have a chance, go back and look at that play again. There were two tacklers, both between that guy and the goal. They were squared up and close. They weren't going to miss. See to appreciate!

[aucanucktiger 1,791]

Yes the media can't read rules and this is like Leaks fumble: you can watch replay a hundred times and not tell. The media mileage this is getting is the real head spinner. Oh if only they'd looked this hard at the Virginia double dribble that cost us the title game. 

[WarTiger 3,901]

On 10/26/2020 at 2:53 PM, EastAl_Tiger said:

maybe I'm wrong but by rule, whether he touched it or not is a moot point.  Punt different story.

well, you are wrong..   A free kick is just that.  It means that after the ball goes 10 yards or a player on the recieving team touches it, the kicking team can legally recover it and gain possession.  This provision applies from K's free kick line to the goal line that R is defending.  The reason the touching matters is rule 6-1-7:

Ball Dead in End Zone
ARTICLE 7. a. When a free kick untouched by Team B touches the ground
on or behind Team B’s goal line, the ball becomes dead and belongs to Team B.

So a free kick untouched by B (actually should be R (receiving team)) is blown dead when it goes into the endzone.   But, if the receiving team touches it in the field of play its not blown dead, its still a live ball and either team can recover it.  K can not legally advance the kick, but the can recover it.

[AURex 1,994]

WarTiger is correct. If the receiver or ANY player on the receiving team touches the ball on a kick, it is a live ball and can be recovered by the kicking team.

My earlier point was that the official making the call was *behind* Shivers and could not have seen him touch the ball. Shivers knew the ball was still in play and began to pursue the ball. However, when the ball passed the goal line, the official blew the whistle, play was dead, and Shivers stopped pursuing the ball.

Yes, replay should have reviewed that one. But was there indisputable conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field? We will never know.

 

[WarTiger 3,901]

On 10/24/2020 at 8:59 PM, TigerPAC said:

The refs got the call right.....it’s considered a muff—never had possession and initial trajectory of the kick was not changed.  Thereby, once gets to EZ, it’s automatic touchback.  No one cheated anyone.  Now, if this was a punt, while different story.  Rules🤪

No its not an automatic touchback when it gets to the endzone in college football if its touched in the field of play.  Initial trajectory is nowhere in the rule book and doesn't matter one bit.   If its UNTOUCHED by R and goes into the endzone then yes its an automatic touchback. Rule 6-1-7a   If its muffed in the field of play it remains a live ball even if it gets to the endzone and either team can recover it.   In high school football all kicks that go into the endzone are touchbacks.

Punt is really no different in college except that K cannot legally recover and maintain possession unless R touches it first after it crosses the line of scrimmage. 

[weagl1 1,782]

But if the official blew it dead it was dead.  Period.  That is why Shivers stopped pursuing it.  It didn’t matter who recovered it after it was blown dead and there was nothing a booth review could have done to reverse the fact that the official, right or wrong, blew it dead.  If he had not blown it dead Shivers could have recovered it.  

[TigerPAC 965]

2 hours ago, WarTiger said:

No its not an automatic touchback when it gets to the endzone in college football if its touched in the field of play.  Initial trajectory is nowhere in the rule book and doesn't matter one bit.   If its UNTOUCHED by R and goes into the endzone then yes its an automatic touchback. Rule 6-1-7a   If its muffed in the field of play it remains a live ball even if it gets to the endzone and either team can recover it.   In high school football all kicks that go into the endzone are touchbacks.

Punt is really no different in college except that K cannot legally recover and maintain possession unless R touches it first after it crosses the line of scrimmage. 

That’s great.  I was just going on what a ref told me.  He is the one that said something about the trajectory unchanged and reaching the EZ.  Doesn’t matter now or ever...we (AU) will always be the bad guys who cheat

[Gowebb11 9,314]

The game is over. Auburn won. 

[EastAl_Tiger 225]

10 hours ago, WarTiger said:

No its not an automatic touchback when it gets to the endzone in college football if its touched in the field of play.  Initial trajectory is nowhere in the rule book and doesn't matter one bit.   If its UNTOUCHED by R and goes into the endzone then yes its an automatic touchback. Rule 6-1-7a   If its muffed in the field of play it remains a live ball even if it gets to the endzone and either team can recover it.   In high school football all kicks that go into the endzone are touchbacks.

Punt is really no different in college except that K cannot legally recover and maintain possession unless R touches it first after it crosses the line of scrimmage. 

you are correct. trajectory is nowhere in the rule book.  the rules refer to it as "impetus" and "responsibility"

page FR-85 (2019 ed.):

b. A kick becomes dead by rule behind the defending team’s goal line and the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there.

Well what does responsibility mean, you ask?

 

SECTION 7. Responsibility and Impetus

Responsibility ARTICLE 1. The team responsible for the ball being out of bounds behind a goal line or being dead in the possession of a player on, above or behind a goal line is the team whose player carries the ball or imparts an impetus to it that forces it on, above or across the goal line, or is responsible for a loose ball being on, above or behind the goal line.

Initial Impetus ARTICLE 2. a. The impetus imparted by a player who kicks, passes, snaps or fumbles the ball shall be considered responsible for the ball’s progress in any direction even though its course is deflected or reversed after striking the ground or after touching an official or a player of either team.  

 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

I'm assuming there's already been a Zapruder film joke in this thread somewhere. Man.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, Tiger Refuge said:

Exacty. Sheesh. There's nothing wrong in admitting that we benefited from a blown call. Move on already. 

[Tiger Refuge 6,662]

33 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I'm assuming there's already been a Zapruder film joke in this thread somewhere. Man.

Exacty. Sheesh. There's nothing wrong in admitting that we benefited from a blown call. Move on already. 

[Tiger Refuge 6,662]

4 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

[AUApostle 7,651]

We benefited, and by God we deserved it.