Jump to content

Officials focusing on read option pass plays


PatBoCamRob

Recommended Posts

http://www.sbnation....ball-rules-2015

Me no likey

posting the article helps...

The pop pass isn't going away, but referees are watching it more closely

GettyImages-461048495.0.jpg

Lots of teams use these plays, legally and illegally. This photo choice is not a personal allegation against Gus Malzahn, Auburn fans. - Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images

If your team (or your rival) uses these popular run/pass options, just know things will need to be done by the book.

Tweet (72) Share (93)

Pin

"Like so many things in the game, it’s legal deception," Big 12 head of officiating Walt Anderson told SB Nation at Big 12 Media Days about controversial run/pass option plays. "The difficulty comes when you start approaching the edge of what’s legal and illegal deception."

Offseason discussions among Big 12 officials centered around the conference's new dedication to making sure offensive linemen follow NCAA rules and stay within three yards of the line of scrimmage on passes. The NCAA announced in March that all officials would pay closer attention to the illegal man downfield rule, in response to these RPO or pop pass plays.

"We could see this problem happening as offenses and systems began to change. We knew there was no way to work tomorrow’s game with just seven officials. We were already behind the curve with seven," Anderson said.

The Big 12 recently added an eighth on-field official, potentially contributing to a national trend. Adding another official means having more eyes to watch offensive linemen -- specifically, where those linemen are when a pass is released. That could make it harder for offenses to get away with having linemen this far downfield on a pass:

Hang on a minute. That's just that Gus Malzahn Oregon crap that my team doesn't run.

Who are you?

I'm the skeptical college football fan interrupting this story to ask why this is important to me.

While a few teams like Auburn and Kansas State used to be known for these pop pass plays, now many offenses use plays that send linemen downfield, setting up delayed passes out of what appear to be runs. This new enforcement strategy monitors those plays more closely.

Just how popular is this concept?

Oh, only popular among most of the top 25 last year -- Baylor, Ohio State, Clemson, Oregon, Arizona, TCU, Ole Miss, Texas A&M, Mississippi State, Auburn, Kansas State, Oklahoma and others. Even stodgy Alabama tried it.

You either cheer for it or against it, or both, but the difference is that going forward, teams are going to have to do it by the rule book.

Back up, what the heck is the run-pass option?

Our friend Ian Boyd has an awesome, in-depth piece that breaks down the concept's popularity and variety. It allows for at least three distinct plays to occur from a single call because of a layered system of reads.

I'M CONFUSED AND ANGRY.

Remember the read option play that exploded in popularity a few years back? The QB takes a snap and looks at a defensive end. If that DE is trying to tackle him, the QB hands the ball to a running back. But if the DE is sitting back, the QB runs it himself.

Simple.

The RPO adds a layer. Defenses started to answer by moving defenders to compensate for either option. To counter the counter, a QB who keeps the ball will start to run and then make a second read. If linebackers and defensive backs are coming after him, he'll pop a pass to the open receiver they left. If the defenders stay in coverage, the QB will take the cushion and pick up yards.

aub1.0.gif

So why is everyone worried about the offensive line?

As the concept has become popular, Big 12 officials have noticed an increase in offensive linemen drifting. Mobile quarterbacks can hold the ball longer, so these plays are runs for a long time, then suddenly become passes.

Way back in the dark ages, the 1990s, NCAA rules allowed a three-yard zone for linemen. If your OL went past that as the quarterback dropped back, a penalty would be called for an ineligible man downfield. But on a standard run play, linemen can move downfield with the ball carrier. Back then, runs were runs and passes were passes.

So modern offenses are exploiting a rule made a long time ago?

That's the argument. Linemen trick defenses into playing the run, and many pop passes go off with ineligible receivers (linemen) downfield. Monitoring the progress of five linemen and the release of a pass that might or might not come isn't something officiating crews have had to focus on, until now.

"When a pass is caught, in general, that's where the audience's point of reference exists," Anderson said. "And you're asking, ‘How can a guy catch a ball eight yards downfield with a lineman standing right there next to him?' When in fact, when the ball was in the air, maybe (the lineman) was only three yards downfield, maybe he wasn't."

Does that mean the rules will change eventually?

Take us home, Walt:

To be clear, nothing is changing. No rule is being changed right now. It’s a tough rule, and we’re going to have to work at getting better at it. And the rules committee will have to continue to study it.

Maybe you dedicate replay to it. Maybe you do end up having to change the rule and it goes back to one yard (downfield) instead of three. That’s a lot easier to officiate.

We’re going to assume the rule doesn’t get changed. It’s not our job to change to the rules. It’s our job to officiate them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites





This was already discussed in the rule changes. The ineligible player down field rule did NOT change. It's a point of emphasis for officials but has nothing to do with the run/pass option. This is an article by someone that is just reaching and didn't do his homework on the actual rule. There were several glaring examples of a lineman downfield illegally that were on plays when the qb did a straight drop back and stayed in the pocket to throw. This is a massive reach.

Way back in the dark ages, the 1990s, NCAA rules allowed a three-yard zone for linemen. If your OL went past that as the quarterback dropped back, a penalty would be called for an ineligible man downfield. But on a standard run play, linemen can move downfield with the ball carrier. Back then, runs were runs and passes were passes.

This isn't remotely true. It's not a penalty until or unless the pass is thrown AND it goes beyond the line of scrimmage. It's not a penalty if they are downfield when the qb drops back. No homework was done on this article and no understanding of the rule exists here. This article has nothing to with Auburn specifically like they tried so hard to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One question, why can't the officials just enforce the rules that are in place? If they have to many things to do already and the lineman down field rule is one they have just let slide, then add another damn official like other conferences. Lord knows the money for another official is there. I hate the idea of changing a rule to take away a play because it's difficult to defend. As my dad has said (who is a HUGE Bama fan) all it does is show defeat. While the rule didn't get changed this year, it will be soon, or something put in place to not allow a run-pass. How about make your damn defensive players have to think, react, and stay in their assignments. Hummmmmm that sounds like actually having to coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the gist is that officials have been letting this rule slide for years on play-action, and now that these whiny coaches (saban and bilemia) are complaining, they are going to make this the "pet call" of every game with our type of offense. Am I reading that correctly WT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One question, why can't the officials just enforce the rules that are in place?

They do enforce the rules in place. There are times that attention is drawn away from things and things get missed. Apparently the ineligible player down field was missed NATION WIDE enough to put an emphasis on it this year. It will be watched more closely and I imagine that will be the last we hear about this "potential" change.

If they have to many things to do already and the lineman down field rule is one they have just let slide, then add another damn official like other conferences. Lord knows the money for another official is there.

Apparently you haven't been paying very close attention to things or you would know that every game involving SEC schools will have 8 man crews.

I hate the idea of changing a rule to take away a play because it's difficult to defend. As my dad has said (who is a HUGE Bama fan) all it does is show defeat. While the rule didn't get changed this year, it will be soon, or something put in place to not allow a run-pass.

The first point, is you are assuming it will, you don't know that it will and I expect it will be exactly the same rule 10 years from now. secondly no rule will ever be put in place to not allow a run/pass. That's ridiculous. I think you are buying what the article is falsely selling here as this being the focal point. As I mentioned above, its NOT.

How about make your damn defensive players have to think, react, and stay in their assignments. Hummmmmm that sounds like actually having to coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or better yet, here's an idea make it a challenge'able play. You mean we can put a line on the screen for every field goal kicker to know where they need to get to but the replay booth can't for 3yds pass the line of scrimmage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One question, why can't the officials just enforce the rules that are in place?

They do enforce the rules in place. There are times that attention is drawn away from things and things get missed. Apparently the ineligible player down field was missed NATION WIDE enough to put an emphasis on it this year. It will be watched more closely and I imagine that will be the last we hear about this "potential" change.

If they have to many things to do already and the lineman down field rule is one they have just let slide, then add another damn official like other conferences. Lord knows the money for another official is there.

Apparently you haven't been paying very close attention to things or you would know that every game involving SEC schools will have 8 man crews.

I hate the idea of changing a rule to take away a play because it's difficult to defend. As my dad has said (who is a HUGE Bama fan) all it does is show defeat. While the rule didn't get changed this year, it will be soon, or something put in place to not allow a run-pass.

The first point, is you are assuming it will, you don't know that it will and I expect it will be exactly the same rule 10 years from now. secondly no rule will ever be put in place to not allow a run/pass. That's ridiculous. I think you are buying what the article is falsely selling here as this being the focal point. As I mentioned above, its NOT.

How about make your damn defensive players have to think, react, and stay in their assignments. Hummmmmm that sounds like actually having to coach.

Nope been paying attention. I meant add a 9th official if they think there is still too much for them to do. Doesn't mean he has to be in the field of play. While maybe not necessarily a rule against a run pass all together, or lineman downfield change, I do think there will be something within the next 5yrs to make the play more difficult to run. Yea I took a few things to extreme. With the game scores continuing to rise each year IMO there will be changes to limit the offense. Then after a few years it will be the defensive side. It's an evolving game, always has been always will be. Otherwise the rules would be stagnant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or better yet, here's an idea make it a challenge'able play. You mean we can put a line on the screen for every field goal kicker to know where they need to get to but the replay booth can't for 3yds pass the line of scrimmage?

HUH? You do realize that line isn't actually on the field right? Nor do the players or coaches have access to a live feed of the game. It's illegal. That line put on the screen is for US as FANS, not for the player to know where they need "to get too".

Would you really want another line on the screen 3 yards from the line of scrimmage? I wouldn't. I hate the FG line they put on the screen (FOR US) already. Also, how do you know the line can't be put there or isn't already there and available for the replay booth? We never see the replay monitor so to assume its not there is just that, assuming... In fact there's a decent chance that IF it isn't there, that it may very well be (FOR REPLAY OFFICIAL) this year given the emphasis put on the rule..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One question, why can't the officials just enforce the rules that are in place?

They do enforce the rules in place. There are times that attention is drawn away from things and things get missed. Apparently the ineligible player down field was missed NATION WIDE enough to put an emphasis on it this year. It will be watched more closely and I imagine that will be the last we hear about this "potential" change.

If they have to many things to do already and the lineman down field rule is one they have just let slide, then add another damn official like other conferences. Lord knows the money for another official is there.

Apparently you haven't been paying very close attention to things or you would know that every game involving SEC schools will have 8 man crews.

I hate the idea of changing a rule to take away a play because it's difficult to defend. As my dad has said (who is a HUGE Bama fan) all it does is show defeat. While the rule didn't get changed this year, it will be soon, or something put in place to not allow a run-pass.

The first point, is you are assuming it will, you don't know that it will and I expect it will be exactly the same rule 10 years from now. secondly no rule will ever be put in place to not allow a run/pass. That's ridiculous. I think you are buying what the article is falsely selling here as this being the focal point. As I mentioned above, its NOT.

How about make your damn defensive players have to think, react, and stay in their assignments. Hummmmmm that sounds like actually having to coach.

Nope been paying attention. I meant add a 9th official if they think there is still too much for them to do. Doesn't mean he has to be in the field of play. While maybe not necessarily a rule against a run pass all together, or lineman downfield change, I do think there will be something within the next 5yrs to make the play more difficult to run. Yea I took a few things to extreme. With the game scores continuing to rise each year IMO there will be changes to limit the offense. Then after a few years it will be the defensive side. It's an evolving game, always has been always will be. Otherwise the rules would be stagnant.

with the move to an 8 man crew, we already have a 9th official off the field. It's called the replay official. Just like we had an 8th last year with the replay official

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he just meant use the superimposed line for replay.

The problem is, there aren't many penalties that are reviewable to award a penalty retroactively. WT would definitely know specifics on that better than I do, but off the top of my head, illegal forward pass or illegal touching are the only ones that come to mind. I suppose you could add this as a reviewable play, but it's just going to add to the length of games and the number of stoppages. I'd rather just live with the call or no-call on the field like we do with holding or pass interference. Could we get more of those correct with replay? Yes. Would it make the games painfully longer and less watchable? Yes. So just emphasize it with the refs and live with the call one way or the other.

The Bama play looks like a pretty good job by our line. You can't see exactly where they are at the point of release, but Kozan is the only guy even close to the 3-yard mark. It looks bad because Prosch is way upfield, but he's an eligible receiver. Even with the emphasis, I seriously doubt we would've drawn a flag there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.firstdownlaser.com/

Check out the link. We could very well soon see 1st down lines as well as the expanded lines of scrimmage, etc. actually lazed on to the playing field for the benefit of players/officials and fans. Welcome to the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If officals didn't keep a close enough eye on offensive linemen to be able to tell if they were 3 yards downfield, this could also explain why they can't see linemen constantly holding on certain teams. coughbamacough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he just meant use the superimposed line for replay.

The problem is, there aren't many penalties that are reviewable to award a penalty retroactively. WT would definitely know specifics on that better than I do, but off the top of my head, illegal forward pass or illegal touching are the only ones that come to mind. I suppose you could add this as a reviewable play, but it's just going to add to the length of games and the number of stoppages. I'd rather just live with the call or no-call on the field like we do with holding or pass interference. Could we get more of those correct with replay? Yes. Would it make the games painfully longer and less watchable? Yes. So just emphasize it with the refs and live with the call one way or the other.

The Bama play looks like a pretty good job by our line. You can't see exactly where they are at the point of release, but Kozan is the only guy even close to the 3-yard mark. It looks bad because Prosch is way upfield, but he's an eligible receiver. Even with the emphasis, I seriously doubt we would've drawn a flag there.

There are more than most people realize.

forward handing

player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball

Blocking by Team A players before they are eligible to touch the ball on an on-side kick.

Number of players on the field for either team.

Any person who is not a player interfering with live-ball action occurring in the field of play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he just meant use the superimposed line for replay.

The problem is, there aren't many penalties that are reviewable to award a penalty retroactively. WT would definitely know specifics on that better than I do, but off the top of my head, illegal forward pass or illegal touching are the only ones that come to mind. I suppose you could add this as a reviewable play, but it's just going to add to the length of games and the number of stoppages. I'd rather just live with the call or no-call on the field like we do with holding or pass interference. Could we get more of those correct with replay? Yes. Would it make the games painfully longer and less watchable? Yes. So just emphasize it with the refs and live with the call one way or the other.

The Bama play looks like a pretty good job by our line. You can't see exactly where they are at the point of release, but Kozan is the only guy even close to the 3-yard mark. It looks bad because Prosch is way upfield, but he's an eligible receiver. Even with the emphasis, I seriously doubt we would've drawn a flag there.

I think in the bama game, that Nick was also close enough to the LOS that if the refs had called it the other way, it would have stood....assuming that play was reviewable. Looks like one of those plays that might have been called either way....but was so close that nobody was going to reverse it.

Funny thing about the ND vs FSU play was that ND had blockers in the end zone clearing the way for the pass receiver.....might have gotten away with that in South Bend but props to the ACC officials for calling it correctly.

Good point about the "9th official" but with the limits on what's reviewable, his influence is somewhat restricted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he just meant use the superimposed line for replay.

The problem is, there aren't many penalties that are reviewable to award a penalty retroactively. WT would definitely know specifics on that better than I do, but off the top of my head, illegal forward pass or illegal touching are the only ones that come to mind. I suppose you could add this as a reviewable play, but it's just going to add to the length of games and the number of stoppages. I'd rather just live with the call or no-call on the field like we do with holding or pass interference. Could we get more of those correct with replay? Yes. Would it make the games painfully longer and less watchable? Yes. So just emphasize it with the refs and live with the call one way or the other.

The Bama play looks like a pretty good job by our line. You can't see exactly where they are at the point of release, but Kozan is the only guy even close to the 3-yard mark. It looks bad because Prosch is way upfield, but he's an eligible receiver. Even with the emphasis, I seriously doubt we would've drawn a flag there.

I think in the bama game, that Nick was also close enough to the LOS that if the refs had called it the other way, it would have stood....assuming that play was reviewable. Looks like one of those plays that might have been called either way....but was so close that nobody was going to reverse it.

Funny thing about the ND vs FSU play was that ND had blockers in the end zone clearing the way for the pass receiver.....might have gotten away with that in South Bend but props to the ACC officials for calling it correctly.

Good point about the "9th official" but with the limits on what's reviewable, his influence is somewhat restricted.

AU64, if I am not mistaken it's the grounded foot that determines whether he was across the LOS and in this case, at least from what I see, he was clearly behind the LOS. If I am wrong about the foot thing then it still was very,very close. I'm sure WarTiger can clear this up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he just meant use the superimposed line for replay.

The problem is, there aren't many penalties that are reviewable to award a penalty retroactively. WT would definitely know specifics on that better than I do, but off the top of my head, illegal forward pass or illegal touching are the only ones that come to mind. I suppose you could add this as a reviewable play, but it's just going to add to the length of games and the number of stoppages. I'd rather just live with the call or no-call on the field like we do with holding or pass interference. Could we get more of those correct with replay? Yes. Would it make the games painfully longer and less watchable? Yes. So just emphasize it with the refs and live with the call one way or the other.

The Bama play looks like a pretty good job by our line. You can't see exactly where they are at the point of release, but Kozan is the only guy even close to the 3-yard mark. It looks bad because Prosch is way upfield, but he's an eligible receiver. Even with the emphasis, I seriously doubt we would've drawn a flag there.

I think in the bama game, that Nick was also close enough to the LOS that if the refs had called it the other way, it would have stood....assuming that play was reviewable. Looks like one of those plays that might have been called either way....but was so close that nobody was going to reverse it.

Funny thing about the ND vs FSU play was that ND had blockers in the end zone clearing the way for the pass receiver.....might have gotten away with that in South Bend but props to the ACC officials for calling it correctly.

Good point about the "9th official" but with the limits on what's reviewable, his influence is somewhat restricted.

AU64, if I am not mistaken it's the grounded foot that determines whether he was across the LOS and in this case, at least from what I see, he was clearly behind the LOS. If I am wrong about the foot thing then it still was very,very close. I'm sure WarTiger can clear this up.

It's not the grounded foot at all.

It wasn't close. It was obviously legal (much to the dismay of the uaters)

Illegal Forward Pass

ARTICLE 2. A forward pass is illegal if:

a. It is thrown by a Team A player whose entire body is beyond the neutral

zone when he releases the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he just meant use the superimposed line for replay.

The problem is, there aren't many penalties that are reviewable to award a penalty retroactively. WT would definitely know specifics on that better than I do, but off the top of my head, illegal forward pass or illegal touching are the only ones that come to mind. I suppose you could add this as a reviewable play, but it's just going to add to the length of games and the number of stoppages. I'd rather just live with the call or no-call on the field like we do with holding or pass interference. Could we get more of those correct with replay? Yes. Would it make the games painfully longer and less watchable? Yes. So just emphasize it with the refs and live with the call one way or the other.

The Bama play looks like a pretty good job by our line. You can't see exactly where they are at the point of release, but Kozan is the only guy even close to the 3-yard mark. It looks bad because Prosch is way upfield, but he's an eligible receiver. Even with the emphasis, I seriously doubt we would've drawn a flag there.

I think in the bama game, that Nick was also close enough to the LOS that if the refs had called it the other way, it would have stood....assuming that play was reviewable. Looks like one of those plays that might have been called either way....but was so close that nobody was going to reverse it.

Funny thing about the ND vs FSU play was that ND had blockers in the end zone clearing the way for the pass receiver.....might have gotten away with that in South Bend but props to the ACC officials for calling it correctly.

Good point about the "9th official" but with the limits on what's reviewable, his influence is somewhat restricted.

AU64, if I am not mistaken it's the grounded foot that determines whether he was across the LOS and in this case, at least from what I see, he was clearly behind the LOS. If I am wrong about the foot thing then it still was very,very close. I'm sure WarTiger can clear this up.

It's not the grounded foot at all.

It wasn't close. It was obviously legal (much to the dismay of the uaters)

Illegal Forward Pass

ARTICLE 2. A forward pass is illegal if:

a. It is thrown by a Team A player whose entire body is beyond the neutral

zone when he releases the ball.

WT, what is the definition of "neutral zone"? I would like to know just for my own satisfaction. TIA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he just meant use the superimposed line for replay.

The problem is, there aren't many penalties that are reviewable to award a penalty retroactively. WT would definitely know specifics on that better than I do, but off the top of my head, illegal forward pass or illegal touching are the only ones that come to mind. I suppose you could add this as a reviewable play, but it's just going to add to the length of games and the number of stoppages. I'd rather just live with the call or no-call on the field like we do with holding or pass interference. Could we get more of those correct with replay? Yes. Would it make the games painfully longer and less watchable? Yes. So just emphasize it with the refs and live with the call one way or the other.

The Bama play looks like a pretty good job by our line. You can't see exactly where they are at the point of release, but Kozan is the only guy even close to the 3-yard mark. It looks bad because Prosch is way upfield, but he's an eligible receiver. Even with the emphasis, I seriously doubt we would've drawn a flag there.

I think in the bama game, that Nick was also close enough to the LOS that if the refs had called it the other way, it would have stood....assuming that play was reviewable. Looks like one of those plays that might have been called either way....but was so close that nobody was going to reverse it.

Funny thing about the ND vs FSU play was that ND had blockers in the end zone clearing the way for the pass receiver.....might have gotten away with that in South Bend but props to the ACC officials for calling it correctly.

Good point about the "9th official" but with the limits on what's reviewable, his influence is somewhat restricted.

AU64, if I am not mistaken it's the grounded foot that determines whether he was across the LOS and in this case, at least from what I see, he was clearly behind the LOS. If I am wrong about the foot thing then it still was very,very close. I'm sure WarTiger can clear this up.

It's not the grounded foot at all.

It wasn't close. It was obviously legal (much to the dismay of the uaters)

Illegal Forward Pass

ARTICLE 2. A forward pass is illegal if:

a. It is thrown by a Team A player whose entire body is beyond the neutral

zone when he releases the ball.

WT, what is the definition of "neutral zone"? I would like to know just for my own satisfaction. TIA

The neutral zone is and always has been the length of the football. The line of scrimmage for the offense is the nearest point of the ball to the offense. The line of scrimmage for the defense is the nearest point of the ball to the defense. So in order for it to be an illegal forward pass the passers entire body has to be on the defensive side of the neutral zone.

Here's the official definition of The Neutral Zone from the rule book:

SECTION 17. The Neutral Zone

ARTICLE 1. a. The neutral zone is the space between the two scrimmage lines

extended to the sidelines. Its width is equal to the length of the ball (Rule 2-21-2).

b. The neutral zone is established when the ball is ready for play and is resting on the

ground with its long axis at right angles to the scrimmage line and parallel to the

sidelines.

c. The neutral zone exists until there is a change of team possession, until a

scrimmage kick crosses the neutral zone or until the ball is declared dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was already discussed in the rule changes. The ineligible player down field rule did NOT change. It's a point of emphasis for officials but has nothing to do with the run/pass option. This is an article by someone that is just reaching and didn't do his homework on the actual rule. There were several glaring examples of a lineman downfield illegally that were on plays when the qb did a straight drop back and stayed in the pocket to throw. This is a massive reach.

Way back in the dark ages, the 1990s, NCAA rules allowed a three-yard zone for linemen. If your OL went past that as the quarterback dropped back, a penalty would be called for an ineligible man downfield. But on a standard run play, linemen can move downfield with the ball carrier. Back then, runs were runs and passes were passes.

This isn't remotely true. It's not a penalty until or unless the pass is thrown AND it goes beyond the line of scrimmage. It's not a penalty if they are downfield when the qb drops back. No homework was done on this article and no understanding of the rule exists here. This article has nothing to with Auburn specifically like they tried so hard to do.

WT, when you said "It's not a penalty until or unless the pass is thrown AND it goes beyond the line of scrimmage" Does that mean that linemen can legaly be downfield blocking when a forward pass is completed behind the line of scrimage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was already discussed in the rule changes. The ineligible player down field rule did NOT change. It's a point of emphasis for officials but has nothing to do with the run/pass option. This is an article by someone that is just reaching and didn't do his homework on the actual rule. There were several glaring examples of a lineman downfield illegally that were on plays when the qb did a straight drop back and stayed in the pocket to throw. This is a massive reach.

Way back in the dark ages, the 1990s, NCAA rules allowed a three-yard zone for linemen. If your OL went past that as the quarterback dropped back, a penalty would be called for an ineligible man downfield. But on a standard run play, linemen can move downfield with the ball carrier. Back then, runs were runs and passes were passes.

This isn't remotely true. It's not a penalty until or unless the pass is thrown AND it goes beyond the line of scrimmage. It's not a penalty if they are downfield when the qb drops back. No homework was done on this article and no understanding of the rule exists here. This article has nothing to with Auburn specifically like they tried so hard to do.

WT, when you said "It's not a penalty until or unless the pass is thrown AND it goes beyond the line of scrimmage" Does that mean that linemen can legaly be downfield blocking when a forward pass is completed behind the line of scrimage?

Yes. Linemen can go downfield as long as the pass is completed behind the line of scrimmage. That's the very premise of the screen pass. The linemen release without blocking and move downfield. The pass is thrown and completed behind the line of scrimmage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic I guess, but I would like to see more official emphasis put on pick routes, and offensive pass interference. While I am not a real fan of pro football, from the games I do watch the officials seem to not let the receivers push off nearly as much as in the college game. Just something about the college game that drives me nuts. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he just meant use the superimposed line for replay.

The problem is, there aren't many penalties that are reviewable to award a penalty retroactively. WT would definitely know specifics on that better than I do, but off the top of my head, illegal forward pass or illegal touching are the only ones that come to mind. I suppose you could add this as a reviewable play, but it's just going to add to the length of games and the number of stoppages. I'd rather just live with the call or no-call on the field like we do with holding or pass interference. Could we get more of those correct with replay? Yes. Would it make the games painfully longer and less watchable? Yes. So just emphasize it with the refs and live with the call one way or the other.

The Bama play looks like a pretty good job by our line. You can't see exactly where they are at the point of release, but Kozan is the only guy even close to the 3-yard mark. It looks bad because Prosch is way upfield, but he's an eligible receiver. Even with the emphasis, I seriously doubt we would've drawn a flag there.

I think in the bama game, that Nick was also close enough to the LOS that if the refs had called it the other way, it would have stood....assuming that play was reviewable. Looks like one of those plays that might have been called either way....but was so close that nobody was going to reverse it.

Funny thing about the ND vs FSU play was that ND had blockers in the end zone clearing the way for the pass receiver.....might have gotten away with that in South Bend but props to the ACC officials for calling it correctly.

Good point about the "9th official" but with the limits on what's reviewable, his influence is somewhat restricted.

AU64, if I am not mistaken it's the grounded foot that determines whether he was across the LOS and in this case, at least from what I see, he was clearly behind the LOS. If I am wrong about the foot thing then it still was very,very close. I'm sure WarTiger can clear this up.

It's not the grounded foot at all.

It wasn't close. It was obviously legal (much to the dismay of the uaters)

Illegal Forward Pass

ARTICLE 2. A forward pass is illegal if:

a. It is thrown by a Team A player whose entire body is beyond the neutral

zone when he releases the ball.

WT, what is the definition of "neutral zone"? I would like to know just for my own satisfaction. TIA

The neutral zone is and always has been the length of the football. The line of scrimmage for the offense is the nearest point of the ball to the offense. The line of scrimmage for the defense is the nearest point of the ball to the defense. So in order for it to be an illegal forward pass the passers entire body has to be on the defensive side of the neutral zone.

Here's the official definition of The Neutral Zone from the rule book:

SECTION 17. The Neutral Zone

ARTICLE 1. a. The neutral zone is the space between the two scrimmage lines

extended to the sidelines. Its width is equal to the length of the ball (Rule 2-21-2).

b. The neutral zone is established when the ball is ready for play and is resting on the

ground with its long axis at right angles to the scrimmage line and parallel to the

sidelines.

c. The neutral zone exists until there is a change of team possession, until a

scrimmage kick crosses the neutral zone or until the ball is declared dead.

Thanks WT, that was exactly what I wanted to know. Muchas gracias!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or better yet, here's an idea make it a challenge'able play. You mean we can put a line on the screen for every field goal kicker to know where they need to get to but the replay booth can't for 3yds pass the line of scrimmage?

HUH? You do realize that line isn't actually on the field right? Nor do the players or coaches have access to a live feed of the game. It's illegal. That line put on the screen is for US as FANS, not for the player to know where they need "to get too".

Would you really want another line on the screen 3 yards from the line of scrimmage? I wouldn't. I hate the FG line they put on the screen (FOR US) already. Also, how do you know the line can't be put there or isn't already there and available for the replay booth? We never see the replay monitor so to assume its not there is just that, assuming... In fact there's a decent chance that IF it isn't there, that it may very well be (FOR REPLAY OFFICIAL) this year given the emphasis put on the rule..

you mean they don't paint the line on the field in between each play? Like I said the replay booth guys could use a line that is 3 yards from the line of scrimmage. My point was they know exactly where every field goal kicker needs to get to so by logic then they could figure out where 3yards pass the line of scrimmage is and the replay booth guys could use that and then determine if a lineman was pass 3 yards from the line of scrimmage. Kind of thought that would have been obvious when I said "replay booth" in the other post that I wasn't referring to ANOTHER damn line on the screen for public viewing. Yeah I hate them too. By the way thanks for the vote of of intellegence there by thinking that I thought the line was actually on the field. I'll try and put EVERYTHING in my post from now on and not assume anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...