Clarification on Two Calls

[Chin Diesel]

So, how was that not a safety on the UConn kickoff where they tackled the player in the end zone. Player tipped the ball while it was in the field of play and it carries in to the end zone. I get it that he can grab the ball and take a knee and it's a touchback. But he went in to the end zone and clearly tried to advance it out of the end zone. Why isn't that a safety?

Secondly, the illegal tap on Floyd during the punt confuses me. Why is that a penalty and not just UCF's ball at the first point of contact by the punting team? I always (incorrectly assumed) that the return team gets possession at the spot where the punting team first touches the ball. Who cares if he bats it 20 yards further?

 

[LIUCHusky]

So, how was that not a safety on the UConn kickoff where they tackled the player in the end zone. Player tipped the ball while it was in the field of play and it carries in to the end zone. I get it that he can grab the ball and take a knee and it's a touchback. But he went in to the end zone and clearly tried to advance it out of the end zone. Why isn't that a safety?

Secondly, the illegal tap on Floyd during the punt confuses me. Why is that a penalty and not just UCF's ball at the first point of contact by the punting team? I always (incorrectly assumed) that the return team gets possession at the spot where the punting team first touches the ball. Who cares if he bats it 20 yards further?

They did get the ball where he initially batted. There was some confusion but eventually placed the ball where the UConn player touched it.

 

[BlueMAB]

So, how was that not a safety on the UConn kickoff where they tackled the player in the end zone. Player tipped the ball while it was in the field of play and it carries in to the end zone. I get it that he can grab the ball and take a knee and it's a touchback. But he went in to the end zone and clearly tried to advance it out of the end zone. Why isn't that a safety?

Secondly, the illegal tap on Floyd during the punt confuses me. Why is that a penalty and not just UCF's ball at the first point of contact by the punting team? I always (incorrectly assumed) that the return team gets possession at the spot where the punting team first touches the ball. Who cares if he bats it 20 yards further?

I think the player must have possession on the kickoff. Tipping it isn't enough. Like when Frey muffed one into the endzone versus Rutgers. He could have taken a knee. If you have possession in the field if play, then get tackled in the endzone it's a safety.

 

[NavinRJohnson]

They did get the ball where he initially batted. There was some confusion but eventually placed the ball where the UConn player touched it.

Correct, but only by chance. The 5 yard penalty happened to bring the ball back to where it was touched.

 

[noeynox]

How about the roughing the passer against Frank? He hit the QBs arm while he was throwing the ball which caused it to flutter. Was the call that he was too rough in the follow through?

 

[NavinRJohnson]

How about the roughing the passer against Frank? He hit the QBs arm while he was throwing the ball which caused it to flutter. Was the call that he was too rough in the follow through?

In his follow through he hit the QB in the helmet with his hand

 

[noeynox]

OK. Would make more sense if that was the call.

 

[Dooley]

Now, I thought that the rule was that the ball is live once any player on the receiving team touches it and if it goes into the end zone, it has to be run out.

Frank's "roughing the passer" call was a bit of BS too. I thought his hand initially hit the QB's arm and ran up to his head. It was rainy and slippery out there. The contact to the QB's head was minimal, at best.

 

[jdb50]

In his follow through he hit the QB in the helmet with his hand

It would make sense if the ref mentioned blow to the head which he did not. He called roughing and I think he didn't like the way Frank landed on the QB. It was a BS call IMO.

 

[Chin Diesel]

How about the roughing the passer against Frank? He hit the QBs arm while he was throwing the ball which caused it to flutter. Was the call that he was too rough in the follow through?

In his follow through he hit the QB in the helmet with his hand

I get it with the hand but it's a BS call. The reason why Frank's hand hit his head was because of the chuck and duck of the QB and the momentum. It was a correct call by the letter of the rule, but the rule needs to change. I'm all for player safety, but if the initial contact isn't directed above the neck, any follow through or twisting by the offensive player shouldn't become a personal foul.

 

[Jimdish255]

I believe the kickoff was a dead ball as soon as the guy who muffed it gained possession in the end zone but I heard no whistle. For some reason they let the play continue as he tried to run.

 

[BlueMAB]

It's a live ball the moment it's kicked. (On-sides). The kicking team can recover on e it has travelled 10 yards. The receiving team can recover at any point. In order for it to be as safety they have to establish possession outside the endzone and then get tackled in the endzone. If he didn't recover that ball and UConn did it would have been a touchdown. That play isn't dead until he takes a knee or gets tackled. We've seen this happen to UConn before. Everyone ripped into edsall for not teaching Frey the rules.

I am about 90% certain of all of that. What I'm not sure about is if the ball enters the endzone untouched. If the ball goes into the endzone without being touched I think I have seen refs immediately call the touchback.

 

[jdb50]

It is a live ball and if it goes in the endzone untouched and is recovered by the kicking team it should be a touchdown. The receiving team needs to down it by taking a knee.

 

[Johnny Mac]

I believe the kickoff was a dead ball as soon as the guy who muffed it gained possession in the end zone but I heard no whistle. For some reason they let the play continue as he tried to run.

And it was the head referee who originally called the safety! Let's face it, nobody including the players, the announcers , or the officials understand the touchback rule.

 

[Husky25]

In his follow through he hit the QB in the helmet with his hand

The ball was placed where UConn tapped it because that is where it was downed. It was a phantom call and all the pomp and circumstance that followed was the officials covering up for their mistakes.

 

[SAMCRO]

the officials were unbiasedly awful. Both teams got screwed with some suspect calls. As for Frank's roughing the passer, I remember hearing the ref say it was due to contact to the back of the helmet when he called the penalty.

What I disagree with re: the no-safety ruling is why does the ball get spotted at the 25 for a touch back? I know the rule is it goes to the 25, but would make more sense that the rule require them to at least place the ball where contact was initially made. This way it doesn't penalize them for not possessing, but does recognize they attempted to receive the ball in the field of play and spots the ball where contact was made.

 

[BoatShow]

How about the roughing the passer against Frank? He hit the QBs arm while he was throwing the ball which caused it to flutter. Was the call that he was too rough in the follow through?

This play blew my mind

 

[gars44]

It's a live ball the moment it's kicked. (On-sides). The kicking team can recover on e it has travelled 10 yards. The receiving team can recover at any point. In order for it to be as safety they have to establish possession outside the endzone and then get tackled in the endzone. If he didn't recover that ball and UConn did it would have been a touchdown. That play isn't dead until he takes a knee or gets tackled. We've seen this happen to UConn before. Everyone ripped into edsall for not teaching Frey the rules.

I am about 90% certain of all of that. What I'm not sure about is if the ball enters the endzone untouched. If the ball goes into the endzone without being touched I think I have seen refs immediately call the touchback.

Right. There was no possession in the field of play. So, even though he tried to run it out, and get's tackled in the end zone, its still a touchback. It's a live ball, but it wasn't a fumble, so if it gets recovered in the endzone by the receiving team, and he gets tackled in the endzone, then its a touchback. He can take a knee, run around with it, but if he doesn't make it out into the field of play, either way, its a TB. If it goes into the endzone untouched, it's live. Someone has to get on it. If the kicking team gets it, its a TD.

 

[gars44]

the officials were unbiasedly awful. Both teams got screwed with some suspect calls. As for Frank's roughing the passer, I remember hearing the ref say it was due to contact to the back of the helmet when he called the penalty.

What I disagree with re: the no-safety ruling is why does the ball get spotted at the 25 for a touch back? I know the rule is it goes to the 25, but would make more sense that the rule require them to at least place the ball where contact was initially made. This way it doesn't penalize them for not possessing, but does recognize they attempted to receive the ball in the field of play and spots the ball where contact was made.

Contact was not possession. And therefore, no fumble. Too much subjectivity as to what they "attempted." The rule is black/white. Covered in endzone by receiving team = TB. 25 yard line.

 

[uconnric]

And it was the head referee who originally called the safety! Let's face it, nobody including the players, the announcers , or the officials understand the touchback rule.

The only thing I can think of is that it was a live ball but once it was recovered by the receiving team in the end zone it couldn't be advanced, resulting in a touchback.

 

[businesslawyer]

Contact was not possession. And therefore, no fumble. Too much subjectivity as to what they "attempted." The rule is black/white. Covered in endzone by receiving team = TB. 25 yard line.

See, I still don't get the call. Did someone say the KR wasn't trying to advance the ball out of the end zone when he was tackled? That's absurd. There was no whistle, he panicked and he was trying to advance the ball when tackled. Someone told me that unless you broke the plane of the goalline, if you are tackled returning a ball that the other team propelled into the endzone, it is a TB no matter what the returner is trying to do. That explanation is consistent with what happened, but I could have sworn the rule was if you are tackled while trying to make a play from your endzone it's a safety.

 

[gars44]

See, I still don't get the call. Did someone say the KR wasn't trying to advance the ball out of the end zone when he was tackled? That's absurd. There was no whistle, he panicked and he was trying to advance the ball when tackled. Someone told me that unless you broke the plane of the goalline, if you are tackled returning a ball that the other team propelled into the endzone, it is a TB no matter what the returner is trying to do. That explanation is consistent with what happened, but I could have sworn the rule was if you are tackled while trying to make a play from your endzone it's a safety.

You're right, it's counter-intuitive. He was trying to advance the ball. But since he never made it out, and since it was the offensive momentum that put the ball in the endzone, it stays a TB. He could have fumbled it out of the endzone out of bounds, taken a knee, kicked it out the back, whatever. Never got onto the field. Now, if he caught the ball on the 1, and then retreated into the endzone, that's a different story. Now he has to come out. But that's not what happened. He had to cover the ball or it would have been a TD if we got it.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Kickoff is a live ball kick. As soon as it goes past 10 yards, either team can recover it Neither team has possession of the ball after it's been kicked - until one of the two teams establishes possession, or the ball goes out of bounds. Therefore the ball can go out the back of the endzone, without either team establishing possession, and the receiving team not charged a safety. If the kick goes out the sidelines without possession established, a flag is thrown. The receiving team can establish possession in the field of play, in which case the rules of teh game engage - or establish possession in the endzone, and take a knee or be tackled in the endzone, for a touchback. If the receiving team establishes possession in the endzone and advances out of the endzone, rules of the game in the field engage.

The kicking, team, can establish possession of the ball, in the field of play and run it in for a TD, or establish possession in the endzone for an automatic TD.

UCF player probably panicked after touching the ball, and instead of just falling on it in the endzone, tried to run it out - luckily for UCF he didn't, otherwise they would have had the ball where he would have been tackled instead of the 20.

Safety was the wrong call. Officiating yesterday was suspect, all around. ALmost like they didn't want to be out there because of the weather or something.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You're right, it's counter-intuitive. He was trying to advance the ball. But since he never made it out, and since it was the offensive momentum that put the ball in the endzone, it stays a TB. He could have fumbled it out of the endzone out of bounds, taken a knee, kicked it out the back, whatever. Never got onto the field. Now, if he caught the ball on the 1, and then retreated into the endzone, that's a different story. Now he has to come out. But that's not what happened. He had to cover the ball or it would have been a TD if we got it.

A fumble out of bounds, is an interesting scenario - I'm pretty sure in that case it would be a safety, because possession would have to be established. But that would be an odd situation, because the receiving player would have to catch the ball in the endzone, and try to advance it, and then lose it out of bounds? I don't think I've ever seen that happen.

 

[Carl Spackler]

A fumble out of bounds, is an interesting scenario - I'm pretty sure in that case it would be a safety, because possession would have to be established. But that would be an odd situation, because the receiving player would have to catch the ball in the endzone, and try to advance it, and then lose it out of bounds? I don't think I've ever seen that happen.

Nope - Gars is correct, a fumble out of bounds is still a touchback - the only way you get a safety there, is if the ball is advanced out of the endzone, and hten either tackled or fumbled out of bounds back in the endzone.

 

[businesslawyer]

o.k. That makes sense. I thought the rule was otherwise (I cold swear that years ago the rule was otherwise) but at least that makes sense.

 

[SAMCRO]

Contact was not possession. And therefore, no fumble. Too much subjectivity as to what they "attempted." The rule is black/white. Covered in endzone by receiving team = TB. 25 yard line.

I understand the rule, and understand it's not a fumble or a safety, just stating my opinion that the rule should be changed to place the ball where contact was made, that's all. But alas, my opinion doesn't mean jack in regards to the CFB rule book.

 

[ZooCougar]

On the kickoff, that rule needs revising. I don't care how the ball gets there. If you try to get it out, then you ought to concede the touchback, and if you get tackled in the end zone then it should be safety.

The way the rule is written now, the receiving team has very low risk in attempting to run the ball out.

 

[gars44]

I understand the rule, and understand it's not a fumble or a safety, just stating my opinion that the rule should be changed to place the ball where contact was made, that's all. But alas, my opinion doesn't mean jack in regards to the CFB rule book.

true dat!