The Pigskin
Page
2014 Season Clips (6)
TECHNICAL NOTE: For those not aware, when viewing these videos in the You Tube window, you can adjust the resolution for a sharper view. Notice in the lower right hand corner of the video player window a setting icon that looks like a gear. Click on that and you can adjust the setting up to 360p, 480p or even 720p in some cases. This will give you a sharper image.
Send your clip or play suggestions to videos@romgilbert.us.
The video page will continue bringing you clips which are good learning material as we all work together to understand and enforce the sometimes complicated NCAA football rules. The videos are not meant to demean or belittle any official. They are used so that ALL officials can learn from the situations and issues other officials encounter in their games. No official has ever completed a career error-free. But by sharing our errors with others we help them avoid the same pitfalls. NCAA football officials at all levels exhibit incredible rule knowledge week in and week out. We can always get better and this page hopes to serve in that effort.
The last poll play looked at contact on a punter. There seems to be great inconsistency on the field with regard to what is a foul and if it is running into or roughing. Our clipped play substantiated that. 51% of the crew said no foul, 28% said running into the kicker, and 21% said roughing the kicker.
"Hands to the Face" by the Ball Carrier
We report, You decide. In recent years, a phrase has crept into our vocabulary that announces a foul that is not even in our rulebook and uses a signal that is also not in our rulebook. Just what is "hands to the face"? Our rules (9-1-2-a) prevent all players (including ball carriers), from striking an opponent's helmet, facemask, neck, face or any other body part with an extended forearm, elbow, locked hands, palm, fist, or the heel back, or side of the open hand. We also have a rule that prevents continuous helmet contact of an opponent's helmet, facemask, or neck with hand(s) or arm(s). But that rule excepts out the runner so this action by or against him is NOT a foul. There is no rule we are aware of that specifically covers continuous contact to an opponent's FACE. The video clipped above has been reviewed by the Rules Editor and he judged the call to be correct. Did the ball carrier's palm strike the facemask, helmet, or face? The present rules do not address whether the runner can continuously contact a defender's face and whether a defensive player can continuously contact the runner's face. Possibly, the Rules Editor has made an interpretation to prohibit continuous contact with the face (not the facemask) by any player without exception. If this interpretation has been issued via bulletin or quiz, we missed it. If certain contact is now prohibited, how do officials know when too much is TOO MUCH? No player shall continuously contact an opponent’s helmet (including the face mask) or neck with hand(s) or arm(s) (Exception: By or against the runner). If we can see the defender’s head being pushed backwards, is that the boundary. But in this play it appears the head is going back because the defender is continuing his attempt to grab the runner, not because the runner is exerting any more force than he would on a normal stiff arm. How would you rule on this play? Please view this play video and take the poll. (Please remember to scroll down and click on the DONE button after making your choice.)
When Team A possess a kick that has crossed the neutral zone, the ball becomes dead immediately (4-1-3-e). Despite the announcer's cries otherwise, the ball was dead when it was recovered inside the 1-yard line. It does not matter if the player subsequently carries the ball into the end zone, or even if he loses possession. The ball was already dead.
This play is another punt to the goal line. It is critical to know where Team A batted the kicked ball. If the ball had broken the plane of the goal line before the batting, then it could qualify as a touchback. The covering officials would drop a bean bag in the end zone and continue to officiate. This clip may show the perspective distortion when looking at something though a camera lens and looking with the human eye. From the camera perspective, the ball appears to e clearly batted before it breaks the goal line plane. But the covering officials judged that not to be the case and they had a perfect look down the line with no obstacles hindering their view. Since they judged the ball DID break the plane, team B was awarded a touchback instead of taking the ball at the B-1 where it eventually became dead when Team A recovered the ball. The announcer was incorrect when he claimed the call was not made by the B but rather it was made by the F. The B clearly dropped a bean bag in the EZ which meant he was ruling the ball was touched after breaking the plane of the goal line.
As more and more teams try to run more and more plays each game by hurrying to the line as soon as the ball is dead so they can start the next play, more defenses are devising more ways to counteract this. Team A makes it easier on team B when they substitute because by doing so, they put the crew in the position of delaying the snap if Team B attempts to match up in response to the substitution. The crew in this play recognized Team A subbed and allowed Team B to sub. Team B started the sub process within 3 seconds and moved in one big ole defensive nose guard for another big ole defensive nose guard. That is an interesting response because those fellas can only move so fast you know! Apparently the officials allowed Team A to proceed too late in the play clock count for Team A so a timeout was called by A.
Invalid Fair Catch Signaller Blocking
In recent years, the rules were changed to make any signal by Team B during a kick, even the "get away signal", an invalid fair catch signal if it did not meet the requirements of a valid fair catch signal. The rules had long prevented a player who made a valid OR invalid fair catch signal from blocking or fouling an opponent if the signaller did not actually touch the kick (6-5-4). Does that rule also apply to the player who makes the "getaway signal"? Observe B81 in this video. Did he make the "getaway signal"? If he had recovered the ball, would the crew have let him advance? Perhaps they did not flag him as his action really had no impact on the final result of the play? Was it a foul?
When the rulemakers loosened up the chop block rule to remove situations where the blocker's opponent may have initiated the contact they created an opportunity for "creative" coaches and players to devise ways to block while making it appear they were not actually blocking. Observe A67 who appears to be trying to block without obviously blocking. His teammate is already engaged low so when he gives the "nonchalant" shoulder high "nudge", he is fouling and creating a chop block situation which was correctly flagged. Great job by the referee to announce both player's numbers. Chop blocking is a 2-person foul and as the Rules Editor has said time and time again, crews must announce both fouling player numbers.
Form tackling may be coming back into the game!! This video will likely be shown to athletes around the nation as a "how to" video.