No way the ref can make that call at that point in the game. To make a game-changing call, the infraction needs to be obvious. You could make that same call on every play. Officials were way too involved in this game.
Final hands to the face penalty was terrible call
- Thread starter Boogs
- Start date
You're being way to kind , the officials were [poop]. They destroyed the flow of the game. How many plays were reviewed ??? Awful
They made some horrible calls for sure. Our dbacks got torched, but on one big play there was a clear push off, right in front of the ref, and he didn't call it. It was a big play.
Hold/pass interference no call on Washington play.
Pretty simple. I took the crew meeting to go something like this .. " shit, did you guys see the jumbo , I thought he waved for a fair catch. Dammit Bob, now we have to make up offsetting penalties to cover our asses"
Once the return man waves his hands he can not return the ball. Or something like that, as explained by the rules guy who beamed in. so it was not a fair catch rule.
That's not correct. Once a fair catch signal or any hand signal is made by the returner, in this case his weak wave of his arms together to wave players away, it is a dead ball as soon as it is in possession by either team. The ball bouncing means nothing. No player on the receiving team can advance the ball once the returner makes the motions with his hands.
I watched the replay and from where the official was it looked like he made the right call, however from the front view it wasn't a real strong signal by Grant that they called it. Blowing the play dead was correct and should have been a dead ball delay of game on RU but since there were offsetting live ball fouls on the play the dead ball foul following the play is not enforced. The call was right if you consider what Grant did as hand motion to get players(from his own team) to get away. Somewhat like yelling to get away from the ball.
Agree. That was an unbelievable miss on the ref's part. The EMU defender looked like he was almost ripping Washington's jersey with the handful of it he had, and it appeared as if he wasn't held, Washington would have been in position to make the catch, maybe even to score.
Not that the game should have come down to that, of course, but if that had resulted in a TD, it certainly would have been a big plus to an offense that essentially sputtered all day long otherwise.
They were horrible both ways. Both late hits on Bolin in the 1Q and near the end of the game were horrible calls, as was the hands-to-the-face call on Miller at the end and the whistled dead punt return.
Awful officiating, without question a couple could have helped us that weren't called, but we killed ourselves penalty – wise and otherwise.
Disagree. Unless on the 2nd one you mean the guy should have been hit with a targeting call. Guy straight up head butted him.
They don't have to do that. That just announce an inadvertent whistle and spot the ball where Grant fielded it and it's 1st down RU. They wouldn't go through all of the other stuff.
The official didn't have to watch a replay for 20 minutes to determine if there was targeting on another punt return either.
Don't blame the on field guys for that. They have zero control of any of that once the "booth" takes it for review. The ref watches and explains what they called and why but the man upstairs is who takes the time to make the call. It's out of the on field guys hands.
Wow, what an odd set of circumstances. I just looked through the rulebook and in that scenario he would have lost both his fair catch and interference protection when the ball touched the ground but he'd have to have possession of the ball for it to be dead where he first makes contact with it. In other words, they could have blown him up as he caught it or tried to touch it themselves if they did it before the whistle got blown. That's probably why there was such urgency to blow it dead right and he caught it.
That's all assuming he actually made a valid fair catch sign though. A valid signal is defined as "a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signalled his intention by extending one hand only clearly above his head and waving the hand from side to side of his body more than once."
I definitely didn't see that from where I was sitting and the poison sign they've always used had never been misconstrued as a fair catch wave before. I definitely need to watch this again though because I don't think anybody in the stadium knew what the hell was going on at that point.
Still doesn't excuse the rest of that game but it was one of many perplexing moments involving the refs.
Don't confuse the call as a fair catch violation. That wouldn't have been the call because he didn't call for one. However, what he did do is wave his arms together in a sign that is common for " get away". It was a very weak wave but when you watch the replay from behind the returner which is the view the Back Judge has it looks like a bigger wave than it was. The Back Judges only job on a return with an 8 man crew is to watch for the fair catch or any "surrender" signal. He will always side on the side of caution to protect the returner. There doesn't have to be a fair catch to have a dead ball when the returner catches it. It can be a wave like Grant did or even verbally if the official hears the returner yelling to players to get away. Each team has a code word to get away and the official are told that word before the games now. The rule is there so that a returned can't wave his arms to get away and then catch or pick up the ball and return it while the other teas players are relaxing because they think the play is surrendered. It's a good rule. Yes, you are correct that they could have hit the returner as soon as he touched the ball after the surrender signal and it is live if the ball comes loose.
Ya, when the guy explained it, I realized it is a good rule, and it was a good call. Grant definitely waived his arms.
I found the bottom line scroll interesting. USF was #2 in the BCS standings and BC was #3. Northwestern was leading EMU 13-7 as well.
You seem pretty familiar with the standard procedure. Do you know off hand where that is actually laid out in the rules? I don't doubt you're correct, I'm just genuinely curious under what circumstances they could blow it dead for a wave he made yet not penalize him when he took far more than the allowed two steps after an invalid signal.
They blow it dead because of the "surrender" wave. The reason they didn't call a delay of game penalty on RU for him running is because you never get that far in the progression of penalty enforcement. The delay of game penalty for running is a dead ball foul following the play. 2 live ball fouls occurred during the play, one on each team, therefor making it an offset penalty situation so with that you never get to the dead ball foul following the play because the play doesn't count and technically didn't even occur so therefor there can't be a dead ball foul following a play that didn't occur. Now if it had been an unsportsmanlike after the whistle it would have been enforced from the original LOS and will make it 4th and longer or 1st down for the offensive team. They are a different violation.
Edit: It's in the officials rule book you get if you are going to officiate. It isn't available without membership. You can get the "short" version online for nothing but not all the sub rules and the situational rule application.
Last edited:
I think I must be too tired at the moment because although that seems logical, I can't seem to find any mention of the surrender wave bit in the rulebook.
Regardless, the refs are the least of this teams' problems right now...
I'm using the term "surrender" wave, not in the book. Ha. Just easier than using something of the nature of "when player A applies a motion, other than a legal fair catch signal that would signal to have players on Player A's team to get away from the ball or that could make Player B think the play may be ended or intended to deceive Player B into forgoing pursuit of Player A or any member of Player A's team, then the ball shall become dead when controlled by a member of Player A's team or Player A or is touched by a player on Player B's team." I will continue to use "surrender" signal. Ha
The refs were a disgrace, that's true, but it is all academic. We would have definitely missed the field goal (come on, you know that). Besides, what's the difference between scratching out a win at home in OR against a community college or losing the game? 2017 is a season to try to get better, and regardless of whether they won or lost yesterday, the team definitely did not get better.
If the officials blew the play dead correctly then the added penalty against Rutgers for delay of game would have been announced after they concluded their slow motion circle jerk. The fact is they did not. Therefore the officials essentially admitted it was an inadvertent whistle. The offsetting penalties was nothing more than a coverup as stated above.
Unfortunately I think I agree with this assessment barring any other actual citations from the 2017 rules. It should have been a delay of game penalty against grant for running halfway to the endzone after a dead ball or the play should have continued. Seems like a clear cut inadvertant whistle given how things played out.
I'm not sure the OP is right. The referees had been calling hands-to-the face against the offensive line all afternoon. (I think there were calls for this against EMU as well as against us.) Our OL really should have adjusted to that, just as a hitter in baseball adjusts to an umpire with a wide strike zone.
Yep, that year there were a few weeks in a row where whoever was #2 lost. In that video, the bottom line lists USF as #2 in the BCS rankings, but it was already known that they wouldn't be that high when the next rankings came out because they had already played the night before and were beaten by Rutgers. Those were the days.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting COACHSPEAK: Eastern Guilford Asst. Coach Darian Simms talks Steven Murray- Latest: William J. Leggett
-
-
