Now I'm confused....fair catch rule.

Donate To GopherHole
2

#2Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
9,240
Reaction score
3,106
Points
113
Watching the Purdue Wisconsin game. Wisconsin player fields a kick on the bounce. Stands there. Whistle blows. Shouldn't they have tackled him? Whats the difference between our game and this situation?
 

#2Gopher said:
Watching the Purdue Wisconsin game. Wisconsin player fields a kick on the bounce. Stands there. Whistle blows. Shouldn't they have tackled him? Whats the difference between our game and this situation?
Click to expand...
No.
The Wisconsin game was officiated correctly.

Northwestern should’ve been penalized for tackling the returner
 

I would think Fleck would address this with someone then. Pretty simply obvious situation.
 






Some guy said:
He was arguing with the ref after the play. Would be curious to get the refs explanation
Click to expand...

I think the ref was saying the ball bounced prior to the fair catch signal; voiding voiding fair catch rights.
 




LesBolstad said:
I think the ref was saying the ball bounced prior to the fair catch signal; voiding voiding fair catch rights.
Click to expand...
The ball bouncing doesn’t cancel a fair catch signal

If the ref said that the ref should be fired for not knowing the rules
 

Then they screwed up in the Wisconsin game. For that matter someone screwed up in one of the two games.
 

Fair Catch
ARTICLE 1. a. A fair catch of a scrimmage kick is a catch beyond the neutral
zone by a Team B player who has made a valid signal during a scrimmage kick
that is untouched beyond the neutral zone.
b. A fair catch of a free kick is a catch by a Team B player who has made a
valid signal during an untouched free kick.
c. A valid or invalid fair catch signal deprives the receiving team of the
opportunity to advance the ball. The ball is declared dead at the spot of
the catch or recovery. If the catch preceeds the signal, the ball is dead when
the signal is first given.
d. If the receiver shades his eyes from the sun without waving his hand(s), the
ball is live and may be advanced.
Valid Signal
ARTICLE 2. A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has
obviously signaled his intention by extending one hand only clearly above his
head and waving that hand from side to side of his body more than once.
Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3. An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B:
a. That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above); or
b. That is given after a scrimmage kick is caught beyond the neutral zone,
strikes the ground or touches another player beyond the neutral zone (A.R.
6-5-3-III-V); or
c. That is given after a free kick is caught, strikes the ground or touches
another player. [Exception: Rule 6-4-1-f
Click to expand...
It's not a fair catch if you call for it after the ball hits the ground. It is a fair catch if you call it and then it hits the ground.
 

#2Gopher said:
Then they screwed up in the Wisconsin game. For that matter someone screwed up in one of the two games.
Click to expand...
They did not screw up in the Wisconsin game, they screwed up in the Minnesota game.
Northwestern should’ve been given a 15 yard penalty.

It’s possible the ref didn’t blow the whistle immediately and the Ref didn’t penalize the northwestern guy because the ref realized he screwed up by not blowing the whistle
 



It looked to me like he called poison - waving both arms in front of himself - rather than waving one arm above his head as would be done in a fair catch. You can catch the ball after calling poison, but cannot advance it. As such, I’d assume you cannot be tackled - I was surprised there was no flag.
 

VACTERL said:
It looked to me like he called poison - waving both arms in front of himself - rather than waving one arm above his head as would be done in a fair catch. You can catch the ball after calling poison, but cannot advance it. As such, I’d assume you cannot be tackled - I was surprised there was no flag.
Click to expand...
In college football that qualifies as a fair catch signal
 

Ahhh. Definitely shoulda been a penalty.
 

Did they not talk about this on the broadcast? At the game the ref said it was an invalid fair catch signal, so the tackle was legal. It did like he was just waving his arms for people to get away from the punt.
 

On the radio they seemed to feel like the refs made the right call, for whatever that's worth.
 

Poison waving of hands is not a valid fair catch. However you cannot advance the ball. The refs got it right and explained it properly. There should not have been any penalty on Northwestern because the fair catch was not valid.
 

Some guy said:
They did not screw up in the Wisconsin game, they screwed up in the Minnesota game.
Northwestern should’ve been given a 15 yard penalty.

It’s possible the ref didn’t blow the whistle immediately and the Ref didn’t penalize the northwestern guy because the ref realized he screwed up by not blowing the whistle
Click to expand...

MaxyJR1 said:
Poison waving of hands is not a valid fair catch. However you cannot advance the ball. The refs got it right and explained it properly. There should not have been any penalty on Northwestern because the fair catch was not valid.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 

GoGophersUMN said:
It's not a fair catch if you call for it after the ball hits the ground. It is a fair catch if you call it and then it hits the ground.
Click to expand...

ARTICLE 3. An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B:
a. That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above); or
b. That is given after a scrimmage kick is caught beyond the neutral zone,
strikes the ground or touches another player beyond the neutral zone (A.R.
6-5-3-III-V); or
c. That is given after a free kick is caught, strikes the ground or touches
another player. [Exception: Rule 6-4-1-f

This part does mention the ball striking the ground, but only in relation to a fair catch signal made after it touches the ground. Maybe the fair catch is off after the ball touches the ground, but this doesn't look like it states it.
 

I looked it up. Calling poison (the "get away" signal as they call it in the rulebook) qualifies as an invalid fair catch signal. Ball should be dead once FIELDED/RECOVERED (originally I wrote "TOUCHED") by either team. As such, any hit should be a penalty. The refs screwed up by either not blowing the play dead once Douglas fielded it (wherein I would not fault the tackler); OR if they DID blow it dead, by not flagging the tackler for a late hit.
 
Last edited:

The ref in the stadium explained the returner making an "in bounds" signal. Whatever that means.

It seemed outrageous at the time and still does.
 

VACTERL said:
I looked it up. Calling poison (the "get away" signal as they call it in the rulebook) qualifies as an invalid fair catch signal. Ball should be dead once touched by either team. As such, any hit should be a penalty. The refs screwed up by either not blowing the play dead once Douglas fielded it (wherein I would not fault the tackler); OR if they DID blow it dead, by not flagging the tackler for a late hit.
Click to expand...
This is correct
 

What I don't really get though, is what's the difference between a valid and invalid signal if the result is the same? If you try and advance the ball after an invalid signal you get flagged for a delay of game and any tackler is free to hit as below:

"Punt receiver B22 gives an invalid fair catch signal by a brief flick of his upraised hand. He catches the ball at the B-35 and sprints to the B-40 where he is tackled. RULING: The ball is dead where caught. Foul for delay of game by B22; five-yard penalty from the dead-ball spot. No foul by the tackler, as clearly B22 gave the appearance of being a ball carrier. First and 10 for Team B at the B-30."

I guess if Douglas did that, and my memory fails me here, then everything is copacetic. In that case refs would have gotten it right EXCEPT that Douglas didn't get the 5 yard delay of game...
 

VACTERL said:
What I don't really get though, is what's the difference between a valid and invalid signal if the result is the same? If you try and advance the ball after an invalid signal you get flagged for a delay of game and any tackler is free to hit as below:

"Punt receiver B22 gives an invalid fair catch signal by a brief flick of his upraised hand. He catches the ball at the B-35 and sprints to the B-40 where he is tackled. RULING: The ball is dead where caught. Foul for delay of game by B22; five-yard penalty from the dead-ball spot. No foul by the tackler, as clearly B22 gave the appearance of being a ball carrier. First and 10 for Team B at the B-30."

I guess if Douglas did that, and my memory fails me here, then everything is copacetic. In that case refs would have gotten it right EXCEPT that Douglas didn't get the 5 yard delay of game...
Click to expand...
But Douglas wasn't trying to advance it. He just ran up to it and wanted to prevent it from rolling more, so no delay of game penalty.
 

In a game that was never very close, against a team that probably gives up if you keep the pressure on, our special teams did everything they could to offset how well were playing offense and defense. Maybe it's after the season, but our special teams coach needs to be shown the door.

The almost fair catch was I think the fourth error, starting with not fair catching a punt that resulted us being pinned and giving up a safety, then a muffed punt that was recovered by us and a fumble on a return recovered by us.

When i watch this team the two things you can count on are for the offense to convert almost every third down and special teams to mishandle almost every kick.
 

LakerFan said:
In a game that was never very close, against a team that probably gives up if you keep the pressure on, our special teams did everything they could to offset how well were playing offense and defense. Maybe it's after the season, but our special teams coach needs to be shown the door.

The almost fair catch was I think the fourth error, starting with not fair catching a punt that resulted us being pinned and giving up a safety, then a muffed punt that was recovered by us and a fumble on a return recovered by us.

When i watch this team the two things you can count on are for the offense to convert almost every third down and special teams to mishandle almost every kick.
Click to expand...

I get the sense Northwestern was purposely trying to kick low duck/pooch punts to take advantage of this. Same thing a few times in the Iowa game.
 

VACTERL said:
It looked to me like he called poison - waving both arms in front of himself - rather than waving one arm above his head as would be done in a fair catch. You can catch the ball after calling poison, but cannot advance it. As such, I’d assume you cannot be tackled - I was surprised there was no flag.
Click to expand...
Got it right this time.
 

VACTERL said:
I looked it up. Calling poison (the "get away" signal as they call it in the rulebook) qualifies as an invalid fair catch signal. Ball should be dead once FIELDED/RECOVERED (originally I wrote "TOUCHED") by either team. As such, any hit should be a penalty. The refs screwed up by either not blowing the play dead once Douglas fielded it (wherein I would not fault the tackler); OR if they DID blow it dead, by not flagging the tackler for a late hit.
Click to expand...
Ooops. Meant to quote this one.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom