Should the refs be reviewed by the NCAA and the Big Ten?

[gopherdudepart2]

" 60's Guy: The punt play for a touch-back or safety. So many rules in sports are about intent. How can a guy possess the ball in the end zone, run multiple steps in an effort to clearly return it out of the end zone and be rewarded for a dumb decision getting an exemption for poor judgement? And the ball goes to the 20 versus being a safety? That's convoluted. If he falls on it to prevent the Gophers from recovering for it a touchdown...now I get it's a touch-back. But no matter what if you clearly try to run it out of the end zone that should be a safety."
In high school once it crosses the plane of the goal line it is a touch back unless it is fumbled with possession.

This is the part I don't get about the college rule you muff the punt, in any other part of the field and touch it even if it just hit's you it is a live ball unless there is a clear recovery at some point in the field of play or the ball get's knocked out of bounds without possession. The ball hits the receiving team near the goal line and if a player touched it, doesn't matter if they just touched it, if it crosses the goal line it is a touch-back in the college game? I don't like the rule. To me that is a live football until the receiving team recovers it in the end zone with possession then it is a touch back if they give themselves up by kneeling down, because the player either knelt it down or declared himself down. Play should be dead then, and no advancement allowed. There should be no automatic whistling of a touch back as a muff and this force of the kick thing, I can see why no safety was awarded, and none should have been,
but I don't like it being called a touch back just because it crosses the goal line without possession.
To me that is a live ball until anyone recovers it in the field of play which the end zone is part of and the kicking team should still have a shot at it. He never had possession outside the end-zone that is why it cannot be a safety, but once the recovery is had by the receiving team play should be whistled or signaled dead without a need for any kind of tackling or further interpretation and no attempt to advance the ball should be made.

 

[justthefacts]

" 60's Guy: The punt play for a touch-back or safety. So many rules in sports are about intent. How can a guy possess the ball in the end zone, run multiple steps in an effort to clearly return it out of the end zone and be rewarded for a dumb decision getting an exemption for poor judgement? And the ball goes to the 20 versus being a safety? That's convoluted. If he falls on it to prevent the Gophers from recovering for it a touchdown...now I get it's a touch-back. But no matter what if you clearly try to run it out of the end zone that should be a safety."
In high school once it crosses the plane of the goal line it is a touch back unless it is fumbled with possession.

This is the part I don't get about the college rule you muff the punt, in any other part of the field and touch it even if it just hit's you it is a live ball unless there is a clear recovery at some point in the field of play or the ball get's knocked out of bounds without possession. The ball hits the receiving team near the goal line and if a player touched it, doesn't matter if they just touched it, if it crosses the goal line it is a touch-back in the college game? I don't like the rule. To me that is a live football until the receiving team recovers it in the end zone with possession then it is a touch back if they give themselves up by kneeling down, because he either nealt it down or declared himself down. Play should be dead than, and no advancement allowed. There should be no automatic whistling of a touch back, I can see why no safety was awarded but I don't like it being called a touch back just because it crosses the goal line without possession.

Are you guys both serious football fans? 60s Guy, if you were alive in the 60s and are a serious football fan, you would have seen guys initiate a return and end up being tackled or stop in the end zone literally dozens of times. Can you honestly say that in all of those cases you thought they should have been called a safety?

Gopherdude, you've probably not seen the ball hit a guy and then go into the end zone dozens of times, but you've likely seen it several. Can you honestly say that in all of those occasions you thought the rule should be changed? You go on to say "I don't like it being called a touch back just because it crosses the goal line without possession" when in fact you've likely seen a ball hit the end zone on a punt hundreds of times and never thought anything of it.

These may not be obvious rules, but they're also not new. You're not complaining about these rules because of how you think the game should work, you're complaining about them because they negatively affected your team. And in the case of Gopherdude's complaint, it only barely affected the Gophers because Peppers *did* recover it.

 

[Catechol]

The rule:

Team A punts. The ball is touched by Team B (no impetus added) and
crosses Team B’s goal line. Then Team B falls on the ball or the ball
goes out of bounds from the end zone. RULING: Touchback. The same
ruling applies if a kick in flight strikes Team B or merely is deflected
by an attempted catch. Team B may recover and advance, and it is a
touchback if a Team B player is downed in the end zone or goes out of
bounds behind the goal line (Rule 8-6-1-a).

Best explanation of that play. Also, rule 6-5-1: "There is no rule against a receiver going out of bounds during a kick."

Finally, I was wondering about the kick catch interference PF called on Michigan. I thought it was odd that one guy signaled fair catch, then the other guy signaled fair catch at the last second and attracted the foul. That was an incorrect flag:

"B1 catches the punt after B3 signals for a fair catch. RULING: The ball is dead when and where caught. B1 is not entitled to catch protection but is entitled to the same protection he has after any other dead ball (Rule 6-5-1-d)" Since he muffed it the ball was not dead and could still be recovered.

 

[EG#9]

I didn't think the officiating had much of an effect on the game. That said, the roughing on Leidner was disappointing flag pick up. The defender brought him to the ground, then rolled Leidner over and slammed him in to the ground. It was a very borderline roughing call, but one of the refs made the call. It's one of those spots where you certainly don't complain if there is no flag, but when the flag is thrown and then picked up it's tough to take.

The alleged PI on Brooks and the alleged PI on Wolitarsky both looked fine to me at game speed. I know there are some frame by frame picks that show Peppers arriving early against Wolitarsky, but live it looked like a hell of a play and the TV announcers praised him after several slower motion replays as well. The Brooks one was hurt by his own body language in how he attacked (or whether faded away towards the sideline) an inaccurate ball. That would have been a bail out PI in my view.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Best explanation of that play. Also, rule 6-5-1: "There is no rule against a receiver going out of bounds during a kick."

Finally, I was wondering about the kick catch interference PF called on Michigan. I thought it was odd that one guy signaled fair catch, then the other guy signaled fair catch at the last second and attracted the foul. That was an incorrect flag:

"B1 catches the punt after B3 signals for a fair catch. RULING: The ball is dead when and where caught. B1 is not entitled to catch protection but is entitled to the same protection he has after any other dead ball (Rule 6-5-1-d)" Since he muffed it the ball was not dead and could still be recovered.

Kick protection is different than kick catch interference. The refs got it right. The defender interfered with his right to catch the ball, area between both arms extended directly in front of receiver. Had he caught the ball and then been tackled, then they may have ignored the second fair catch signal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Pompous Elitist]

U

I didn't think the officiating had much of an effect on the game. That said, the roughing on Leidner was disappointing flag pick up. The defender brought him to the ground, then rolled Leidner over and slammed him in to the ground. It was a very borderline roughing call, but one of the refs made the call. It's one of those spots where you certainly don't complain if there is no flag, but when the flag is thrown and then picked up it's tough to take.

The alleged PI on Brooks and the alleged PI on Wolitarsky both looked fine to me at game speed. I know there are some frame by frame picks that show Peppers arriving early against Wolitarsky, but live it looked like a hell of a play and the TV announcers praised him after several slower motion replays as well. The Brooks one was hurt by his own body language in how he attacked (or whether faded away towards the sideline) an inaccurate ball. That would have been a bail out PI in my view.

The official closest to the play, the one that saw Leidner twisted up by the defender was overruled. It is what is.

#5 grabbed Wolis right arm on the first third down non-call. Visible from the cheap seats.

#5 grabbed the face mask as the ball was arriving and going through his back. If you want to argue the contact was incidental ok.

Brooks was clearly forced out of bounds and away from the ball by the defender. Again, pretty obvious contact was made without turning the head.

The scrimmage kick rule in regards to the endzone is one of those bizarre football rules. If he touches it incidentally outside the endzone and we recover it's a TD. If he touches it and he recovers or it goes out of the end zone it's a touchback despite an attempt to advance the ball. It is what it is.

 

[monk10]

I wonder if the number of people entering in the rule of refereeing is worst then the 70% decrease in kids playing youth sports past age 13. Who wants to work at a job where someone who doesn't understand the rules of the game constantly screams at them that "they are wrong". There is no way people are paid enough to work through the ranks when you get comments like "all refs are horrible".

 

[MNVCGUY]

I wonder if the number of people entering in the rule of refereeing is worst then the 70% decrease in kids playing youth sports past age 13. Who wants to work at a job where someone who doesn't understand the rules of the game constantly screams at them that "they are wrong". There is no way people are paid enough to work through the ranks when you get comments like "all refs are horrible".

Not to take this all in a totally different direction but I work with a local youth sports association and it is becoming a massive problem across the state to find people that want to be officials for most sports because it simply isn't worth being verbally and even sometimes physically abused by idiot parents, coaches, and fans.

 

[t-docious]

finally watching the game. Definitely a double standard when it comes to pass interference. Hell of an acting job by peppers on Pocks interception. I just think Michigan did a better job of diving and making it look worse.

 

[GophersInIowa]

finally watching the game. Definitely a double standard when it comes to pass interference. Hell of an acting job by peppers on Pocks interception. I just think Michigan did a better job of diving and making it look worse.

I somewhat agree. If Brooks sells the PI a little more he probably gets the call. With that said, it shouldn't have taken him acting to get that call. Was pretty obvious.