Bobref

Wasn’t trying to change anyone’s mind. Seemed to me like something you’d be interested in based on previous posts. Sure the foul wasn’t at the point of attack, and it was simply a “late” flag? 🤣😂😀

“Hurdling is an attempt by a player to jump (hurdle) with one or both feet or knees foremost over an opponent who is contacting the ground with no part of his body except one or both feet.” By the letter of the rule, the opponent must be in contact with the ground for a hurdling foul.

Go to the Officiating Forum. There’s a recent post that you might find illuminating on the subject of holding fouls.

I’d have to see it to be sure, but the mental picture I have based on your description is absolutely illegal. The snap must be a smooth continuous action in which the ball leaves the snapper’s hands immediately. If the snapper is holding the ball on his butt for the FB to take it, then the ball is not leaving his hands immediately. Illegal snap. 5 yd. dead ball foul.

Seen it before. Will probably see it again. That’s football.

This crew? Without a doubt. They are used to working big games. This was nothing out of the ordinary for them.

I happen to know the Referee on that game. That crew is a multiple state championship crew, widely acknowledged to be among the best in the state. You’ll probably see them in the Oil Can on Thanksgiving weekend. Until proven otherwise, I’m satisfied to go with their judgment.

OK, I looked at it. The sideline view is damning. It’s unfortunate, but you have got to have a flag in that situation. That ball was alive in the field of play for a long time, and many players and other personnel came off the bench on that same sideline. But the interesting question is what is the foul that should be called? Potentially, it makes a big difference. The foul called was illegal participation, a live ball foul, 15 yds. (or, in this case, half the distance to the goal)from the previous spot. There are 2 possible parts of the illegal participation rule that might apply here: Rule 9-6-3 provides : “No replaced player, substitute, coach, athletic trainer or other attendant shall hinder an opponent, touch the ball, influence the play or otherwise participate.” So, there is a judgment to be made as to whether, in the opinion of the covering official, the people coming off the sideline were involved enough in the play to warrant a flag under 9-6-3. Rule 9-6-4a provides it is illegal participation: “When any player, replaced player, substitute, coach, athletic trainer or other attendant enters and participates during a down.” So, the key to illegal participation as the correct call is whether the people coming off the sideline were involved in the play. That’s a judgment call thatI’m not prepared to second guess without knowing a whole lot more than what’s in that video. But, for the sake of the discussion, if it’s not illegal participation, what is it? Rule 9-8-1h(i) provides that unsportsmanlike conduct includes “Being on the field except as a substitute or replaced player.” And Rule 9-8-2 prohibits any nonplayer from entering the field without the referee’s permission, except for certain specified reasons. Why is it important to determine whether the proper call was illegal participation or unsportsmanlike conduct? Because enforcement of the penalty for the two fouls is radically different. As pointed out above, IP is a live ball foul and the enforcement includes replay of the down. Unsportsmanlike conduct, however, is enforced like a dead ball foul. So, it would have been 15 yds. from the succeeding spot and the down counts. So, if it were 4th down, the ball would have gone over to WC, March the distance penalty, set the chains and 1st & 10.

I looked at the video that accompanied the game story at Indy Star and didn’t see it. If you’ve located it, could you post the URL?

Love to see a video clip, if anyone has one.

Thanks. And, I gather, there is some controversy about whether the foul should have been called?

Can someone please explain what happened at the end of regulation? Got bits and pieces of it, but it sounds like there was some controversy.

You’ll have to explain that a little better.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Makes perfect sense. But there’s also that pesky Constitution thing...