Bobref

There are other, legitimate reasons, for a QB using a hard count. Now a “head bob” or some other actions by shotgun QBs is a different story. But I certainly agree with you that more clarity in the official interpretation of the rule would promote more consistency on the field.

Describe the play and I’ll try to help.

The initial e-mail made fun of DeMaurice Smith. Head of the NFLPA. In other words, a black man who represents a lot of other black men, some of whom are now supposed to play hard for Gruden. As soon as the first e-mail came out, you knew how this was going to end.

This is the biggest reason I started posting on the GID. You left that game the other night, probably along with other people like @psaboy,thinking that the officiating crew screwed up. In fact, their call was absolutely correct. A little education goes a long way. I appreciate people like you who are open to being educated. Not everyone is.

Very disappointing. Penalty enforcement has no grey area. You either do it right or wrong. This was wrong, and the really disappointing thing is that there are 5 guys on that crew that either didn’t know the rule, or knew it, but were unwilling to speak up to save the crew. SMH.

That is not what the rule says … or means. Here’s the rule: “ART. 5 . . . Running into or roughing the kicker or holder. A defensive player shall neither run into the kicker nor holder, which is contact that displaces the kicker or holder without roughing; nor block, tackle or charge into the kicker of a scrimmage kick, or the place-kick holder.” There are 4 instances cited in the Rule where contact against the Kicker/Holder may be excused: Where it is not reasonably certain a kick will be made. where the ball is touched near the kicker. Where contact is slight, and partially caused by the kicker’s movement. Where the defender is blocked into the kicker. In each of these 4 scenarios, the contact by the defender must be unavoidable. The burden is always on the defender to avoid contact if it is at all possible. If there is contact against the kicker/holder, who is displaced by the contact, it’s going to be a foul unless one of these 4 applies.

You’re kidding, right? That is the most obvious roughing the holder foul I have seen in 44 seasons of officiating. Remember that the holder gets exactly the same protection as the kicker. If this contact had been against the kicker, would we be having this discussion?

Why? You said he knocked the holder over trying to get to the ball. Did he get to the ball, i.e., touch the kick?

Could the foul have been roughing the holder? The signals and penalties are the same as roughing the kicker.

The temperature of Jimbo Fisher’s seat just went down about 100 degrees!

All of this was as foretold in the prophecy. The Chosen One will deliver us unto the Promised Land. Like Moses, it will take some time. But the outcome is not in doubt.

This is a double foul because there was a change of possession on the play, and the team in possession at the end of the down (Webo) had fouled before the change of possession, and Webo’s foul was not a post-scrimmage kick foul. Since it’s a double foul, there are no options. The penalties offset and the down is replayed.

@JustRules would have a better handle on that than I.

And this is why coaches keep trying this illegal crap: because sometimes they get away with it. That crew just made it doubly tough on the crews that Coach is going to see the rest of the season. And that’s encroachment. No such thing as “offsides” in high school football.

470 yds. rushing in 5 games (94 yds./game) is very nice production. But “insane?”

It is to me.

Or, the fact that even fewer opportunities for advancement in the playoffs causes even more officials to leave in frustration, and retention rates continue to decline, actually exacerbating the shortage.

So, what was the call? Did they miss roughing and called no foul? Running into vs. roughing? Did they call something that wasn’t really a foul? Got video?

The one big difference is that with IG, this is a safety whether the penalty is accepted or declined.

A false start includes both a shift that simulates the start of the play, and any act clearly designed to cause the defense to encroach.

Last night in the Seahawks - Rams game, a punt was blocked, recovered by the kicker, who then kicked it again — a 68 yd. punt! What if that happens tonight? Is it legal? You make the call!

An excellent point that many gloss over. Seeding not only makes the tournament better, but it’s primary value is in making the 9 week exhibition season relevant to the playoffs.

It occurs to me that we have an awful lot of smart athletic directors in this state. If changing the system by seeding were likely to result in significantly increased revenue, in these times of tight budgets somebody would be out there beating the drum for it. I don’t get that sense. I’m not saying there aren’t changes to be made that would be revenue positive. Just saying it’s apparently not “obvious” to a lot of people who should be paying attention to it.

I am in the process of preparing an initial post for a thread that explores this subject in great detail. Let me just preview that here by saying that it is impossible to design a system that works well, if at all, unless you can clearly articulate the goals you want the system to achieve. So, when assessing the present system, you first have to ask “what are we trying to accomplish here?” The answers may not be as obvious as you might think.

There are also people who believe the earth is flat.