Huge Football Fan

11 hours ago, Bobref said:

Yes, I’ve found that interesting, especially in light of the fact that if a coach is disqualified, he must leave the playing area and have no further contact with the team for the duration of the game.

Of course, the guy in the white hat is the boss of everything that goes on out there, literally. While the rules don’t mandate that a disqualified player leave the field, the referee is absolutely within his rights to insist that he be expelled from the premises before the game can continue.

I have always been under the impression that the player stays on the sidelines because there may not be a place for him to go where he can be under supervision. I understand all the this that and the other but that was the thought process to keep the players in the bench area where the supervision is

8 minutes ago, rballart said:

Ok...that must've been what he was saying but the timing of his comment made it sound like it was in reference to one of the guys on the field...like I said, been a great called game, just surprised to hear that...thanks for clarifying...

He said he saw him right before the game (as in upstairs in the booth not on the field)

28 minutes ago, Yuccaguy said:

Appears to be #14 of Chatard who gives the "late hit".....

The bottom picture is a nano-second before the impact happens.

It was a clear late hit by #14 white. Not viscous but enough to knock him off his feet and into someone and you could see him grab at his neck immediately 

2 minutes ago, SAC_Coach said:

With 3 timeouts I think SA should of let them score first play from scrimmage 

Should of let them score

9 minutes ago, Staxawax said:

Oh stop. ZERO effect on this game.

Wrong had a huge effect on the game

7 minutes ago, Staxawax said:

But isn’t going for it in your own territory playing not to lose?

Point is you are at least a 2 TD under dog. You just got a pick you have to try and take advantage of every opportunity you have. They didn’t and now it’s 14-0

2 minutes ago, temptation said:

And four plays later, CG is back at midfield.

Mind numbing.

PLAY TO WIN.

I agree. Play to win not play not to lose

14 minutes ago, Tommy said:

I was stating when you mentioned it the clock would not of been running yet anyway. You jumped the gun with your critique 

1 minute ago, Tommy said:

Hobart is getting skunked 35-0.  
 

Why aren’t the officials calling for the running clock?

 

For one thing even in the regular season the clock wouldn’t of gone running clock until the kickoff 

32 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

Great call on the ineligible downfield.

In this RPO happy world, I wish every crew could pick up on those. 

What guy? It didn’t look like a great call?

2 minutes ago, jakone said:

Educate me on how they assign refs for the finals.

Coaches vote!!!!!

4 minutes ago, PHJIrish said:

So illegal participation doesn't really matter in your scenario, is that what you're saying?  

From what I see 24 makes illegal contact before 85 ever touches oob. I have it paused and 85’s left foot is in the air and the illegal contact has already occurred. 

4 minutes ago, miner_35 said:

Only illegal if he catches the ball or makes a block. @Bobref would be better at this explination.

No the rule is participate. Those things are part of but not limited too participating 

5 minutes ago, PHJIrish said:

I have no dog in the fight either and I agree with you!

I disagree and I’ve watched is 10 times 24”cuts” off the route and has contact before 85 ever touches oob

1 minute ago, PHJIrish said:

So the rule must have changed.  If the receiver steps out of bounds he should be an ineligible receiver.

Maybe changed on 1960 then but a eligible stays eligible throughout the down doesn’t matter if they go out of bounds or not. If they go out of bounds on their own and then return it’s illegal participation but they are still eligible so what you said is 100% wrong 

7 minutes ago, javaswat01 said:

Ooof, that Pass Interference call was poor, to put it mildly. Nevermind the fact that the WR took multiple steps out of bound running down the sideline

It was a cutoff and clear foul

5 minutes ago, Bobref said:

And if you’re Luers, you don’t score. Game over. 

There’s no difference then what happened except They didn’t go for 2 when they should of. They had 2 to it night if worked. Better then what is gonna happen

Just now, Bobref said:

Great catch by the officiating crew to offer WEBO the option to have the game clock start on the snap following enforcement, since it’s inside of 2:00.

What if they would of declined the foul?

Should of went for 2 again

41 minutes ago, DE said:

Thank you Bob.  I appreciate your response.  Does anyone know why the officials were on the field of play?  

Why would they be off the field? It just took time as the game grew from 3 yards and a cloud a dust to what we see today. Mechanics changed and they realized if you are off the field and not moving as much it made it better to officiate. I’ve seen video of Bo Jackson and Hershel Walker jumping over the wing because the ran out in the way and fell down 

43 minutes ago, Bobref said:

As with any IG foul, I’m going to say I would need to see it, know the game situation, blah, blah, blah... But what you’ve described sounds like intentional grounding.

It seems to me what sometimes happens is if the O line catches/tries to catch the ball the crew will go with illegal touching and just skip past IG. Meaning of the ineligible never tried to catch it they would have IG but once they catch it they go with illegal touch. Has anyone ever seen a game where they went illegal touch decline and then IG? I’ve never seen that even though I think there are many times you could have both 

3 hours ago, SL816 said:

You should've just stuck to "I think this is a foul". You lose all credibility by saying he took two steps forward before the snap. Not even close. 

2 hours ago, Bobref said:

No. Sorry. Doesn't matter how many times you say it. This isn't going to get called. No official observing this at game speed is going to cut it that fine on calling fouls. And if you really gave it some thought, you'd realize you don't want us to.

Lol. Then we can agree to disagree. The guy literally takes 2 steps forward before the snap. I think this is a foul anywhere on the field. I know it’s a foul in this situation advantage/disadvantage he mistimed the snap and yes should be called

44 minutes ago, US31 said:

If that play was 4th and Goal to take the lead in a close game, would you feel the same way....honest question.

He gains an advantage going forward before the snap. When they ran It the second time on the other end of the field he didn’t start early. This one should be a foul. Don’t make it close no reason the start early. For those that say the nose got blown up. He sure did, since they had 3 people in a line pushing him. I didn’t need to see it frame by frame to see he started forward before the snap

39 minutes ago, Moshiner1345 said:

https://youtu.be/Z0L_kXxMWII?t=7378

 

 

I’m interested to hear what the experts think? Is this a hurdle or not? 

7 minutes ago, Trojanmp52 said:

what is the rule on hurdle? last night Carson Steele get call for it, but i have seen him and others do it all year

Video???

6 hours ago, Bobref said:

Disagree.

I disagree with you. He’s going forward before the snap and it’s really not close