Did We Get Away With A Bad Call?

[AUChizad]

The call that gave Boom an aneurysm.



I've heard Auburn fans concede that it was a bad call.

Perhaps someone more capable of objectivity can explain this to me.

To me, it appears that he called the fair catch too late, and the defender had already established momentum, but despite that he still avoided any actual contact.

How is that interference?

[Saniflush]

Bad call yes.


The reason it was not called was because of the late fair catch call.

[AUChizad]

Bad call yes.


The reason it was not called was because of the late fair catch call.

Was it a bad call, or was it the correct call due to the fact that the fair catch was called late?

Again, how is the defender supposed to do anything else when his momentum is already there? And yet, he still did not touch the guy.

[JR4AU]

No contact, no foul.

[Townhallsavoy]

This video is great for so many reasons.

[AUChizad]

This video is great for so many reasons.

Now that was some serious bullshit.

And coach Boom was the calming voice of reason, LOL.

[War Eagle!!!]

This video is great for so many reasons.

Yes. Yes it is.

[CCTAU]

No contact, no foul.

This. But had he indicated fair catch earlier and OM got that close, I think they would have called it.


I think it validates, "If you're gonna go ugly, go ugly early" theorem.

[AUChizad]

No contact, no foul.

That's what I always thought as well. Making sure there wasn't something I didn't understand. I thought maybe there was something with if you're blocking their line of vision, it could still be called. But even if that was the case (which would be stupid if true), the fact that he didn't call the fair catch until after the tackler was already in motion to tackle him should have made it clean even if he hit him, no? I may be wrong on that, but it seems to me that with all of those factors in play, there's no way the call on the field was a bad one, no?

[Vandy Vol]

No contact, no foul.

The rule states that the receiver should have an "unimpeded opportunity" to catch the ball.  In interpreting this language, NCAA Rules Committee and Rules Editor, John Adams, has said the following:

The kicking team is responsible to know the location of the kicked ball.  If a receiver has to run-around a kicking team player while moving toward the ball in an attempt to catch it, then it is a kick catch interference foul against the kicking team...even if there is no contact.

Interference could also include a kicking team member standing close to a receiver, running in front of him, waving his arms at him, or yelling, shouting, or screaming at him.  Interference is a judgment call in these situations.

So, basically, contact isn't always required.

[RWS]

No contact, no foul.

You can still get a penalty even if you don't touch them. The player catching the kick "must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick". So, if you stood 1 foot in front of him and the ball hit you on the back, you would get flagged. Alabama got flagged a few games ago for this. The opposing team blocked an Alabama player into the path of the ball that was coming down out of the air, and the ball hit the Bama player in the back of the helmet. He never hit the guy trying to catch the ball, and didn't even see the ball when it was in the air.

[Pell City Tiger]

From my viewpoint, the correct call was made. The gatah waited until our guy was on him before signaling for the fair catch. Even then, our guy made every possible attempt to side step him - no contact was made - and allow him to field the kick.

[Snaggletiger]

Yeah, uuhh..what wrong wit da' refs we got now?  They call pretty good, don't they?


People, people, people....it was Onterrio McProne that was the player in question.  Had there been ANY contact....or a good strong breeze...he would have crumpled like a house of cards.

[CCTAU]

Yeah, uuhh..what wrong wit da' refs we got now?  They call pretty good, don't they?


People, people, people....it was Onterrio McProne that was the player in question.  Had there been ANY contact....or a good strong breeze...he would have crumpled like a house of cards.

Shit mane. If dat ball hadda hit McProne, he would have immediately sprinted toward the nearest sideline.

[AUChizad]

From my viewpoint, the correct call was made. The gatah waited until our guy was on him before signaling for the fair catch. Even then, our guy made every possible attempt to side step him - no contact was made - and allow him to field the kick.

THIS.

You can still get a penalty even if you don't touch them. The player catching the kick "must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick". So, if you stood 1 foot in front of him and the ball hit you on the back, you would get flagged. Alabama got flagged a few games ago for this. The opposing team blocked an Alabama player into the path of the ball that was coming down out of the air, and the ball hit the Bama player in the back of the helmet. He never hit the guy trying to catch the ball, and didn't even see the ball when it was in the air.

The rule states that the receiver should have an "unimpeded opportunity" to catch the ball.  In interpreting this language, NCAA Rules Committee and Rules Editor, John Adams, has said the following:

The kicking team is responsible to know the location of the kicked ball.  If a receiver has to run-around a kicking team player while moving toward the ball in an attempt to catch it, then it is a kick catch interference foul against the kicking team...even if there is no contact.

Interference could also include a kicking team member standing close to a receiver, running in front of him, waving his arms at him, or yelling, shouting, or screaming at him.  Interference is a judgment call in these situations.

So, basically, contact isn't always required.

That's all well & good, but none of that stuff happened either. What both of you are describing is basically if OM had stood in front of the player and swatted the ball away, which also didn't happen. He didn't touch the receiver, the ball, or anything. Again, considering how late the fair catch was made, there was nothing else he possibly could have done to further avoid contact, than he did (successfully).

[Vandy Vol]

Well, I didn't attempt to apply the rule to the call in the Auburn game; I only referenced the rule in order to point out that contact isn't required.  Thus, statements like this don't apply:

He didn't touch the receiver, the ball, or anything.

Once more:  Contact isn't required.  That means contact with the receiver, contact with the ball, or contact with another man's genitalia.

In a bulletin from the NCAA from years ago which attempted to clarify the "unimpeded opportunity" rule, the following situations were given as examples:

As B17 awaits Team A’s high scrimmage kick: a) A85 stands near B17 and shouts at him; b) A55 sprints past B17, coming very close to him; or c) A38 stands near B17 and waives his hands and arms at him. RULING: In all three scenarios, Team A foul, interference with the opportunity to catch a kick. Fifteen yards from the spot of the foul, whether or not the ball is caught by B17 (Rule 6-4-1).

A and C obviously don't apply to what happened in the Auburn game, but B does.

Of course, there's always the issue of whether the receiver properly called for a fair catch.  I'm not saying he did or didn't.  I'm just saying that the rule indicates that interference with the opportunity to catch a kick can be caused by more than mere contact.

[JR4AU]

If there is no contact, there would need to be something overt to call it impeding...ie the receiver having to run around the defender to make it, obstructing the receiver's vision or path of the football.  Contact before or simultaneously with the catch is interference.  Impeding without contact becomes a judgment call, and if the player isn't face guarding, overtly attempting to impede, or obstructing the flight path of the ball, then it should be, IMHO, a no call.  Also, the judgement can extend to the defender's momentum based on the late fair catch call, especially since there was no contact.     Since the "halo rule" was abolished, the intent was that you can get pretty damn close as long as there's no contact.  They wanted this to be a no call type situation unless it's CLEARLY impeding the catch. 

[Vandy Vol]

And, actually, now that I think about it, the fact that he did or did not properly call for a fair catch is irrelevant.  The player still must be given "unimpeded opportunity" to catch a kick even if he did not call for a fair catch.  Even though the halo rule was removed, you're still left with this vague "unimpeded opportunity" rule which gives the referee a fair amount of discretion to make an interference call even when there isn't contact.

[JR4AU]

And, actually, now that I think about it, the fact that he did or did not properly call for a fair catch is irrelevant.  The player still must be given "unimpeded opportunity" to catch a kick even if he did not call for a fair catch.  Even though the halo rule was removed, you're still left with this vague "unimpeded opportunity" rule which gives the referee a fair amount of discretion to make an interference call even when there isn't contact.

Again, it's now a judgement call when there's no contact.  The scenarios listed above all involve overt INTENTIONAL attempts to distract or intimidate the receiver.   That was not the case here.  Good No Call.

[RWS]

THIS.
That's all well & good, but none of that stuff happened either. What both of you are describing is basically if OM had stood in front of the player and swatted the ball away, which also didn't happen. He didn't touch the receiver, the ball, or anything. Again, considering how late the fair catch was made, there was nothing else he possibly could have done to further avoid contact, than he did (successfully).

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 player of Team B 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 or at the spot of the signal if the catch precedes the signal.
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.

In that specific case, a valid signal was given. OM was about 5 yards away from the guy and wasn't really running full speed either. He was almost kind of waiting for the guy to catch the ball. Bad call? Probably. I don't see what it matters one way or the other, though.