Did We Get Away With A Bad Call?

[JR4AU]

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.

Irrelevant here, EXCEPT in making the judgement call on whether the defender was intentionally trying to interfere without contact, or was merely carried by momentum after the late signal.

[AUChizad]

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.

What the hell were you watching? I saw the wave, immediately followed by OM clearly trying to stop by stutter-stepping, and eventually having too much momentum to do anything but swerve out of the way.

[Vandy Vol]

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.

I would argue (of course I would) that "sprint[ing] past" the receiver and only coming "very close to him" is pretty much what happened on that play.

Sure, it's a judgment call that should be made by the referee; I have no qualms with that.  Obviously you can't have an exact measurement for the "closeness" that the ref must use.

But trying to determine whether the player's intent was to distract the receiver?  Trying to determine whether the player got close to the receiver only because the receiver didn't give a fair catch signal until late?  Well, that's irrelevant.

Whether the player intended to cause interference or not, the question is whether interference was caused.  He's not supposed to be "very close" to the receiver on a fair catch or a live catch.  If he is, and if the ref determines that his "closeness" caused interference, then it's a foul.

And, in making the determination as to whether interference was caused, it is up to the ref's discretion.  But, to me, the Auburn player was pretty dang close...I don't know how much closer you want him to be to the receiver before a non-contact interference call is made.

[RWS]

Irrelevant here, EXCEPT in making the judgement call on whether the defender was intentionally trying to interfere without contact, or was merely carried by momentum after the late signal.

What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if it is intentional or not. I'm not saying that it's a great rule or anything, but intention does not matter.

[JR4AU]

I would argue (of course I would) that "sprint[ing] past" the receiver and only coming "very close to him" is pretty much what happened on that play.

Sure, it's a judgment call that should be made by the referee; I have no qualms with that.  Obviously you can't have an exact measurement for the "closeness" that the ref must use.

But trying to determine whether the player's intent was to distract the receiver?  Trying to determine whether the player got close to the receiver only because the receiver didn't give a fair catch signal until late?  Well, that's irrelevant.

Whether the player intended to cause interference or not, the question is whether interference was caused.  He's not supposed to be "very close" to the receiver on a fair catch or a live catch.  If he is, and if the ref determines that his "closeness" caused interference, then it's a foul.

And, in making the determination as to whether interference was caused, it is up to the ref's discretion.  But, to me, the Auburn player was pretty dang close...I don't know how much closer you want him to be to the receiver before a non-contact interference call is made.

All the scenarios you presented from the rules interpretation turn on intent.  OM's "intent" was to tackle the guy, up and until he gave the fair catch signal, at which time OM was 3 yards away.  Intent matters, and it's a judgement call.  Simple as that.  Losers will scream the refs screwed UF.  Simple as that, but it's a judgement call, and that means if you judge it to be interference, I don't give a shit because you're not wearing the striped shirt and in possession of the yellow hanky.  Fuck the whiners.   

[JR4AU]

What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if it is intentional or not. I'm not saying that it's a great rule or anything, but intention does not matter.

Um, yes, yes it does.  When there's no contact, it's a judgement call, and intent matters...like standing there  near the receiver, yelling "I donkey punched your mother last night fag", or sprinting by real fast.  Making an honest effort to avoid contact, no call. 

[Vandy Vol]

All the scenarios you presented from the rules interpretation turn on intent.  OM's "intent" was to tackle the guy, up and until he gave the fair catch signal, at which time OM was 3 yards away.  Intent matters, and it's a judgement call.  Simple as that.  Losers will scream the refs screwed UF.  Simple as that, but it's a judgement call, and that means if you judge it to be interference, I don't give a shit because you're not wearing the striped shirt and in possession of the yellow hanky.  Fuck the whiners.

I personally don't see anything regarding intent in those examples.  Well, obviously the players who are screaming or waving their hands at him have the intent to distract him, but the other one doesn't really show intent.

A player who sprints past, but very close to, the receiver?  How does that show intent?

[JR4AU]

I personally don't see anything regarding intent in those examples.  Well, obviously the players who are screaming or waving their hands at him have the intent to distract him, but the other one doesn't really show intent.

A player who sprints past, but very close to, the receiver?  How does that show intent?

If he could have given the receiver wider berth, but OBVIOUSLY tried to run by close.  You can't look at people's actions and make judgement calls on their intent?

[JR4AU]

Final word from me: It's a fucking judgement call, and Auburn has never in it's history won a game fair and square.  We by players, refs, the NCAA, everybody fucking whines, the sun rises, the sun sets, another day, and most of all, another W for the 2011 Auburn Tigers. 

                   

[Vandy Vol]

If he could have given the receiver wider berth, but OBVIOUSLY tried to run by close.  You can't look at people's actions and make judgement calls on their intent?

Yes, you can, but what I am saying is that the rule doesn't focus on intent.  It focuses on whether the receiver has an unimpeded opportunity to catch the ball.

If a kicking team player trips and stumbles into the receiver before he can make the catch, the receiver did not have an unimpeded opportunity to catch the ball.  It doesn't matter that the offender didn't intend to cause interference.

So why would you apply the unimpeded opportunity rule differently when the interference is non-contact interference?  Either the receiver had an unimpeded opportunity or he did not; the fact that the kicking team player misjudged his speed, but didn't intend to get too close to the player, is irrelevant.  The fact that the kicking team player stutter steps and tries to change his direction of movement is irrelevant to the question at hand:  did his actions, intentional or not, cause interference?

Either he made contact or he didn't; either he came too close or he didn't; either interference was caused or it wasn't.  I don't think it has anything to do with the player's intent to cause interference.  The question is simply whether interference was present.

I'd agree that, in non-contact situations, it is a judgment call, but the judgment to be made is not in relation to the player's intent.  Rather, the judgment to be made is whether interference occurred.

[wesfau2]

Yes, you can, but what I am saying is that the rule doesn't focus on intent.  It focuses on whether the receiver has an unimpeded opportunity to catch the ball.

If a kicking team player trips, falls, and runs into the receiver before he can make the catch, the receiver did not have an unimpeded opportunity to catch the ball.  It doesn't matter that the offender didn't intend to cause interference.

So why would you apply the unimpeded opportunity rule differently when the interference is non-contact interference?  Either the receiver had an unimpeded opportunity or he did not; the fact that the kicking team player misjudged his speed, but didn't intend to get too close to the player, is irrelevant.  The fact that the kicking team player stutter steps and tries to change his direction of movement is irrelevant to the question at hand:  did his actions, intentional or not, cause interference?

Either he made contact or he didn't; either he came too close or he didn't; either interference was caused or it wasn't.  I don't think it has anything to do with the player's intent to cause interference.  The question is simply whether interference was present.

I'd agree that, in non-contact situations, it is a judgment call, but the judgment to be made is not in relation to the player's intent.  Rather, the judgment to be made is whether interference occurred.

I wish you two would just fuck and get it over with.

[Pell City Tiger]

A valid signal for a Fair Catch is by rule:  a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signalled 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.

Watch the video. The Florida players hand did not go above his helmet to indicate a fair catch. That, my friends, is an invalid signal according to the rule book. The linesman even showed Boom why that call was made.

The correct call was made - Tiger ball at the point of the recovery.

[Townhallsavoy]

I wish you two would just fuck and get it over with.

No way.  Can you imagine the amount of paperwork that would be involved?

[Vandy Vol]

Watch the video. The Florida players hand did not go above his helmet to indicate a fair catch. That, my friends, is an invalid signal according to the rule book. The linesman even showed Boom why that call was made.

The correct call was made - Tiger ball at the point of the recovery.

Looks above his helmet to me...



Regardless, you have to keep in mind that the existence of a proper fair catch signal is irrelevant.  Even if he had not called for a fair catch, the kicking team still has to give him an "unimpeded opportunity" to catch the ball; the rule applies to all kick catches, not just kick catches for which a fair catch has been called.

[Token]

If I'm an Auburn fan?  Good no call.   If I'm a Gator fan?  That's the worst fucking call I've ever seen. 

That's 25% of what makes sporting events great.  Sitting around with your buddies screaming obscenities at the refs for making such a shitty call, when everyone knows you'd be giving hand numbing high fives if the same bullshit call had helped your team. 

[Vandy Vol]

No way.  Can you imagine the amount of paperwork that would be involved?

That's the only thing keeping Wes from jumping on my hobbit penis.

[Pell City Tiger]

Looks above his helmet to me...



Regardless, you have to keep in mind that the existence of a proper fair catch signal is irrelevant.  Even if he had not called for a fair catch, the kicking team still has to give him an "unimpeded opportunity" to catch the ball; the rule applies to all kick catches, not just kick catches for which a fair catch has been called.

It has to be clearly above his head, by the letter of the rule. This photo shows that he didn't do so.

The proper signal is clearly defined in Article 2 of the rule, therefore making it quite relevant to the call.

[wesfau2]

If I'm an Auburn fan?  Good no call.   If I'm a Gator fan?  That's the worst fucking call I've ever seen. 

That's 25% of what makes sporting events great.  Sitting around with your buddies screaming obscenities at the refs for making such a shitty call, when everyone knows you'd be giving hand numbing high fives if the same bullshit call had helped your team.

Whore Shit.

Snoogans,
Ricky

[Vandy Vol]

It has to be clearly above his head, by the letter of the rule. This photo shows that he didn't do so.

The proper signal is clearly defined in Article 2 of the rule, therefore making it quite relevant to the call.

His wrist and upward is above his helmet on this picture, and that is with his forearm being angled to the right.  Personally, I don't see how this is not "clearly" above his head.

At any rate, the existence/non-existence of a valid fair catch signal is irrelevant to the question at hand.  A player on the kicking team can not interfere with any kick catch.  The rule doesn't apply to only catches which are made after a fair catch has been properly called.

Thus, even if you still believe that Rainey never "clearly" called for a fair catch, that has no effect on any debate regarding the interference call.  Even if Rainey never even attempted to signal for a fair catch, the kicking team must give him an unimpeded opportunity to catch the ball.

The existence/non-existence of a fair catch signal is irrelevant to whether interference occurred.

[Pell City Tiger]

We'll agree to disagree then. Being an Auburn man aside, in my years as a football referee (high school & semi pro), I will tell you - from my honest & unbiased perspective - that his signal did not meet the requirements of Article 2 of the rule. His hand at no time ever extended above his helmet. Beside & in front of the helmet does not equal the "clearly above" requirement stated in the body of the rule. I would not have thrown my flag in this instance. The SEC official that had the call in this one obviously agrees with my interpretation of the rule.