Did We Get Away With A Bad Call?

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #40 on:** October 17, 2011, 08:16:52 PM »

Quote from: Pell City Tiger on October 17, 2011, 08:12:22 PM

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.

We'll have to disagree about whether he properly signaled for a fair catch.

But...do you see what I'm saying in regard to the interference call? Just because a player does not signal for a fair catch does not mean that you can interfere with the catch. The same rules regarding kick catch interference apply whether a fair catch was called or not.

My understanding from watching the game and hearing the sideline reporter comment on what the referee said to the coach was that the refs felt the player had an opportunity to catch the ball. Their call did not hinge upon the fact that Rainey did/did not call for a fair catch. Regardless of whether he actually signaled for a fair catch, he is still to be given the opportunity to catch the ball without interference.

RWS · « **Reply #41 on:** October 17, 2011, 08:43:57 PM »

I don't think that anybody in this thread that isn't an AU fan is trying to say UF was screwed out of a win. UF just wasn't going to win that game, regardless of which way that call went. Sometimes the ball bounces your way, sometimes it isn't. UF fans can be butthurt all they want by it, but them playing their 3rd string true frosh QB, missing one of their star RBs, missing their kicker, etc etc far outweighs that call. They had bigger problems.

With that said:

1. It doesn't matter whether the signal was a valid signal. The only criteria required for the kick catch rule to apply is that the receiver is in bounds, and the kick is a scrimmage kick that crosses the neutral zone. The rule applies whether it is a fair catch or not. Period.

2. Intention does not matter. Nowhere in any of the rules for fair catch, kick catch interference, etc does it mention intention. The closest it might come to mentioning it is when it says "When in question, it is an interference foul." That kind of takes the "judgement" argument out of it.

3. You do not have to make contact for it to be a penalty. I mean, if there is contact, then it is obviously a no brainer. But it is not required. Think about it. If it HAS to be contact to be interference, then why don't teams just have their players on the coverage unit just jump up in front of the player receiving the kick and hit the ball? Just put a little more air under the kick and let your guys camp out in front of the receiver so he can't catch it.

It's OK. AU caught a break. It happens to everybody at some point, and the other team will always be butthurt about it. They instantly forget about the last time the ball bounced their way on a penalty. If UF fans want to cry about it, they can fuck off. Every team gets a break at some point.

RWS · « **Reply #42 on:** October 17, 2011, 08:47:55 PM »

Quote from: Pell City Tiger on October 17, 2011, 08:12:22 PM

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.

Ok......

Quote

Interference With Opportunity
ARTICLE 1. A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines
attempting to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free
kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an
unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick (A.R. 6-3-1-III, A.R. 6-4-1-V and IX).

Show me where it says a valid fair catch signal must be made.

The Prowler · « **Reply #43 on:** October 17, 2011, 09:05:58 PM »

The call could've gone either way. OMac was clearly stepping out of the way and Rainey stepped towards him. If Rainey hadn't stepped towards OMac, he would've been in perfect position to catch the ball. Clark was apparently kicking Knuckleballers...either that or they need to put someone else back there that can catch.

Pell City Tiger · « **Reply #44 on:** October 17, 2011, 09:11:55 PM »

Rainey had an opportunity to catch the ball. McCalebb went to the right to avoid contact and give him the room to field the punt. Rainey moved a yard and a half to that side and initiated the incident.

In my opinion, this still comes down to the fair catch signal by Rainey. Since there is no halo rule in college football, as long as no contact is made by the kicking team and McCalebb didn't attempt to distract Rainey from making the catch; there is no foul.

I think this is what the referee saw, and I still say the correct call was made.

RWS · « **Reply #45 on:** October 17, 2011, 09:27:20 PM »

Quote from: Pell City Tiger on October 17, 2011, 09:11:55 PM

In my opinion, this still comes down to the fair catch signal by Rainey.

Jesus........

JR4AU · « **Reply #46 on:** October 17, 2011, 09:35:08 PM »

Quote from: RWS on October 17, 2011, 09:27:20 PM

Jesus........

You rang?

Pell City Tiger · « **Reply #47 on:** October 17, 2011, 09:37:41 PM »

Quote from: RWS on October 17, 2011, 08:47:55 PM

Ok......
Show me where it says a valid fair catch signal must be made.

You're mixing up 2 rules, shit for brains. Rainey was given an opportunity to make the catch. McCalebb was a yard and a half to the side of Rainey, and Rainey moved towards McCalebb. McCalebb avoided interference and did not - by his actions - interfere with Rainey's play on the ball. No contact was made; Rainey muffed the catch. No contact + no halo = no interference & no foul.

Article 2 of the fair catch rule tells stupid motherfuckers like you and Coach Boom how to properly signal a fair catch. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Is there a fucking gas leak in your trailer?

RWS · « **Reply #48 on:** October 17, 2011, 10:02:41 PM »

Quote from: Pell City Tiger on October 17, 2011, 09:37:41 PM

You're mixing up 2 rules, shit for brains. Rainey was given an opportunity to make the catch. McCalebb was a yard and a half to the side of Rainey, and Rainey moved towards McCalebb. McCalebb avoided interference and did not - by his actions - interfere with Rainey's play on the ball. No contact was made; Rainey muffed the catch. No contact + no halo = no interference & no foul.

Article 2 of the fair catch rule tells stupid motherfuckers like you and Coach Boom how to properly signal a fair catch. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Is there a fucking gas leak in your trailer?

Rainey had to move forward one step TO CATCH THE BALL. It is the defender's responsibility to know where the ball is when it is in the air. YOU are the one mixing up two rules, and somehow combining them out of thin air.

Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter.

Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it. Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.

I could put it 20 more times, and you still wouldn't get it. He. Doesn't. Have. To. Signal. For. A. Fair. Catch. For. Kick. Catch. Interference. To. Apply.

I understand that you would argue with a brick wall as long as it was crimson, but what you're saying has absolutely dick to do with it. 0. Zilch. Zip. Nada. For once, I'm not being delusional. For fuck's sake, I posted the rule from the NCAA rule book.

Xanusus · « **Reply #49 on:** October 17, 2011, 10:02:57 PM »

Nice. I had completely forgotten about CTT going off on that call and lo and behold it's Muschamp trying to calm him down. LOL.

JR4AU · « **Reply #50 on:** October 17, 2011, 10:17:01 PM »

Quote from: RWS on October 17, 2011, 10:02:41 PM

Rainey had to move forward one step TO CATCH THE BALL. It is the defender's responsibility to know where the ball is when it is in the air. YOU are the one mixing up two rules, and somehow combining them out of thin air.

Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter.

Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it. Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.

I could put it 20 more times, and you still wouldn't get it. He. Doesn't. Have. To. Signal. For. A. Fair. Catch. For. Kick. Catch. Interference. To. Apply.

I understand that you would argue with a brick wall as long as it was crimson, but what you're saying has absolutely dick to do with it. 0. Zilch. Zip. Nada. For once, I'm not being delusional. For fuck's sake, I posted the rule from the NCAA rule book.

I could put this 5 Bazzilion Gawd Damn times...Contact is automatic...non contact is a judgement call. Auburn won this argument Saturday night.

Pell City Tiger · « **Reply #51 on:** October 17, 2011, 10:44:28 PM »

Quote from: JR4AU on October 17, 2011, 10:17:01 PM

I could put this 5 Bazzilion Gawd Damn times...Contact is automatic...non contact is a judgement call. Auburn won this argument Saturday night.

Thank you!

runswithretards, go back and read the last 2 pages of this thread. See if you can figure out where you made that wrong turn. We (those of us without a bucket of feces for a brain) started out with a discussion the fair catch rule, and then moved on to kick catch interference. You somehow got them all jumbled up and wound up giving me a headache. It's no wonder that 99.687% of your stupid assed fan base is incapable of carrying on a logical conversation about football.

Read what I posted on the last 2 pages and then go back and watch the video on page 1. I think you'll see what I said lines up with what the referee called and what the head linesman was motioning to Muschamp on the sideline.

After you do all of that, do us all a favor and stick your head in a fucking microwave oven and turn in on high for about 3 and a half minutes.

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #52 on:** October 17, 2011, 11:33:54 PM »

My understanding of this thread was that a video of the kick catch in question was posted and it was asked, "Was it a bad call?"

There is nothing from the game or from the ref's explanation to the coach (at least from what I've heard concerning that explanation) that indicated it was ever about whether Rainey called for a fair catch. The issue was whether he had "opportunity" to catch the ball. If he didn't have an opportunity, then that means someone interfered.

Early on in this thread, it was suggested that the refs not calling interference would have been a bad call if the fair catch was signaled earlier, but that it wasn't a bad call because the fair catch was signaled "late." This point was erroneous for two reasons: 1) As long as the ball is still in the air, a fair catch can be signaled; nothing in the rule indicates that you have to call it within a specific time frame. 2) Interference with the catch of a kick is interference with the catch of a kick. It doesn't matter whether the player signaled a fair catch or not; he is to be afforded an opportunity to catch any and all kicks without interference, fair catch signal or not.

Based on all of this, my understanding is that the "call" that was brought into question in this thread was concerning the non-call of interference. The whole fair catch issue was, in fact, not relevant at all. These two rules are, as Pell City stated, completely different rules that don't affect one another. But many were mistakenly including the fair catch rule in the conversation thinking that it had some effect on the interference call:

Quote from: Saniflush on October 17, 2011, 05:14:05 PM

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

Quote from: CCTAU on October 17, 2011, 05:41:29 PM

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

Quote from: AUChizad on October 17, 2011, 05:43:58 PM

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?

Quote from: Pell City Tiger on October 17, 2011, 06:41:45 PM

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.

If there's some misunderstanding regarding the meaning of these posts, then please to be explainin. But I think it's pretty reasonable based upon the wording of these posts for myself and RWS to assume that several of you were claiming that the "late" fair catch signal was the reason why an interference call wasn't made.

As much as I love disagreeing with Bama fans, those posts, to me, look very much like several of you were jumbling the two rules by concluding that his failure at "timely" and "clearly" calling a fair catch somehow related to why an interference call wasn't made.

I'm not saying...I'm just saying...

Townhallsavoy · « **Reply #53 on:** October 18, 2011, 05:52:45 AM »

McCallebb vs. Rainey

Coming soon to a Prosser and Keeton Tort Law textbook.

RWS · « **Reply #54 on:** October 18, 2011, 07:20:29 AM »

Quote from: Vandy Vol on October 17, 2011, 11:33:54 PM

My understanding of this thread was that a video of the kick catch in question was posted and it was asked, "Was it a bad call?"

There is nothing from the game or from the ref's explanation to the coach (at least from what I've heard concerning that explanation) that indicated it was ever about whether Rainey called for a fair catch. The issue was whether he had "opportunity" to catch the ball. If he didn't have an opportunity, then that means someone interfered.

Early on in this thread, it was suggested that the refs not calling interference would have been a bad call if the fair catch was signaled earlier, but that it wasn't a bad call because the fair catch was signaled "late." This point was erroneous for two reasons: 1) As long as the ball is still in the air, a fair catch can be signaled; nothing in the rule indicates that you have to call it within a specific time frame. 2) Interference with the catch of a kick is interference with the catch of a kick. It doesn't matter whether the player signaled a fair catch or not; he is to be afforded an opportunity to catch any and all kicks without interference, fair catch signal or not.

Based on all of this, my understanding is that the "call" that was brought into question in this thread was concerning the non-call of interference. The whole fair catch issue was, in fact, not relevant at all. These two rules are, as Pell City stated, completely different rules that don't affect one another. But many were mistakenly including the fair catch rule in the conversation thinking that it had some effect on the interference call:

If there's some misunderstanding regarding the meaning of these posts, then please to be explainin. But I think it's pretty reasonable based upon the wording of these posts for myself and RWS to assume that several of you were claiming that the "late" fair catch signal was the reason why an interference call wasn't made.

As much as I love disagreeing with Bama fans, those posts, to me, look very much like several of you were jumbling the two rules by concluding that his failure at "timely" and "clearly" calling a fair catch somehow related to why an interference call wasn't made.

I'm not saying...I'm just saying...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

AUChizad · « **Reply #55 on:** October 18, 2011, 08:59:17 AM »

Two people in this thread love the sound of their voice arguing.

I'm just saying, based on your interpretations of the rule, all one has to do when returning a punt is to wave your hand at the exact moment you catch it, every time, and you'l always get an additional 15 yards. A perfect reception coverage is to knock the returner on his ass the absolute second he catches the ball. OM was en route to doing this when the returner waved his hand (late) almost simultaneously with the catch. At that exact point, OM successfully began avoiding contact. There was no possible more efficient way to do this than exactly what he did. Stutter-step and swerve to the side.

What the fuck did you want him to do exactly?

RWS · « **Reply #56 on:** October 18, 2011, 09:19:42 AM »

Quote from: AUChizad on October 18, 2011, 08:59:17 AM

Two people in this thread love the sound of their voice arguing.

I'm just saying, based on your interpretations of the rule, all one has to do when returning a punt is to wave your hand at the exact moment you catch it, every time, and you'l always get an additional 15 yards. A perfect reception coverage is to knock the returner on his ass the absolute second he catches the ball. OM was en route to doing this when the returner waved his hand (late) almost simultaneously with the catch. At that exact point, OM successfully began avoiding contact. There was no possible more efficient way to do this than exactly what he did. Stutter-step and swerve to the side.

What the fuck did you want him to do exactly?

The fair catch has --N O T H I N G-- to do with it. They have to be given the opportunity to catch the ball, whether it is a fair catch or not. I'm not saying it because I'm an Alabama fan. I'm not saying it because you're an Auburn fan. I'm not saying it to make you, as an AU fan, feel like AU won a game they shouldn't have. I'm saying it because it is there, plain as day, in the rule book. I posted the rule in this thread. For that matter, the rule even states that when in doubt, it is a penalty. They rule on the side of safety for the receiver. The only requirements for the rule to apply are:

1. It must be a scrimmage kick or free kick.

2. The kick must cross the neutral zone.

3. The kick must be in bounds.

Why is that so hard to comprehend? You're being so defensive because you feel like somebody is trying to take something from you, that you can't get your head out of your ass to see it. And nobody here is even trying to argue that it fucked UF out of a win. We're simply arguing the premise of what you're putting out. You're the one that started this thread for discussion, and now you're getting pissy about it because the argument isn't exactly going your way. You certainly didn't mind the sound of your voice and others arguing when you thought you were on the right side of the argument.

AUJarhead · « **Reply #57 on:** October 18, 2011, 09:32:30 AM »

Quote from: RWS on October 18, 2011, 09:19:42 AM

I love lamp.

Do you really love the lamp, or are you just saying it because you saw it?

Hogwally · « **Reply #58 on:** October 18, 2011, 09:42:34 AM »

It was a bad call. What I find funny is gators complaining about it. I could load videos of a dozen calls that were worse going Florida's way over the last couple years. Paybacks are hell. I just wish the game would have been closer so it was completely obvious that call cost them the game.

RWS · « **Reply #59 on:** October 18, 2011, 09:50:20 AM »

Quote from: Hogwally on October 18, 2011, 09:42:34 AM

It was a bad call. What I find funny is gators complaining about it. I could load videos of a dozen calls that were worse going Florida's way over the last couple years.

Exactly. Every fanbase has had a call or two bounce their way, and that's OK. That's football. People just get butthurt and instantly forget the last time the zebras helped them out when they see a call, or no call, that doesn't favor the team that they like.