Did We Get Away With A Bad Call?

[GH2001]

Oh?



But, as you said, it's a judgment call.  I don't know what was going through the ref's mind.  But, I wonder how much closer he needs to be before interference is called...because if he moves any closer than what he is in this picture, they'd be wiener to wiener.  And I'm pretty sure that's interference, what with the wiener contact and all..

Again, it's a judgment call.  I get that.  Most of what I've been posting is in regard to the fair catch having nothing to do with the interference call.  By the rules, the fair catch signal doesn't affect an interference call.  There isn't an interference rule for when a fair catch is signaled, and one for when a fair catch isn't signaled.  There isn't a caveat to the interference rule that says if a player signals "late," or if a player makes an invalid fair catch signal, then the kicking team player can get a little closer than he normally would be able to.  If he was too close for a fair catch, then he was too close for a live catch.

Was OM too close?  Judgment call by the ref.  Was OM too close only because Rainey improperly signaled fair catch?  Doesn't matter.  That's my main point.

Rainey has his arms and hands in front of him, unimpeded. Omac is not conflicting with that because he sidestepped to the right. He is not entangled with Rainey's arms/hands at all which tells me he was not in front of him in that picture. That picture is a little misleading because of the angle but everyone that saw it knows that he is to the side in this picture. When the ball is approaching Rainey, Omac is NOT in his way. That's all there is to it.

With white dudes I am guessing it would not have been wiener to wiener right? 

[Vandy Vol]

Uhh. He was referring to the guy CATCHING the ball as waving his hand at the last second.

Yeah, I see where I misread his post.  However, he's still not understanding the rules.

There is no such thing as a "late" fair catch signal.  Unless, of course, you wave your hands around after the ball has bounced off of you or the ground.  But as long as the ball is still in the air, you can call a fair catch.

Interference is interference.  Chad's acting as if OM was getting close because he thought it was a live catch and that he could smear the shit out of him.  This presumes that you can get close to the guy when he hasn't signaled for a fair catch, but that you can't get as close to him if he has signaled for a fair catch.

That's not the case.

If you're too close to him before he catches the ball, then you're too close.  Regardless of whether he's called for a fair catch, you can't be all up in his shit before he has a chance to catch the ball.

Remember what players did when the halo rule was around?  If they got there early, then they broke down in front of the player two yards away and waited for the catch.  Chad keeps asking, "Well what was OM supposed to do?"  That's basically what he was supposed to do:  break down in front of the guy, not run up as close as possible to him before the ball is caught.

With this whole "judgment call" thing, it's difficult for a player to know where exactly he needs to break down.  But, based upon the fact that the rule doesn't allow them to sprint up to/past receiver and come very close to the receiver, it's pretty clear that a kicking team player needs to keep his distance to some degree and wait for the ball to be caught.

[GH2001]

Yeah, I see where I misread his post.  However, he's still not understanding the rules.

There is no such thing as a "late" fair catch signal.  Unless, of course, you wave your hands around after the ball has bounced off of you or the ground.  But as long as the ball is still in the air, you can call a fair catch.

Interference is interference.  Chad's acting as if OM was getting close because he thought it was a live catch and that he could smear the shit out of him.  This presumes that you can get close to the guy when he hasn't signaled for a fair catch, but that you can't get as close to him if he has signaled for a fair catch.

That's not the case.

If you're too close to him before he catches the ball, then you're too close.  Regardless of whether he's called for a fair catch, you can't be all up in his shit before he has a chance to catch the ball.

Remember what players did when the halo rule was around?  If they got there early, then they broke down in front of the player two yards away and waited for the catch.  Chad keeps asking, "Well what was OM supposed to do?"  That's basically what he was supposed to do:  break down in front of the guy, not run up as close as possible to him before the ball is caught.

With this whole "judgment call" thing, it's difficult for a player to know where exactly he needs to break down.  But, based upon the fact that the rule doesn't allow them to sprint up to/past receiver and come very close to the receiver, it's pretty clear that a kicking team player needs to keep his distance to some degree and wait for the ball to be caught.

Im with you on that. Unimpeded applies to all returns. We agree. That's not the point I am arguing.

[Snaggletiger]

If I'm on the other side, I'm screaming for interference...even after reviewing all the pictures and arguments made in this thread.  I also think if it was reviewable, no matter what call they made, it would not be overturned.  JMO, but I think we got away with one there. 

I also firmly believe Auburn was the better team out there Saturday, especially on defense and that they would have won the game anyway, regardless of the way one call in the first half went.

[Vandy Vol]

Rainey has his arms and hands in front of him, unimpeded.

But, recall the rule: impeded doesn't necessarily mean that someone is blocking, touching, or otherwise affecting your arms.  You could also be impeding his catch by standing too close.  Or just screaming at him.  Or by running past him (meaning to the side of him), but coming "very close."

So impeding someone's ability to catch, according to the NCAA's interpretation of the rule, doesn't always have to do with the physical blocking of view or of body movement.

That picture is a little misleading because of the angle but everyone that saw it knows that he is to the side in this picture. When the ball is approaching Rainey, Omac is NOT in his way. That's all there is to it.

Yeah, the picture is at an odd angle.  But, do you see OM's left foot?  It's closer to the hash mark than Rainey's feet...which would indicate that part of his body is in front of Rainey.

But, regardless, I don't think that his position needs to be focused upon.  I don't think anyone is saying that Rainey's view may have been obstructed, or that he couldn't fully outstretch his hands.  The pertinent part of the rule interpretation is the one that says if a player is "very close" (whatever that means), then an interference foul should be called.

With white dudes I am guessing it would not have been wiener to wiener right? 

College football is racist.  If they had just left the 2 yard halo rule, we wouldn't have a problem.  But now that they've got this judgmental "very close" rule, white boys can get all up in your grill without having their dicks touch you.

[Snaggletiger]

Doing away with the 2 yard halo rule is a little mind boggling to me.  With all the rules that have been passed in the last decade alone, all designed to give more and more protection to the players, this one goes completely against the grain.  I have no problem with changing it, just seems completely inconsistent with the way the game has been regulated in recent years.

[Vandy Vol]

Doing away with the 2 yard halo rule is a little mind boggling to me.  With all the rules that have been passed in the last decade alone, all designed to give more and more protection to the players, this one goes completely against the grain.  I have no problem with changing it, just seems completely inconsistent with the way the game has been regulated in recent years.

Any time you create a rule which relies solely upon the ref's judgment, you're going to have inconsistent calls.  And when you have inconsistent calls, teams will start bitching, especially if that one call costs someone a game.

Obviously there are some rules which, to some degree, have to rely upon the ref's judgment.  But when it comes to something like this, I think that having a clearly defined two yard (or hell, even one yard if you just want to give players a chance to destroy each other) halo is better.

[CCTAU]

Any time you create a rule which relies solely upon the ref's judgment, you're going to have inconsistent calls.  And when you have inconsistent calls, teams will start bitching, especially if that one call costs someone a game.

Obviously there are some rules which, to some degree, have to rely upon the ref's judgment.  But when it comes to something like this, I think that having a clearly defined two yard (or hell, even one yard if you just want to give players a chance to destroy each other) halo is better.

Nobody had a problem with it until the damn TV people starting putting that yellow ring around the receiver. Then it was starting to make the officials look bad.
But I agree. I liked the halo rule. It helped reinforce the come-to-gather principle of tackling.

[Vandy Vol]

Nobody had a problem with it until the damn TV people starting putting that yellow ring around the receiver. Then it was starting to make the officials look bad.
But I agree. I liked the halo rule. It helped reinforce the come-to-gather principle of tackling.

I don't recall, but was the halo rule reviewable?  I assume not, since the "unimpeded opportunity" rule is not reviewable.

I'd say that they should just bring back the halo rule and allow it to be reviewed.  That way, the refs can save face by reversing their own calls instead of having the TV people analyze it to death and bitch about it.

[Hogwally]

There was no call.  Therefore no bad call.  It was a judgement decision, no contact.  Auburn wins!  Fuck the whiners, haters, and YOU!

     OK, it was a bad no-call.  Jesus, you got some sand in your clit or something?  Are you one of those guys who thinks Auburn NEVER commits a penalty?  Auburn clearly won the game, that call didn't effect the outcome.  If you can't look at that play and see the ref missed the call then you need to have your Auburn colored glasses cleaned.

[JR4AU]

     OK, it was a bad no-call.  Jesus, you got some sand in your clit or something?  Are you one of those guys who thinks Auburn NEVER commits a penalty?  Auburn clearly won the game, that call didn't effect the outcome.  If you can't look at that play and see the ref missed the call then you need to have your Auburn colored glasses cleaned.

Fuck you hog fucker!  YOU declaring it a bad call, or bad no call means exactly jack shit!  It means NOTHING.  It's your fucking opinion.   You can fucking TELL me what you think like it's a fucking fact until the hogs come home, but it's just your opinion, and it's meaningless.  Fuck off.

[Saniflush]

     OK, it was a bad no-call.  Jesus, you got some sand in your clit or something?  Are you one of those guys who thinks Auburn NEVER commits a penalty?  Auburn clearly won the game, that call didn't effect the outcome.  If you can't look at that play and see the ref missed the call then you need to have your Auburn colored glasses cleaned.

I think this calls for the drunk helicopter.


Oooh speaking of which, I may have spilled the beans to your nieces what that is.  BTW they think you are a lot cooler now.

[Hogwally]

I think this calls for the drunk helicopter.


Oooh speaking of which, I may have spilled the beans to your nieces what that is.  BTW they think you are a lot cooler now.

     No drunk helicopters.  He's wound so tight I'm afraid his head might explode.

[JR4AU]

     No drunk helicopters.  He's wound so tight I'm afraid his head might explode.

Typical internet fuck stick, thinks you've upset someone because they've told you to fuck off.  Get a life douchnozzle...you're not that important. 

And    Fuck OFF!

[Vandy Vol]

Fuck you hog fucker!  YOU declaring it a bad call, or bad no call means exactly jack shit!  It means NOTHING.  It's your fucking opinion.   You can fucking TELL me what you think like it's a fucking fact until the hogs come home, but it's just your opinion, and it's meaningless.  Fuck off.

Say what you really mean...

[Snaggletiger]

Say it, babe.  Cock of the walk, babe.

[Hogwally]

Typical internet fuck stick, thinks you've upset someone because they've told you to fuck off.  Get a life douchnozzle...you're not that important. 

And    Fuck OFF!

BORING.......BORING......BORING......

BTW, just went back and watched the replay on the DVR, it's still a bad call.

[JR4AU]

BORING.......BORING......BORING......

BTW, just went back and watched the replay on the DVR, it's still a bad call.

And you're still a hog nut sucking fuck stick

[Buzz Killington]

And he is doing a drunk helicopter now...

[GH2001]

BORING.......BORING......BORING......

BTW, just went back and watched the replay on the DVR, it's still a bad call.

Of course it is. We both have 1 SEC loss. Makes sense.

And yes , I agree on the halo rule. It sets a hard boundary for which a player cannot cross. Now its subjective. What is "interfering" to one person may not be to another, like Pigwaller. Apparently it doesn't take much to get in his way. I bet he's a real bitch in 5 pm traffic or at the grocery store.