So, linemen downfield... something has to change!

[crimsonaudio]

Your angles are off so you are adding 1 yard to the position of the players, but the point is still valid.

Yah, any OLman beyond the 30 is an ineligible receiver downfield.

 

[Snuffy Smith]

It's pretty ridiculous when you really look at it. Should be an obvious call if the referees are taught to look for it.

Isn't 17 an eligible receiver? Still at least 1 ineligible WAY down field.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RammerJammer14]

Isn't 17 an eligible receiver? Still at least 1 ineligible WAY down field.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah but I don't think a receiver can block downfield on a pass play. Correct me if I am wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NationalTitles18]

Yeah but I don't think a receiver can block downfield on a pass play. Correct me if I am wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IIRC, they can't initiate contact more than 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage or on a pass play where the ball is thrown beyond the line of scrimmage. Still did not impact this play one iota. We cannot change the referees calls. We can change the way we cover receivers downfield.

 

[TideFan in AU]

Your angles are off so you are adding 1 yard to the position of the players, but the point is still valid.

Actually in that picture, the "1" should be at the black LOS, not the yellow first down line, so that adds another yard.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Actually in that picture, the "1" should be at the black LOS, not the yellow first down line, so that adds another yard.

????

 

[RammerJammer14]

Actually in that picture, the "1" should be at the black LOS, not the yellow first down line, so that adds another yard.

Nah man, the LOS is, by definition, 0 yards beyond the LOS....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CullmanTide]

IIRC, they can't initiate contact more than 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage or on a pass play where the ball is thrown beyond the line of scrimmage. Still did not impact this play one iota. We cannot change the referees calls. We can change the way we cover receivers downfield.

Having linemen down field does impact this play. It helps convince the defense it's a run with is their intent. It is a crooked play from a coach and school with no morals or integrity much like Auburn.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Having linemen down field does impact this play. It helps convince the defense it's a run with is their intent. It is a crooked play from a coach and school with no morals or integrity much like Auburn.

I don't disagree with you, but if you know it isn't being called you have to adjust. You have to cover the guy downfield to avoid the very easy walk in touchdown. I am glad the announcers are calling attention to the problem.

 

[bama579]

I dont get why some version of this play has not been in our playbook for a couple of years.

All it would take is for us to have a little success with it for the screaming and hollering from our victims to "fix it" to be deafening.

 

[CoastGhost]

Actually in that picture, the "1" should be at the black LOS, not the yellow first down line, so that adds another yard.

LOS is zero

 

[GP for Bama]

I dont get why some version of this play has not been in our playbook for a couple of years.

All it would take is for us to have a little success with it for the screaming and hollering from our victims to "fix it" to be deafening.

So true...

 

[Ole Man Dan]

As long as rules favor the HUHN refs will continue to miss the obvious.
While we have had problems with HUHN teams, it's pretty obvious the refs have a bigger problem with them.
Difference is that refs refuse to admit the speed of the game makes them miss the obvious.

 

[CB4]

It's okay guys. Steve Shaw, head of SEC Officials will send Coach Saban (and probably Les Miles because they blew the same call in the AU-LSU game) an official letter of apology that basically says "Sorry guys, but our officiating crews suck" and everything will be fine.

Right?

 

[bama_fan01]

In the NFL, it is one yard. A much smaller area to concentrate on. Secondly, the NFL officials are paid professionals. It's their primary job. In college, it is a bunch of bankers, lawyers, accountants, and insurance salesmen doing it as "weekend sideline job". I've spoken with one (he's well into his forties) and he will tell you the speed of the game presents the biggest challenge.

My position is this: If your going to have a fifty year old, overweight, part time guy that runs a 6.5/40 calling a game with athletes running a 4.5/40, then make it easy on them. Use what the professionals use...a one yard limit.

Another suggestion...they added an official in the offensive backfield, why not add one in the defensive backfield as well? The Umpire could move to one end of the line, and the new spot could be on the other. Both could watch for holding on their side of the LOS as well as linemen downfield.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Secondly, the NFL officials are paid professionals. It's their primary job. In college, it is a bunch of bankers, lawyers, accountants, and insurance salesmen doing it as "weekend sideline job".

No, the NFL referee is the same as CFB - it's a side job.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/27/sport/nfl-officials/

 

[Titans&Tide]

It seems logical to me that, not only should the play be reviewable, it should be challengeable as well. If every scoring play is reviewed automatically, they should be able to see the play and make a ruling on whether or not it was a legal forward pass. Likewise, on any play, a coach should be able to challenge whether the play was legal. My vision is something like this:

Ref: "Alabama is challenging the ruling that the play was a legal forward pass."
<Review Commences>
Ref: "After review, #70 of the offense was six yards downfield and the ball was thrown past the line of scrimmage. Ole Miss is penalized five yards for ineligible man downfield and the call is reversed. Repeat 3rd down."

They start doing that, and those plays disappear.

 

[JDCrimson]

For those saying we need to adjust to it, imo that just undermines the illegality of the play. It will just further embolden teams who use this play to be more creative with it. If downfield blockers start picking off interior help on the play it will be virtually impossible to defend. That is why the rule is on the books in the first place. Don't you think this strategy was employed 60+ years ago and it had the same effect then as it does now? The only difference then is it seemed more PTBs were concerned about the integrity of the game then compared to now.

Our defensive players much be coached to alert officials of linemen downfield just receivers are coached to ask for PI.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

 

[CoreGroup]

Couple things...calling the ref is a bad idea but what about emailing the picture to the sec office? And some have said that maybe adding anew extra ref would help but the ref that was there was looking right at the lineman and didn't call it. Heck they could have stretched arms and touched. That should have been the refs clue he was a little too far down field.
You know what I want is a fairly called game. I don't want Bama to benefit from a bad call and I don't want the other team too either.

 

[CoreGroup]

It's pretty ridiculous when you really look at it. Should be an obvious call if the referees are taught to look for it.

Probably by the time he threw the ball the lineman was another couple yards down field