The onside Kick (no-call)???

[BamaFlum]

I'm a little slow. So, ya'll are saying that the Vol players committed an infraction by blocking Julio who was in the neutral area before he touched the ball? I thought there was a conspiracy for Alabama to go to the SECCG? Wouldn't three no calls be the antithesis to this argument?

 

[CapitalTider]

Thanks for posting that. Another call the SEC refs missed, but that is a very complicated set of rules. I guess our coaching staff should have objected at the time, even though I don't know if the correct call would have been made. I thought that onsides kick looked weird from the get-go. It looked like the UT kicker kicked it almost horizontally, so I wondered if it would even go 10 yards. I guess the hope was that one of our guys would touch it in the neutral zone, but not be able to hold on and a UT player would grab it. Sort of what happened by clocking Julio, good to know that was illegal. Can someone send that to Laney along with a big cup of "shut the heck up."

 

[Alasippi]

It wasn't an illegal block because Julio stepped forward and was standing less than ten yards from the 30 yard line. Had he remained back ten yards and was hit before the ball traveled ten yards then it would have been an illegal block.
But once he steps forward he's fair game.

sip

 

[Special K]

It wasn't an illegal block because Julio stepped forward and was standing less than ten yards from the 30 yard line. Had he remained back ten yards and was hit before the ball traveled ten yards then it would have been an illegal block.
But once he steps forward he's fair game.

sip

Sorry, sip, but that's not what the rule says. The rule clearly states that a receiving team player cannot be legally blocked until the kicking team is eligible to recover the ball. There is no stipulation that I can find about where the receiving player has to be in the field of play. In this case, UT was not eligible to recover until either (a) the ball crossed the restraining line or (b) a receiving team player touched the ball. Because the ball was still in the neutral zone when Julio was blocked, it was an illegal block. Julio happened to be in the neutral zone with the ball, but that technically didn't matter in this case. UT could not block ANYBODY legally until the BALL crossed the 40 yard line. If Julio had stood behind the 40, then UT could hit him or anybody else they wanted once the BALL crossed the 40. Again, this is why every receiving team player is coached to go past the restraining and field the ball if possible, because the kicking is not supposed to be able to hit you until you touch the ball in the neutral zone.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat the crow gladly, but I want to see it in print first.:biggrin:

 

[crimsonaudio]

It wasn't an illegal block because Julio stepped forward and was standing less than ten yards from the 30 yard line. Had he remained back ten yards and was hit before the ball traveled ten yards then it would have been an illegal block.
But once he steps forward he's fair game.

I read the entire kicking section of the 2009 NCAA rule book before retracting my original post with the actual cut-n-paste from the rule book- unless you can show me specifically where this is stated in the rule book, I'm gonna have to say you're incorrect.

 

[Alasippi]

Sorry, sip, but that's not what the rule says. The rule clearly states that a receiving team player cannot be legally blocked until the kicking team is eligible to recover the ball. There is no stipulation that I can find about where the receiving player has to be in the field of play. In this case, UT was not eligible to recover until either (a) the ball crossed the restraining line or (b) a receiving team player touched the ball. Because the ball was still in the neutral zone when Julio was blocked, it was an illegal block. Julio happened to be in the neutral zone with the ball, but that technically didn't matter in this case. UT could not block ANYBODY legally until the BALL crossed the 40 yard line. If Julio had stood behind the 40, then UT could hit him or anybody else they wanted once the BALL crossed the 40. Again, this is why every receiving team player is coached to go past the restraining and field the ball if possible, because the kicking is not supposed to be able to hit you until you touch the ball in the neutral zone.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat the crow gladly, but I want to see it in print first.:biggrin:

Well sir you may be right indeed. I'm looking for more info but haven't been able to find anything other than what you've posted. Thanks

sip

 

[NATidefan]

“No Team A player may block an opponent until Team A is eligible to touch a free-kicked ball”

Article 3, point A

“No Team A player is eligible to touch a free-kicked ball until:
1. It touches a Team B player
2. It breaks the plane of and remains beyond Team B’s restraining line
3. It touches any player, the ground, an official or anything beyond Team B’s
restraining line. “
On the onsides kick there is debate as to whether the hit on Julio was legal. Discuss. I have always thought blocking was legal from the point of contact on a kick off, but apparently not. Like I said I just want opinions on the rule.
(But as I said what brought it up was that it appears Julio was blocked before he was eligible to be blocked)

From these rules it should have been a penalty.

When Rogan blocked Jones he was not eligible to do so. Because...

At the time of the block, the ball was still in the air (1. It had not touchced a UA (team B) player).

And at the time of the block, the ball was at the 38 yard line (2. Had not broken UA's (Team B's) restraining line which was the 40).

Also, at the time of the block it had not yet passed the 40 which was UA's restraining line and was still in the air(3. So it couldn't have touched anything passed the restraining line including the ground, a player, or an official)

Therefore, at the time Rogan blocked Julio, no UT (TEAM A) player was eligible to touch the free-kicked ball. And according to the rules, if they weren't yet eligible to touch the ball, they weren't yet eligible to block a UA player (Team B).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COlyJaKtkx8&feature=related"]Video of the play Around 7:00 minutes in[/ame]

If you pause it at around 7:06 you'll get this image, and if you watch it in motion you can tell what I have circled is the ball, and it has been descending and is just now about to touch players.

Sorry the pic is so big, imageshack is not cooperating.

 

[Special K]

NATidefan - correct on all accounts, confirming what I tried to explain.

 

[NATidefan]

NATidefan - correct on all accounts, confirming what I tried to explain.

Yeah, I had just got done having this in depth discussion on another forum. It came down to me having to post these visuals for the point to be understood. Figured I'd just copy and paste it in here for everyone.

The funny part is danielson praising Rogan for his illegal play, and then going back and quoting the rules wrong by saying you can hit a player once the kick hits the ground. That's just not true, it has to go past the line first or be touched by a receiving player first. I hate Danielson and Verne.

 

[Krymsonman]

Forgive me if I missed this already posted here somewhere. I live in Nashville so you can imagine what I am listening to on the (only) sports station here where a certain "host" is very biased. Anyway, everyone keeps talking about MC taking his helmet off and what should of/would have happened with that.

My question is on the onside kick play. Correct me if I am wrong but shouldn't TN have been called for blocking Julio before the ball traveled 10 yards? He was hit on about the 38.5 and the ball should have passed the 40 before anyone can be touched I thought. Again, correct me if I am wrong in thinking this. Regardless we are still 8-0. I am just tired of hearing about all of this on the radio up here! RTR

Well, if everything I've read is correct, and the hit on Julio was illegal, it was yet another blown call by the SEC refs. But in hindsight, it led to another shining example of the heart and grit that BAMA plays with. And hopefully to a new painting! Krymsonman

 

[Hankster2]

I'm convinced we need a new system to prevent games from being decided by bad calls or no calls. We've already accepted a partial replay system. Why not allow coaches 2 challenges per game to challenge a penalty call or lack of a penalty call. It wouldn't be enough to slow the game down significantly and it would prevent these kinds of tragedies on game defining plays.

I've never been a ref, but from where I sit it seems like an overwhelming task. Just consider how much digging we did to come up with the correct call on the onside kick and how much is going on and how many violations you're looking for on a given play. Not saying I think all the crews are competent, but I know how hard a time I have keeping up with just a portion of the things going on during a play. In many respects I get to watch the game from a much better vantage point.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this was a particularly well ref'ed game.

 

[USCBAMA]

I was wrong on this, thought Julio was free game, good find.

 

[BamaMomX1]

I've never been a ref, but from where I sit it seems like an overwhelming task. Just consider how much digging we did to come up with the correct call on the onside kick and how much is going on and how many violations you're looking for on a given play. Not saying I think all the crews are competent, but I know how hard a time I have keeping up with just a portion of the things going on during a play. In many respects I get to watch the game from a much better vantage point.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this was a particularly well ref'ed game.

I agree it is a huge task to call a game. But there needs to be some way for close (incorrect) calls to be reviewed, especially the ones that can change the game. Could be sometimes some of the less experienced refs get "caught up in the moment". They shouldn't let the excitement of the game affect their calls, but how many late hit personal fouls are called when the guys goes out of bounds on his home side and his coaches/teammates start screaming for the flag?

 

[Ole Man Dan]

What If:
Tennessee lined up for an onside kick, but instead of Alabama having the sure hands people on the line, Alabama backed up to a conventional kick receiving line up. What does Tennessee do? Squib it and hope to recover? (That would have taken away part of their plan)

Sometimes I think of weird things...
(I have a bucket of water if I get flamed)

 

[TIDE-HSV]

The problem with that is that they can recover after the ball has traveled ten yards. It's absolutely correct that it was yet one more blown call. UT should never have had the ball and a chance to make the kick...

 

[sononothing]

The problem with that is that they can recover after the ball has traveled ten yards. It's absolutely correct that it was yet one more blown call. UT should never have had the ball and a chance to make the kick...

Wow
I did not know this until today. I wondered why Julio seemed stunned he was blocked and wondered if we hadn't really covered onside kicks in practices. Boy did that call change that feel of the last minute of the game!

 

[CrimsonMapper]

Thanks guys for confirming what I was screaming right after the play was correct. Nevertheless, what are the two UA players behind Julio doing? Although I'm no special teams coach, it seams to me that one of the guys should be moving along the sidelines to contest the UT player recovering the ball. Sometimes it seems as if some of our players stop and wait for the ref to call something. If someone goes and gets the ball, the refs don't have a chance to screw it up.

 

[Mystical]

Thats some good info we need to get this to PTI so they can talk about this now and kill this conspiracy about us getting all the calls.

 

[Hoot30]

​

From these rules it should have been a penalty.

When Rogan blocked Jones he was not eligible to do so. Because...

At the time of the block, the ball was still in the air (1. It had not touchced a UA (team B) player).

And at the time of the block, the ball was at the 38 yard line (2. Had not broken UA's (Team B's) restraining line which was the 40).

Also, at the time of the block it had not yet passed the 40 which was UA's restraining line and was still in the air(3. So it couldn't have touched anything passed the restraining line including the ground, a player, or an official)

Therefore, at the time Rogan blocked Julio, no UT (TEAM A) player was eligible to touch the free-kicked ball. And according to the rules, if they weren't yet eligible to touch the ball, they weren't yet eligible to block a UA player (Team B).

Video of the play Around 7:00 minutes in

If you pause it at around 7:06 you'll get this image, and if you watch it in motion you can tell what I have circled is the ball, and it has been descending and is just now about to touch players.

Sorry the pic is so big, imageshack is not cooperating.

Even Danielson doesn't know the rule either (obviously not his first). At around 7:45 he circles Rogan and JJ on the replay and says that since the ball hits the ground that Rogan can hit JJ. :frown:

 

[RTR_UA#1]

OK, so was the penalty an illegal block on Julio or catch interference that kept Julio from catching the ball?