Announcers and the Rules

[TexMike]

If you believe announcers have a clue when it comes to explaining the rules, take a look at this video from a Texas HS game last weekend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N64yUCqrhFU

[sinton66]

Mike, you probably ought to go ahead and explain the correct rule.

[TexMike]

The problem and why there was a flag is that Team A blocked before they were legally allowed to.

[LH_Tuff]

Originally posted by TexMike
The problem and why there was a flag is that Team A blocked before they were legally allowed to.

I've never heard of this. So, you are saying that on a kickoff. The kicking team must wait until the ball goes 10 yards before engaging the other team? If this is the case, I have seen a lot of non-call penalties.

[44INAROW]

Is the foul on #52 (white/kicking team) for hitting that guy early?
ps there sure were alot of empty stands :eek:

[injuredinmelee]

Originally posted by TexMike
If you believe announcers have a clue when it comes to explaining the rules, take a look at this video from a Texas HS game last weekend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N64yUCqrhFU

in all honesty how many people actually knew that was a rule? Maybe you should try to be an announcer some day. They are always looking to hire. (isnt that what you say everytime someone criticizes a ref?)

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by injuredinmelee
in all honesty how many people actually knew that was a rule? Maybe you should try to be an announcer some day. They are always looking to hire. (isnt that what you say everytime someone criticizes a ref?)

I'll let TM try to explain in his own words, injured, but I think he is trying to say that those who do not know a rule should not try to explain one. I think Mike would be the one of the first to applaud a good and correct explanation of a rule to the crowd.

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by injuredinmelee
in all honesty how many people actually knew that was a rule? Maybe you should try to be an announcer some day. They are always looking to hire. (isnt that what you say everytime someone criticizes a ref?) LOL

[injuredinmelee]

the announcers just figured, like I did, that there were was an alignment penalty. I would guess that the announcers like 85% of this board didnt know the rule there. If your gonna dish it out you have to be able to take it also.

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by TexMike
The problem and why there was a flag is that Team A blocked before they were legally allowed to. So, that's the same sign as false start/illegal motion/formation? I thought there was a different hand sign for illegal touching? Can we get a chart? :nerd:

[SintonPirateFan]

Originally posted by pirate4state
So, that's the same sign as false start/illegal motion/formation? I thought there was a different hand sign for illegal touching? Can we get a chart? :nerd:

in the ncaa, at least, looks like illegal touching is the same signal as an official timeout..

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/rules/football/2008/fbsignals.pdf

[BwdLion_80]

There is a different sign for illegal touching, but it deal with touching the ball.

[injuredinmelee]

I got slapped in the face once for illegal touching

[jason]

Originally posted by injuredinmelee
I got slapped in the face once for illegal touching at least they didn't throw an orange flag for everybody to see and then start blowing a whistle....

[injuredinmelee]

Originally posted by jason
at least they didn't throw an orange flag for everybody to see and then start blowing a whistle....
she had a whistle too but the damn mace was no bueno.

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by SintonPirateFan
in the ncaa, at least, looks like illegal touching is the same signal as an official timeout..

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/rules/football/2008/fbsignals.pdf thanks! :D

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by TexMike
The problem and why there was a flag is that Team A blocked before they were legally allowed to.
The first blocking I can see, is at about 0:12 sec of the video, when a player on the Blue team crosses the 45 into the 10 yd zone and initiates contact.:thinking:

[shamu85]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
I'll let TM try to explain in his own words, injured, but I think he is trying to say that those who do not know a rule should not try to explain one. I think Mike would be the one of the first to applaud a good and correct explanation of a rule to the crowd.

I admit I didn't watch with sound the whole time, but it seems to me he explained the rule correctly, just not for what the penalty was called. To be honest, I would have loved to hear the official explain why the penalty was called. If it was blocking, I have never heard of the no engagement before 10 yds either. If it was for touching (which the San Marcos blocker did) then it's not for blocking early is it? Wouldn't that make it illegal touching?

[garciap77]

Originally posted by injuredinmelee
I got slapped in the face once for illegal touching

Let's not confuse the signs:

This is the one for the video:
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/signal16.jpg

And this is the one injure is talking about:
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/SuperStock_1439R-122021.jpg



:D

[TexMike]

Well this thread has degenerated (shocking, right?) ;)

But to the points:
1 - My criticism of the broadcaster is related to them speaking without knowing. Yes it may be an unusual rule. So why not do what the one guy did on another situation in the game when he said he thought the tuck rule might apply but since he did not know the rule he would not comment? But if you are going to "talk like an expert" and lead the unwashed masses who are watching into thinking you know what you are talking about, then you need to be informed. Otherwise just say "I am not sure what the ruling is in this type situation"

2- The rule that was violated was not because the ball was touched illegally. It was because #52 blocked too early. Those who think they see this all the time with no flag may actually be seeing plays where there is blocking of the receiving team but it is after the 10 yard "DMZ". You rarely see the receiving team come forward of that line so normally when they are being blocked they (and the ball) are both more than 10 yards from where the ball was kicked. In that case, no foul. The signal for the illegal block in this situation is the "traveling" signal which is what the referee gave.

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by TexMike
... related to them speaking without knowing...
We see that here everyday! HAHA

[shamu85]

Originally posted by TexMike
Well this thread has degenerated (shocking, right?) ;)

But to the points:
1 - My criticism of the broadcaster is related to them speaking without knowing. Yes it may be an unusual rule. So why not do what the one guy did on another situation in the game when he said he thought the tuck rule might apply but since he did not know the rule he would not comment? But if you are going to "talk like an expert" and lead the unwashed masses who are watching into thinking you know what you are talking about, then you need to be informed. Otherwise just say "I am not sure what the ruling is in this type situation"

2- The rule that was violated was not because the ball was touched illegally. It was because #52 blocked too early. Those who think they see this all the time with no flag may actually be seeing plays where there is blocking of the receiving team but it is after the 10 yard "DMZ". You rarely see the receiving team come forward of that line so normally when they are being blocked they (and the ball) are both more than 10 yards from where the ball was kicked. In that case, no foul. The signal for the illegal block in this situation is the "traveling" signal which is what the referee gave.

So, are you saying that if the receiving team comes forward to where they are less than 10 yards from where the ball was kicked, the kicking team is not allowed to hit them unless they touch the ball first?

[lange4]

Sounds like you are saying penalty is on recieving team. If so kicking team would have refused penalty and had ball.

[shamu85]

Originally posted by lange4
Sounds like you are saying penalty is on recieving team. If so kicking team would have refused penalty and had ball.

That's what I thought, too, at first. Then I watched it again and saw that #52 is on the kicking team. This is as clear as mud to me.

[SintonPirateFan]

rules for kickoffs....

page FR-86 and following. (page 89 of the document)

http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uploads/PDF/Football_Rules_5_2204c0005d-845f-4813-8391-54f15136079d.pdf

i can't access youtube at work so i haven't seen the foul....and can't give my 2 cents.

[shamu85]

Originally posted by SintonPirateFan
rules for kickoffs....

page FR-86 and following. (page 89 of the document)

http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uploads/PDF/Football_Rules_5_2204c0005d-845f-4813-8391-54f15136079d.pdf

i can't access youtube at work so i haven't seen the foul....and can't give my 2 cents.

Looks like this is the part that would apply.

g. No Team A player may block an opponent until Team A is eligible to touch a free-kicked ball [S19].

I guess the confusing part is the wording of "block an opponent". It's not often that a kicking team is "blocking" unless they have gained possession of the ball. I guess them "blocking" as opposed to stepping up to take a hit is where official judgement comes into play.

[injuredinmelee]

Originally posted by TexMike
Well this thread has degenerated (shocking, right?) ;)

But to the points:
1 - My criticism of the broadcaster is related to them speaking without knowing. Yes it may be an unusual rule. So why not do what the one guy did on another situation in the game when he said he thought the tuck rule might apply but since he did not know the rule he would not comment? But if you are going to "talk like an expert" and lead the unwashed masses who are watching into thinking you know what you are talking about, then you need to be informed. Otherwise just say "I am not sure what the ruling is in this type situation"

2- The rule that was violated was not because the ball was touched illegally. It was because #52 blocked too early. Those who think they see this all the time with no flag may actually be seeing plays where there is blocking of the receiving team but it is after the 10 yard "DMZ". You rarely see the receiving team come forward of that line so normally when they are being blocked they (and the ball) are both more than 10 yards from where the ball was kicked. In that case, no foul. The signal for the illegal block in this situation is the "traveling" signal which is what the referee gave.

can dish it but cant take it i see.

[TexMike]

Originally posted by shamu85
So, are you saying that if the receiving team comes forward to where they are less than 10 yards from where the ball was kicked, the kicking team is not allowed to hit them unless they touch the ball first?

No not saying that. The kicking team can hit them as soon as the kicking team is eligible to touch the ball. They become eligible to touch the ball when any one of these happens:
1 - Ball has gone 10 yards
2 - Ball has been touched by receiving team

[TexMike]

Originally posted by shamu85
Looks like this is the part that would apply.

g. No Team A player may block an opponent until Team A is eligible to touch a free-kicked ball [S19].

I guess the confusing part is the wording of "block an opponent". It's not often that a kicking team is "blocking" unless they have gained possession of the ball. I guess them "blocking" as opposed to stepping up to take a hit is where official judgement comes into play.

Blocking should not be seen as a term that only applies to offense. At the line of scrimmage, when defensive line charges into offensive line , they are "blocking". When a defensive back "chucks" a receiver, he is "blocking". ETC ETC

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by injuredinmelee
can dish it but cant take it i see.

I swore I would never agree with you on anything but on this topic I do agree with you. Well played sir.