I understand the explanation on the non-touchback

[Shamoan]

but i have seen that same play 1000 times and every time its a touchback. that was a complete hose-job on that call. if i recall correctly, they never fully possessed the ball and it crossed the goal line. what an awful call. mullen sure didnt like it.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

What was the explanation? I had resigned myself to the fact that we were getting it on the one, so I didn't listen to WHY we were getting it on the one.

 

[drt7891]

I think initially, the ball looked like it never crossed the plane of the goal line (just like the ball scores a touchdown, the same is true for touchbacks... once it crosses the plane of the goal, it's a touchback... the official is not looking at the player, he is looking at the ball). On the initial call, it looked like the official looking at the ball was screened by another player (you can clearly see on the replay there was a player in the way), so I wasn't too upset at the call. However, on replay, the ball clearly crosses the plane of the goal line and should have been ruled a touchback. I guess the referee didn't see as conclusive an angle as he wanted? Thats' just my wild-*** guess, but it should have been a touchback.

 

[aerodawg.sixpack]

What was the explanation? I had resigned myself to the fact that we were getting it on the one, so I didn't listen to WHY we were getting it on the one.

He had possession and his knee was down while at the one. He later threw it back into his teammates foot which bounced it through the end zone. It didn't look like his knee was down before the ball crossed the plane, but there wasn't indisputable evidence so the play stood as called.

 

[drt7891]

In this situation, the knee being down has nothing to do with the call itself (despite what the commentators kept talking about). The official is looking at the ball and whether or not its "progress" goes beyond the plane of the goal. If it does, it's a touchback, period... and last night, it went beyond the plane of the goal line.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

The rulebook seems to state that the ball becomes dead upon the kicking team recovering the kick if the receiving team has not touched the ball past the neutral zone. By that rule, the ball should be dead where it was caught, but I've seen a touchback declared when the player subsequently fell into the end zone.

 

[Dawgzilla]

In this situation, the knee being down has nothing to do with the call itself (despite what the commentators kept talking about). The official is looking at the ball and whether or not its "progress" goes beyond the plane of the goal. If it does, it's a touchback, period... and last night, it went beyond the plane of the goal line.

I think you are right that the knee touching is irrelevant. But the college rule is that the ball is dead once it is "recovered" by the kicking team. So, as soon as the LSU player had possession of the ball, the play was dead right there. It doesn't matter if he subsequently loses possession and the ball rolls into the endzone, it should be called dead wherever it is recovered. Of course, then State had the option of taking the ball where it was recovered or where it was first touched, which was a little bit further out in the field of play.

Catch or Recovery by Kicking Team
ARTICLE 6. a. If a player of the kicking team catches or recovers a scrimmage
kick that has crossed the neutral zone, the ball becomes dead (A.R. 6-3-1-IV).
The ball belongs to the receiving team at the dead-ball spot, unless the kicking
team is in legal possession when the ball is declared dead. In the latter case, the
ball belongs to the kicking team.

 

[TheStateUofMS]

I think it was complete BS. According to those refs, a WR should be able to catch the ball like that and fall to the ground and it come out and it be a completion. Ain't no way a WR doing that would have been a completion.

Also, Devon Bell got run into and there was no call. The refs didn't help us. They called a terrible holding call on Malone as well if I recall at the LSU 1 yard line.

 

[Uncle Ruckus]

What was up with the Bell no call? The commentators didn't even mention it. I thought is was going to be a for sure flag and first down but nothing. Very strange because he was hit right after the punt and went to the ground. Maybe I'm unclear on the rule but I thought any contact resulting in the kicker going to the ground was a penalty.

 

[StillTbonewannabe]

What was up with the Bell no call? The commentators didn't even mention it. I thought is was going to be a for sure flag and first down but nothing. Very strange because he was hit right after the punt and went to the ground. Maybe I'm unclear on the rule but I thought any contact resulting in the kicker going to the ground was a penalty.

I told my wife that is actually the definition of running into the kicker. No mention at all on anything to do with the play. I have never seen a call where the team got the ball on the one like that. His momentum clearly carried him into the endzone and the ball ended up a yard into the endzone. Why would anyone ever have to try and throw it back if they have possession immediately grabbing it.

 

[Lawdawg.sixpack]

Gus Walley was right- that was horse ****.

 

[TaleofTwoDogs]

What was up with the Bell no call?

Indirectly they did during a subsequent kick they mentioned that his style of kicking (taking several steps at a angle to the LOS) carried him outside the box of protection for punters and was fair game. They also noticed that Bell sometimes kicks straight away which is safer.

 

[operch]

What was up with the Bell no call? The commentators didn't even mention it. I thought is was going to be a for sure flag and first down but nothing. Very strange because he was hit right after the punt and went to the ground. Maybe I'm unclear on the rule but I thought any contact resulting in the kicker going to the ground was a penalty.

4. The kicker’s protection under this rule ends (a)when he has had a
reasonable time to regain his balance(A.R. 9-1-16-IV); or (b)when he
carries the ball outside the tackle box (Rule 2-34) before kicking.

 

[Shamoan]

yeah, they um....overlooked that one. they certainly didnt do us any favors and made some pro-lsu calls....which makes the win that much sweeter.

 

[Lee Corso]

Or LSU could revert back to Eddie Kinison days, ignoring whistles.

http://www.lsusports.net/mediaPortal/player.dbml?catid=607&id=38573

 

[thekimmer]

If that is the case then why?......

....do defenders get all antsy around the goal line when downing a punt? Why not just run up, catch it or pick it up and run it into the endzone? You never see that though? Why?

 

[thekimmer]

Hmmm...then on that little rugby punt defenders should be trying to LIGHT UP the kicker.

 

[dawgstudent]

I've never heard a PA guy start announcing during the middle of a play until that night.

 

[Dawgzilla]

Catching the ball is the best way to down a punt, but you only see that when the receiver has cleared out and the defenders have had a chance to square up and face the ball. I think the biggest problem is that its difficult to just secure a moving football (ask Dak about trying to fall on that snap that was over his head), and you just don't want to give the refs a chance to say the ball made it into the endzone.

Also, I often think refs fail to make the proper call when the ball has been secured by the kicking team. I don't know why this is. I remember a play by Auburn against us a few years ago where one of the Auburn players grabbed the ball on one bounce, but that player's momentum was taking him out of bounds. He threw the ball back over his shoulder and it bounced into the endzone for what was called a touchback...but I really thought he had established possession of the ball before tossing it over his head.

I really thought the play Saturday was going to be called a touchback, and if it had been called that way I'm pretty sure replay would have let that call stand. It may have been within the letter of the rule to call that ball down right at the goalline, but its not the way that call is typically made.