I just heard the Coordinator of Officials on the Big Ten Network explaining the rules on the punt return called back Saturday as well as the overturned pass play at the end of the game. What I found interesting was his comment that a rules emphasis/reminder went out to officials and schools on punt return signals three weeks ago which would pretty well coincide with our PSU game. I wish to withdraw all of my nasty thoughts and comments about the officiating in that game, particularly allowing the punt return after the fair catch signal/fake and replace it with a thank you. We're 9-2 and might not be if that had been called correctly!
Interesting Comment on Valid/Invalid Fair Catch Signals
- Thread starter CatFuzz
- Start date
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned in all the discussion of the fair catch call is that Warren Long was barreling down on the receiver and had him lined up for a big hit, but he seemed to pull up and run to the side of the returner as if he thought a fair catch was called (I checked the replay to verify this). Also when Long went to the sideline and was intercepted by Fitz it looked like that is exactly what they were talking about. I think Fitz even said that he was going to complain to the refs about that if they hadn't called it. So bottom line IMO is that it was an invalid fair catch signal that deceived the gunner, and had the returner not done so Long would have creamed the returner rather than him returning it for a TD.
Guess that's the rule but NU punt returners have been consistently using that exact same signal for many seasons, when choosing to not to field a kick. Thankfully that has changed this season.
Yeah, NU and every team uses the signal regularly. It's only an issue if they try to return it afterwards. That's why people were complaining that they've never seen it enforced before. There's nothing to enforce if they give that signal and then actually get away from the ball, which is what happens 99% of the time
That supervisor of officials made it very clear that any waving of the arms of the returner automatically ended the right of the returner to return the ball. It was right to bring the ball back and if fact, a 5 yd penalty could have/ should have been called.
I am thankful we had a set of officials for that game that actually knew the rules for that play and were also on top of the rules for the controversial call in the end zone and got both right. It would have been easy to call both incorrectly.
Yes...this exact scenario happened later in the game when Erickson did the exact same wave, got away from the ball and allowed it to roll to a stop.
What I didn't notice until looking at replays today was how Long had Erickson dead to rights to separate him from his head, and completely held up and moved to the side to try to corral the punt Erickson was indicating he wasn't going to attempt to field. You can directly see here how the 'invalid fair catch' wave 'tricked' the coverage team into not playing the returner, believing he was not going to field the ball.
The officials should have given a complete explanation after the play. It would have defused a pretty ugly crowd reaction somewhat All they said was "invalid fair catch signal" which left pretty much everyone in the dark about why the play was blown dead.
I was sitting on the 50. I didn't hear a whistle, but one of the side judges immediately ran to the spot where Erickson fielded the ball, and emphatically pointed to it. He did this immediately after Erickson took off running, so it's not like the officials only made the call after Erickson reached the end zone. I knew the play would be called back, and therefore wasn't too concerned about the Badger fans celebrating around me. I was, however, concerned about getting pelted with snowballs after the touchdown was waved off.
Long seemed to...however, I do not think that he was confused into thinking the waving motions (with the arms clearly pointing down, unlike what the vast majority of people interpret as a fair catch signal) were a fair catch signal. He probably (and incorrectly) assumed that after rolling on the ground the FB was dead, and would/could not be returned (I suspect PF's conversation with him had something to do with that..."why did you quit on the play without hearing a whistle, which may have cost us a TD?"). Two of his teammates (J. Jones and McShepard?) trailing him by a fraction of a second did not make that assumption, and did attempt but simply failed to make the tackle....as did two other NU players a few yards later.
No, Long knew the rule (as everyone on the punt team does) that the returner is not allowed to advance the ball after making hand signals of any kind. When the refs didn't blow it dead, some of NU's players tried to make a play on him (after slowing down) as they likely concluded the refs might have missed it.
I doubt that the "any waving rule" was known to Long, but obviously only he knows what he knew (before the controversy). However, whether he did or didn't know, his role was to continue the play UNLESS he heard a whistle. Refs miss calls all the time (holding, illegal motion, etc), and the replay official cannot always redress the error. It would be ridiculous to end up losing a game because a player assumed that a play was dead when it wasn't.
Anyhow, the replay shows that with the possible exception of Long, ALL NU players in a position to attempt a tackle did try immediately without any disruption by the "waving", but failed to do so. And those who attempted a tackle 5 or more yards after the return had started cannot possibly excuse their missed tackle on a confusion by the "waving" that happened before the return even started. By then they definitely should have assumed (and did) that the return counted.
You are wrong. Special teams players spend a lot of time going over these rules in meetings and on the practice field every season. Had Long drilled Erickson there, he could have been subject to an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. A handful of other players looked indecisive like how how they look when a player starts returning a kick (illegally) after signaling for a fair catch.
As Long approached the sideline after the play, he was angry about the return and hand gesturing to Fitz about what Erickson did (waiving his hands). Lip reading Fitz, Fitz calmly said "I know" as the refs were busy bringing the ball back.
I believe that play was reviewable, so even had the refs missed it on the field, it would have come back anyway.
It's a critical point of safety. Had that return stood, coaches would start teaching their coverage teams to unload on the returner if there is any doubt about his intensions (or hand gestures). It's worth risking a 15-yard penalty if it means your team won't give up a punt return for a TD, and that's not safe.
A similar play came up vs Penn State (as the OP said) when the returner gave an invalid (or "half assed") fair catch signal then started to take off running when NU's players had called off the dogs.
Last edited:
The signal Erickson gave waiving his hands back and forth is the universal "poison" signal given to warn members on the punt return team to get out of the way of a short punt. Coverage teams (if they are well coached) know that oft-used "poison" gesture, and they know that ends the chance of a return if used. Erickson had no intension of returning that punt until it bounced into his hands. When it did, his instincts took over and he started running. He said in the post game he knew that play should be ruled dead, but figured he'd keep going until he heard a whistle. By the way, that illegal return should have been penalized with a 5 yard penalty, but I don't recall if that penalty was actually enforced.
Had Long blown up Erickson before he started running (as he could have based on the early timing he got there), Long could have been penalized. I don't believe Erickson started actually running forward until Long made an effort to dodge him. Before Erickson took off, I recall he stood in place motionless for a split second.
I cannot be wrong, because I have stated clearly I do NOT know what Long did or didn't know. If as you say ST players spend a lot of time going over the rules, then one team is the exception: Wisconsin.
Anyhow, it was very obvious that the return man did intend to return the FB after he picked it up...(would he even pick it up if it wasn't to return it? why would he do that?) And at that moment (when he was standing already with the FB in his hands in a running position) the unblocked NU players (all FOUR of them) were still a good 5-10 yards away...yes I am sure. So, what are players taught in that situation? (the return man after having made some type of waving signals, has picked up the FB and is VERY CLEARLY getting ready to return it, whatever signals he may have made).
Should the coverage team just let him go ahead and return it, trusting that the officials will call the return back, or should they go ahead and tackle him? Would they get a penalty for hitting a return man who after doing some sort of waving has picked up a FB and is standing in a running position with a clear intend to run back the FB?
I do not have the rule book in front of me, but I seriously doubt that anyone on the coverage team would be penalized if they tackle him in that situation (whatever waving he may have made).
To make my argument clearer I have attached below another shot that shows the position of the FOUR unblocked NU players when the return mans is ready to take off with the FB (that Wisconsin punt return team is real good, right?).
Last edited:
Link to the actual play on YouTube:
Watch Long intensionally avoid contact with Erickson when he had a chance to absolutely destroy him. Watch Erickson hesitate before deciding to take off running. Watch the other NU coverage guys half *** their tackles because they're tentative and indecisive.
Probably the big mistake was by the officials not blowing the whistle the instant Erickson caught the ball. Perhaps that's why they didn't enforce a penalty on UW.
Watch Long intensionally avoid contact with Erickson when he had a chance to absolutely destroy him. Watch Erickson hesitate before deciding to take off running. Watch the other NU coverage guys half *** their tackles because they're tentative and indecisive.
Probably the big mistake was by the officials not blowing the whistle the instant Erickson caught the ball. Perhaps that's why they didn't enforce a penalty on UW.
I cannot be wrong, because I have stated clearly I do NOT know what Long did or didn't know. If as you say ST players spend a lot of time going over the rules, then one team is the exception: Wisconsin.
Anyhow, it was very obvious that the return man did intend to return the FB after he picked it up...(would he even pick it up if it wasn't to return it? why would he do that?) And at that moment (when he was standing already with the FB in his hands in a running position) the unblocked NU players (all FOUR of them) were still a good 5-10 yards away...yes I am sure. So, what are players taught in that situation? (the return man after having made some type of waving signals, has picked up the FB and is VERY CLEARLY getting ready to return it, whatever signals he may have made).
Should the coverage team just let him go ahead and return it, trusting that the officials will call the return back, or should they go ahead and tackle him? Would they get a penalty for hitting a return man who after doing some sort of waving has picked up a FB and is standing in a running position with a clear intend to run back the FB?
I do not have the rule book in front of me, but I seriously doubt that anyone on the coverage team would be penalized if they tackle him in that situation (whatever waving he may have made).
To make my argument clearer I have attached below another shot that shows the position of the FOUR unblocked NU players when the return mans is ready to take off with the FB (that Wisconsin punt return team is real good, right?).
Fine, you are technically not wrong because you included all sorts of qualifiers. In the future, you should include the following qualifier on all your future posts: "I like to talk out of my rear, so everything I say is probably wrong or misleading."
Watch the Alex Erickson interview. He directly contradicts your theory about his expectations and intensions the moment he caught the ball.
It's ok to use the signal. It's not ok to return the punt after using the signal.
No, I stopped feeling bad for Wisconsin when I saw the replay and understood the rule.
Long really knows what he is doing in so many facets of the game. He has been a real contributor this season and in his career.
He fields the ball in order to prevent it from continuing to roll saving maybe 10 yds of field position. Usually they back away from it as they do not know which way it will bounce.I cannot be wrong, because I have stated clearly I do NOT know what Long did or didn't know. If as you say ST players spend a lot of time going over the rules, then one team is the exception: Wisconsin.
Anyhow, it was very obvious that the return man did intend to return the FB after he picked it up...(would he even pick it up if it wasn't to return it? why would he do that?) And at that moment (when he was standing already with the FB in his hands in a running position) the unblocked NU players (all FOUR of them) were still a good 5-10 yards away...yes I am sure. So, what are players taught in that situation? (the return man after having made some type of waving signals, has picked up the FB and is VERY CLEARLY getting ready to return it, whatever signals he may have made).
Should the coverage team just let him go ahead and return it, trusting that the officials will call the return back, or should they go ahead and tackle him? Would they get a penalty for hitting a return man who after doing some sort of waving has picked up a FB and is standing in a running position with a clear intend to run back the FB?
I do not have the rule book in front of me, but I seriously doubt that anyone on the coverage team would be penalized if they tackle him in that situation (whatever waving he may have made).
To make my argument clearer I have attached below another shot that shows the position of the FOUR unblocked NU players when the return mans is ready to take off with the FB (that Wisconsin punt return team is real good, right?).
How does AE contradict me? He clearly states that, since he HEARD NO WHISTLE, he continued with the return. Obviously, he could have taken a knee if he had wanted, which would blow the play dead for sure, but he just proceeded to RETURN the FB. Isn't that what I said he intended to do?
That is also what I said that the NU players should have done, including Long (and apparently all did with the possible exception of Long, and maybe the one mentioned below): to continue with the play normally, since no whistle was heard.
BTW, of all other NU players, the one who looks like not trying very hard is the very last defender to make an attempt to stop the return (by then he certainly shouldhave assumed the return could count)...seems to be #85 Mark Szott (the other #85 is a very fast frosh)....this player (whoever he is) looked very slow, and was quickly overtaken by 3 Badgers....perhaps he wasn't running at full power, or was hurt....Szott as SBis likely to be at least moderately fast...certainly faster than that player looked.
Last edited:
That makes sense. But he definitely chose to proceed with the return (according to his own account because he never heard a whistle). As far as I can tell, he could have taken a knee if he had wanted, right? That would have stopped the play for sure. But he chose not to.
PeniSylvestris, the czar of the telestrator for the Clueless Channel!
Really, if you boil down all his qualifiers, they all basically say "I don't know what I am talking about."
Again, you literally have no idea what you're talking about. The coaches at Northwestern absolutely coach their gunners to not hit the returner if a signal is made. Doing do would be a 15-year penalty and would likely result in an ejection for targeting a defenseless player.
JJones and McShepard were likely reacting to Ericksen continuing with his return, not the signal.
Since you obviously know so much about NU FB, perhaps you can answer the yet unanswered questions I posed earlier for MR:
Would they get a penalty for hitting a return man who after doing some sort of waving has picked up a FB and is standing in a running position with a clear intend to run back the FB?
I do not have the rule book in front of me, but I seriously doubt that anyone on the coverage team would be penalized if they tackle him in that situation (whatever waving he may have made).
What are players taught for such a situation?
For your convenience, the previously posted image is again below.
Notice that the 4 unblocked NU players are still 5-10 yards from the return man when he is positioning himself for a return with the FB already secured in his hands.
You are absolutely correct. That rule is in place to protect the kick returner. One thing that aggravated me was to listen to Chris Spielman on a telecast saying Wisc was "hosed".
Would they get a penalty for hitting a return man who after doing some sort of waving has picked up a FB and is standing in a running position with a clear intend to run back the FB?
Ha! You're clairvoyant as you know the intent of a dude standing motionless with a ball. Apparently Warren Miles Long and his fellow defenders do not have ESP...
I find it INTERESTING you continue to source a still photo when the video has been linked.
Back to ignore for you...
It was during the Stanford game when the same pass reception rule was called basically the same way nullifying an apparent Cal touchdown. The announcers did not question the call in front of them but then said that Wisconsin had been "hosed." Ticked me off.
If you make an invalid fair catch signal, you are fair game to be tackled. However, players are still coached not to hit the opponent in that situation, because with the opponent likely standing still, teeing off on him runs the risk of drawing a flag for unnecessary roughness even if tackling him in general is legal. Also, the officials are supposed to blow the play dead as soon as the ball is caught, and if you tackle someone well after the whistle, you can also get flagged. So while NU's players could have tackled Erickson, they are taught not to, to minimize the risk of needless penalties.
It was not the place of that announcer to interject himself into a game he probably didn't even watch. Whether it's all the "expert" commentators on the Interweb or some of the so-called "journalists" on the networks, the U.S. has become a nation of know-it-alls, and it isn't pretty to see.