First half kick catch interference

notgoodatmath said:
all three kick catch calls were correct

the first kid (18) touched marlowe's arm before the ball got there

the second kid hit burkhead simultaneously as the ball arrived, and should have had another 15yd tacked on and been ejected for helmet to helmet. burkie did not fumble.

the third one blatchford signaled for fc and was blatantly interfered with. (we got the ball anyway,and it was only 5 yards sheesh)

Meanwhile Uw gets away with hitting TM while he's on the ground after sliding and hitting marlowe after he had taken a knee on the kick return
Click to expand...
Wow, you are greatly mistaken.

The second kid didn't hit burkhead until he caught the ball. In fact he slowed down to allow Burkhead to catch it. Blame Burkhead for not calling fair catch on that. Still Burkhead didn't fumble.

Blatchford can't call fair catch on an onside kick. So the hit was legal, but either way it was Huskers ball.

I don't understand why Marlowe took a knee after retuning the kick in the first place.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HuskerCarter said:
notgoodatmath said:
all three kick catch calls were correct

the first kid (18) touched marlowe's arm before the ball got there

the second kid hit burkhead simultaneously as the ball arrived, and should have had another 15yd tacked on and been ejected for helmet to helmet. burkie did not fumble.

the third one blatchford signaled for fc and was blatantly interfered with. (we got the ball anyway,and it was only 5 yards sheesh)

Meanwhile Uw gets away with hitting TM while he's on the ground after sliding and hitting marlowe after he had taken a knee on the kick return
Click to expand...
Wow, you are greatly mistaken.

The second kid didn't hit burkhead until he caught the ball. In fact he slowed down to allow Burkhead to catch it. Blame Burkhead for not calling fair catch on that. Still Burkhead didn't fumble.

Blatchford can't call fair catch on an onside kick. So the hit was legal, but either way it was Huskers ball.

I don't understand why Marlowe took a knee after retuning the kick in the first place.
Click to expand...
It wasn't an onside kick.

 
HuskerCarter said:
Wow, you are greatly mistaken.

The second kid didn't hit burkhead until he caught the ball. In fact he slowed down to allow Burkhead to catch it. Blame Burkhead for not calling fair catch on that. Still Burkhead didn't fumble.

Blatchford can't call fair catch on an onside kick. So the hit was legal, but either way it was Huskers ball.

I don't understand why Marlowe took a knee after retuning the kick in the first place.
Click to expand...
On Burkhead's call, the rule is you cannot hit the player before or SIMULTANEOUS to catching the ball. It's a gray area with subjectivity by the official making the call.

And UW did NOT onside kick the ball. They pooch kicked it. So the receiving player cannot be interfered with regardless of calling fair catch or not.

 
Well that my misunderstanding then, people kept telling me it was an onside kick. But like i said, either way we had the ball, and no matter where we were, the offense would have moved the ball.

 
The first one is questionable. I didn't see it hit the huskie player. However the kicking team cannot interfere in the path of the catcher, or it's a penalty by the rule.

The second was also correct. It says simultaneously, and if that's in question, then the last point under the penalty states the ref has the discretion to call it.

The Third, they cannot interefere with the catch if the football has not hit the ground first on the kickoff. Thus they interfered with the ability for us to catch the ball, because their first attempt was a pooch kick.... They got it right the second time, in that they kicked down, and the football bounced on the ground before coming to our player.

So the only questionable call was the first one.

 
Hercules said:
EZ-E said:
I've rewatched it, forgot to add to my original post that on the initial replay I thought it may have hit #31's foot before Marlowe's.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought too... still waiting for some video or a .gif
Click to expand...
I'm with you two. I think the ball hit Washington player before Marlowe which would make this entire conversation irrelevant.

What I don't understand is how if you really want to break it down, Rex getting destroyed on that punt wasn't a penalty. How in the hell could that be legal?

 
gobiggergoredder said:
Hercules said:
EZ-E said:
I've rewatched it, forgot to add to my original post that on the initial replay I thought it may have hit #31's foot before Marlowe's.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought too... still waiting for some video or a .gif
Click to expand...
I'm with you two. I think the ball hit Washington player before Marlowe which would make this entire conversation irrelevant.

What I don't understand is how if you really want to break it down, Rex getting destroyed on that punt wasn't a penalty. How in the hell could that be legal?
Click to expand...
I don't think it was. The announcers made a statement earlier in the game following Marlowe's gaffe that kick-catch interference is hitting the playing prior to or simultaneously as he catches the ball. Maybe someone can pull up the official kick catch interference rule

 
RedDenver said:
I think the call was wrong, but I'm pretty sure the ball hit #31 (Cort Dennison) on the foot and THEN bounced into Marlowe. I know others disagree, but I've looked at it a bunch of times now. So really it only gave NU 15 yards of field position.
Click to expand...
:yeah Yep, I looked at it a lot and slowed it down, etc. Ball hit the foot of UW #31 before Marlowe.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
chamrocck said:
RedDenver said:
I think the call was wrong, but I'm pretty sure the ball hit #31 (Cort Dennison) on the foot and THEN bounced into Marlowe. I know others disagree, but I've looked at it a bunch of times now. So really it only gave NU 15 yards of field position.
Click to expand...
:yeah Yep, I looked at it a lot and slowed it down, etc. Ball hit the foot of UW #31 before Marlowe.
Click to expand...
I don't see how you guys can say that with any certainty. I sure couldn't, at 1/15 speed. I doubt they would've overruled whatever was called on the field. Likewise I sure couldn't see if #18 brushed him or not. Marlowe tripped over #10 on our team, that was the only guy that really impeded him on the catch.

On Rex's hit, he got hit immediately after catching it. The rule is:

"It is an interference foul if the kicking team contacts the potential receiver

before, or simultaneous to, his first touching the ball (A.R. 6-4-1-II, III, VII and

IX). When in question, it is an interference foul."

In real time, the ref may have judged it to be simultaneous, and went with the "When in question" part.

The kickoff flat out was a penalty. Had the ball taken a big bounce it would've been anyone's ball, but instead they popped the kick up, and we have to have a chance to catch it, fair catch or no.

 
zoogies said:
Jason Sitoke said:
That's a Washington touchdown off the board. It was huge and a horrible call. I was yelling at the ref through my TV, and the gaffe benefited my team. Awful.
Click to expand...
You can't advance muffs, I believe, so not quite a TD off the board.
Click to expand...
That is correct. The announcers did make that statement as well. Refs were horrible all day - pointing the wrong way, extremely slow, and the umpire (can't remember his name) looked completely confused on every call. I can't remember ever seeing three kick catch interference calls in any single year on tv let alone in one game, even if the last one was the correct call. I know it was to our benefit but I want to win without any excuses

 
Someone should just start a poll about whether or not the ball hit the Washington player's foot. Count me in the "yes" category...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top