A couple of plays I am confused about?

[GBRFAN]

1 hour ago, Wunderkind said:

He was driving me crazy. He kept talking about the Husker defense being offsides on the sack by Domann, but didn't appear to watch the replay. Kugler tried to help by mentioning the DT may have moved sideways and wasn't offsides but Millen wouldn't have any of it. He seems to take a side and not budge. 

 

he was pretty bad - when the 96 for ill made that tackle and he gave credit to the davis boy's you could tell that someone was talking in his ear about the mistake - he then replied to the person in his ear on live audio.  had to be a half dozen comments that he couldn't let go.

[CalhounHusker]

2 hours ago, rdwoodpecker said:

Any collegiate refs on this site? I really would like an answer for why when our kickoff died at the 3 that the Illini player ran up towards the ball and layed out of bounds and then touched the ball. Why was that spotted at the 35? The kickoff was inbounds, he chose to go OB and then recover. I understand if it is spotted at the 25 but not the 35.

Still hoping I get an official ruling on this.

thanks

Due to possession of the ball being out of bounds, the kick off was considered kicked out of bounds which results in it being placed at the 35 yard line in college and I believe the 40 in the NFL.

[GBRFAN]

6 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

The difference is control of the ball.  The defender knocked the ball loose from Martinez’s hand and he basically pushed the ball forward.  The Illinois QB still had control of the ball as his hand came forward.

 

This is very accurate and you could also look at the spin the ball leaves with.  TM was like a kick off and BP had proper spin

[WyoHusker56]

1 hour ago, Hayseed said:

They should change the rule to say if the kick returner is out of bounds and touched the ball that is inbounds , the ball is down at that spot. Not that complicated. 

 

I agree they should change the rule. I saw someone else suggest if the returner does this it should be similar to a touchback and come out to the 25. It doesn't penalize the return team or the kicking team. I mean if that ball is another yard in field and dies like that it's a great kick as our kick team had a chance to recover it. 

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

The difference is control of the ball.  The defender knocked the ball loose from Martinez’s hand and he basically pushed the ball forward.  The Illinois QB still had control of the ball as his hand came forward.

I realize that is what they ruled.  I just found it very difficult to see in the replays they showed on TV that it was in fact loose from his hand. Usually when it's that close you can rely on the subsequent action of the ball. It did look somewhat like he pushed it rather than threw it but that is a very subtle difference when a throw is being disrupted. I will admit that the Illinois throw a bit later was more obviously in control of his hand. I guess I thought "forward throwing motion" was more of a determining factor than the ball being in control of the hand. But yeah, I suppose it's hard to "throw" it if you don't have control of it.

[Packerhuskerfan]

I rewatched the Martinez fumble.  The play was clearly whistled dead before any Illinois player had possession of the ball.  Therefore, it should have still been Nebraska ball.

 

The kickoff with the foot out of bounds was a smart play by the Illinois player that I've seen done a few times and is in the rulebook even if I do not think it should be a rule.

[whateveritis1224]

14 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I realize that is what they ruled.  I just found it very difficult to see in the replays they showed on TV that it was in fact loose from his hand. Usually when it's that close you can rely on the subsequent action of the ball. It did look somewhat like he pushed it rather than threw it but that is a very subtle difference when a throw is being disrupted. I will admit that the Illinois throw a bit later was more obviously in control of his hand. I guess I thought "forward throwing motion" was more of a determining factor than the ball being in control of the hand. But yeah, I suppose it's hard to "throw" it if you don't have control of it.

Worst part of that review was giving the ball to Illinois. Guess they need to rewrite the rule to say that a clear recovery of a fumble has to happen within a certain amount of seconds after the play has been blown dead. Only ever seen this rule applied to those bang bang plays where a player clearly fumbled but was called down and the other team recovered it either before or as the refs are whistling the play dead.

[WhatDoIKnow]

8 hours ago, whateveritis1224 said:

Worst part of that review was giving the ball to Illinois. Guess they need to rewrite the rule to say that a clear recovery of a fumble has to happen within a certain amount of seconds after the play has been blown dead. Only ever seen this rule applied to those bang bang plays where a player clearly fumbled but was called down and the other team recovered it either before or as the refs are whistling the play dead.

 

It must have been in an NFL game I was watching yesterday, but the ref that gave the call on a similar situation said something like, "recovered in the immediate action of the play."  Not sure if those were the exact words but it was something similar.  Illinois did not recover the Martinez fumble "in the immediate action".  Maybe it's not clearing stated in the college football rules.

 

If one of our players had recovered a kick while out of bounds instead of Illinois we would be applauding it as a smart play.  Sometimes players from other teams make smart plays.  :shrug:

[DevoHusker]

12 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

There is no such thing as illegal touching if a player is out of bounds when they touch the ball. That just makes the ball out of bounds. Always.

 

 

 

 

I think people are up in arms about this just because they were caught off guard, didn't know it was a rule, and it went against our team. If one of our players did it everyone would likely be having a good old time with it, but reality is, this is and has been a rule for ages.

 

Look at how many NFL examples there are in this video:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, there is no such thing as illegal touching if you're out of bounds. That just makes you and the ball out of bounds. Try to catch the ball as a receiver when you're out of bounds? The ball is out of bounds. Try to recover a fumble on defense when you're out of bounds? The ball is out of bounds. You can call it a 'loophole' I guess but it operates on the same logic on the kickoff as it does in any other scenario where a player is out of bands and touches the ball.

 

except if you try to catch a pass while out of bounds, the ball is not touching the field...

 

thanks for your explanation and accompanying video, but I still think the rule makes no sense...it negates a perfectly executed kick

[Redux]

Last I understood, a player that goes out of bounds by choice cannot come back in and impact the play.  Going out, then grabbing the ball should have made that kickoff null and void should it not?  He is out of bounds, touches it so now the ball is magically out?????  No, HE is out and came back in to down it still in bounds.  If anything that should have been a flag on them, not us.

[Redux]

And the pass fumble was based solely of how the ball moved.  Martinez threw it after contact, the ball went end over end.  Fumble, I guess.  Their QB has the same thing happen to him towards the end, but the ball mostly spirals......incompletion......I guess.

[Husker in WI]

I'm OK with the pass/fumble rulings all in all, I think Martinez did fumble and Peters' arm was moving forward. But it was questionable whether there was evidence to overturn the Martinez one, and it's absolutely wrong to give a recovery to Illinois when the recovery was so far after the whistle. It doesn't matter if they're the only players around the ball are Illinois, I've seen other ones returned to the offense because it was blown dead before the recovery, as inevitable as the recovery seems.

 

Hard to get too angry with it though, because if they did their job it wouldn't have been blown dead and none of the specifics matter much - Illinois gets the ball either way. But it is frustrating that they went out of their way to 'fix' their initial call, ignoring the rules around replay to do so. It was one controversial (and wrong) call to rule it a forward pass initially, but that happens and you can't just ignore replay rules to correct it. 

[zeWilbur]

2 hours ago, Redux said:

Last I understood, a player that goes out of bounds by choice cannot come back in and impact the play.  Going out, then grabbing the ball should have made that kickoff null and void should it not?  He is out of bounds, touches it so now the ball is magically out?????  No, HE is out and came back in to down it still in bounds.  If anything that should have been a flag on them, not us.

 

The confusion comes because this is not an explicit rule but derived from other rules.

 

1. When a player is out of bounds and touches the ball the ball is considered out of bounds.

2. A player cannot voluntarily leave and be the next person to touch the ball. That is illegal touching. But the trick is that the player never came back in. So it isn't illegal touching.

3. The possession never changes so, technically, the kicking team performed a kick-off that was ruled out of bounds before a change of possession and was not a touchback. Hence, the kick was out of bounds. 

[GBRFAN]

5 hours ago, zeWilbur said:

 

The confusion comes because this is not an explicit rule but derived from other rules.

 

1. When a player is out of bounds and touches the ball the ball is considered out of bounds.

2. A player cannot voluntarily leave and be the next person to touch the ball. That is illegal touching. But the trick is that the player never came back in. So it isn't illegal touching.

3. The possession never changes so, technically, the kicking team performed a kick-off that was ruled out of bounds before a change of possession and was not a touchback. Hence, the kick was out of bounds. 

 

This is a great explanation of the sequence it takes to get to that call - however it is a loophole that doesn't make the game of football better - so i'm surprised the NCAA hasn't added a clause to the first rule to end this situation because as it is interesting that the player made the proper play it doesn't promote the game of football and any time spent teaching this concept is time that could be used to teach something that makes college football better.

[ColoradoHusk]

2 minutes ago, GBRFAN said:

 

This is a great explanation of the sequence it takes to get to that call - however it is a loophole that doesn't make the game of football better - so i'm surprised the NCAA hasn't added a clause to the first rule to end this situation because as it is interesting that the player made the proper play it doesn't promote the game of football and any time spent teaching this concept is time that could be used to teach something that makes college football better.

I keep seeing the term "loophole" being used in this rule interpretation.  I don't see where there is a "loophole".

 

1.  Since it's a kickoff, the ball is live for any team recover and gain possession (much like a fumble, in my view).

2.  Before the ball has established possession by a team, the ball is touched first by a player who has established himself as OOB, which makes the ball OOB, and the ball dead.

3.  If a fumble is touched by a player OOB before any team gains possession, the ball is declared OOB and a dead ball (much like this scenario in the kickoff).

4.  In the instance of a fumble which is declared OOB, the ball goes to the team which last had possession.

5.  Since a kickoff never has an established possession, the ball is declared to be kicked OOB by the kicking team, thus given the penalty for kicking it OOB.

 

It seems pretty logical to me.