First half kick catch interference

[JJ Husker]

It really appears to me that the ball hit the UW players foot first. If that's the case, the refs blew the call technically but the net result did not hurt UW. When Rex got drilled it might have been a bad call but very subject to interpretation at game speed. The pooch kick call was the right call.

I always thought you had to wave for a fair catch and if you didn't you were fair game. Is this not the rule? Or did he wave for a fair catch?

You are fair game if you don't wave for fair catch but they must also always give you the opportunity to catch the ball. If the kicking team touches the ball before it touches the ground or a receiving team player then the ball is dead at that point and it becomes the receiving teams ball. This is why an onside kick must hit the ground or touch a receiving player before it can be recovered by the kicking team. KCI #1- ball hit UW players foot first therefore correct call should've been to mark it dead at that point. Apparently the ref saw something else like a UW player touch our receiver or he mistook our own player hitting him as a UW player. So, KCI is a bad call but it is not the game changer people thought because it should've been dead and our ball not UW's ball. The only thing they have to complain about is the extra yardage for the penalty. KCI#2- Rex did not signal fair catch therefore he is eligible to get creamed however, the ref apparently felt the UW player hit him simultaneous to the catch and thus interfered with his ability to catch the ball. This is a judgement call and at game speed reasonable but arguable when reviewing in slomo. I don't think a judgement call like that can be reviewed on replay. KCI#3- Definitely good call. The onside/pooch kick did not hit the ground or one of our players therefore they could not hit our receiver before giving him an opportunity to catch it.

 

[shyndy]

well i might be alone in this and maybe im totally wrong, but i thought it was a really good call. They took the halo rule out, but that doesn't mean that a situation like that can't still be kick catch interference. I think we are just used to big 12 refs who when they took out the halo rule they decided there was no rule at all just hit the guy as soon as you can lol. The one that baffled me was on the onside kick (which our guy recovered anyway so it didnt have a large effect on the game). Am I missing something on that? I would understand if our guy had signaled fair catch (bc the ball never hit the ground) but I didnt ever see the signal, and on kickoffs its a live ball right?

 

[shyndy]

It really appears to me that the ball hit the UW players foot first. If that's the case, the refs blew the call technically but the net result did not hurt UW. When Rex got drilled it might have been a bad call but very subject to interpretation at game speed. The pooch kick call was the right call.

I always thought you had to wave for a fair catch and if you didn't you were fair game. Is this not the rule? Or did he wave for a fair catch?

You are fair game if you don't wave for fair catch but they must also always give you the opportunity to catch the ball. If the kicking team touches the ball before it touches the ground or a receiving team player then the ball is dead at that point and it becomes the receiving teams ball. This is why an onside kick must hit the ground or touch a receiving player before it can be recovered by the kicking team. KCI #1- ball hit UW players foot first therefore correct call should've been to mark it dead at that point. Apparently the ref saw something else like a UW player touch our receiver or he mistook our own player hitting him as a UW player. So, KCI is a bad call but it is not the game changer people thought because it should've been dead and our ball not UW's ball. The only thing they have to complain about is the extra yardage for the penalty. KCI#2- Rex did not signal fair catch therefore he is eligible to get creamed however, the ref apparently felt the UW player hit him simultaneous to the catch and thus interfered with his ability to catch the ball. This is a judgement call and at game speed reasonable but arguable when reviewing in slomo. I don't think a judgement call like that can be reviewed on replay. KCI#3- Definitely good call. The onside/pooch kick did not hit the ground or one of our players therefore they could not hit our receiver before giving him an opportunity to catch it.

maybe things have changed but I always understood it was up for grabs on kickoffs (unless faircatch signal), which is the whole point of doing the lob style onside.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

Your understanding is wrong and things haven't changed. The ball has to hit the ground first for it to be fair game, which is why you see kickers pound it into the ground to get the high bounce. The same rule I posted on the previous page on the Burkhead punt catch applies to kickoffs as well.

 

[knapplc]

Watching this game in the stands, I felt all three calls were bang-bang plays, but we sit far enough back that I couldn't form an opinion. I think most people in the crowd, after watching on the big screen, felt the first call was "close." I think the most reasonable explanation for that call was that the ref thought #18 impeded Marlowe's progress to the ball because he ran past Marlowe within inches. Regardless, I disagree with this call. But it was a fast call, bang-bang, and I don't think it was intentionally "given" to Nebraska. Could have been, though. Regardless of that call, Washington does not get a TD off of that play. A muffed punt reception can be recovered by the kicking team but not advanced, so at best it's Washington's ball at the point of recovery. We can play woulda/coulda/shoulda all day long, but the fact is that the 3rd quarter KCI call was sandwiched between two Washington three-and-outs. They were NOT moving the ball in the third quarter, and our defense definitely had the upper hand. You cannot say with any kind of certainty that Washington would have scored if they get that recovery.

The second KCI call, where Rex was hit as he caught the ball, is another bang-bang judgment call. As close as the first one was, I think you almost have to let this one go to "balance it out," but that's not how the refs are supposed to call the game. I can see the argument for both sides - on the Nebraska side, we're saying Rex hadn't completed the motion of catching the ball, therefore it's KCI and a penalty. Washington is saying the ball was in his hands against his chest and that's a catch, so he's fair game. If the kick-catch rule is interpreted like a pass reception, the "act of catching" continues beyond the ball contacting the body, therefore Rex was interfered with because he had not yet secured the ball. If that's not how that rule is interpreted, then Washington has a gripe here. But in this instance I don't think the penalty matters - whether we start that drive at the 24 or 44, at that point in the game we were imposing our will on the Huskies. That would have ended up a TD, in my very humble opinion, penalty or not.

The last call was a very good call by the officials and the announcers embarrassed themselves by ranting on and on about it. I was pleasantly surprised when they corrected themselves on air. Although I noticed that Millen didn't so much acknowledge his error, while Sean McDonough did, and graciously.

This leads me to my final point - I think a LOT of the bitching about this is colored by the commentary of Matt Millen, who acted as if the world ended when these calls were made. We have all seen a NUMBER of blown calls by the officials, and these were not as egregious as some, but you'd never know that listening to Millen go on and on. I was confused why people were so up in arms about this when I came back from the game, but now that I've listened to Millen's call, I understand. Many people seem to be influenced by what Millen said, not by what actually happened.

 

[UDub]

At least some Husker fans here are being honest. I turned the game off (not joking) after that call. Worst officiating I've seen since fixed Super Bowl XL.

 

[FrankWheeler]

Directly (emphasis on the last sentence added) from the rule book:

Opportunity To Catch a Kick

Interference With Opportunity

ARTICLE 1. A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines attempting to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick.

a. This protection terminates when the kick touches the ground, when any player of Team B muffs or touches a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone, or when any player of Team B muffs or touches a free kick in the field of play or in the end zone.

b. If interference with a potential receiver is the result of a player being blocked by an opponent, it is not a foul.

c. It is an interference foul if the kicking team contacts the potential receiver before, or simultaneous to, his first touching the ball. When in question, it is an interference foul.

 

[knapplc]

At least some Husker fans here are being honest. I turned the game off (not joking) after that call. Worst officiating I've seen since fixed Super Bowl XL.

Nothing I've seen in any of your posts leads me to believe that you're an expert on honesty. And for equally bad officiating, look no further than our game in Seattle last year, where the line judge on your sideline was so bad our guys wouldn't even hand him the ball anymore, they ran it to the middle of the field and gave it to the umpire for a legitimate spot. I don't seem to recall any Washington fans griping about the officiating last September when it was grossly in your favor - even though the outcome was never in doubt.

 

[knapplc]

Looks like the Pac-12 head of officiating agrees with most of the calls. If we're seriously pinning this loss on one blown call - which at this point even the Pac-12's head of officiating doesn't entirely disagree with - then this is the ultimate in weak sauce.

Pac-12 waiting for word from UW coach Steve Sarkisian on disputed calls

The Pac-12 Conference's new coordinator of officiating, Tony Corrente, said Tuesday he backs a couple of the disputed calls made by a Big Ten crew in Saturday's Nebraska-Washington game, and will discuss with that league any complaints lodged if the Huskies pursue it.

"I'm still waiting to get a phone call from coach (Steve Sarkisian) to get his full feeling before I step into it," Corrente said at midday Tuesday from the Pac-12 office in Walnut Creek, Calif. "I don't want to step into anything he doesn't step into at this point."

...

Corrente said he had only viewed television replays of the calls. Of three kick-interference calls that went against Washington, he said the one on which he'd like more information came with 1:49 left in the first half, when UW was ruled to have interfered with a Huskers return man.

Washington recovered the ball (it cannot be advanced), but instead of the Huskies having possession at the Huskers' 26, Nebraska took over at its 41 and drove for a field goal and a 20-17 lead it never lost.

"That's the one I'm saying, I'm not privy to what the officials actually ruled — what their rationale was for making the call," Corrente said.

But Corrente backed the rulings of the officials on two other calls. Early in the third quarter on another UW punt, Desmond Trufant tackled a Huskers return man and was flagged 15 yards for kick-catching interference.

"We want to have the player have the opportunity to completely catch the football," Corrente said. "It isn't just because he didn't signal for a fair catch. He has to have an unmolested opportunity to complete the catch."

Asked if that conflicts with the abolition in 2003 of the 2-yard "halo" rule — a zone around the receiver where he couldn't be impeded from making the catch — Corrente said, "Once they got rid of that, it really did not change anything. We basically went to the same rule we'd had forever (that the receiver can't be hindered from making the catch)."

Corrente said an interference call against the UW's Jermaine Kearse on Nebraska's Justin Blatchford on a "pooch" kickoff midway through the fourth quarter was "absolutely correct."

So you're left with one call that was blown. If Washington is such a weak team mentally that they folded because of one blown call, they never deserved to win this game in the first place.

 

[The Dude]

At least some Husker fans here are being honest. I turned the game off (not joking) after that call. Worst officiating I've seen since fixed Super Bowl XL.

I'm more apt to believe you turned it off after the 3rd quarter beatdown that followed. Really? You turned off a tied game? Sure you did. It was a horribly called game, there's no denying that. But to act as if that decided the game is being flat out disingenuous, considering the bad calls and no-calls went both ways.

 

[scarletNcream]

Life isn't fair. I seem to recall the same penalty called against Nebraska some years ago. I agree with Knap, the officiating was horrible last year at UW. I think the real crime was the lack of holding calls on UDubs O-line this time. I know some ref's think "If you're that good, play through it" but that was ridiculous. The first holding goes against Neb on a punt? Really. What did we learn? Big 10 officials can be as bad as PAC 12 officials, but the reality was a 41-17 score at the beginning of the 4th quarter. Lets see, if holding was called against the UDub line, would Crick and Steinkuler been able to get to their quarterback, and maybe forced some passes to early? Would this have taken pressure off of Green? I say to any UW fan left here, go back and look at the long plays your team made and look at your O-line and tell me honesty you think that was fair.

 

[Rep The 402]

Uh pac12 wanting to look into bad officiating? Oklahoma Oregon ring a bell?

 

[mnhusker]

Looks like the Pac-12 head of officiating agrees with most of the calls. If we're seriously pinning this loss on one blown call - which at this point even the Pac-12's head of officiating doesn't entirely disagree with - then this is the ultimate in weak sauce.

Pac-12 waiting for word from UW coach Steve Sarkisian on disputed calls

The Pac-12 Conference's new coordinator of officiating, Tony Corrente, said Tuesday he backs a couple of the disputed calls made by a Big Ten crew in Saturday's Nebraska-Washington game, and will discuss with that league any complaints lodged if the Huskies pursue it.

"I'm still waiting to get a phone call from coach (Steve Sarkisian) to get his full feeling before I step into it," Corrente said at midday Tuesday from the Pac-12 office in Walnut Creek, Calif. "I don't want to step into anything he doesn't step into at this point."

...

Corrente said he had only viewed television replays of the calls. Of three kick-interference calls that went against Washington, he said the one on which he'd like more information came with 1:49 left in the first half, when UW was ruled to have interfered with a Huskers return man.

Washington recovered the ball (it cannot be advanced), but instead of the Huskies having possession at the Huskers' 26, Nebraska took over at its 41 and drove for a field goal and a 20-17 lead it never lost.

"That's the one I'm saying, I'm not privy to what the officials actually ruled — what their rationale was for making the call," Corrente said.

But Corrente backed the rulings of the officials on two other calls. Early in the third quarter on another UW punt, Desmond Trufant tackled a Huskers return man and was flagged 15 yards for kick-catching interference.

"We want to have the player have the opportunity to completely catch the football," Corrente said. "It isn't just because he didn't signal for a fair catch. He has to have an unmolested opportunity to complete the catch."

Asked if that conflicts with the abolition in 2003 of the 2-yard "halo" rule — a zone around the receiver where he couldn't be impeded from making the catch — Corrente said, "Once they got rid of that, it really did not change anything. We basically went to the same rule we'd had forever (that the receiver can't be hindered from making the catch)."

Corrente said an interference call against the UW's Jermaine Kearse on Nebraska's Justin Blatchford on a "pooch" kickoff midway through the fourth quarter was "absolutely correct."

So you're left with one call that was blown. If Washington is such a weak team mentally that they folded because of one blown call, they never deserved to win this game in the first place.

Glad to see this link, I liked the information.