Nice play Bootle...
- Thread starter SoFL Husker
- Start date
Except he did exactly what he was suppose to do on that play. By rule that is not a penalty. Pass interference can not be called on a fake punt when the ball is thrown deep and simulates a punt. Officials blew that call.
You do know they were punting and we were receiving? Bootle was blocking, he wasn't going to tackle the Purdue gunner or our guy. He was blocking.
You are correct. Please see the other thread on it from 463 I believe.
There has been talk on 1620 this morning if the BIG 10 will come out today and admit the officials blew that call. And it was a blown call.
Either that or every team will start using it. But I thought that with helmets coming off on last second plays too.
It was a rules misapplication. He was correctly coached and executed how he was taught. Nobody is in the wrong there, except the officials. It's okay to admit he was well-coached on that play.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
I have no idea. He must have read it on the internet. That's obviously the only reason players are executing.
The rule is subjective. I think it's completely up to the officials if the pass looked like a punt.
The only thing "subjective" about it could possibly be "high and deep". The ball thrown downfield is what they mean by defining it as "high and deep". It's delineating a ball thrown downfield from a ball thrown to the sideline. The rule is in place exactly to prevent this type of situation, where you have a blocker defending a gunner, where the punting team would be able to exploit the return team who has their backs turned blocking non-receiver players.
From HM - DPI shouldn't be penalized when “there is contact by a (receiving team) player that otherwise would be pass interference during a down in which a (kicking team) potential kicker, from a scrimmage kick formation, simulates a scrimmage kick by throwing the ball high and deep.”
No he is running down field to set up return creating a lane for his return man Which is how you have successful Punt returns, but your right his block was legal, no way is it interference. bad call.
That is why it is an interpretation. They wern't trying to simulate a kick. They were trying to complete a pass.
That's what I'm talking about. How high is high? How deep is deep? I don't see in the rule anything saying it's anything downfield.
I can't picture the play in my head. Did the punter catch the snap and take any steps holding the ball like he's going to punt it?
Deep = downfield. That's what deep refers to. Don't split hairs. The rule is worded that way on purpose. Try to understand that the intent of the rule is to take away the punt team exploiting the DPI rule in that specific case. When a return team player is trying to block a gunner and turns and runs with him as gunners usually sprint down the field to cover the punt, DPI does not apply if the ball is thrown to the gunner down the field.
The intent of the rule is to prevent this play from happening. We are focusing on the wrong thing if we think the rule intends for the thrown ball to travel similarly to the trajectory of a punt and for the officials to determine whether the thrown ball was "punty" enough. That's not why the rule is in place.
Then why is it not worded more specifically? Even if they changed it to "downfield", how far downfield is downfield? It's up to the officials to interpret.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Uh huh. I am SURE you would be saying the same thing if (let's pretend) there were other coaches on our sideline.
It's not worded specifically on purpose because they aren't trying to say the ball has to go so high or so far. They are trying to eliminate a TYPE OF PLAY. That's what the wording covers. If you know any football officials who are worth their salt, call them, ask them about it and why vague language is sometimes used in a rule book. It's not written for fans who lack context to understand. It's a legalistically worded manual to direct proper rules application.
We get stuff like this every other year in basketball rules changes. You receive the rules, then at the rules meetings, the NCAA explains the intent of the rule and how to properly adjudicate it. This is an obscure rule, and someone missed it. That's the truth.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
When @ThrowBones92 admits an official made a mistake.... It was. Not sure an official has actually ever messed up before!
LOL. Rules applications are one thing. Those are the things with consequences attached. Even our leader at the NCAA will make a statement when rules are misapplied. THose are the things that cost you to have games taken away from you. Judgement is subjective and pretty difficult to discuss without a HEAVY dose of context and understanding what's going on that lead to a play and a decision on the play. If I wasn't 100% based on my rules source they got it wrong, I wouldn't say anything. I probably shouldn't either way, even though this is about missing a rule and not about a "judgement call".
You are correct, its in the CCA manual in the code of ethics: "Good officials shall not criticize or attempt to explain another official's judgement on decisions to either coach, players or news media, nor publicly or covertly express disagreement with officials when they are a spectator." There is enough scrutiny and it's a tough enough job, and there is plenty of jealousy to go around in this business that officials shouldn't be criticizing other officials judgment to general public.
That's not to say calls don't get broken down and discussed among the crews. There is plenty of this for the sake of learning and improvement within officiating circles that goes on. We see plays all winter on our scheduling websites of plays that got missed and how to make sure we don't miss them again.