Bad call yes.:blink:
The reason it was not called was because of the late fair catch call.
This video is great for so many reasons.Now that was some serious bullshit.
This video is great for so many reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfQ7bl2nvP8
No contact, no foul.
No contact, no foul.That's what I always thought as well. Making sure there wasn't something I didn't understand. I thought maybe there was something with if you're blocking their line of vision, it could still be called. But even if that was the case (which would be stupid if true), the fact that he didn't call the fair catch until after the tackler was already in motion to tackle him should have made it clean even if he hit him, no? I may be wrong on that, but it seems to me that with all of those factors in play, there's no way the call on the field was a bad one, no?
No contact, no foul.
No contact, no foul.You can still get a penalty even if you don't touch them. The player catching the kick "must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick". So, if you stood 1 foot in front of him and the ball hit you on the back, you would get flagged. Alabama got flagged a few games ago for this. The opposing team blocked an Alabama player into the path of the ball that was coming down out of the air, and the ball hit the Bama player in the back of the helmet. He never hit the guy trying to catch the ball, and didn't even see the ball when it was in the air.
Yeah, uuhh..what wrong wit da' refs we got now? They call pretty good, don't they?
People, people, people....it was Onterrio McProne that was the player in question. Had there been ANY contact....or a good strong breeze...he would have crumpled like a house of cards.
From my viewpoint, the correct call was made. The gatah waited until our guy was on him before signaling for the fair catch. Even then, our guy made every possible attempt to side step him - no contact was made - and allow him to field the kick.THIS.
You can still get a penalty even if you don't touch them. The player catching the kick "must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick". So, if you stood 1 foot in front of him and the ball hit you on the back, you would get flagged. Alabama got flagged a few games ago for this. The opposing team blocked an Alabama player into the path of the ball that was coming down out of the air, and the ball hit the Bama player in the back of the helmet. He never hit the guy trying to catch the ball, and didn't even see the ball when it was in the air.
The rule states that the receiver should have an "unimpeded opportunity" to catch the ball. In interpreting this language, NCAA Rules Committee and Rules Editor, John Adams, has said the following:That's all well & good, but none of that stuff happened either. What both of you are describing is basically if OM had stood in front of the player and swatted the ball away, which also didn't happen. He didn't touch the receiver, the ball, or anything. Again, considering how late the fair catch was made, there was nothing else he possibly could have done to further avoid contact, than he did (successfully).
The kicking team is responsible to know the location of the kicked ball. If a receiver has to run-around a kicking team player while moving toward the ball in an attempt to catch it, then it is a kick catch interference foul against the kicking team...even if there is no contact.
Interference could also include a kicking team member standing close to a receiver, running in front of him, waving his arms at him, or yelling, shouting, or screaming at him. Interference is a judgment call in these situations.
So, basically, contact isn't always required.
He didn't touch the receiver, the ball, or anything.
As B17 awaits Team A’s high scrimmage kick: a) A85 stands near B17 and shouts at him; b) A55 sprints past B17, coming very close to him; or c) A38 stands near B17 and waives his hands and arms at him. RULING: In all three scenarios, Team A foul, interference with the opportunity to catch a kick. Fifteen yards from the spot of the foul, whether or not the ball is caught by B17 (Rule 6-4-1).
And, actually, now that I think about it, the fact that he did or did not properly call for a fair catch is irrelevant. The player still must be given "unimpeded opportunity" to catch a kick even if he did not call for a fair catch. Even though the halo rule was removed, you're still left with this vague "unimpeded opportunity" rule which gives the referee a fair amount of discretion to make an interference call even when there isn't contact.
THIS.Fair Catch
That's all well & good, but none of that stuff happened either. What both of you are describing is basically if OM had stood in front of the player and swatted the ball away, which also didn't happen. He didn't touch the receiver, the ball, or anything. Again, considering how late the fair catch was made, there was nothing else he possibly could have done to further avoid contact, than he did (successfully).
Fair Catch
ARTICLE 1. a. A fair catch of a scrimmage kick is a catch beyond the neutral
zone by a Team B player who has made a valid signal during a scrimmage kick
that is untouched beyond the neutral zone.
b. A fair catch of a free kick is a catch by a player of Team B who has made a
valid signal during an untouched free kick.
c. A valid or invalid fair catch signal deprives the receiving team of the
opportunity to advance the ball. The ball is declared dead at the spot of the
catch or recovery or at the spot of the signal if the catch precedes the signal.
d. If the receiver shades his eyes from the sun without waving his hand(s), the
ball is live and may be advanced.
Valid Signal
ARTICLE 2. A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has
obviously signaled his intention by extending one hand only clearly above his
head and waving that hand from side to side of his body more than once.
Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3. An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B:
a. That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above); or
b. That is given after a scrimmage kick is caught beyond the neutral zone,
strikes the ground or touches another player beyond the neutral zone (A.R.
6-5-3-III-V); or
c. That is given after a free kick is caught, strikes the ground or touches
another player.
In that specific case, a valid signal was given. OM was about 5 yards away from the guy and wasn't really running full speed either. He was almost kind of waiting for the guy to catch the ball. Bad call? Probably. I don't see what it matters one way or the other, though.What the hell were you watching? I saw the wave, immediately followed by OM clearly trying to stop by stutter-stepping, and eventually having too much momentum to do anything but swerve out of the way.
Again, it's now a judgement call when there's no contact. The scenarios listed above all involve overt INTENTIONAL attempts to distract or intimidate the receiver. That was not the case here. Good No Call.
Irrelevant here, EXCEPT in making the judgement call on whether the defender was intentionally trying to interfere without contact, or was merely carried by momentum after the late signal.What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if it is intentional or not. I'm not saying that it's a great rule or anything, but intention does not matter.
I would argue (of course I would) that "sprint[ing] past" the receiver and only coming "very close to him" is pretty much what happened on that play.
Sure, it's a judgment call that should be made by the referee; I have no qualms with that. Obviously you can't have an exact measurement for the "closeness" that the ref must use.
But trying to determine whether the player's intent was to distract the receiver? Trying to determine whether the player got close to the receiver only because the receiver didn't give a fair catch signal until late? Well, that's irrelevant.
Whether the player intended to cause interference or not, the question is whether interference was caused. He's not supposed to be "very close" to the receiver on a fair catch or a live catch. If he is, and if the ref determines that his "closeness" caused interference, then it's a foul.
And, in making the determination as to whether interference was caused, it is up to the ref's discretion. But, to me, the Auburn player was pretty dang close...I don't know how much closer you want him to be to the receiver before a non-contact interference call is made.
What you're missing is that it doesn't matter if it is intentional or not. I'm not saying that it's a great rule or anything, but intention does not matter.
All the scenarios you presented from the rules interpretation turn on intent. OM's "intent" was to tackle the guy, up and until he gave the fair catch signal, at which time OM was 3 yards away. Intent matters, and it's a judgement call. Simple as that. Losers will scream the refs screwed UF. Simple as that, but it's a judgement call, and that means if you judge it to be interference, I don't give a shit because you're not wearing the striped shirt and in possession of the yellow hanky. Fuck the whiners.
I personally don't see anything regarding intent in those examples. Well, obviously the players who are screaming or waving their hands at him have the intent to distract him, but the other one doesn't really show intent.
A player who sprints past, but very close to, the receiver? How does that show intent?
If he could have given the receiver wider berth, but OBVIOUSLY tried to run by close. You can't look at people's actions and make judgement calls on their intent?
Yes, you can, but what I am saying is that the rule doesn't focus on intent. It focuses on whether the receiver has an unimpeded opportunity to catch the ball.
If a kicking team player trips, falls, and runs into the receiver before he can make the catch, the receiver did not have an unimpeded opportunity to catch the ball. It doesn't matter that the offender didn't intend to cause interference.
So why would you apply the unimpeded opportunity rule differently when the interference is non-contact interference? Either the receiver had an unimpeded opportunity or he did not; the fact that the kicking team player misjudged his speed, but didn't intend to get too close to the player, is irrelevant. The fact that the kicking team player stutter steps and tries to change his direction of movement is irrelevant to the question at hand: did his actions, intentional or not, cause interference?
Either he made contact or he didn't; either he came too close or he didn't; either interference was caused or it wasn't. I don't think it has anything to do with the player's intent to cause interference. The question is simply whether interference was present.
I'd agree that, in non-contact situations, it is a judgment call, but the judgment to be made is not in relation to the player's intent. Rather, the judgment to be made is whether interference occurred.
A valid signal for a Fair Catch is by rule: a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signalled his intention by extending one hand only clearly above his head and waving that hand from side to side of his body more than once.
I wish you two would just fuck and get it over with.
Watch the video. The Florida players hand did not go above his helmet to indicate a fair catch. That, my friends, is an invalid signal according to the rule book. The linesman even showed Boom why that call was made.
The correct call was made - Tiger ball at the point of the recovery.
No way. Can you imagine the amount of paperwork that would be involved?
Looks above his helmet to me...It has to be clearly above his head, by the letter of the rule. This photo shows that he didn't do so.
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4533/flcatch.jpg)
Regardless, you have to keep in mind that the existence of a proper fair catch signal is irrelevant. Even if he had not called for a fair catch, the kicking team still has to give him an "unimpeded opportunity" to catch the ball; the rule applies to all kick catches, not just kick catches for which a fair catch has been called.
If I'm an Auburn fan? Good no call. If I'm a Gator fan? That's the worst fucking call I've ever seen.
That's 25% of what makes sporting events great. Sitting around with your buddies screaming obscenities at the refs for making such a shitty call, when everyone knows you'd be giving hand numbing high fives if the same bullshit call had helped your team.
It has to be clearly above his head, by the letter of the rule. This photo shows that he didn't do so.
The proper signal is clearly defined in Article 2 of the rule, therefore making it quite relevant to the call.
We'll agree to disagree then. Being an Auburn man aside, in my years as a football referee (high school & semi pro), I will tell you - from my honest & unbiased perspective - that his signal did not meet the requirements of Article 2 of the rule. His hand at no time ever extended above his helmet. Beside & in front of the helmet does not equal the "clearly above" requirement stated in the body of the rule. I would not have thrown my flag in this instance. The SEC official that had the call in this one obviously agrees with my interpretation of the rule.
his signal did not meet the requirements of Article 2 of the rule. His hand at no time ever extended above his helmet. Beside & in front of the helmet does not equal the "clearly above" requirement stated in the body of the rule. I would not have thrown my flag in this instance.Ok......
Interference With OpportunityShow me where it says a valid fair catch signal must be made.
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.R. 6-3-1-III, A.R. 6-4-1-V and IX).
In my opinion, this still comes down to the fair catch signal by Rainey.Jesus........
Jesus........
Ok......You're mixing up 2 rules, shit for brains. Rainey was given an opportunity to make the catch. McCalebb was a yard and a half to the side of Rainey, and Rainey moved towards McCalebb. McCalebb avoided interference and did not - by his actions - interfere with Rainey's play on the ball. No contact was made; Rainey muffed the catch. No contact + no halo = no interference & no foul.
Show me where it says a valid fair catch signal must be made.
You're mixing up 2 rules, shit for brains. Rainey was given an opportunity to make the catch. McCalebb was a yard and a half to the side of Rainey, and Rainey moved towards McCalebb. McCalebb avoided interference and did not - by his actions - interfere with Rainey's play on the ball. No contact was made; Rainey muffed the catch. No contact + no halo = no interference & no foul.Rainey had to move forward one step TO CATCH THE BALL. It is the defender's responsibility to know where the ball is when it is in the air. YOU are the one mixing up two rules, and somehow combining them out of thin air.
Article 2 of the fair catch rule tells stupid motherfuckers like you and Coach Boom how to properly signal a fair catch. It's not that hard to comprehend.
Is there a fucking gas leak in your trailer?
Rainey had to move forward one step TO CATCH THE BALL. It is the defender's responsibility to know where the ball is when it is in the air. YOU are the one mixing up two rules, and somehow combining them out of thin air.
Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter. Contact doesn't matter.
Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it. Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.Article 2 of the fair catch rule has nothing to do with it.
I could put it 20 more times, and you still wouldn't get it. He. Doesn't. Have. To. Signal. For. A. Fair. Catch. For. Kick. Catch. Interference. To. Apply.
I understand that you would argue with a brick wall as long as it was crimson, but what you're saying has absolutely dick to do with it. 0. Zilch. Zip. Nada. For once, I'm not being delusional. For fuck's sake, I posted the rule from the NCAA rule book.
I could put this 5 Bazzilion Gawd Damn times...Contact is automatic...non contact is a judgement call. Auburn won this argument Saturday night.Thank you!
The reason it was not called was because of the late fair catch call.
But had he indicated fair catch earlier and OM got that close, I think they would have called it.
But even if that was the case (which would be stupid if true), the fact that he didn't call the fair catch until after the tackler was already in motion to tackle him should have made it clean even if he hit him, no?
The Florida players hand did not go above his helmet to indicate a fair catch. That, my friends, is an invalid signal according to the rule book. The linesman even showed Boom why that call was made.
The correct call was made - Tiger ball at the point of the recovery.
My understanding of this thread was that a video of the kick catch in question was posted and it was asked, "Was it a bad call?"^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is nothing from the game or from the ref's explanation to the coach (at least from what I've heard concerning that explanation) that indicated it was ever about whether Rainey called for a fair catch. The issue was whether he had "opportunity" to catch the ball. If he didn't have an opportunity, then that means someone interfered.
Early on in this thread, it was suggested that the refs not calling interference would have been a bad call if the fair catch was signaled earlier, but that it wasn't a bad call because the fair catch was signaled "late." This point was erroneous for two reasons: 1) As long as the ball is still in the air, a fair catch can be signaled; nothing in the rule indicates that you have to call it within a specific time frame. 2) Interference with the catch of a kick is interference with the catch of a kick. It doesn't matter whether the player signaled a fair catch or not; he is to be afforded an opportunity to catch any and all kicks without interference, fair catch signal or not.
Based on all of this, my understanding is that the "call" that was brought into question in this thread was concerning the non-call of interference. The whole fair catch issue was, in fact, not relevant at all. These two rules are, as Pell City stated, completely different rules that don't affect one another. But many were mistakenly including the fair catch rule in the conversation thinking that it had some effect on the interference call:
If there's some misunderstanding regarding the meaning of these posts, then please to be explainin. But I think it's pretty reasonable based upon the wording of these posts for myself and RWS to assume that several of you were claiming that the "late" fair catch signal was the reason why an interference call wasn't made.
As much as I love disagreeing with Bama fans, those posts, to me, look very much like several of you were jumbling the two rules by concluding that his failure at "timely" and "clearly" calling a fair catch somehow related to why an interference call wasn't made.
I'm not saying...I'm just saying...
Two people in this thread love the sound of their voice arguing.The fair catch has --N O T H I N G-- to do with it. They have to be given the opportunity to catch the ball, whether it is a fair catch or not. I'm not saying it because I'm an Alabama fan. I'm not saying it because you're an Auburn fan. I'm not saying it to make you, as an AU fan, feel like AU won a game they shouldn't have. I'm saying it because it is there, plain as day, in the rule book. I posted the rule in this thread. For that matter, the rule even states that when in doubt, it is a penalty. They rule on the side of safety for the receiver. The only requirements for the rule to apply are:
I'm just saying, based on your interpretations of the rule, all one has to do when returning a punt is to wave your hand at the exact moment you catch it, every time, and you'l always get an additional 15 yards. A perfect reception coverage is to knock the returner on his ass the absolute second he catches the ball. OM was en route to doing this when the returner waved his hand (late) almost simultaneously with the catch. At that exact point, OM successfully began avoiding contact. There was no possible more efficient way to do this than exactly what he did. Stutter-step and swerve to the side.
What the fuck did you want him to do exactly?
I love lamp.
It was a bad call. What I find funny is gators complaining about it. I could load videos of a dozen calls that were worse going Florida's way over the last couple years.Exactly. Every fanbase has had a call or two bounce their way, and that's OK. That's football. People just get butthurt and instantly forget the last time the zebras helped them out when they see a call, or no call, that doesn't favor the team that they like.
Let's make it simple. This is all that matters:I can draw a straight line from the ball to Rainey's eyes. And also a straight line from the ball to Rainey's hands. Omac is not between either of them.
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a291/runswithxissors/Foosball/au-uf.jpg)
Ball is still in the air.
I can draw a straight line from the ball to Rainey's eyes. And also a straight line from the ball to Rainey's hands. Omac is not between either of them.Draw all of the lines you want. Draw some rectangles, ovals, squares, and polka dots if you want. If you truly truly can look at that picture and say Rainey was clearly unimpeded and/or otherwise not distracted, then you might want to consider an eye exam.
Nice try. The only person that can tell you if he was truly impeded was Rainey. And you know what he is going to say.
It was a bad call.
Draw all of the lines you want. Draw some rectangles, ovals, squares, and polka dots if you want. If you truly truly can look at that picture and say Rainey was clearly unimpeded and/or otherwise not distracted, then you might want to consider an eye exam.
I pray this same thing happens to bammer when we play. The mullet nation will blow a gasket. I will raise my beer a guffaw!And they would be wrong for it as well. It doesn't matter what teams are playing.
And they would be wrong for it as well. It doesn't matter what teams are playing.
And they would be wrong for it as well. It doesn't matter what teams are playing.
They weren't wrong this time. The fact whiners like you don't like it don't make it wrong.
WAAAAH WAAAAH......this is all about Bammer and the rest of the haters trying to tarnish another win Auburn wasn't suppose to have. Remember, we were only supposed to have 4. And it's killing some people. This "no call" is just like anything else. Unless you know for sure he was impeded, you can't call it. Same thing with a guilty/no guilty verdict in court. You err on the safe side when you just aren't sure. Tell me from that picture what part of Omac is between Rainey hands/eyes and the ball. If you were to get a back angle of that picture you would see Omac off to the left slightly. How about we just say that Rainey saw Omac coming like a freight train, and the bastard nutted up. He couldn't catch shit all night. Is it not apparent to you that Rainey was having issues???That may be why the gayturds are saying it, but I know it's not why I'm saying it, and I'm pretty certain that isn't why Vandy Vol is saying it. And that's been the hangup in this whole thread. You guys are so defensive of it because you feel like somebody is telling you that AU didn't fairly and squarely beat UF. If you read previous posts, that is not the intention. I don't care that AU won, or how they won. It doesn't change anything in my life. But if we're going to discuss the rule, then we will discuss it. You can skew the argument and try to build numbers by just throwing out there that we disagree only because we want to see AU lose, blah blah blah. But you're not really making a point; you're simply trying to sidestep.
"Lookatherrr lookatherr, dat dern Aubie don got inda way a-tha ball. Dats a-fowwwll rite therrr. Dem cheatin aubies. Deyz musta paid tha reffs off with some a-that scam newton money from that bank feller"
You err on the safe side when you just aren't sureIt is clearly written right in the rule itself that if you aren't sure, it is a penalty. Exact words: "When in question, it is an interference foul." In this rule, the "safe side" is siding with the receiver. So this isn't really a good comparison on your part.
It is clearly written right in the rule itself that if you aren't sure, it is a penalty. Exact words: "When in question, it is an interference foul." In this rule, the "safe side" is siding with the receiver. So this isn't really a good comparison on your part.
Easy to say that about a hypothetical that has about a 1% chance of happening. You would shit your pants if it happened and you know it. I'm talking taco bell and beer wet squirts all in your tighty whiteys. You would come undone.Alabama had a kick catch interference called on them a few weeks ago. How did it happen? An opposing player blocked a Bama player into the path of the ball, and the ball hit the Bama player on the back of the helmet. Bama player never saw the ball coming, and he never hit the receiver. For that matter, it was a bad call because the rule specifically states: "If interference with a potential receiver is the result of a player being blocked by an opponent, it is not a foul."
I'm just saying, based on your interpretations of the rule, all one has to do when returning a punt is to wave your hand at the exact moment you catch it, every time, and you'l always get an additional 15 yards.
As B17 awaits Team A’s high scrimmage kick: a) A85 stands near B17 and shouts at him; b) A55 sprints past B17, coming very close to him; or c) A38 stands near B17 and waives his hands and arms at him. RULING: In all three scenarios, Team A foul, interference with the opportunity to catch a kick. Fifteen yards from the spot of the foul, whether or not the ball is caught by B17 (Rule 6-4-1).
Dude...the exact scenario you've described is identified as interference by an NCAA bulletin:
I can't help it if you personally don't believe that the rule should be interpreted like that, but it is...not by me, but by the NCAA.
s B17 awaits Team A’s high scrimmage kick: a) A85 stands near B17 and shouts at him; b) A55 sprints past B17, coming very close to him; or c) A38 stands near B17 and waives his hands and arms at him. RULING: In all three scenarios, Team A foul, interference with the opportunity to catch a kick. Fifteen yards from the spot of the foul, whether or not the ball is caught by B17 (Rule 6-4-1).
He didn't touch him, he didn't touch the ball, he didnt wave his arms in front of him, he didn't stand in front of him, he didn't impede his view that we can prove.
That may be why the gayturds are saying it, but I know it's not why I'm saying it, and I'm pretty certain that isn't why Vandy Vol is saying it. And that's been the hangup in this whole thread. You guys are so defensive of it because you feel like somebody is telling you that AU didn't fairly and squarely beat UF. If you read previous posts, that is not the intention. I don't care that AU won, or how they won. It doesn't change anything in my life. But if we're going to discuss the rule, then we will discuss it. You can skew the argument and try to build numbers by just throwing out there that we disagree only because we want to see AU lose, blah blah blah. But you're not really making a point; you're simply trying to sidestep.
What's not a good comparison is using a rule where the stipulation is "when in question". It was evidently not "in question" to the refs. It is "in question" to YOU because you want it to be - very subjective. He never blocked his view, hands or touched him. The ref saw it that way as well. It was never in question you dumbass, so your little piece of logic is thrown out the window. Now what?
It is clearly written right in the rule itself that if you aren't sure, it is a penalty. Exact words: "When in question, it is an interference foul." In this rule, the "safe side" is siding with the receiver. So this isn't really a good comparison on your part.
Oh?
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a291/runswithxissors/Foosball/au-uf.jpg)
But, as you said, it's a judgment call. I don't know what was going through the ref's mind. But, I wonder how much closer he needs to be before interference is called...because if he moves any closer than what he is in this picture, they'd be wiener to wiener. And I'm pretty sure that's interference, what with the wiener contact and all..
Again, it's a judgment call. I get that. Most of what I've been posting is in regard to the fair catch having nothing to do with the interference call. By the rules, the fair catch signal doesn't affect an interference call. There isn't an interference rule for when a fair catch is signaled, and one for when a fair catch isn't signaled. There isn't a caveat to the interference rule that says if a player signals "late," or if a player makes an invalid fair catch signal, then the kicking team player can get a little closer than he normally would be able to. If he was too close for a fair catch, then he was too close for a live catch.
Was OM too close? Judgment call by the ref. Was OM too close only because Rainey improperly signaled fair catch? Doesn't matter. That's my main point.
Uhh. He was referring to the guy CATCHING the ball as waving his hand at the last second.
Yeah, I see where I misread his post. However, he's still not understanding the rules.Im with you on that. Unimpeded applies to all returns. We agree. That's not the point I am arguing.
There is no such thing as a "late" fair catch signal. Unless, of course, you wave your hands around after the ball has bounced off of you or the ground. But as long as the ball is still in the air, you can call a fair catch.
Interference is interference. Chad's acting as if OM was getting close because he thought it was a live catch and that he could smear the shit out of him. This presumes that you can get close to the guy when he hasn't signaled for a fair catch, but that you can't get as close to him if he has signaled for a fair catch.
That's not the case.
If you're too close to him before he catches the ball, then you're too close. Regardless of whether he's called for a fair catch, you can't be all up in his shit before he has a chance to catch the ball.
Remember what players did when the halo rule was around? If they got there early, then they broke down in front of the player two yards away and waited for the catch. Chad keeps asking, "Well what was OM supposed to do?" That's basically what he was supposed to do: break down in front of the guy, not run up as close as possible to him before the ball is caught.
With this whole "judgment call" thing, it's difficult for a player to know where exactly he needs to break down. But, based upon the fact that the rule doesn't allow them to sprint up to/past receiver and come very close to the receiver, it's pretty clear that a kicking team player needs to keep his distance to some degree and wait for the ball to be caught.
Rainey has his arms and hands in front of him, unimpeded.
That picture is a little misleading because of the angle but everyone that saw it knows that he is to the side in this picture. When the ball is approaching Rainey, Omac is NOT in his way. That's all there is to it.
With white dudes I am guessing it would not have been wiener to wiener right? :thumsup:
Doing away with the 2 yard halo rule is a little mind boggling to me. With all the rules that have been passed in the last decade alone, all designed to give more and more protection to the players, this one goes completely against the grain. I have no problem with changing it, just seems completely inconsistent with the way the game has been regulated in recent years.
Any time you create a rule which relies solely upon the ref's judgment, you're going to have inconsistent calls. And when you have inconsistent calls, teams will start bitching, especially if that one call costs someone a game.
Obviously there are some rules which, to some degree, have to rely upon the ref's judgment. But when it comes to something like this, I think that having a clearly defined two yard (or hell, even one yard if you just want to give players a chance to destroy each other) halo is better.
Nobody had a problem with it until the damn TV people starting putting that yellow ring around the receiver. Then it was starting to make the officials look bad.
But I agree. I liked the halo rule. It helped reinforce the come-to-gather principle of tackling.
There was no call. Therefore no bad call. It was a judgement decision, no contact. Auburn wins! Fuck the whiners, haters, and YOU!
OK, it was a bad no-call. Jesus, you got some sand in your clit or something? Are you one of those guys who thinks Auburn NEVER commits a penalty? Auburn clearly won the game, that call didn't effect the outcome. If you can't look at that play and see the ref missed the call then you need to have your Auburn colored glasses cleaned.Fuck you hog fucker! YOU declaring it a bad call, or bad no call means exactly jack shit! It means NOTHING. It's your fucking opinion. You can fucking TELL me what you think like it's a fucking fact until the hogs come home, but it's just your opinion, and it's meaningless. Fuck off.
OK, it was a bad no-call. Jesus, you got some sand in your clit or something? Are you one of those guys who thinks Auburn NEVER commits a penalty? Auburn clearly won the game, that call didn't effect the outcome. If you can't look at that play and see the ref missed the call then you need to have your Auburn colored glasses cleaned.
I think this calls for the drunk helicopter.
Oooh speaking of which, I may have spilled the beans to your nieces what that is. BTW they think you are a lot cooler now.
No drunk helicopters. He's wound so tight I'm afraid his head might explode.
Fuck you hog fucker! YOU declaring it a bad call, or bad no call means exactly jack shit! It means NOTHING. It's your fucking opinion. You can fucking TELL me what you think like it's a fucking fact until the hogs come home, but it's just your opinion, and it's meaningless. Fuck off.
Typical internet fuck stick, thinks you've upset someone because they've told you to fuck off. Get a life douchnozzle...you're not that important.
And :fu: Fuck OFF!
BORING.......BORING......BORING......
BTW, just went back and watched the replay on the DVR, it's still a bad call.
BORING.......BORING......BORING......
BTW, just went back and watched the replay on the DVR, it's still a bad call.
And you're still a hog nut sucking fuck stick
Jim, I wish you would come right out and tell us what you really mean. Quit sidestepping him.
For real. I'm tired of trying to read between the lines in all of his posts.
This thead is full of chickenshit Aubie sidesteppers.
This thead is full of chickenshit Aubie sidesteppers.