|
Replies: 9
| visibility 1590
|
Legend [6629]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Hoping someone has a quick answer to this since
Dec 6, 2015, 9:03 PM
|
|
it has been talked about for 24 hours straight.
I still have an allbarn fan talking about the kick. Now he has acknowledged the targeting, but said that would just have been a 15 yard penalty and no re-kick. I know this is not correct, but I cannot find anywhere that supports that.
Talk about UNC fans having low football IQ.
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [81007]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 44458
Joined: 2004
|
they were called for an illegal block in the back. offsetting and re-kick.
Dec 6, 2015, 9:05 PM
|
|
except for the ejection, that was upheld.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6629]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: they were called for an illegal block in the back. offsetting and re-kick.
Dec 6, 2015, 9:06 PM
|
|
No, on the onside kick, if targeting would have been called. It would have been 15 yards and re-kick, but I cannot find a source stating that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [81007]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 44458
Joined: 2004
|
sorry, thought you were talking about the actual re-kick.***
Dec 6, 2015, 9:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6629]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
No, but thanks.***
Dec 6, 2015, 9:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1571]
TigerPulse: 100%
30
|
Re: they were called for an illegal block in the back. offsetting and re-kick.
Dec 6, 2015, 9:11 PM
[ in reply to Re: they were called for an illegal block in the back. offsetting and re-kick. ] |
|
Because it happened before they recovered the ball UNC would have to rekick. Just like if the defense jumps offsides and then the QB throws an interception you would enforce the penalty and replay the down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6629]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: they were called for an illegal block in the back. offsetting and re-kick.
Dec 6, 2015, 9:15 PM
|
|
I know, you are right, but I cannot find a legit source stating this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1571]
TigerPulse: 100%
30
|
Re: they were called for an illegal block in the back. offsetting and re-kick.
Dec 6, 2015, 9:31 PM
|
|
Took me a while to find and is by far the most confusing way of putting this, but this should answer the question
FOUL AND CHANGE OF POSSESSION
Article 3 When a foul occurs during a play from scrimmage, the necessary line remains the same regardless of any change of team possession thereafter.
A.R. 14.66 Second-and-10 on A30. Team A is offside. A legal forward pass is intercepted by defensive B1 on the 50. B1 runs to the A40, fumbles, and A2 recovers there.
Ruling: A’s ball second-and-15 on A25. (If Team B refused the penalty, it would have been A’s ball first-and- 10 on A40).
So in the instance of the kick the penalty would be enforced and they would still have to kickoff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6629]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Awesome bud. Point!***
Dec 6, 2015, 10:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [298]
TigerPulse: 100%
14
|
Re: Hoping someone has a quick answer to this since
Dec 6, 2015, 9:51 PM
|
|
I would think it would be as simple as dead ball vs non-dead ball foul, right?
A dead ball foul would have backed them up, but no re-kick. Targeting is NOT a dead ball foul. Hard to believe someone would/could argue this point. cant think of another situation where the offending team keeps the result of the play...short of team declining the penalty
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 9
| visibility 1590
|
|
|
50
