|
Replies: 14
| visibility 994
|
Standout [337]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 358
Joined: 12/17/14
|
so what was the deal with the onside kick
Jan 12, 2016, 8:46 AM
|
|
didn't he catch it way before it actually went 10 yards? shouldn't that have come back with a penalty?
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [18663]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14866
Joined: 12/11/04
|
It was esentially a perfect onside kick.***
Jan 12, 2016, 8:47 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6781]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5464
Joined: 8/14/03
|
Re: so what was the deal with the onside kick
Jan 12, 2016, 8:50 AM
|
|
It went 14 yards. There has been debate but I'm still not convinced it was a legal play
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [40]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 78
Joined: 2/1/11
|
Re: so what was the deal with the onside kick
Jan 12, 2016, 8:54 AM
|
|
When the Tigers did that to the ##### back in 2014 - the rule was since the ball was kicked into the air and not first into the ground to create the bounce - illegal recovery/coot ball
Tide does the exact same thing last night but now it's "legal"?????
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 25448
Joined: 7/28/05
|
it was legal for that one play so Bama could gain an advantage***
Jan 12, 2016, 9:06 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: so what was the deal with the onside kick
Jan 12, 2016, 9:07 AM
[ in reply to Re: so what was the deal with the onside kick ] |
|
If Kearse waves for a fair catch the play would have been illegal touching... He did not wave therefore the play was legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1346]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1421
Joined: 12/12/12
|
Re: so what was the deal with the onside kick
Jan 12, 2016, 9:13 AM
|
|
If you watch the "incomplete" touchdown pass to Renfrow.... His knee was down while he still had control. The ball was coming out after the knee was down. Horrific call that cost us the game. The onside kick and touchdown still wouldn't have put them ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9263
Joined: 12/29/06
|
Not sure what you are talking about. For it to be a catch,
Jan 12, 2016, 9:20 AM
|
|
the player has to "complete the catch" meaning that even when he hits the ground he has to have possession of the ball. If his knee its and he had possession and then the rest of his body hits and the ball comers out, it is not a complete pass. It is not like a running play or a play where the receiver has already taken a couple of steps, in that the ground cannot cause a fumble. In a pass where a player dives for the ball he has to continue to control it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [623]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 794
Joined: 11/17/07
|
Re: so what was the deal with the onside kick
Jan 12, 2016, 9:14 AM
[ in reply to Re: so what was the deal with the onside kick ] |
|
He was so far from the ball, he couldn't get under it to signal for a fair catch. It was a perfectly excuted, legal play. Where we got hosed, was the end of the first half. The replay official should have interrupted play and reset the clocker to 13 seconds. We would have still had a timeout and enough time for 2 -3 plays. That could have been HUGE under the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: so what was the deal with the onside kick
Jan 12, 2016, 9:17 AM
|
|
You dont have to be under the ball to signal fair catch. If the refs determine you could make it to the ball before it lands then you are eligible to do that.
In theory he could have dove and tried to make the catch.
That is all that matters by the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10904]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12988
Joined: 8/4/14
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 25448
Joined: 7/28/05
|
pure cheating by the refs***
Jan 12, 2016, 9:05 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19352]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 22266
Joined: 4/25/04
|
Re: pure cheating by the refs***
Jan 12, 2016, 9:07 AM
|
|
If Kearse waves for a fair catch the play would have been illegal touching... He did not wave therefore the play was legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [156]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 250
Joined: 8/29/15
|
Kick catch interference.
Jan 12, 2016, 9:18 AM
|
|
Really has nothing to do with fair catch.
Coot call was interference with the opportunity to catch the ball. The coots had someone in position and able to catch the ball. In order for there to be interference, a player must be in position to catch the ball.
Once the ball hits the ground there is no interference because they didn't catch the ball.
This is why most kicks are kicked into the ground for the bounce. It avoids interference.
It is similar to the kicking team catching a punt before it hits the ground. It is only interference if the receiving team is denied the opportunity to catch the ball. If no one is near the ball, no interference.
The ball didn't have to hit the ground. We had no one in place to catch the ball. No interference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9263
Joined: 12/29/06
|
Correct......that is why you sometimes see a punt
Jan 12, 2016, 9:25 AM
|
|
returner inside of the 20 signaler a fair catch that is way over their head and then one of the gunners actually catch the punt and down it. If you are not interfering with the guy receiving the punt it is fair game. Even if Kearse had signaled and couldn't get near the ball to field it, it would not have mattered. Speaking of Kearse, did he show up last night. About the only time I remember seeing him is giving up on his chase of Howard down the sideline........something that he used to not do. If he played a good game and I missed it, I apologize.....just did not notice him making any plays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 994
|
|
|
50
