- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: the onside kick
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:19 pm to ConnorBeach
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:19 pm to ConnorBeach
quote:
The way I read it 6-1-2-g states blocking cannot occur until 6-1-3 is satisfied.
One of these comes before the other. I'll give you a hint.
If you need help, take a look at numerical outlining on google.
1
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:22 pm to MastrShake
Mastr - Your post seems reasonable so I'm curious to hear your thoughts about the exceptions I posted a few minutes ago.
It sounds like we're in agreement that the "neutral zone" has no impact on this particular play/ruling.
You mentioned the idea of no contact until the ball has gone 10 yards. Does this mean you agree with earlier posters that a receiving team could simply run a wall of guys forward when the ball was kicked and the rule would force the kicking team to dodge them?
It sounds like we're in agreement that the "neutral zone" has no impact on this particular play/ruling.
You mentioned the idea of no contact until the ball has gone 10 yards. Does this mean you agree with earlier posters that a receiving team could simply run a wall of guys forward when the ball was kicked and the rule would force the kicking team to dodge them?
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:24 pm to Golfer
Golfer - so how do we decide when they become "eligible"? we go to 6-1-3.
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:25 pm to ConnorBeach
quote:
Does this mean you agree with earlier posters that a receiving team could simply run a wall of guys forward when the ball was kicked and the rule would force the kicking team to dodge them?
No, because the term blocking is defined as:
quote:
Blocking
ARTICLE 1. a. Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with
any part of the blocker’s body.
b. Pushing is blocking an opponent with open hands.
It is not a block when the receiving team runs into the kicking team.
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:30 pm to Golfer
I'll clarify because I understand your point. At the kick, when the ball bounces high in the air, the first 5 guys could take 4 steps forward (in front of where balls coming down) and stop. This would effectively prohibit the kicking team from running through them.
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:31 pm to MastrShake
would it help to watch the clip from abc, and listen to kirk herbstreit gasp in disbelief, to hear this exchange right after the kick:
BM: "Short. It didn't go 10 yards I don't believe. Carolina may have recovered it but I'm not sure it's legal. Let's let the officials sort this out."
KH: "There's not a flag. There's not a flag. And I'm with you Brent, there looked to be contact...
BM: "They gave it to Carolina..."
KH: "But Brent I think there was contact before the ball went 10 yards. But there's not a flag down."
BM: "That is Elsey who came up with the football, and so here we go."
KH: "Les Miles is fired up, and he should be, there appeared to be contact here before the ball... (video runs of Blue being hit) Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh. Ball didn't have, not only did the ball not have a chance to get 10 yards..."
BM: "That football has to go ten yards."
KH: "Oh yeah."
video here
BM: "Short. It didn't go 10 yards I don't believe. Carolina may have recovered it but I'm not sure it's legal. Let's let the officials sort this out."
KH: "There's not a flag. There's not a flag. And I'm with you Brent, there looked to be contact...
BM: "They gave it to Carolina..."
KH: "But Brent I think there was contact before the ball went 10 yards. But there's not a flag down."
BM: "That is Elsey who came up with the football, and so here we go."
KH: "Les Miles is fired up, and he should be, there appeared to be contact here before the ball... (video runs of Blue being hit) Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh. Ball didn't have, not only did the ball not have a chance to get 10 yards..."
BM: "That football has to go ten yards."
KH: "Oh yeah."
video here
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:32 pm to ConnorBeach
quote:
At the kick, when the ball bounces high in the air, the first 5 guys could take 4 steps forward (in front of where balls coming down) and stop. This would effectively prohibit the kicking team from running through them.
Theoretically, yes. But you're risking that oblong shaped ball to hit you in the side while you're not paying attention.
Also the penalty does not give the receiving team the ball. Just a 5 yard penalty and a rekick.
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:37 pm to ConnorBeach
I think 6-4-1 is referring to a receiver of a kick, such as the deep back in a punt formation or anyone past the 10 yards of the restraining line. For instance, when a punt bounces in front of the return man, it is open season on him. He has is no longer a receiver. 6-4-1 states "and so located that he could have caught a free kick or scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone".
I don't think that exception applies here. And I know that 6-4-1-a only applies to 6-4-1.
I don't think that exception applies here. And I know that 6-4-1-a only applies to 6-4-1.
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:38 pm to ConnorBeach
Are you for real ?
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:41 pm to MastrShake
Mastr - no, it honestly doesn't help. :-)
I would blindly trust the majority of posters here before announcers. Musberger can't get even half the names right (including our freaking chancellor) with a name sheet right in front of him and a birdie in his ear. No way does he know the intricacies of the rule book.
I would blindly trust the majority of posters here before announcers. Musberger can't get even half the names right (including our freaking chancellor) with a name sheet right in front of him and a birdie in his ear. No way does he know the intricacies of the rule book.
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:46 pm to ConnorBeach
quote:
I would blindly trust the majority of posters here before announcers. Musberger can't get even half the names right (including our freaking chancellor) with a name sheet right in front of him and a birdie in his ear. No way does he know the intricacies of the rule book.
thats why i was just sort of pretending Musberger wasnt part of this clip, but i do assume Herbstreit at least knows the rules of college football.
so, when combined with what the rulebook says...
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:46 pm to ConnorBeach
quote:
I would blindly trust the majority of posters here before announcers. Musberger can't get even half the names right (including our freaking chancellor) with a name sheet right in front of him and a birdie in his ear. No way does he know the intricacies of the rule book.
Good call about the Musberger thing. I don't think I trust the majority of the posters on this site either though. Some yes. Most, maybe not.
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:49 pm to JaxTigah
Jax - I understand what you're saying but disagree. 6-4-1 definitely talks about receiving free kicks and in an onside kick situation your front line are often the receivers. The rule book is specific with language and pretty good at pointing out the exceptions. It does not in that particular piece.
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:52 pm to MastrShake
You'd be surprised what former athletes know. Herbstreit is pretty good but most people only know what they've been involved in and what they've heard repeated. McNabb and overtime ring a bell? Very few of these announcers sit down and try to understand every aspect of a rule book. Read it, maybe. Understand it, rarely.
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:54 pm to MastrShake
soooooo, how can lsu take advantage of this call.
if lsu is gonna get burned, why not turn it around and burn the hell out of fl, au, al, etc.
if lsu is gonna get burned, why not turn it around and burn the hell out of fl, au, al, etc.
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:55 pm to ConnorBeach
Gotta hit the bed. I'll check in tomorrow and see how I get destroyed. thanks for letting me talk.
Great game. I'm sure we view the last play differently but honestly you probably would have beaten us bad if your team (coaches?) hadn't relaxed a little.
Great game. I'm sure we view the last play differently but honestly you probably would have beaten us bad if your team (coaches?) hadn't relaxed a little.
Posted on 9/7/10 at 10:56 pm to ConnorBeach
LOL, This explains everything ! You're a DAMN UNC FAN ! Hit the damn road IDIOT !
This post was edited on 9/7/10 at 10:57 pm
Posted on 9/7/10 at 11:11 pm to ConnorBeach
6-3-2 states "it breaks the plane of and remains beyond Team B's restraining line (Exception Rule 6-4-1)"
6-4-1 is an exception to the rule because once the ball has crossed the restraining line, Team A must allow Team B an "unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick". This is the protection 6-4-1-a takes away after the ball hits the ground. It does not mean that Team A is eligible to touch the ball before it goes 10 yards, therefor he is may not block a player from Team A.
My last shot at explaining it. I need some Crown and an Advil.
6-4-1 is an exception to the rule because once the ball has crossed the restraining line, Team A must allow Team B an "unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick". This is the protection 6-4-1-a takes away after the ball hits the ground. It does not mean that Team A is eligible to touch the ball before it goes 10 yards, therefor he is may not block a player from Team A.
My last shot at explaining it. I need some Crown and an Advil.
Posted on 9/7/10 at 11:17 pm to omegaman66
quote:
Clearly it was clipping.
Clearly, you don't know what clipping is.
Or an illegal block in the back for that matter.
This post was edited on 9/7/10 at 11:25 pm
Posted on 9/8/10 at 10:30 am to JaxTigah
Jax - I see your point and agree that very well could be the case. I think all the confusion comes from the fact that 6-3-a is talking only about touching the ball but lists 6-4-1 as an exception which only talks about touching the player. It's not logical that touching a player is an exception to touching the ball.
Out of curiosity, I saw mention of a AL-TN situation like this last year. Was there ever anything put out about that ruling? I don't follow the SEC closely.
Thanks for the discussion. I think it's been interesting. Good luck this year! Shepard and Peterson are nasty!
Out of curiosity, I saw mention of a AL-TN situation like this last year. Was there ever anything put out about that ruling? I don't follow the SEC closely.
Thanks for the discussion. I think it's been interesting. Good luck this year! Shepard and Peterson are nasty!
Page 15 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News