Muffed punt or interference?

Status
Not open for further replies.
WREKedinTexas

WREKedinTexas

Kick the tires and light the fires!
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
332
I have been watching some replays. I think there should have been an interference call on the punt. Maybe a call you wouldn't get at that venue, but still it looked pretty close to me.
 
Interference for what? He wasn't hit early and the issue was that he misjudged the ball, not that he didn't have space to make the catch.
 
He needed move toward the ball and let the Clemson defender make contact with him. Instead he reached and missed. Understandably it's hard to move yourself into the path of someone running at full speed knowing that you aren't in a defensive body position and you're going to get decked.
 
There is no kick catch interference anymore unless you make contact.
 
Is it a matter of contact or being in his zone? I was thinking you had to be 2 feet or steps away and that the receiving player has freedom of movement. That Clemson player is closer than 2 feet or 2 steps.
 
WREKedinTexas said:
I have been watching some replays. I think there should have been an interference call on the punt. Maybe a call you wouldn't get at that venue, but still it looked pretty close to me.
Click to expand...

What does the rule say? There was no contact. Personally, I think there should be some sort of halo rule, as the guy was clearly trying to disrupt his concentration. And it worked.
 
I did not know that the rule had been changed. Thanks all. Beer time now. Everybody have a safe Labor day weekend.
 
WREKedinTexas said:
I did not know that the rule had been changed. Thanks all. Beer time now. Everybody have a safe Labor day weekend.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in principle for sure. If he had taken even a small step to be in position to make the catch he would’ve been hit by a guy running at nearly full speed. To me it just seems that the rule should allow for that.
 
GT to AZ said:
He needed move toward the ball and let the Clemson defender make contact with him. Instead he reached and missed. Understandably it's hard to move yourself into the path of someone running at full speed knowing that you aren't in a defensive body position and you're going to get decked.
Click to expand...

This. Instead of stepping up to catch the ball, which is his right as the receiver, he hesitated because he had someone bearing down on him.
 
As much as it hurt to fumble, I'm glad he didn't step towards the ball and hammered. If he got injured that would have been way worse of an outcome for the season.
 
To my eye it looked like the player bluffed like he was going to hit him. Bluffing a big hit on a fair catch should be a penalty.
 
He should have bumped into the guy or backed off. He made a mistake and I’m sure he won’t make it again with coaching. He needs to own that zone, it’s his. Much like this board, Georgia is not ugag. South Caroline is not Clemson nor USC. What we do every game is ours. You take the game and your only stop is if the ref catches it or if Coach Collins gives you direction otherwise.
 
GT to AZ said:
As much as it hurt to fumble, I'm glad he didn't step towards the ball and hammered. If he got injured that would have been way worse of an outcome for the season.
Click to expand...
that's a reasonable, well thought out answer. perhaps you are posting on the wrong board?
 
The issue I have with following Georgia Tech as a football team is the same on I see with their grads when I am hiring people. Don’t give me öööö you have done that makes no point. Tell me how you have squared adversity in the face and beat it. If the most adversity you have had in your life is on paper you haven’t really done much son.
 
The rules prevent a player from interfering with making a fair catch. We made the signal and a player flying by us made it difficult for our guy to get to the ball to make the catch. If he had kept his eyes completely on the ball they would have collided. Instead he held back for the cover guy to go by and ended up reaching for the ball. I believe a five yard interference call would have been reasonable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top