Explain to me how safeties on kickoffs work

[ncjacket]

Yeah, the ball should have been placed at the point where it was at the moment a Tech player made first contact with the Duke player. This was clearly behind where the Duke player "caught" the ball but IMO, it was just outside the goal line. I think the refs just guessed: "oh this seems about right".

I think they simply thought he was knocked into the EZ and for whatever reason the review official didn’t think he had enough evidence to overturn.

 

[18in32]

Yeah, the ball should have been placed at the point where it was at the moment a Tech player made first contact with the Duke player. This was clearly behind where the Duke player "caught" the ball but IMO, it was just outside the goal line. I think the refs just guessed: "oh this seems about right".

Why would you place the ball where it was when a Tech player first made contact with the Duke player? The ball is spotted wherever it is when the ball carrier is down (anything other than foot or hand touches the ground), or the forward-most point if the ball carrier never voluntarily retreats.

 

[Walton]

Why would you place the ball where it was when a Tech player first made contact with the Duke player? The ball is spotted wherever it is when the ball carrier is down (anything other than foot or hand touches the ground), or the forward-most point if the ball carrier never voluntarily retreats.

Because where he ended up (in the endzone) means his forward most point was the moment a Tech player made contact with him.

i think most are over thinking that the refs should consider if he was moving voluntarily into the endzone. I don’t think that matters to the refs as much as when the first contact begins. The refs can’t judge his movement as voluntary versus caused by the tacklers so they just go by where the ball was when any contact happened.

FWIW, I’m not sure I’m right: it was a bang, bang play and a lot happened in about a second of time.

 

[Techbert]

I did not think the officiating was egregious, but the ACC rule is close decisions go to Tobacco Road.

 

[JJacket]

I did not think the officiating was egregious, but the ACC rule is close decisions go to Tobacco Road.

 

[18in32]

Because where he ended up (in the endzone) means his forward most point was the moment a Tech player made contact with him.

i think most are over thinking that the refs should consider if he was moving voluntarily into the endzone. I don’t think that matters to the refs as much as when the first contact begins. The refs can’t judge his movement as voluntary versus caused by the tacklers so they just go by where the ball was when any contact happened.

FWIW, I’m not sure I’m right: it was a bang, bang play and a lot happened in about a second of time.

Sorry, man, I'm really not following you. Are you trying to distinguish what refs do from what the rules actually are? "First contact" just has nothing to do with any rule of football that I'm aware of. Are you saying "first contact" is a proxy for "forward progress" because it is hard to tell whether a player retreats voluntarily?

 

[GoGATech]

I did not think the officiating was egregious, but the ACC rule is close decisions go to Tobacco Road.

I guess I'd put it in between egregious and just leaning toward Tobacco Road because there were way too many close decisions and of course all went Duke's way.

-couple of iffy PI's called against us that didn't get called the same way for us
-2 false starts on us that were clearly when defenders were offsides causing our OL to jump
-calling the personal foul on Curry and not also flagging the Duke OL that drug Brooks to the ground way late after the play. (that started the whole ordeal)
-Personal foul on Jalen Camp for spinning the ball after a TD catch. C'mon man guys do way more than that that don't get flagged. And I've seen plenty of guys spin the ball and not get a flag, so it's not automatic or universal.
-Duke's non safety was a safety although that one worked itself out on it's own.

Can't say that I remember any close calls like that going our way.

 

[GoGATech]

Sorry, man, I'm really not following you. Are you trying to distinguish what refs do from what the rules actually are? "First contact" just has nothing to do with any rule of football that I'm aware of. Are you saying "first contact" is a proxy for "forward progress" because it is hard to tell whether a player retreats voluntarily?

Correct. That's not how it works. Imagine a qb backpedaling with a DL barreling down on him. Even if he gets hands on him say 5yds deep but the play continues and he gets sacked 7yds deep, that is where the ball is spotted. Same thing in this instance. The guy clearly realized the ball was live and took off running and a backward angle trajectory carrying him into the endzone. He started moving before anyone touched him, so wherever he ends up after that is where he should be down. No forward progress because he was never going forward.

 

[1982Jacket]

Correct. That's not how it works. Imagine a qb backpedaling with a DL barreling down on him. Even if he gets hands on him say 5yds deep but the play continues and he gets sacked 7yds deep, that is where the ball is spotted. Same thing in this instance. The guy clearly realized the ball was live and took off running and a backward angle trajectory carrying him into the endzone. He started moving before anyone touched him, so wherever he ends up after that is where he should be down. No forward progress because he was never going forward.

That's not the rule. In your QB sack example, ball is not spotted 7 yds deep - it's spotted 5 yds deep.

In your other example, he could run straight backwards directly toward the goal line and if a defender makes contact at the one and pushes him back into the end zone before finally tackling him, it's not a safety, Ball on the one. If he is already in the end zone before the defender makes contact, THEN it's a safety.

 

[Walton]

That's not the rule. In your QB sack example, ball is not spotted 7 yds deep - it's spotted 5 yds deep.

In your other example, he could run straight backwards directly toward the goal line and if a defender makes contact at the one and pushes him back into the end zone before finally tackling him, it's not a safety, Ball on the one. If he is already in the end zone before the defender makes contact, THEN it's a safety.

Thank You. That is the way I think the rule is written but I know it is the way the refs call the rule. I’m not sure where people got this idea that the QB play would be spotted 7 yards back.

 

[GoGATech]

Thank You. That is the way I think the rule is written but I know it is the way the refs call the rule. I’m not sure where people got this idea that the QB play would be spotted 7 yards back.

Im not saying if he's standing still and get's sacked and pushed back. I'm saying if he's running backwards. The ball will be spotted where he is tackled.

 

[18in32]

Im not saying if he's standing still and get's sacked and pushed back. I'm saying if he's running backwards. The ball will be spotted where he is tackled.

Yeah, I'm not sure what's being debated at this point... it all boils down to the official's evaluation whether or not the ball carrier is still running or not. Here's the actual rule book interpretation of the forward progress rule...

IV. A4, with the ball breaking the plane of the 50-yard line while in his possession, dives over the 50-yard line, which is the line to gain for a first down. He is knocked back to Team A’s 49-yard line, where any part of his body except his hand or foot touches the ground. RULING: First down at forward progress spot (Rule 4-1-3-b).

V. A6 has the ball in his possession and is not controlled by an opponent, as he dives over the 50-yard line, which is the line to gain for a first down, and is forced back across the 50-yard line. A6 continues to run and is tackled at Team A’s 49-yard line, where any part of his body except his hand or foot strikes the ground. RULING: No first down. The point of forward progress is Team A’s 49-yard line.

I don't think there's any doubt as to what the rule is, but obviously whether or not the ball carrier "continues to run" is very much in the eye of the beholding official.

 

[1982Jacket]

Yeah, I'm not sure what's being debated at this point... it all boils down to the official's evaluation whether or not the ball carrier is still running or not. Here's the actual rule book interpretation of the forward progress rule...


I don't think there's any doubt as to what the rule is, but obviously whether or not the ball carrier "continues to run" is very much in the eye of the beholding official.

I have always seen the "continuing to run" part applied only in a case where the runner breaks contact with the defender, or breaks free from the defender, and continues to run. Not where the defender is continuing to grapple with the runner and the runner is fighting and "running" until the defender finally brings him down, further back from the point where the defender initiated contact.

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

Yeah, I'm not sure what's being debated at this point... it all boils down to the official's evaluation whether or not the ball carrier is still running or not. Here's the actual rule book interpretation of the forward progress rule...


I don't think there's any doubt as to what the rule is, but obviously whether or not the ball carrier "continues to run" is very much in the eye of the beholding official.

Try as you might, citing the rulebook will not get the call changed, counselor.