menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Windham, White, Irons, etc.
Page: 2 of 2
SBH
General User
SBH
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 4,677
person
mail
SBH
mail
Posted: 9/8/2016 11:16 AM
settings_applications edit_note
But in the review process, they do not "throw" a flag that wasn't thrown by the official on the field.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,800
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 9/8/2016 2:49 PM
settings_applications edit_note
SBH wrote:expand_more
But in the review process, they do not "throw" a flag that wasn't thrown by the official on the field.
Depends on the penalty, this year the replay booth can initiate some penalties, but you are correct SBH, this play is not one of them.
Last Edited: 9/8/2016 2:51:55 PM by BillyTheCat
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,800
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 9/8/2016 2:51 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
That was a definite illegal block and will draw the flag 100% of the time...
Except this time.
True, I should not have put 100% in their, but this is a foul that should be called in the open field at the point of attack.
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 9/8/2016 4:03 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
That was a definite illegal block and will draw the flag 100% of the time...
Except this time.
True, I should not have put 100% in their, but this is a foul that should be called in the open field at the point of attack.
What does "in the open field at the point of attack" have to do with the price of .... Is that out of the rule book?
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,800
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 9/8/2016 7:29 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Bcat2 wrote:expand_more
That was a definite illegal block and will draw the flag 100% of the time...
Except this time.
True, I should not have put 100% in their, but this is a foul that should be called in the open field at the point of attack.
What does "in the open field at the point of attack" have to do with the price of .... Is that out of the rule book?
You will not see a hold called that is not near the ball or the point of attack, and when a foul is clearly out in the open like that, the likelihood of it being called increases greatly because film never lies. If a hold has an effect on the play it will be called, if it's not in the play, likely not to see it called unless the act just screams like a sore thumb.
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 9/8/2016 7:56 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
That was a definite illegal block and will draw the flag 100% of the time...
Except this time.
True, I should not have put 100% in their, but this is a foul that should be called in the open field at the point of attack.
What does "in the open field at the point of attack" have to do with the price of .... Is that out of the rule book?
You will not see a hold called that is not near the ball or the point of attack, and when a foul is clearly out in the open like that, the likelihood of it being called increases greatly because film never lies. If a hold has an effect on the play it will be called, if it's not in the play, likely not to see it called unless the act just screams like a sore thumb.
Now we are talking about holding?
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,800
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 9/8/2016 9:17 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Bcat2 wrote:expand_more
That was a definite illegal block and will draw the flag 100% of the time...
Except this time.
True, I should not have put 100% in their, but this is a foul that should be called in the open field at the point of attack.
What does "in the open field at the point of attack" have to do with the price of .... Is that out of the rule book?
You will not see a hold called that is not near the ball or the point of attack, and when a foul is clearly out in the open like that, the likelihood of it being called increases greatly because film never lies. If a hold has an effect on the play it will be called, if it's not in the play, likely not to see it called unless the act just screams like a sore thumb.
Now we are talking about holding?
Hold and illegal blocks carry the same enforcement and are officiated under the same philosophies. Nice try on splitting hairs.
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 9/8/2016 9:28 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
That was a definite illegal block and will draw the flag 100% of the time...
Except this time.
True, I should not have put 100% in their, but this is a foul that should be called in the open field at the point of attack.
What does "in the open field at the point of attack" have to do with the price of .... Is that out of the rule book?
You will not see a hold called that is not near the ball or the point of attack, and when a foul is clearly out in the open like that, the likelihood of it being called increases greatly because film never lies. If a hold has an effect on the play it will be called, if it's not in the play, likely not to see it called unless the act just screams like a sore thumb.
Now we are talking about holding?
Hold and illegal blocks carry the same enforcement and are officiated under the same philosophies. Nice try on splitting hairs.

Early I admitted this needs opinion of an official. I am not splitting hairs. If you can quote the book on this situation, that would be helpful. If you wish to be the authority, simply explain your authority, please.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,800
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 9/9/2016 11:32 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Bcat2 wrote:expand_more
That was a definite illegal block and will draw the flag 100% of the time...
Except this time.
True, I should not have put 100% in their, but this is a foul that should be called in the open field at the point of attack.
What does "in the open field at the point of attack" have to do with the price of .... Is that out of the rule book?
You will not see a hold called that is not near the ball or the point of attack, and when a foul is clearly out in the open like that, the likelihood of it being called increases greatly because film never lies. If a hold has an effect on the play it will be called, if it's not in the play, likely not to see it called unless the act just screams like a sore thumb.
Now we are talking about holding?
Hold and illegal blocks carry the same enforcement and are officiated under the same philosophies. Nice try on splitting hairs.

Early I admitted this needs opinion of an official. I am not splitting hairs. If you can quote the book on this situation, that would be helpful. If you wish to be the authority, simply explain your authority, please.
I did quote the book on officiating philosophy. What exactly are you looking for and I'd be more than happy to give you rule/article/section.
oldkatz
General User
O
Member Since: 12/22/2004
Post Count: 1,461
person
mail
oldkatz
mail
Posted: 9/9/2016 11:40 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Second place in this argument, B-2. BTC has the book and the experience in the trenches.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 9/9/2016 2:20 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
But in the review process, they do not "throw" a flag that wasn't thrown by the official on the field.
Depends on the penalty, this year the replay booth can initiate some penalties, but you are correct SBH, this play is not one of them.

This year, can the replay booth initiate a correction on the spot, so that you can't have safeties called at the 4 yard line?
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 9/9/2016 3:55 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Oh, c'mon. The first and real question here is whether our guy made an intentional, not accidental block in the back.

Don't lose site of this issue. Don't let Bcat2 obfuscate.

The block is clearly in the back and clearly done on purpose as our guy reached out to do it.

Inability to master the obvious--let's leave that to the SFB, please.

Those of us who can see obvious truths shouldn't allow ourselves to be misdirected by those SFB who cannot.
Showing Messages: 26 - 37 of 37
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)