Minnesota gets Cheated (NCAA)

[dsvitak]

This is unreal. Late in the game, down by three, Minnesota tries the onside kick. It works. Perfectly. AFTER the play, a flag comes out.

See for yourself. This is awful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9RqZ-4J27I

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

This is unreal. Late in the game, down by three, Minnesota tries the onside kick. It works. Perfectly. AFTER the play, a flag comes out.

See for yourself. This is awful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9RqZ-4J27I

I’m sure Vegas would disagree.

That really sucks though. If I was a fan, I’d be absolutely pissed.

[DamPenguin]

That was terrible… hard to support referees, no logic whatsoever to even make that call ��

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

This is unreal. Late in the game, down by three, Minnesota tries the onside kick. It works. Perfectly. AFTER the play, a flag comes out.

See for yourself. This is awful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9RqZ-4J27I

UNC had one like that vs Clemson in the ACC title game.

I think refs who make a mistake like that should be suspended half a year. There has to be a reason why they "imagine" a violation like that & none of them are in the umps' favor. What angers me more is that after what they did to UNC, they haven't made that reviewable. Onside kicks are too critical to momentum & the final outcome to allow one visionless imbecile to affect game like that.

[Sweed]

I'd put it right up there with the phantom fair catch call in the Iowa-Minnesota game last year.

[Boomcoach]

I don't think that angle is good enough to verify the the call is wrong. I am happy to be corrected about the rule, but I don't think it is the feet that determine offsides, it would be the head. With the angle shown, the helmet may have been over the line. I see this issue a LOT in soccer, where the actual line is surprisingly different from the camera one, when there is that much difference in perspective.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

I don't think that angle is good enough to verify the the call is wrong. I am happy to be corrected about the rule, but I don't think it is the feet that determine offsides, it would be the head. With the angle shown, the helmet may have been over the line. I see this issue a LOT in soccer, where the actual line is surprisingly different from the camera one, when there is that much difference in perspective.

His feet are clearly behind he line...are we saying that NO part of his body can be above the imaginary line? Seems a little goofy to me, at best.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

His feet are clearly behind he line...are we saying that NO part of his body can be above the imaginary line? Seems a little goofy to me, at best.

At the line of scrimmage, if anything is offsides it counts, not just feet. I can't swear it is the same on a kickoff, but I would expect it to be.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

At the line of scrimmage, if anything is offsides it counts, not just feet. I can't swear it is the same on a kickoff, but I would expect it to be.

It's extremely inconsistent if that is true. Cause a QB isn't considered past the LOS if any part is still behind the line. So I don't get how everyone else is considered past it if a mustache is beyond it.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

It's extremely inconsistent if that is true. Cause a QB isn't considered past the LOS if any part is still behind the line. So I don't get how everyone else is considered past it if a mustache is beyond it.

I am not sure how a QB would manage to get into the neutral zone, without a giraffe-like neck. But it is not unusual for a defensive lineman to get called for encroachment if there helmet is in the neutral zone, even if the feet are not.

Doing a quick look, I was not able to find a definition for what constitutes offsides on a kick-off.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

I am not sure how a QB would manage to get into the neutral zone, without a giraffe-like neck. But it is not unusual for a defensive lineman to get called for encroachment if there helmet is in the neutral zone, even if the feet are not.

Doing a quick look, I was not able to find a definition for what constitutes offsides on a kick-off.

I'm talking about passing beyond the LOS. The QB is considered still behind the line if any part of his body is still behind it. So I don't know why anyone would be considered offside if they are leaning forward but never step over the line. That is inconsistent.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I'm talking about passing beyond the LOS. The QB is considered still behind the line if any part of his body is still behind it. So I don't know why anyone would be considered offside if they are leaning forward but never step over the line. That is inconsistent.

I know that is true for forward passes, I also know that if a defensive lineman leans forward into the neutral zone, it is offsides (neutral zone encroachment) even if his feet are behind the ball. Completely different parts of the rules.

[Boomcoach]

Here is the NFL definition:

SECTION 19 - OFFSIDE
A player is offside when any part of his body or his person is in the neutral zone, or is beyond the kicking team’s restraining line for an onside kick or fair catch kick line when the ball is put in play, unless he is a holder of a place kick for an onside kick (6-1-6-d-1) or fair catch kick (11-4-3), or a kicker for an onside kick (6-1-6-d-2). The snapper is offside if any part of his body is beyond the neutral zone. The kicker is not offside unless his kicking foot is beyond his restraining line when the ball is kicked.