• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

CBF40's breakdown of the Indiana Game.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Since everyone is talking about the bad calls and such, what did everyone think about the two clipping calls on our tackles.

In high school there was always the tackle box, which was basically a 3 yard rectangle that went from the line of scrimmage to the lb's and back into the backfield and stretched from tackle to tackle. I was told that you are aloud to do anykind of block(except for holding) and Chop blocking which is when one lineman is engaged and another one takes out the guys legs from underneath of him.

On the two clipping penalties, all they tried to do was reach the guy in their gap by cutting him, which is perfectly legal and they both missed, Datish maybe hit the guys cleat and Boone let his guy step over him. Both times was a 15 yard penalty which I don't think should of ever happened.

What is the official rule and am I right or wrong.
 
Upvote 0
crazybuckfan40 said:
Since everyone is talking about the bad calls and such, what did everyone think about the two clipping calls on our tackles.

In high school there was always the tackle box, which was basically a 3 yard rectangle that went from the line of scrimmage to the lb's and back into the backfield and stretched from tackle to tackle. I was told that you are aloud to do anykind of block(except for holding) and Chop blocking which is when one lineman is engaged and another one takes out the guys legs from underneath of him.

On the two clipping penalties, all they tried to do was reach the guy in their gap by cutting him, which is perfectly legal and they both missed, Datish maybe hit the guys cleat and Boone let his guy step over him. Both times was a 15 yard penalty which I don't think should of ever happened.

What is the official rule and am I right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Not sure - but does this more restrictive interpretation implemented for 2005 have any impact on what you describe?
A more restrictive blocking
rule and a change in
terminology were approved
by the NCAA Football Rules
Committee at its annual
meeting and will go into
effect for the 2005 season.
The rule reference is 9-1-2-d
Exc 1a.
In previous years,
offensive linemen could
legally clip (block an
opponent when the initial
force is from behind and at
or below the waist) while in
the “legal clipping zone.”
This year, it will be a foul if
the initial contact is from
behind and at or below the
knees.
Team A linemen in the
zone must limit their blocks
from behind to above the
knee. The change renders
the term legal clipping zone
obsolete. The terminology in
the rulebook is now
“rectangular area.” The
modification does not affect
the size, location or time​
span that the rectangular
area exists. Nor does it affect
the exceptions to illegal
blocks in the back under 9-3-
3-c. Also, the change does
not affect administration of
blocking below the waist
rules when contact is not
initiated from behind (2-3-3,
9-1-2-e).
Under the change, the
only time it is legal to block
from behind and at or below
the knees will be against the
runner (a player with the
ball or one who simulates
having it) or when a player
turns his back on a blocker
who has committed himself
to an otherwise legal block.​
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
CBF40 - the one consistent thing out of all this is that the refs sucked.

On this no-one has any doubt.
(And jimotis - I cannot find anywhere any NCAA rule or interpretation reference to a pass hitting a part of player's body, or his feet, rebounding into the air, being caught only to have it declared an incompletion).
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
Not really saying there is such a rule, but that has to be the only explanation. If the ref looking at the replay actually thought the ball touched the ground then his next venue should be the unemployment office.
Click to expand...

my only response to that would be, what about balls that bounce of a persons body when they are on the ground? or any other body part touching the ground at the time. every one of those i have seen have stood against replay... not really argueing with you. im in the same boat as you thinking the replay guys have some issues...

my conscern on whether or not smith is getting better reading the field is exactly what i thought it would be after the psu game. we are basing our assessment as to whether he is doing better checking down on a single play, not several plays consistantly in multiple games. thats conscerning. secondly, iu's d is a looooong way from psu or texas. thats not saying he isn't getting better. just something to think about while your grading his performance.

cbf40, the cb was playing specifically to stop the slant route which is exactly what we were trying to run. if anyone should have been called for pi, it should have been holmes as he ran right into the defender who was clearly playing the ball. the cb was more of the wr in that situation than holmes was as he both had position and the ball was literally thrown right to him. the cb played that particular route perfectly. excellent no call imo.
 
Upvote 0
martinss01 said:
my only response to that would be, what about balls that bounce of a persons body when they are on the ground? or any other body part touching the ground at the time. every one of those i have seen have stood against replay... not really argueing with you. im in the same boat as you thinking the replay guys have some issues...

my conscern on whether or not smith is getting better reading the field is exactly what i thought it would be after the psu game. we are basing our assessment as to whether he is doing better checking down on a single play, not several plays consistantly in multiple games. thats conscerning. secondly, iu's d is a looooong way from psu or texas. thats not saying he isn't getting better. just something to think about while your grading his performance.

cbf40, the cb was playing specifically to stop the slant route which is exactly what we were trying to run. if anyone should have been called for pi, it should have been holmes as he ran right into the defender who was clearly playing the ball. the cb was more of the wr in that situation than holmes was as he both had position and the ball was literally thrown right to him. the cb played that particular route perfectly. excellent no call imo.
Click to expand...

Well I thinks Holmes was trying to break in front of him and he broke into Holmes. That is just MHO.
 
Upvote 0
I agree with the no call on the Indiana interception. The DB read it, jumped the route, and got there first. Credit to him.

Sandgk - good info on the new rules for clipping this year.

The ball off the foot. My understanding, admittedly without looking up the rule, is that an intentionally kicked ball is illegal to catch. The ball off the foot of the Nebraska guy at the end of regulation in the 1997 game at Missouri was only an illegal catch if the guy who kicked it would have been ruled as doing it intentionally. Which he did, and that call was missed, IMO. Thankfully it screwed scUM out of half an NC, and not us.

Balls bounce off feet unintentionally fairly often. USC got a pick in the Rose Bowl against scUM 2 years ago that clearly bounced off somebody's foot. So I don't believe contact with the foot, or a foot touching the ground, should make it a non-catch.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top