[NCAAF] vBook: Ole Miss vs Alabama

NDPhilly

NDPhilly

Philly Torqued
Messages
16,445
Reaction score
16,737
Bama and USC lose on the same day and we manhandle a top 15 with our back up QB. Is it Christmas?
 
T

TheSunIsRising

New member
Messages
638
Reaction score
117
wow, if the officials let Bama get away with another illegal onside kick, they might just win this game
 
NDTH91

NDTH91

Well-known member
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
204
Irish Insanity said:
You can't bat the ball forward on the onside kick. It a penalty.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it was an intentional forward "bat".

Looked to me like he was just trying to get a hand on it and swat it - regardless of direction. I think the spirit of the penalty is that a player doesn't intentionally advance the ball. Sort of like the fumbling forward rule late in the 4Q.
 
dad4aa

dad4aa

Well-known member
Messages
3,754
Reaction score
741
NDTH91 said:
I'm not so sure it was an intentional forward "bat".

Looked to me like he was just trying to get a hand on it and swat it - regardless of direction. I think the spirit of the penalty is that a player doesn't intentionally advance the ball. Sort of like the fumbling forward rule late in the 4Q.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Rewound the game and watched it again and it looked like he tipped it out of the receivers hand to keep it alive and didn't necessarily bat it forward.
 
T

TheSunIsRising

New member
Messages
638
Reaction score
117
NDTH91 said:
I'm not so sure it was an intentional forward "bat".

Looked to me like he was just trying to get a hand on it and swat it - regardless of direction. I think the spirit of the penalty is that a player doesn't intentionally advance the ball. Sort of like the fumbling forward rule late in the 4Q.
Click to expand...

looked like a text book intentional batting to me. he definitely didn't look like he was trying to catch it; he looked to be preventing the Ole Miss player from getting his hands on it
 
D

dwshade

Banned
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
123
NDTH91 said:
I'm not so sure it was an intentional forward "bat".

Looked to me like he was just trying to get a hand on it and swat it - regardless of direction. I think the spirit of the penalty is that a player doesn't intentionally advance the ball. Sort of like the fumbling forward rule late in the 4Q.
Click to expand...

Spirit of penalty? It's either a penalty or not. Intent doesn't matter. Sometimes DB's don't intend to interfere but they do. It's still a penalty.
 
IrishLax

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
dwshade said:
Spirit of penalty? It's either a penalty or not. Intent doesn't matter. Sometimes DB's don't intend to interfere but they do. It's still a penalty.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does. Rule 124-1(a) says: "...the intentional striking of the ball with hand, fist, elbow, or forearm."

So intent is of paramount importance when a violation requires intentional striking of the ball. The rule is written this way specifically to differentiate between people who are trying to grab/catch the ball and happen to knock it forward unintentionally versus those that actively swat at it.

In the case of the onside kick last night, I see both sides. Him reaching up for the ball and knocking it almost 20 yards down the field could reasonably considered batting. He doesn't making a "batting" or "swatting" motion, but at the end of the day he hits the ball with his hand and it flies forward.

On the other hand, one could reasonably conclude that he was trying to make a "natural" play and field the ball with his hand... he extends his arm up for the ball as anyone would trying to field it. The momentum of the player and the ball is what causes it to bounce forward how it does, not an apparent swinging or smacking motion.
 
T Town Tommy

T Town Tommy

Alabama Bag Man
Messages
6,278
Reaction score
2,768
IrishLax said:
Actually, it does. Rule 124-1(a) says: "...the intentional striking of the ball with hand, fist, elbow, or forearm."

So intent is of paramount importance when a violation requires intentional striking of the ball. The rule is written this way specifically to differentiate between people who are trying to grab/catch the ball and happen to knock it forward unintentionally versus those that actively swat at it.

In the case of the onside kick last night, I see both sides. Him reaching up for the ball and knocking it almost 20 yards down the field could reasonably considered batting. He doesn't making a "batting" or "swatting" motion, but at the end of the day he hits the ball with his hand and it flies forward.

On the other hand, one could reasonably conclude that he was trying to make a "natural" play and field the ball with his hand... he extends his arm up for the ball as anyone would trying to field it. The momentum of the player and the ball is what causes it to bounce forward how it does, not an apparent swinging or smacking motion.
Click to expand...

I think that if it was reviewed, the call on the field would have stood. It appeared to me, however, that he did try to strike the ball to keep it from the defender. If only Alabama's offense would intentionally try to keep the ball away from defenders, my Tide may actually win a game.
 
Irish YJ

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
T Town Tommy said:
I think that if it was reviewed, the call on the field would have stood. It appeared to me, however, that he did try to strike the ball to keep it from the defender. If only Alabama's offense would intentionally try to keep the ball away from defenders, my Tide may actually win a game.
Click to expand...

5 TOs, shaky QB play, and penalties,,,, and they still had a chance to come back. They will be fine. I'm still not sold on Kiffy. Poison...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top