Nothing to see here
I just rewatched the game and noticed that on the Purdue onside kick it appears that the ball does not go ten yards before it was touched by a Purdue player. To me watching a review on DVR it appears that the Purdue player caught the ball after about 9 yards and then fell forward past the 45. I am not saying this would necessarily change the outcome or anything like that but this obviously could have had a big impact on the game and the momentum at the time. Anyone have any ideas why this play was not reviewed at least? Did anyone else notice this?
EDIT: Sorry, I did not realize that they changed the kickoff from the 35 to the 30 and did not notice when I rewatched it.Looks like the right call was made.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:03 PM ^
Some people mentioned this when watching it live, but the overwhelming majority said it looked to be a legit recovery. I haven't seen it yet as no BTN.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:34 AM ^
lmao...i thought it was kicked off from the 35 too and was going nuts for a second before someone in the stands informed me.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:03 PM ^
I definitely thought that was true when I saw it live but it's not. I was thinking kickoffs were at the 35 and that's not true. It got kicked off at the 30 and he touched it somewhere between the 40 and 45, which is over 10 yards.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:04 PM ^
I thought the same thing at the game, but then realized they kick from the 30. He caught it at the 44.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:05 PM ^
I was watching at the bar and didn't think it went 10 yards, but figured it would be reviewed or at least someone would be yelling bloody murder if the opinion was shared. It wasn't the only thing that lead to our defeat, so I can't put all the blame on one play.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:07 PM ^
I screamed at the TV for about twenty seconds asking why niether the UM coaching staff or the announcers were pointing it out. Now I realize it is because the ball went 14 yards, not 9.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:09 PM ^
It's hard to challenge when the kick went 14 yards. You can try--but the replay booth guy probably knows the kickoff went from the 30, and the Purdue guy caught it at the 44. 44-30=14.
Besides, how about the HORRID punt catch interference call on Purdue? Wow--
November 7th, 2009 at 10:05 PM ^
didn't Purdue do the same thing against us last year.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:13 PM ^
Did they really? Fuck. I just remember the hook and ladder/lateral.
Also, I think it's awesome that at least 5 of us (as well as a bunch during the CiL) thought that kickoffs were from the 35. We're old school. We were watching college football at least 2 years ago back in the good ol' days. When men were men and they kicked off from the 35.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:17 PM ^
On most onside kicks, the kicker kicks the ball into the ground first to create a hop, so you can't call for a fair catch. Yet on this particular kick, the Purdue kicker kicked it straight into the air - it looked like our up guy on that side of the field recognized this and was coming back for the ball, trying to signal for a fair catch, but was blocked by a Purdue player before he had a chance to get close enough to the ball to make an attempt at it. Why wouldn't this be called kick catch interference?
November 7th, 2009 at 10:48 PM ^
Regardless of whether the receiver signals fair catch or not, like a punt, the receiver trying to catch a free kick (e.g. kickoff) or scrimmage kick (punt) must be given an opportunity to catch the ball:
Rule 6, Sec. 4, Article 1 of NCAA Rules:
"A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines attempting to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick."
Now i actually don't recall if someone was gonna be able to get under the ball to catch it or not, but seems like if so, that should be a penalty.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:19 PM ^
ND recovered onsides kick against Navy that they did just the same way...except that Navy even knew it was coming. I wonder if popping it up instead of a high bounce doesn't give you better success.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:13 PM ^
No need to change the title. So you posted a question about the onside kick and tbe answer turned out to be that you were wrong. So were a ton of us. I got corrected at the bar by a guy* who clearly hates Rodriguez.
* During the Delaware State game he pulled out the classic line, "My banker is Rodriguez's cousin and he agrees that Rodriguez is an ass."
Today he kept saying everything was the fault of "coaching." For example when Purdue challenged the non-interception call BTN put the flag logo and he complained about how it's the coaches fault that there was a false start even after it became completely clear that there was no penalty.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:06 AM ^
There's a mouth-breathing idiot who sits behind me at the games. He, too, blames everything that goes wrong on the staff. At various points today he criticized RR for:
-"Running too much"
-"Passing too much"
-"Taking too many chances"
-"Always going into a shell"
-"Calling the same play too many times"
-"Going away from what worked"
He also criticized Hemingway for 1) letting a punt bounce ("Why go back there if you're not going to make a play?") and 2) not letting a punt bounce ("Why take chances?").
After the game, he vowed not to buy tickets next year. I sincerely hope he follows suit (or at least gets moved elsewhere).
November 9th, 2009 at 1:33 PM ^
The kicking team can not hit a receiving team player who is in position, or who is getting into position to catch the ball, unless, the ball has hit the ground, or the ball has already been touched by or touched a player on the receiving
team. See below:
"SECTION 4. Opportunity To Catch a Kick Interference With Opportunity
ARTICLE 1. A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines attempting to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an unimpeded opportunity to
catch the kick (A.R. 6-3-1-III, A.R. 6-4-1-V and A.R. 6-4-1-X).
a. This protection terminates when the kick touches the ground, when any player of Team B muffs a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone, or when any player of Team B muffs a free kick in the field of play or in the end zone (Rule 6-5-1-a) (A.R. 6-4-1-IV)."
The penalty is 15 yards from the spot of the foul, and a first down for the receiving team.
The PU kick in Saturday's game was a bloop kick that never hit the ground. Two UM players who were in position to catch the ball were blocked out of the play by PU players, allowing another PU player to run under the ball and catch it before it touched the ground. This was kick interference.
The officials didn't throw a flag. The announcers didn't comment on the play. And, I didn't see any UM coaches protesting. It appears that everyone in the stadium was confused. How come there have been no questions about this non-call?