OT: Your Favorite CFB Rules Reminders
Almost like clockwork, each and every game no matter if it's the Big Ten Network or ESPN, the announcers feel the need to remind us about rules that we've heard 90 times. What are some of your favorites?
For me, there's two right off the top:
1) "For those of you who don't know, when the player hits the pylon with the football, it is indeed a touchdown."
2) Explaining college football overtime, even if it's Week 10 of the season. "Both teams will get a chance to score. Remember folks, this isn't like the NFL overtime."
I'm sure I'm missing a ton!
September 6th, 2016 at 9:32 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 6th, 2016 at 9:34 AM ^
September 6th, 2016 at 9:37 AM ^
Understands the rules on targeting. They'll explain it ad nauseam, but nothing is ever enforced or really made clear.
September 6th, 2016 at 9:46 AM ^
bothers me about the rule is that they have effectively taken "intent" out of the equation when it is specifically intent that the rule is supposed to address. If two bodies collide and helmet to helmet contact occurs, they are calling targeting even when the intent to target was not present. I understand how dangerous head injuries are, but you can't be kicking players out of games for what amounts to incidental contact toward one part of the body.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:35 AM ^
Apparently it is still targeting if it involves a Michigan player being pushed onto the pile.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4172542/35.0.gif)
...they'll NEVER get it right.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:38 AM ^
And of course, this is a good hard football play. No problems here...
September 6th, 2016 at 10:38 AM ^
You cannot argue how bad of a call that was.
September 6th, 2016 at 9:43 AM ^
"Remember, the clock stops on a first down in college football!"
September 6th, 2016 at 9:44 AM ^
you have to have indisputable visual evidence to overturn this." (After which, the officials promptly overturn a 50/50 play).
September 6th, 2016 at 9:48 AM ^
How many times do they say indisputable in a game? Gotta be in the mid teens.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:19 AM ^
They talk about this non-stop in the NFL, too.
September 6th, 2016 at 9:47 AM ^
"Now, the ref said that the call STANDS. That means there's not enough evidence to overturn. If he said CONFIRMED, they can validate the play."
September 6th, 2016 at 9:54 AM ^
It's as if he thinks people primarily watch the NFL and are checking out this niche product called "college football."
September 6th, 2016 at 10:16 AM ^
just thinks he always has to be saying something. He won't allow any dead air and it comes across as rather self-conscious as a play by play game. Some times there isn't anything to say and the really good ones (Jackson, Nessler) are not always talking.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:20 AM ^
Brent. I think he's hilarious.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:26 AM ^
like him too, but he is not an all-timer. He can call any type of game, he could call a high school field hockey game and have you buy into the stakes, but he is not great any one particular sport. I think he is actually a better college basketball announcer than he is for football but I don't think they use him on basketball coverage anymore. (He called the '89 Final Four).
September 6th, 2016 at 10:32 AM ^
From the major broadcasts after his comments about McCarron's lady, which weren't even that bad. But ESPN is so freaking PC that they shoved him to the SEC network.
Chris Fowler should never be calling a major game. He's a perfect booth guy for pre or post game, but he sucks describing any on-field action.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:39 AM ^
is not a disaster but for him to be the guy is crazy. Tessitore is better and Tessitore is not good either. I think the best play by play guy ESPN has right now is Reese Davis for god sake. He held his own in the State/Oregon game last year and I thought he was an upgrade from Fowler.
As for the Musberger comments, he has said much more questionable things than that and taken no heat for it. Everybody was thinking it all game, she is smoking hot, he just ackowledged it. If I was an accouncer at the Texas game over the weekend part of my play by play would have been talking pretty much constantly about the fact that every woman in the stadium was at least a 9.
September 6th, 2016 at 11:01 AM ^
He needs to be doing the major games.
You can already notice a lack of John Saunders (RIP) and Mike Tirico. In my eyes, Tirico was the best play-by-play guy on the network.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:40 AM ^
My favorite Musberger quote was during the throw-back screen to Gallon in the UTL game where he proudly said, "That's one of the plays they worked on in practice!" I guess they just winged it on the other plays.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:48 AM ^
were kind of a mess during that entire stretch. Herbstreet concluded that we were just going to center the ball for a field goal with 8 seconds left. It was going to be like a 42 yarder. Had he seen us attempt a field goal of any more than 20 yards during the entire proceeding three years? I did not think we were going for the endzone but I knew full well they were going to try to get yardage with the play.
September 6th, 2016 at 11:35 AM ^
Not even close. Michigan was at the 16 which makes it (at most) a 34 yarder.
September 6th, 2016 at 3:34 PM ^
I remember that being futher away but I stand corrected. Perhaps it was because we could not make any field goals under RR that I had been accustomed to going for it in pretty much every circumstance that I did not see them kicking the field goal without trying to get closer to the goal line. In any case, I did not see them simply centering the ball when there was time to get a play off and a time out available.
September 6th, 2016 at 9:55 AM ^
I would say that at least 40 or so times this weekend - just in the games I watched - someone managed to work in a reminder about how the receiver must have control of the ball as he hits the ground for the pass to be considered complete. To a lesser extent, usually on deep balls, you would see replay with the question "did he have one foot in?". There are usually a ton of reminders about the constituent components of a "catch".
September 6th, 2016 at 10:02 AM ^
Become so flippin complicated for the refs? I think the Calvin Johnson play did so much harm for the entire sport of football. After that, no one really understood what constituted a catch.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:12 AM ^
In the Michigan game I think Chesson caught one that never touched the ground because he rolled onto his back. The announcers still felt the need to bring up that he needed to maintain control, and that catch/no-catch is the hardest play to review.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:38 AM ^
I heard an announcer say during one of the weekend games that the "ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver isn't using the ground to control the ball." I do not have the faintest idea what the rules are w/r/t a catch anymore.
This is why Bo hated to pass the ball more than six or seven times per game.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:55 AM ^
you want a perfect example of what a catch is, go watch the overtime game we had against Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl. The Tech touchdown they called back in OT as "not a catch" is completely 100% a catch.
September 6th, 2016 at 1:15 PM ^
Nope.
The guy used the ground to help him secure the ball. I mean, not intentionally, but the ball undisputably hit the ground and moved. Kinda sorta having control of the ball has never been sufficient. Replay guy got that one exactly right.
September 6th, 2016 at 3:31 PM ^
I think the ball hit the ground but I don't think it helped him secure the ball. I think he was securing the ball as he hit the ground. It is one of those where I say "could it have been anymore of a catch than it was?" If the answer is no I believe it is a catch. To say he did not catch that ball above is to say "a catch cannot happen under those circumstances." I was elated when the call was made but never thought it was the right call.
September 6th, 2016 at 3:40 PM ^
in the live replay, you can see the ball flip forward 90 degrees as it hits the ground. he had two hands on it but he did not have control of it.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:05 AM ^
which I believe haven't been given an over-emphasis on game broadcasts. Among these is one that has been the most visiblke to viewers in which the referee is a handed a video replay device and given access to communication with booth reviewers to discuss a play under review.
Last week, in unveiling rule changes at the Pizza House during Harbaugh's weekly radio coach's show, former Big Ten football referee Dick Honig, who during a long and distinguished officiating career never worked a game at the Big House, because he owns an official apparel business and lives in the Ann Arbor area, noted that the NCAA has wanted better communication in clarifying rulings between on-field calls and booth reviews without actually involving the referee in a final decision.
So now, the referee communicates the crew position on a call, if asked,with what the booth reviewers are seeing on a play.
Because of this new communication procedure, calls can now be confirmed by the booth that the field crew didn't flag but actually had a question about and seek review. Such was the case when Hawaii was penalized for grounding at the end of the firsh half and a 10 second runoff resulted ending a Rainbow Warrior chance for points.
Curiously, Honig noted last week during a Q&A session about rules, that the NCAA had actually changed the targeting rule that resulted in Bolden's ejection from the MSU game last year after seemingly being blocked into a sliding qb. Last year, he said, that officials had no discretion in making that call regardless of intent. Now, he said, officials can alter a sliding hit call based on whether a player is voluntarily or not seeking to hit a player giving up on a play when contact occurs.
The change in that rule-call, he said, came as a result of the Bolden case.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:13 AM ^
September 6th, 2016 at 10:18 AM ^
Even with the explanations, my Australian wife thinks American football is boring.
Her: "Why do they stand around so much?"
Me: "Well, they play really intensely for several seconds and then get ready for the next play".
Her: "In Australia they play that hard for a couple hours."
Me: "Yes, but .... um...."
Her: "You're about to say something stupid aren't you?"
Me: "Doesn't that go without saying?"
September 6th, 2016 at 10:24 AM ^
To baseball. For a 3 hour game or so, there's only like 20-25 minutes of actual on the field action.
There's just something special about CFB that Rugby can't attach over here. There's an allure to the traditions, the tailgating, the colors, rivals, etc.. I've watched Rugby before. For the average fan like myself, it's very complicated and it's not a fluid watch. And I'm not sure how many "stars" you can get attached to in rugby like in American football.
September 6th, 2016 at 11:03 AM ^
Rugby is too close to soccer in that, while there is near-continual play, there is not much planning and detailed strategy to each play. It is improvisational because it must be.
I like to tell people that (American) football is like a real-time game of chess for each play, except all the pieces move simultaneously. Each piece/player has a separate set of rules governing how they move and what they can do, the sides (coaches) have a strategy before going in, some improvisation does occur, and ultimately there is a finite resolution to that matchup. Time is called, the board resets, and you do it again. Unlike baseball, it always demands that each player is active. Hypothetically, you only need one good/great player (pitcher and home-run hitter combined) to win a game (and a catcher for third strikes only). The others could hypothetically (and reasonably) do nothing and their team could still win, even if the opposing team is great. Too much depends on one player (the pitcher).
September 6th, 2016 at 11:15 AM ^
For that. I'm a huge soccer guy because of that thinking on the fly stuff. But there is a good amount of strategy that goes into how formations set up, who makes the runs, when they make runs, etc...
And I like American football for the strategy. The constant evaluation of what the other team is doing on offense and defense and how to adjust on the fly.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:23 AM ^
You went down under...
September 6th, 2016 at 10:23 AM ^
Would it have been legal if Peppers had jumped and snatched that 55 yard FG right before it made its way an inch over the crossbar? I honestly have no idea whether that's legal. If it's not legal, I have no idea how you enforce that or what the penalty could possibly be.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:35 AM ^
I think the ref would have had no choice but to issue a red card and award Hawaii a PK.
September 6th, 2016 at 12:03 PM ^
Peppers would have been fine if he had jumped and caught the ball. What Peppers couldn't do would be to swat it away basketball-style. That would be a penalty for "illegal batting." Hawaii could take a safety (because Michigan committed a penalty in its own endzone) or they could take the result of the play (if they recovered the ball after the bat).
I'm not sure if Peppers would have had a chance to jump and catch the thing over the crossbar, though. It's the same height (10 feet) as a basketball hoop.
September 6th, 2016 at 12:03 PM ^
http://smartfootball.com/grab-bag/goaltending-for-football#sthash.CyEUT…
September 6th, 2016 at 12:43 PM ^
Thanks for this. So by doing this you could prevent your opponent from scoring 3 points and instead give them only 2 since you're changing the FG to a safety, but then you'd lose a posession. Seems like it could be the credited strategy at the end of regulation with only seconds on the clock and your team is down by 2 or 3 points.
September 6th, 2016 at 10:28 AM ^
You would be amazed at how many people watch football, but are un aware of some of the most basic rules of the game. That an along with some minor differences in rules between college and NFL.
September 6th, 2016 at 11:03 AM ^
Then it happened again in the Oklahoma/Houston game.
Was that always a rule? Even now, you don't always see a return man in the end zone on a long field goal attempt.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 6th, 2016 at 11:22 AM ^
September 6th, 2016 at 11:26 AM ^
would Jabrill have been allowed to jump up and swat the kick away at the goalpost? Not sure if someone could even jump that high (if anyone could, Peppers), and the kick would have to BARELY go over the post, but would it be allowed?
Maybe this is a dumb question but I'm curious.
September 6th, 2016 at 12:06 PM ^
Not a dumb question; it's a pretty obscure rule.
There is a discussion right above here as well. The summary is that he can catch the ball in the end zone, but he can't swat it. That would be "illegal batting."
September 6th, 2016 at 3:35 PM ^
No it would be Goaltending.
/JUMPMAN'd.