UFR: Punt coverage by PSU was NOT dirty
During the initial review of the Penn State game Brian opined, "The play on which Donovan Warren was shoved into Junior Hemingway needs to be a penalty. As we saw, it's dangerous as hell. Kick catch interference should extend to people you're blocking into the returner."
Upon further review it was an unfortunate play, but neither inherently dangerous nor dirty, as some commented.
The FannMan said, "From where I was sitting (I only saw it live) it looked like a shove in the back that could only result in Hemmingway being hit in the knees."
However, the replay shows that Warren and Hemingway were at least TEN YARDS APART when our gunner (#1 A.J. Wallace) put his hands on Warren. It was neither inevitable nor likely that Warren would hit Hemingway and it strains credulity to believe that was Wallace's intent.
This was simply a gunner trying to get someone out of his way. Again, an unfortunate result, but hard to label it penalty-worthy.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:30 PM ^
Bullshit!
October 28th, 2009 at 9:34 PM ^
Have you watched the replay?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:38 PM ^
Not all plays that deserve a penalty, are intentional or dirty, but still deserve a penalty
October 29th, 2009 at 12:10 PM ^
I'm going to go with the player should be suspended for a game since the Big Ten has set a rather low threshold for such. I doubt the intent of the action was to injure anyone, it was simply an act of spite outside of the normal actions during play. I am kidding here, at least in part, but I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibilities considering earlier actions.
Obviously the danger of contact to players backs during play, especially in special teams situations when most players are at full speed, is serious and that is why one cannot block in the back. My confusion with this is how the receiving team cannot make contact with a back while the kicking team can. Reverse the two players positions and have the same act occur and it is a penalty on the receiving team. If safety is one of the reasons for the penalty, then it should be universal. These kids do have to live normal lives after football has passed them by.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:31 PM ^
This horse is already beaten enough. Let it alone.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:31 PM ^
If it was " dangerous as hell", shouldn't it have been a penalty?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:34 PM ^
A gunner getting someone out of the way shouldnt be able to block in the back unless the ball is already caught. I feel that at that moment your still the offensive team.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:38 PM ^
clipping?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:38 PM ^
No reason for what amounts to a block in the back. You can't justify shoving someone from behind. It is dangerous and something that needs to flagged.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:39 PM ^
Looks to me like PSU Gunner Guy reaches out to make that push -- i.e., not to "get someone out of his way" but to do something about having gotten beat. So no, "This was simply a gunner trying to get someone out of his way" is a load of crap.
The better PSU defense is "What the hell was your guy [by which I mean our guy, Warren] doing sprinting straight at the punt returner anyway?" The best Warren could have done, sans getting pushed, would have been to run himself out of the play. I don't think that (had Hemmingway wanted to return the kick) Warren would have been in a position to block anybody.
But yeah, let it drop (so to speak). Even if it wasn't dirty, it was dangerous, and there should be a penalty for that.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:36 PM ^
"Even if it wasn't dirty, it was dangerous..."
This is results-oriented thinking. Warren and Hemingway were TEN YARDS APART. It's not like they were on top of each other an contact was inevitable.
On a percentage basis, how many times does a guy get shoved into someone else from ten yards away? One time in a thousand? One time in ten thousand?
October 28th, 2009 at 10:48 PM ^
On a wet field, at full speed, those 10 yards don't give you a lot of time. (And, btw, your point is that Warren wanted to take Hemmingway out?)
October 28th, 2009 at 10:58 PM ^
Intent is not relevant. Inevitability of injury isn't relevant either; it's POSSIBILITY of injury that is relevant when determining personal fouls. It doesn't take much actual football knowledge to understand this.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:44 PM ^
that this thread is gonna get ugly.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:37 PM ^
Nice sig--something we can all agree on!
October 28th, 2009 at 9:47 PM ^
Except that intent isn't an element of kick catch interference.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:48 PM ^
When someone grabs a facemask, it is not necessarily their intent to harm the person and it is not inevitable for that person to get injured.
It is the same with a chop block, horse collars, and helmet-to-helmet hits. The rules are there to reduce the risk of serious injury to the players.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:54 PM ^
Saw this posted earlier, and I'll bring it up again b/c it helped clarify my thinking about it.
http://forum.officiating.com/football/54935-fed-block-back.html
This discussion is by what looks to be high school officials, but the situation presented is pretty spot on. The point that convinced me that it is a personal foul is, "The safety of the players is the first concern." That follows with the well-said, "Even if it wasn't dirty, it was dangerous, and there should be a penalty for that."
October 28th, 2009 at 9:56 PM ^
A Penn State fan doesn't think that it was dirty...
*shocking hand motion*
October 28th, 2009 at 10:25 PM ^
At first I thought that was a dolphin.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:26 PM ^
F*CK YOU DOLPHIN AND WHALE!!!!
(South park)
October 28th, 2009 at 10:37 PM ^
in the Redskin game in week 6 (as I recall). The gunner knocked the blocker into the return man and the ball hit one of the two (no injury) and the punting team recovered the ball. It was totally legal, the gunner is entitled to engage the blocker. (I'll leave to others whether it "should be made illegal.")
October 28th, 2009 at 10:44 PM ^
I agree that the gunner has the right to engage the blocker, but if the player is not facing the gunner, I don't think gunners are allowed to engage the player in question. I think that is where the confusion arises; we've all seen players get pushed into return-men before without penalty. In this case, I feel the "engage-ability" of the gunner/blocker dyad is important.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:42 PM ^
for those of you that have ESPN 360 access,it is 2:13:00 into the film
3rd quarter, 9:30 to go
October 28th, 2009 at 10:47 PM ^
He didn't say there was an intent to hurt someone. He did say that pushing someone in the back like that in the direction of the return man is dangerous. And it should be a penalty, imo. But yeah, dead horse and all.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:25 PM ^
Brian didn't say it was dirty, but some commenters did.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:29 PM ^
"Drive Notes: Punt, 7-25, 9 min 3rd Q.This is the dangerous play that should not happen."
October 28th, 2009 at 11:41 PM ^
A bad no call I would agree,
Dirty play? not really, dirty makes me think intent to harm another player or purposely going beyond the whistle. There is no way that gunner could have planned that outcome.
If you want dirty I can go dig up that Cissoko vid again.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:59 AM ^
That's a block in the back
October 28th, 2009 at 10:55 PM ^
I haven't seen the play but it sounds very similar to the block on John Ryan during last year's ND/UM game, during the kick return, the one that ended up shattering both of Weis's knees.
Obviously both took place in different areas on the field, but it sounds familiar.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:04 PM ^
I laughed when that happened to Charlie.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:37 PM ^
Not cool to laugh at injuries.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:54 PM ^
Congrats, You put both the s and c in scUM
October 29th, 2009 at 1:17 AM ^
Leave the crap mnemonics on the freep.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:20 AM ^
Didn't gravy pour out when that happened?
October 29th, 2009 at 3:23 PM ^
Way to endear yourself.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:22 PM ^
Casualty #1: A player, on the field of play, who was receiving a punt.
Casualty #2: A person in a sea of people on the sideline.
But yes, other than that little detail, very similar indeed.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:01 PM ^
It's unfortunate, but no penalty. Pushing a guy to get him out of your way is legal, it's just really unlucky that he falls and takes out Hemingway's knees. No one was seriously hurt, move on.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:06 PM ^
From memory, I'm not entirely sure whether Brian was suggesting that a penalty should have been called in that specific instance or whether he was suggesting that that sort of play should be recognized as a penalty in the future and spelled out in the rules. I think the distinction matters, and I'm not sure the argument in progress captures that distinction. I may be misunderstanding, though.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:55 AM ^
I thought Brian was suggesting there should be a change in the rule book for blocking/pushing a player into the return man, which I would agree with.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:16 PM ^
It doesn't take much to push someone down from behind when they're running full speed. Hemmingway was looking up, not looking for one of his own guys flying into his knees. Warren was trying to regain his footing in those TEN YARDS. It was a dangerous play that needs to result into a penalty. Hemmingway is sitting there as a defenseless player when he has that crap happen. That has the potential of being a career ending injury.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:22 PM ^
the kicking team cannot use their hands to push a potential blocker in the back after the line of scrimmage until the ball has been touched or hit the ground.
Don't know if you can call it a "dirty" play unless the result was intended. However, it was an obvious penalty that should have been called.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:05 AM ^
I watched it live and then I watched it drunk (two hours later), and this was a play that was certainly a penalty and should have (but never will be) called. I don't know if you're just trying to ellicit a response from the masses, but to say that this was not a penalty is inaccurate, in my opinion. I am not an official, I did not play college football, and I did not know President Kennedy... but that sure looked like a Push/Block in the back that nearly took out two of our players.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:23 AM ^
for saying that you watched it drunk 2 hours later......
October 29th, 2009 at 12:50 AM ^
it was intentional at the time. Every time I see it it still looks intentional. If its not a penalty it definately should be. Hey PSU dude, I hate a lot of Big 10 teams long before I care about you guys, but your 10 yard argument is complete bullshit. If your gunner wanted Warren out of the way he would have pushed him aside, not into the returner. Your team is better this year....but that was bush league.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:50 AM ^
But it sure looks as if he is trying to guide him into the returner to me. If I wanted a guy out of my way I throw him to the side to get past. Not onto the ground in front of me so I have to then jump over him or go around him to get to where I want to be.
Watch the tape again and see if it doesn't look like the gunner is looking right at Hemingway and trying to guide Warren into him. He has his hands on his back for a couple of strides before actually shoving him in Hemingways direction.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:59 AM ^
I just watched it a good 10 times via the UFR and Youtube-o-vision and you can clearly see that Warren is slowing down and turning his head to find the guy to make sure he gets in his way. The PSU guy doesn't care if he's in his and the most direct path is to push him and since he's already in line with Hemingway he shoved him straight into him.
I showed this to an Aggie (Texas A&M) and his first reaction was much the same as PSU boy - he said "he was 15 yards away!" but then we watched it again and Warren gets shoved at the 20 and hits Hemingway at the 13 - not exactly 15 yards. He did agree that Warren should have been under more control but after watching it multiple times it's clear Warren was slowing down and attempting to block the guy from getting to Hemingway when he was shoved in the back.
I agree with Brian in that this should be a rule change - under the current rules it's not a penalty but the possibility for injury is obviously very high - hopefully the NCAA rules committee will look at this in the offseason.
As an aside - it's shocking to me that a PSU fan could complain about Special Teams anything after that 15 yard penalty for barely touching the punters toe (did they get rid of the 5 yard penalty because if they didn't that's completely inexcusable for them to call that a 15 yarder).
October 29th, 2009 at 10:45 AM ^
I showed this to an Aggie (Texas A&M) and his first reaction was much the same as PSU boy - he said "he was 15 yards away!" but then we watched it again and Warren gets shoved at the 20 and hits Hemingway at the 13 - not exactly 15 yards.
You can't look at where they hit, because Hemingway was moving forward to close the gap. Look where they are when Wallace shoved Warren--it was ten yards.
I agree with Brian in that this should be a rule change - under the current rules it's not a penalty but the possibility for injury is obviously very high - hopefully the NCAA rules committee will look at this in the offseason.
Zero chance. The current rulebook will also be used in 2010. The earliest a change can be made is after next season, for the 2011-12 rulebook. How do you propose the rule should read?
As an aside - it's shocking to me that a PSU fan could complain about Special Teams anything after that 15 yard penalty for barely touching the punters toe.
Who's complaining? (Besides RichRod?)