Offsides Penalty on 1st Onside Kick (Pic)

#326
#326
2for2VOL said:
Key word here. You have to be anticipating a penalty to make a call that close when it's something that slides by 99.9 % of the time.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but .... in the official's defense, that's the only thing that guy is watching for; especially on an onside kick. Just a judgement call that went against us.
 
#329
#329
lexkyvol said:
GREAT POINT!

The offsides call was immediately made in Mike Slive's office
Click to expand...

:sigh:

It's not a great point at all. The illegal touch had to be reviewed to establish who should get possession. If it had been determined that there was an illegal, the offsides penalty would've been declined at Mizzou would've just taken the ball at the spot.
 
#331
#331
Its real simple, there should have been NO OFFSIDES CALL. NONE, ZILCH, NADA. The ref blew that. The illegal touching was called, but was overturned. Without the bogus offside call, though the pea headed ref said false start, it would have been our ball at the spot where we recovered it.
 
#332
#332
Kickoff offsides is the kind of penalty that is never called unless it's egregious or an official wants to pump his ego by proving that he can see things no one else can detect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#333
#333
Its pretty obvious the call was ridiculous. In the most critical phase of the game, the ref made a judgment call he normally never makes and evidence shows was very suapect. He took away UT's chance to tie, that is on him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#334
#334
AllVolinGA said:
Its real simple, there should have been NO OFFSIDES CALL. NONE, ZILCH, NADA. The ref blew that. The illegal touching was called, but was overturned. Without the bogus offside call, though the pea headed ref said false start, it would have been our ball at the spot where we recovered it.
Click to expand...

Actually, offsides on a kicking team is designated with the false start, or illegal procedure, hand signal. Offsides on the receiving team gets the regular offsides signal.
 
#335
#335
AllVolinGA said:
Its real simple, there should have been NO OFFSIDES CALL. NONE, ZILCH, NADA. The ref blew that. The illegal touching was called, but was overturned. Without the bogus offside call, though the pea headed ref said false start, it would have been our ball at the spot where we recovered it.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's readily apparent to anyone with half a brain.


Butch needs to appeal this call to the SEC.
 
#338
#338
Shocker0 said:
Yeah I only watched one of their kickoffs (may have been that one) and they were way more "offsides" than any player on our team was during the onside kick.
Click to expand...

According to Rocky Goode the main thing they're looking for on offsides on the kicking team is whether or not an advantage has been gained. On a normal kickoff there is very little to be gained when the ball is kicked 65-70 yards if a hand or head is on or beyond the line.

On an onside kick, it's scrutinized more. With that said, there is no way (based on the angles I looked at) a flag should have been thrown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#339
#339
Boca Vol said:
According to Rocky Goode the main thing they're looking for on offsides on the kicking team is whether or not an advantage has been gained. On a normal kickoff there is very little to be gained when the ball is kicked 65-70 yards if a hand or head is on or beyond the line.

On an onside kick, it's scrutinized more. With that said, there is no way (based on the angles I looked at) a flag should have been thrown.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. It does make sense, though allows for some inconsistency and judgment calls at times. Under that criteria, there was definitely no advantage gained on the onside kick since Missouri had the first chance to touch it and one of our players even let it go before we finally fell on it. There were no other MIssouri players in the area really, and the guy they claimed was offsides (JRM), had no real impact on the play or recovery of the ball. That's my opinion at least from being at the game and then watching the replay of the kick.
 
#340
#340
The photos from OP are not from the correct angle to see right down the line of scrimmage.
 
#343
#343
Boca Vol said:
According to Rocky Goode the main thing they're looking for on offsides on the kicking team is whether or not an advantage has been gained. On a normal kickoff there is very little to be gained when the ball is kicked 65-70 yards if a hand or head is on or beyond the line.

On an onside kick, it's scrutinized more. With that said, there is no way (based on the angles I looked at) a flag should have been thrown.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you said 100% except the last sentence. So, I guess I agree with you about 90%.

I have yet to see a photo or video at an angle close enough to the side judge's that provides indisputable evidence he is wrong.
 
#344
#344
Shocker0 said:
Thanks for that. It does make sense, though allows for some inconsistency and judgment calls at times. Under that criteria, there was definitely no advantage gained on the onside kick since Missouri had the first chance to touch it and one of our players even let it go before we finally fell on it. There were no other MIssouri players in the area really, and the guy they claimed was offsides (JRM), had no real impact on the play or recovery of the ball. That's my opinion at least from being at the game and then watching the replay of the kick.
Click to expand...

You are using hindsight to make your judgment. How was the side judge to know the Mizzou player was going to have first shot at the ball or let it get away from him? The glad was thrown prior to the Mizzou player touching the ball.
 
#345
#345
GAVol said:
True, but the fact that you can see green between every player and the line is pretty convincing.
Click to expand...

It's not just the foot crossing the line that matters. It's any part of the player that crosses the plane. The same as offsides or encroachment on a play from scrimmage.
 
#348
#348
UTFootballFan said:
It's not just the foot crossing the line that matters. It's any part of the player that crosses the plane. The same as offsides or encroachment on a play from scrimmage.
Click to expand...

I understand. But looking at the stills and the slo mo replays, it's apparent that if he was over the line, it was one of his fingernails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#349
#349
GAVol said:
I understand. But looking at the stills and the slo mo replays, it's apparent that if he was over the line, it was one of his fingernails.
Click to expand...

Have you seen a video or picture from the same angle as or close to that of the side judge?

I wonder if the SEC will make their findings public.
 
#350
#350
UTFootballFan said:
Thanks for the link. Here is a pertinent quote from the linked page.

Riveron says when the choice of obvious, the officials don’t even consult with the coaches. “If a foul on the offense will wipe out a first down run, or if there is defensive pass interference on an incomplete pass, the referee doesn’t even consult with the coach, since it is obvious the coach will want the penalty. The referee will just instruct the umpire to walk off the penalty and he’ll make the announcement,” he explained.

The officials didn't originally make a big issue of the offsides because it would obviously be declined because because the ref thought there was illegal touching of the ball. Once they realized there wasn't illegal touching, they had to deal with the offsides that was called. If the ref saw any part of the player past the line when the kick, it's offsides.

Time to accept it and move on.
Click to expand...

Oh, I missed the part where they walked off the penalty and made ANNOUNCEMENT! Thanks for clearing that up (sarcasm). They never announced the penalty because it was not called. They must ANNOUNCE the penalty.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top