[Husker] question about pitt game

[Martin, Douglas]

Unlikely that roughing the passer applies as if the ball is fumbled on the snap to the passer (it is a judgment call here in that the ball never hit the ground but deflected off the holders helmet), the ball carrier is pretty fair game.  Same applies to the punter when the ball is fumbled by the punter or the snap hits the ground and then the punter is live and roughing the kicker no longer applies.
 
Also please remember the position of officials on field goal attempts is different that typical plays from scrimmage which also yields difficulty in accounting for receivers and the intentional grounding decision.
 
I was less concerned about the lack of the call than I was with our clock operator.  The cynic in me thinks that if it was Notre Dame or Texas playing at home that the clock would have run down to zero in similar situations.  I do not know (maybe someone does) who the clock operator would be keying on in this situation.  If it is the head referee, I would think there would be some elapsed time between a field or back judge signaling incomplete and the head referee then signaling the same.  In football unlike basketball, there is typically some time lapse of stopping the clock after an incomplete pass hits the turf and when the clock is actually stopped.  In basketball, for instance, the clock operator usually is looking at the raised hand of the referee to stop the clock after a stoppage of play.
 
I did some officiating for HS football long ago when we had only 4 officials to work a game.  I can not envision a crew being able to account for everything that was going on during the second to the last play of NU-Pitt and I would bet that there is probably a fairly likely chance that a crew of 7 could not either.
 
Doug Martin, MD
UNL '87
UNMC '91

________________________________

From: husker-bounces at tssi.com on behalf of Mike Jaixen
Sent: Tue 9/27/2005 1:04 PM
To: husker at tssi.com
Subject: Re: [Husker] question about pitt game



In all the confusion, the officials did not call any
of the penalties that could have been called.  Pitt
could have been called for intentional grounding, but
the Huskers could have also been called for Roughing
the passer for decking the kicker well after he threw
the pass.  They also could have been flagged for
unsportsmanlike conduct or delay of game when the
entire team rushed the field when there was still :01
still on the clock.

--- "T.B." <balfour at NOSPAMgrandecom.net> wrote:

> i just finished watching a taped version of the pitt
> game and was wondering
> why intentional grounding wasn't called on that
> botched field goal attempt
> at the end of the game.
>
> it didn't look like there was any sort of receiver
> in the area, and the
> player who threw the ball didn't seem to be outside
> of the tackles.
>
> anyone?
>
> TB in Austin


Mike Jaixen
Blog: http://huskermike.blogspot.com


               
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker


         ********************************************

This message and accompanying documents are covered by the 
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, 
and contain information intended for the specified individual(s) only. 
This information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient 
or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you 
are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and 
that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action 
based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you 
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately 
by e-mail, and delete the original message.

        *********************************************