Anybody find a good explanation on the fake punt call? It seems to be

ndphysics 5027 posts Joined: Sep 17, 2016

Posted 6:08 am on Nov 17, 2024

-1

Something with the shotgun type alignment and not enough valid offensive lineman numbers on the field?

Technically a foul, not on execution.

Replies 24

Anybody find a good explanation on the fake punt call? It seems to be ndphysics 6:08am · 11/17/24
- The rule makes sense. Not having at least 5 players with linemen numbers.. SteveM 7:53am · 11/17/24
  - The Defense has eyes and brains…they should be able to recognize something is odd and adjust.NT TyroneIrish 8:34am · 11/17/24
    - It's the refs job to call the existing rules - it was the correct callNT Fisher01 11:27am · 11/17/24
      - Fine, but also make the fair catch call under the existing rules. Clown show.NT Frank L 12:52pm · 11/17/24
    - Right, so then give all 11 guys on offense receiver numbers and tell the defense to figure it out... SteveM 9:16am · 11/17/24
      - Worth a shot…but seriously, the rule deserves a look at the end of the season… TyroneIrish 11:25am · 11/17/24
        
        The play is fine if you have the correct lineman numbers on the field. ND did not. McIrish 12:29pm · 11/17/24
- According to the announcers MF had shown the play to Refs prior to the game TyroneIrish 7:39am · 11/17/24
  - That’s what Freeman was mouthing.NT whatsamataU 9:42am · 11/17/24
  - ND probably did not specify to the refs the number of players who would wear receiver numbers.NT SteveM 9:17am · 11/17/24
    - I had wondered about this detail. Perhaps small but very important ndphysics 5:12pm · 11/17/24
  - The ACC is no friend to Notre Dame. AlbanyIRISH 7:50am · 11/17/24
    - It would appear that way…NT TyroneIrish 8:27am · 11/17/24
  - Yes, but MF made no mention of it in his post game unless I missed it.NT ELP 7:49am · 11/17/24
    - “Cost/Benefit Ratio” for continuing the debate isn’t worth it…we won handily.NT TyroneIrish 8:30am · 11/17/24
      - Yep. Also besides pass interference so inconsistently called, I hate inadvertent face mask THEISMANCARR 11:14am · 11/17/24
        
        Could not agree more… TyroneIrish 11:33am · 11/17/24
        
        The calls weren't "facemask" penalties. They were for illegal hands to the face McIrish 12:22pm · 11/17/24
        
        Yup, and the ones I saw looked like legit calls, especially the one on 78 bringing back Frank L 12:50pm · 11/17/24
        
        Didn't 78 basically extend his arms sideways and the defender ran into his hand? Even if it was THEISMANCARR 1:09am · 11/18/24
- I've heard several explanations & none that put the play to rest. ELP 7:34am · 11/17/24
  - He shouldn't have to call and blow a TO to have the play reviewed. McIrish 12:24pm · 11/17/24
- The NBC rules guru offered confusing explanations MarkHarman 7:33am · 11/17/24
  - That last part really sounds like bullshit.NT THEISMANCARR 11:16am · 11/17/24

View Full Conversation