Anybody find a good explanation on the fake punt call? It seems to be
Something with the shotgun type alignment and not enough valid offensive lineman numbers on the field?
Technically a foul, not on execution.
Replies to: Anybody find a good explanation on the fake punt call? It seems to be
The rule makes sense. Not having at least 5 players with linemen numbers..
can confuse the defense as to who is eligible to receive a pass.
Linemen can report in as receivers, but receivers can't report in as linemen
The rule is relaxed for a punt I think.
However, when the ND player lined up behind the center that made the set-up not a punt formation.
That specific rules expert is generally clumsy with his wording, but he got the call right
Post updated for clarity
The Defense has eyes and brains…they should be able to recognize something is odd and adjust.
(no message)
It's the refs job to call the existing rules - it was the correct call
(no message)
Fine, but also make the fair catch call under the existing rules. Clown show.
(no message)
Right, so then give all 11 guys on offense receiver numbers and tell the defense to figure it out...
Makes perfect sense.
Worth a shot…but seriously, the rule deserves a look at the end of the season…
as the color analyst suggested…a bit too esoteric, when, as reported, MF showed the planned play to the Refs prior to kickoff and was apparently OK’d.
The play is fine if you have the correct lineman numbers on the field. ND did not.
He could have described the play to the officials which they approved but did not indicate to them that there would be players in-line that did not have lineman numbers. I suspect that was the case since they did not make a big stink about it post-game.
According to the announcers MF had shown the play to Refs prior to the game
and gotten approval…
That’s what Freeman was mouthing.
(no message)
ND probably did not specify to the refs the number of players who would wear receiver numbers.
(no message)
I had wondered about this detail. Perhaps small but very important
I assumed the play and alignment were reviewed with some officials when designing it
The ACC is no friend to Notre Dame.
Marcus should understand that by now.
The AD should be on the phone to the ACC Commissioner. He won't, but he should.
It would appear that way…
(no message)
Yes, but MF made no mention of it in his post game unless I missed it.
(no message)
“Cost/Benefit Ratio” for continuing the debate isn’t worth it…we won handily.
(no message)
Yep. Also besides pass interference so inconsistently called, I hate inadvertent face mask
penalties. The yanking of the helmet should be 15 yards but accidentally grabbing and then letting go immediatedy shouldn't even be called.
Could not agree more…
Looked to me as though the D Tackle’sface mask ran into our Center’s hand ;-)…how’s he supposed to disconnect in a fraction of a second?…ruined a beautiful pass and TD
The calls weren't "facemask" penalties. They were for illegal hands to the face
You can't put your hands to the face of the opposing player regardless of whether or not you grab the facemask.
Yup, and the ones I saw looked like legit calls, especially the one on 78 bringing back
the tutty.
Didn't 78 basically extend his arms sideways and the defender ran into his hand? Even if it was
illegal hands to the face it should not be a penalty in that case because he was not shoving his hand into the defenders face and moving his head back. So it is similar to the inadvertent act I mentioned above.
I've heard several explanations & none that put the play to rest.
Even MF has toned it down during his post game presser. I'm sure it was the right call by officials but is it a call that all crews would have called everytime at every game? Initially, when the announcers were able to focus on the game itself, they said the play was discussed with the refs pre-game and given the OK. I haven't heard that bit of info since from anyone else. MF was vague in his presser. . So, it sounds like the subject is put to rest. The designer of the play should have had every detail of that play thought out and given the OK when it was conceived. Another issue is why MF didn't call a TO so the phantom catch by UVA could be reveiwed.
He shouldn't have to call and blow a TO to have the play reviewed.
That is the job of the replay official and he blew it.
The NBC rules guru offered confusing explanations
He said you had to have certain jersey numbers in certain positions and he also said when you're in punt formation the ball has to be snapped back at least 10 yards.
That last part really sounds like bullshit.
(no message)