Ask A Back Judge: Virginia Tech vs. Rutgers

Tristan Raisch

September 24, 2024 18

I’m not sure anyone was particularly thrilled about either the outcome of John Love’s field goal attempt in the first half of that ODU game, or how ODU’s special teams may have impacted that kick. But was it legal? Let’s see what you, the TSL Subscribers, had to say about it.

I see a clear hurdle on the FG attempt, at least by the letter of the law. He clearly left his feet and went over another player who was not on the ground at the point of the jump. - MD Hokie

Looked like an Olympic low hurdler. - TomTurkey

This article is for TSL Pass subscribers

Get full access to premium articles, recruiting intel, and analysis from the team that's covered Virginia Tech sports since 1996.

Subscribe Now Already a subscriber? Log in

Article Virginia Tech Football Subscription Content

Ask A Back Judge 2024 VT-Rutgers Football

Share This Article

Twitter/X Facebook

18 Comments

Cheesehokie September 25, 2024 at 9:57 AM

Always appreciate your commentary, and the embedded videos. But by the time I got to the 3rd or 4th video clip, they would no longer open for me when I clicked the large red "play" arrow. Instead, I would get a disclaimer from YouTube stating that I needed to sign in first to verify that I'm not a bot.
1. TechHokie13 September 25, 2024 at 3:29 PM
  
  Thanks for reading! That's pretty weird, but I'm pretty sure is YouTube-specific, not anything on TSL's side. If it keeps happening, I'd say just make a free Google account and use that to sign into YouTube, if you don't feel like using an existing email.
Hokie67 September 25, 2024 at 7:24 AM

Always fun and informative. What did you think about the blocking on Rutgers late game screen pass? Sure looked like a block in the back coming from the West side. I realize that the pass was behind the LOS.- which means the early blocks before the catch are legal.- but there also seemed like there was another questionable block from behind on the far side of the receiver. BTW - it was hard to tell from the replay. where the West side official and the U were positioned at the time of the play - if that mattered. Thanks again for all the details of the plays. .
1. TechHokie13 September 25, 2024 at 8:37 AM
  
  Thanks for reading, glad you've enjoyed it! I thought putting in a Boise State clip was mean enough, but if you insist.... ? I thought the initial contact was from the side. At that point, the blocker stays engaged with the corner enough that I don't think I can judge the contact to the defenders back to be a new block. So in my judgment, that was correctly ruled a legal block.
HokieGator September 24, 2024 at 5:59 PM

I think the PI flag was thrown for something right off the line of scrimmage. The flag was flying before the contact later down the field. She also threw the flag in the direction of the line of scrimmage and not anywhere close to the direction of the players. I think what she saw was a little tug of the jersey as the receiver came off the line.
1. TechHokie13 September 24, 2024 at 6:20 PM
  
  I was wondering that too. Still, the call of DPI and not defensive holding indicates it was after the ball was thrown. It's also worth noting that really only the yard line matters when it comes to the flag (for spot fouls, at least). A lot of officials, particularly younger generations, have moved away from chucking their flag *at* the offending player. It helps the fans know what's happening, but it can be dangerous (bean bag to the eye, y'know?), and the R's PA announcement typically eliminates the need for the flag placement to communicate the foul. For example, in high school, I'd be sure to throw a holding flag like FJ did here, but ensure a DPI flag got closer to the spot of the illegal contact, simply because we don't usually have a PA system, and that's the best way for players, coaches, and fans to know what's up. Long story short: it's more of a stylistic quirk than anything, though it did pique my interest and make me second-guess what I was looking at. If I hear anything definitive from folks more in the know than me, I'll be sure to pass it on. But until then, I'm going with that's just how that official likes to throw those kinds of flags.
brownsummithokie September 24, 2024 at 5:08 PM

Hold on, I agree with the Lane call but this comment surprises me: "In practice, the forearm just about up to the elbow is probably still going to be ruled “part of the hand,” if a player’s bone structure and the condition of the field turf allows for the former to make contact without the latter." I swear I have seen hundreds of cases where a player is considered "down" when his forearm hits the ground. So if Lane held on to the ball and pushed back up with his forarm he could have continued the play assuming no other part of his body hit the ground?
1. TechHokie13 September 24, 2024 at 6:13 PM
  
  If you're saying his forearm is flat on the ground, then his elbow almost certainly has him down (most human forearms are relatively straight). Take another look at that Tyrod clip (man, I miss Tyrod), the 3rd angle from behind. That's more what I'm talking about: he's got a whole lot of his lower forearm on the ground, but his elbow barely stays above the turf. Had Lane basically done that - pushed off with the lower half-ish of his forearm without grounding his elbow - he definitely could have kept on running (assuming such a move would have helped him secure the ball, of course).
AbsolutVT03 September 24, 2024 at 3:49 PM

Appreciate the answer to my question and it matches up with what I looked up regarding the rule after the game. On the Tuten TD, it looked like a hold to me live and it still looks that way on replay. The only potential out I could see is the "Substantially impact the play" piece where you could argue Tuten was already past the defender but I feel like I've seen other holds farther away from the play called. I also don't think it was necessary b/c Tuten probably scores even if Clements misses his block or just kind of gets in the way a little. But you have to give the defender the chance to make the play and I'm not sure we did there. If I was a neutral observer watching that play I'd say the offense was fortunate to not get flagged there.
1. TechHokie13 September 24, 2024 at 6:57 PM
  
  Thanks for reading and commenting! It's always tough to try to take off the O&M glasses when a Tech RB is heading for the end zone, so good on ya ?
RhinoVT September 24, 2024 at 2:04 PM

Thanks again, Tristan. Some fun in an otherwise dreary start to the season.
1. TechHokie13 September 24, 2024 at 2:18 PM
  
  Oh man, when the officiating review is the fun part, you know things are bleak ?. Thanks for reading and commenting!
WuhBuh-DC_Hokie September 24, 2024 at 1:28 PM

On the Tuten fumble, I didn’t understand why they moved the ball back to the point of the original fumble. I understand normally, you can’t fumble forward and have a teammate pick up or fall on the ball and gain an advantage. In this case, the opposing team clearly touched the ball and altered its path. Why shouldn’t Tech get the ball where we recovered it after the Rutgers player touched it?
1. TechHokie13 September 24, 2024 at 2:19 PM
  
  I really didn't anticipate this: pretty sure we've seen just about every possible permutation of the "fumbled forward, wh where's the spot?" rule. In this case, nobody touched it until it/the player were already out of bounds, so it goes back to the spot of the fumble - and the clock starts on the ready-for-play, as if Tuten had been tackled at that spot.
vfrhokie September 24, 2024 at 1:15 PM

I have to agree with HokieEngineer. If the intent of the rule is player safety, and that play was legal, then the rule is wrong.
1. TechHokie13 September 24, 2024 at 1:24 PM
  
  Hard to disagree with this. I've seen enough kids come down awkwardly that the last thing I ever want to see again is another football player going headfirst over the line because he got flipped mid-jump. Frankly, I don't see the rule changing anytime soon unless we see one or more catastrophic injuries, unfortunately. There are just going to be higher priorities for the rules committee. Thanks for reading!
TomTurkey September 24, 2024 at 1:07 PM

Humor is definitely a necessary trait for officials; even to "giving him the business." Like the insurance ad, "you call some things because you've seen some things."
1. TechHokie13 September 24, 2024 at 1:22 PM
  
  Bingo! ?

Ask A Back Judge: Virginia Tech vs. Rutgers

This article is for TSL Pass subscribers

Share This Article

18 Comments

Leave a Comment — replying to Cancel

Leave a Comment — replying to