Ask A Back Judge: Late Hits And Roughing The Passer

34 Comments

1. 

   jmanatVT October 23, 2024 at 2:42 PM

   I have to admit that the video even at 1080p his hands and his grip never really looked all that clear in any angle even going frame by frame, so I'd be in the "call stands" camp (though the official reviewers probably aren't watching a recompressed, frame rate adjusted youtube video which may have given them a better look than we have here). In all angles, there just isn't the fidelity to establish "intentional forward movement of the passer’s hand with the ball firmly in their control." That said, at 47 seconds and perhaps others it seems like he still has control, but I guess I'd be quibbling over how firm "firmly" is. So, if my job is to just watch the videos and make the best independent guess? Incomplete pass.
   1. 

      jmanatVT October 23, 2024 at 2:53 PM

      Watching again, at :39 there's a couple frames where he moves the ball forward and it looks very in control. Switching to 720p which is ESPNs native resolution and it actually looks more clear. He appears to move forward with the same control of the ball he started with.
2. 

   Freighttrain October 23, 2024 at 11:26 AM

   Did you see the no call (potentially DPI) in the Wake/UConn game?
   1. 

      TechHokie13 October 23, 2024 at 12:09 PM

      I could easily see it being called as playing through the back of the receiver, but I also see why it wasn't called: from the angle F had, it doesn't look like the defender actually displaces the receiver much, if at all. F is likely looking at the DB's right arm, judging whether there's a hook-and-turn which would warrant a flag, or any other substantial (lateral) restriction - which there is not. So from the broadcast camera angle, we can see the defender arrived a bit early (it's tricky to tell, as every clip I've seen is slowed down, but we can safely conclude the DB is early). But is it really enough contact to warrant a flag? I'm iffy on it. Would have been fine with a flag here, but I think I support the no-call based on the view F had of it.
3. 

   vtdoogie October 22, 2024 at 8:22 PM

   Regular speed I could see it either way. Slow speed I see that defender hit arm not ball. Thus I assume had control of ball as arm started to move forward.
   1. 

      TechHokie13 October 23, 2024 at 8:29 AM

      This is one of the few times where slow-mo is actually useful on a replay.
4. 

   VTScanlo October 22, 2024 at 4:33 PM

   In realtime, it looked like an obvious incomplete pass. The replays however showed a bang-bang coinflip. It was called an INT, so it shouldn't have been overturned.
   1. 

      TechHokie13 October 23, 2024 at 8:29 AM

      Mentioned this below, but my small spoiler for the week is that there's a nifty quirk in the rule here that makes this a bit more interesting than most replay situations.
5. 

   DW Hokie October 22, 2024 at 3:41 PM

   Hey Tristan. After all your good work dissecting close and controversial calls, I have questions at the trivial end of the spectrum. 1 -- What is an official signaling when he rotates his hands but is not calling illegal procedure? Seems like it happens before or after an extra point, but I'm not real sure, because it seems to happen inconsistently. 2 -- Is the referee supposed to walk to an exact "longitude" on the field before pronouncing a penalty? Seems like some walk needlessly long distances before making the call. 3 -- Is there a mandated place for officials to keep their flags? Or are they free to keep them in whichever pocket or area of the waistband that works for them? As I said. Trivial Pursuit stuff.
   1. 

      TechHokie13 October 23, 2024 at 8:28 AM

      These are actually really good questions.... I want to answer them now, but I also kinda want to include them in a full piece. Ah heck, good chance anyone who actually does read this comment will forget by the offseason - feel free to ask again later! 1) Good eye. If I'm not mistaken, this is a reminder to the crew that the ball is live no matter what (if a kick is blocked or the snap muffed, for example) and to not be too quick on the whistle. In the first association I worked in, it also was a reminder that reverse mechanics were in effect post-kick, but I don't think that's an ACC mechanic. 2) Sort of. I think the NCAA has a defined zone R should be in, but the general idea is that he/she should be readily visible to the press box (and the fans, to a lesser extent). So you'll usually see R get over to about the 25ish or so (and it probably depends on the stadium a bit) to ensure the box can see his signals. 3) I'm sure each conference has their own way of doing things these days, but for the longest time, the answer was no. You'd see guys running around with flags sticking out of their back pockets and all kinds of stuff. You'll see me write "keep the flag in his pocket," but I don't think I've seen a single modern official (starting in the last 20 years or so) keep a flag anywhere but tucked into his/her belt. That's why the yellow flag will have a black ball on the end - so it'll blend in with the pants/belt of the official. I personally prefer to carry 2 flags, which I'll admit is atypical. In my current association, we have a rule that only one is allowed - the idea being that it can appear as if you're looking to throw a bunch of flags. My counterpoint is that expecting 22 teenagers, plus all their teammates and coaches on the sidelines, to be limited to precisely one stupid action in any live-ball/dead-ball period is wildly optimistic. And I hate throwing my hat, which is our de-facto backup flag (along with a bean bag if necessary).
      1. 

         DW Hokie October 23, 2024 at 9:39 AM

         Great answers! Thanks much.
6. 

   IB4TECH October 22, 2024 at 3:13 PM

   I'm not getting the correct videos.
   1. 

      IB4TECH October 22, 2024 at 3:19 PM

      Okay, I did a refresh and viola!
      1. 

         TechHokie13 October 23, 2024 at 8:20 AM

         Hooray!
7. 

   AbsolutVT03 October 22, 2024 at 3:03 PM

   First time I've seen the Miami play. I can see an argument both ways which to me means the call on the field should stand. It's incredibly close and if it had been ruled incomplete on the field I would have had no problem with that. I also think his empty hand comes forward and helps propel the ball past the line of scrimmage which gives the appearance of having control and forward motion despite that not being the case.
   1. 

      TechHokie13 October 23, 2024 at 8:21 AM

      Small spoiler: there's an interesting quirk in the rule governing replay on these specific plays that I'm really excited to get into.
8. 

   134133Hokie October 22, 2024 at 2:36 PM

   The problem with the Fuga roughing the passer penalty is that he is making a form tackle, the way you're taught to tackle and the way you would want to tackle any other player on the field. Maybe it's not the particular call as much as it is the rule, but it's unfair to expect defensive players to tackle the QB different in the pocket then they would tackle any other player on the field or the QB if he is running outside the pocket. And I expect that it would not have been called if the QB still had the ball and it was a sack. But whether he still has the ball or has just released it, that's immaterial as long as the hit was not late, which it wasn't.
   1. 

      TechHokie13 October 23, 2024 at 8:20 AM

      Couldn't agree more, and Pry addressed that a bit in his response to one of Andy's questions at his presser yesterday (dare I say Andy had read my piece before asking that question?). It's tough. Pry's take was that the defense needs to show the officials that they're making an effort not to drop all their weight on the QB, or otherwise avoid punishing contact. I say I agree with that take, even though I don't necessarily agree with how the foul is currently being called. I think in an effort to increase player (notably QB) safety, the NCAA/ACC has given modern offenses too much of an advantage in this case. It's a tough, physical game. Heavy contact that involves a player wrapping up and making a form tackle, with their head up and avoiding contact to the head/neck area should generally not be punished, imo.
9. 

   Hokester October 22, 2024 at 2:13 PM

   Texas fans are good at throwing stuff on the field. I recall sitting in the Super Dome in 1995 watching the VT-Texas Sugar Bowl game. Late in the game with VT holding a slim lead, VT defense caused a fumble and scooped it up and ran it in for a back breaking touchdown. The Texas fans sitting behind the end zone where the touchdown was scored threw everything but the kitchen sink on to the field and the game was delayed several minutes. As to the pass or fumble call, I think it was a fumble which is what was called on the field. Replay overturned the call and once again Miami was given a pass (no pun intended).
   1. 

      Hokie67 October 23, 2024 at 7:14 AM

      In deference to those Texas fans in the EZ seats - JC did the Heisman pose in the EZ taunting the fans. Granted fans throwing anything on the field is an absolute no-no, but...
      1. 

         TechHokie13 October 23, 2024 at 8:14 AM

         The fact it was JC hitting that pose makes it absolutely glorious. I'm more okay with the Texas response than I should be; that's just hilarious.
   2. 

      TechHokie13 October 23, 2024 at 8:14 AM

      Tradition is tradition, after all.
10. 

    bushartbs525 October 22, 2024 at 1:56 PM

    I called it an incomplete pass. However, with only the views shown by TV, I could also see it called a fumble.
11. 

    bushartbs525 October 22, 2024 at 1:56 PM

    I called it an incomplete pass. However, with othe the views shown by TV, I could also see it called a fumble.
12. 

    Mark Duncan October 22, 2024 at 12:48 PM

    I would like to ask our esteemed Back Judge to comment on bad calls that were NOT made. The BC OL was holding out guys so tight it looked like dancing with the stars. At one point, the embrace was so tight, I thought the BC guy was going to lay a big sloppy kiss on our DL. Refs are good a calling false starts but time and time again they call holding when there is none and do not call holding when there is. Pass Interference (unless blatantly obvious) looks like a flip of a coin. Targeting the same. Please don't get me started on replay reviews. "Indisputable video evidence" is a joke. Refs make arbitrary decisions despite the rules.
    1. 

       TechHokie13 October 23, 2024 at 8:13 AM

       I was actually pretty alright with the officiating from start to finish (with a few notable exceptions above). In fact, there were a couple blocks from Tech's OL on some of Tuten's outside zone runs which looked *really* similar to some that were called earlier in the year (like PJ's long run that got called back). I thought what should have been called generally was, and the game was called as fairly as can be reasonably expected. As for PI, the ACC is infamous for "lettin' them play," which again, I'm alright with, so long as everyone's on the same page and it's called consistently from crew-to-crew, which I think it generally is. Targeting remains a big beef of mine. I wrote a whole pre-bowl-game article about it last year, but it seems the ACC is trying hard to avoid tossing guys unnecessarily, to the point that contact on the side of the helmet (arguably a more dangerous hit depending on the angle) or involving any contribution of force from the defender's shoulder will negate a "crown of the helmet" targeting foul. That's something I really hope they reevaluate in the offseason.
13. 

    HokieBandit October 22, 2024 at 12:47 PM

    I voted for fumble as the correct call. I can't tell for certain what the call on the field was, but I think it's close enough that it cannot be overturned. Either way. One of those 'the call stands no matter what' replay situations. Have we been through this recently?
    1. 

       TechHokie13 October 23, 2024 at 8:09 AM

       Crazy replay situation that could go either way? Whatever are you talking about? Certainly not the ACC!
14. 

    Seikoh_04 October 22, 2024 at 12:46 PM

    Couldn't the officials have called a penalty on the fans for delay of game or something to make the correct reversal a little easier to stomach. Optics were definitely bad even though I agree it's better to make it right than keep it wrong. Cams pass looks like he still has a grip going forward to me. In real time, I had flipped back right as they showed the one last replay and I thought it was the correct call.
    1. 

       TechHokie13 October 23, 2024 at 8:08 AM

       In theory, yes. There are a few ways officials could have handled it, from delay of game to UNS. I think Sark running over and trying to stop it makes a penalty like that difficult to justify - the team on the field is clearly trying to actually play the game, so it doesn't make much sense to penalize them.
15. 

    HokieEngineer October 22, 2024 at 12:44 PM

    I was at a wedding on Saturday and didn't see the call on the field, so I hope I can be somewhat open-minded on this. It is close enough that I think the call on the field should stand. (I don't see incontrovertible evidence either way.) However, if I were making the call with the advantage of the view shown at the 40 second mark of the clip, it's a fumble. He's cocked to throw when he gets hit and loses control right before his arm moves forward. His hand then pushes the ball forward giving the appearance of a forward pass.
    1. 

       TechHokie13 October 23, 2024 at 8:07 AM

       Solid reasoning.
16. 

    TomTurkey October 22, 2024 at 12:22 PM

    I'm not sure enough to vote but, as I wrote you in a post, did the crew, AFTER the reversal, miss an intentional grounding call. This scenario occurred in a subsequent game. Perhaps in the confusion of such a close review, the crew forgot that consideration. It was a note of interest that the announcing team in the second game suggested the officials couldn't absolutely ascertain the QB's targeted pass location, i.e., dependent upon the defender's effect by impact with the hand/arm of the QB. I'm presuming the rule is only concerned with the 2 aspects of out of the tackle box and beyond the LOS once deemed an "incomplete pass."
    1. 

       TechHokie13 October 22, 2024 at 12:29 PM

       Intentional grounding on the same play? If that's the question, I wouldn't say that applies here. If a QB's throw is physically affected (he's getting hit, not just panicking and hucking it), intentional grounding is almost never a factor. For the simple reason that the contact itself by definition negates the "intentional" element.