Illinois-Ball State Animated GIFs

#26      

ChicagoIllini

C
ChicagoIllini
JDHalfrack said:
Followup questions: looking at the replay, is it possible that either a) Watkins actually did tip it or b) the refs at least thought he did?

And, is a roughing the kicker penalty reviewable? Could the refs have looked at it to determine who actually blocked it?
Click to expand...


Yes, both are definitely possible. From the replays I have seen it does not look like he tipped it but if he did (or, more importantly, the refs thought that he did) then there would be no penalty called. I have no idea if that call (non-call) is reviewable.

My initial reaction to the play was the same as yours (that no penalty was possible since the kick was blocked) so I was surprised when I read rules to the contrary which is why I wanted to share. :thumb:
 
#27      

Illiini

Illiini
In the land of the Nittany Lion
Illiini
The ref(s) must have seen the ball be tipped, which altered its trajectory enough that it could be fully blocked. Otherwise that's a rather flagrant foul.
 
#28      

Deleted member 29907

D
Guest
Deleted member 29907
JDHalfrack said:
Followup questions: looking at the replay, is it possible that either a) Watkins actually did tip it or b) the refs at least thought he did?

And, is a roughing the kicker penalty reviewable? Could the refs have looked at it to determine who actually blocked it?
Click to expand...

THe ref at the spot of the kicker did signal a touch - whether he thought it was at Watkins or was at the line - not sure - but he was looking right at the contact with the kicker. He either didn't know the rule or thought Watkins got it.
 
#29      

basementcheetos

B
basementcheetos
ChicagoIllini said:
I was actually curious about this so I looked it up in the NCAA rule book yesterday (I know, I should have better things to do :)).

Article 16(a) of the rules lists the rule of roughing or running into the kicker or holder. Here is the section:

Roughing or Running Into Kicker or Holder
ARTICLE 16. a. When it is obvious that a scrimmage kick will be made, no opponent shall run into or rough the kicker or the holder of a place kick (A.R. 9-1-16-I, III and VI).
1. Roughing is a live-ball personal foul that endangers the kicker or holder.
2. Running into the kicker or holder is a live-ball foul that occurs when the kicker or holder is displaced from his kicking or holding position but is not roughed (A.R. 9-1-16-II).
3. Incidental contact with a kicker or holder is not a foul.
4. The kicker’s protection under this rule ends (a)when he has had a reasonable time to regain his balance(A.R. 9-1-16-IV); or (b)when he
carries the ball outside the tackle box (Rule 2-34) before kicking.
5. When a defensive player’s contact against the kicker or holder is caused by an opponent’s block (legal or illegal), there is no foul for
running into or roughing.
6. A player who makes contact with the kicker or holder after touching
the kick is not charged with running into or roughing the kicker.
7. When a player other than one who blocks a scrimmage kick runs into
or roughs the kicker or holder, it is a foul.
8. When in question whether the foul is running into or roughing, the
foul is roughing.
b. A kicker or holder simulating being roughed or run into by a defensive
player commits an unsportsmanlike act (A.R. 9-1-16-V).Roughing or Running Into Kicker or Holder
ARTICLE 16. a. When it is obvious that a scrimmage kick will be made, no opponent shall run into or rough the kicker or the holder of a place kick (A.R. 9-1-16-I, III and VI).
1. Roughing is a live-ball personal foul that endangers the kicker or holder.
2. Running into the kicker or holder is a live-ball foul that occurs when the kicker or holder is displaced from his kicking or holding position but is not roughed (A.R. 9-1-16-II).
3. Incidental contact with a kicker or holder is not a foul.
4. The kicker’s protection under this rule ends (a)when he has had a reasonable time to regain his balance(A.R. 9-1-16-IV); or (b)when he
carries the ball outside the tackle box (Rule 2-34) before kicking.
5. When a defensive player’s contact against the kicker or holder is caused by an opponent’s block (legal or illegal), there is no foul for
running into or roughing.
6. A player who makes contact with the kicker or holder after touching
the kick is not charged with running into or roughing the kicker.
7. When a player other than one who blocks a scrimmage kick runs into
or roughs the kicker or holder, it is a foul.
8. When in question whether the foul is running into or roughing, the
foul is roughing.
b. A kicker or holder simulating being roughed or run into by a defensive
player commits an unsportsmanlike act (A.R. 9-1-16-V).

See #7 above. Since the player that ran into the kicker was not the one that blocked the kick, a penalty could have been called per the rules. I checked and it has actually been called that way before (see here: http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/marshall-western-kentucky-roughing-running-kicker-foul-rule-thundering-herd-mike-pereira-112814).So I think we did catch a break with the no call (about time Illini football got a break IMO)!
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks for the clarification. I was wrong. The ref must have thought Watkins touched it, or did not know the rule. That's s big break. However, having been a die-hard Illini fan my whole life, were still owed about a decade worth of breaks and calls to even out the last 20 years. Maybe it just seems this way, but we never get calls, breaks or bounces. The replay is always just not quite a good enough look to overturn a call that hurts us or just barely enough to take away something that helps us.
 
#30      

CaptainHindsight

C
Champaign
CaptainHindsight
As I was watching some of the GIFs above it became apparent to me once again that our OL is a mess. Seemed like we couldn't block anyone!
 
#31      

BWBW

BWBW
BWBW
IIRC, the announcers speculated that Watson touched the ball.