ADVERTISEMENT

SIAD: Strange TD called back on penalty

P

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
7,014
7,329
1
Sorry if this was already discussed (I didn't wade through the game thread) but I'm still confused by the penalty call that brought back the Strange TD was a pass to an ineligible receiver because he was covered up by the WR (Dotson) on the far side of the field. I just looked at the replay of this and he is very clearly lined up in the backfield. Which would mean it doesn't matter if he is covered up, correct? Is there something else I'm missing here?

CJF said he thought it was the right call and it didn't end up mattering (Dotson scored on next play) but I was flummoxed by the call at the time.

Thanks.
 
Yeah, I hollered at my TV live that he was in the backfield and it was a bogus call. At least unless that made one too many in the backfield.
 
PSU2UNC said:
Sorry if this was already discussed (I didn't wade through the game thread) but I'm still confused by the penalty call that brought back the Strange TD was a pass to an ineligible receiver because he was covered up by the WR (Dotson) on the far side of the field. I just looked at the replay of this and he is very clearly lined up in the backfield. Which would mean it doesn't matter if he is covered up, correct? Is there something else I'm missing here?

CJF said he thought it was the right call and it didn't end up mattering (Dotson scored on next play) but I was flummoxed by the call at the time.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Had Strange lined up as a TE (i.e., on LOS), he could have been "covered" by the Wideout on LOS making him ineligible. However, I agree with you that Strange was clearly more than a yard off LOS making him technically a RB (generally referred to as a "Flanker" or "H-Back" in this position). As such, he is always an eligible receiver regardless if Wideout on same side lines up on LOS, or not (because he is no longer considered a TE at that point and is considered lined-up in the backfield - i.e., a RB which are always eligible regardless of what WR does in regards to LOS.
 
RockyMtnLion said:
Yeah, I hollered at my TV live that he was in the backfield and it was a bogus call. At least unless that made one too many in the backfield.
Click to expand...
It's possible that Dotson is also in the backfield in which case it is an illegal formation, but that's not what they called.

I think that the refs generally give the benefit of the doubt on this if it appears a TE is trying to line up in the backfield; as you say it is close, but I feel like you never have this called.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown
CJFisJoePaII said:
Had Strange lined up as a TE (i.e., on LOS), he could have been "covered" by the Wideout on LOS making him ineligible. However, I agree with you that Strange was clearly more than a yard off LOS making him technically a RB (generally referred to as a "Flanker" or "H-Back" in this position). As such, he is always an eligible receiver regardless if Wideout on same side lines up on LOS, or not (because he is no longer considered a TE at that point and is considered lined-up in the backfield - i.e., a RB which are always eligible regardless of what WR does in regards to LOS.
Click to expand...
Right, this is my understanding as well (thanks). That's why I was confused as to why CJF said it was a good call.
 
RockyMtnLion said:
Yeah, I hollered at my TV live that he was in the backfield and it was a bogus call. At least unless that made one too many in the backfield.
Click to expand...

No, there were the required 7 on LOS -- 5 Interior Lineman + a wideout lined up on LOS on both sides. In addition, the penalty called was not "Illegal Formation", which is what is called if you have less than 7 on LOS; the penalty called was specifically called on Strange for "Illegal Touching" because the Officials claimed he was an ineligible TE as he was "covered up" by the Wideout on his side(right side), lined up on LOS.
 
  • Love
Reactions: ThePennsyOracle
A different twist/Q. I think Strange caught the ball behind the LOS. Why isn't this considered a "hand-off"? I suppose it is because it was a shovel pass (intentional tossing of the ball forward).

if it had been a clear underhanded throw, would it still be considered a pass? THAt seems to be similar to an old fashioned "sweep/toss" play.
 
AvgUser said:
A different twist/Q. I think Strange caught the ball behind the LOS. Why isn't this considered a "hand-off"? I suppose it is because it was a shovel pass (intentional tossing of the ball forward).

if it had been a clear underhanded throw, would it still be considered a pass? THAt seems to be similar to an old fashioned "sweep/toss" play.
Click to expand...
Still a pass in any of those scenarios…traveling forward is what makes it a pass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ILLINOISLION, doctornick and PSUQBKeeper
My take fwiw @PSU2UNC : Strange was a step or two back from the line but not completely off the line of scrimmage enough. He either should have been totally lined up on the line of scrimmage and Dotson a yard off or he should have been a H-back and Dotson would then be on the line of scrimmage.

Strange was in-between basically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NatLion, marshall23 and BBrown
ApexLion said:
My take fwiw @PSU2UNC : Strange was a step or two back from the line but not completely off the line of scrimmage enough. He either should have been totally lined up on the line of scrimmage and Dotson a yard off or he should have been a H-back and Dotson would then be on the line of scrimmage.

Strange was in-between basically.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

The NCAA rulebook says an offensive player “is legally on his scrimmage line when he faces his opponent’s goal line with the line of his shoulders approximately parallel thereto and either he is the snapper or his head breaks the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the snapper.”

If you look at the replay, it looks to me that Strange's head is aligned with the center's butt, not his hips. This would make him off the LOS. Not by a lot (not a full yard) but probably by about a foot.

Anyway, not a big deal (since PSU scored on the next play); it's just that I feel like I generally know the rules and generally know how they are usually applied so when I see something like this where I'm left thinking "WTF?" I want to make sure it isn't ignorance on my part.
 
RockyMtnLion said:
Yeah, I hollered at my TV live that he was in the backfield and it was a bogus call. At least unless that made one too many in the backfield.
Click to expand...
I hollered at the TV because the moron wearing the white hat at first stated that #86 was illegally downfield. How can he be illegally downfield when he caught the ball BEHIND the LOS!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown
Yeah, it’s not uncommon for tackles to be deeper than the rule states and not get penalized. I don’t think any player intended to line up out of place on this one, just that BS needed to be about another foot deeper than he was to be safe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister, BBrown and LionJim
PSU Mike said:
Yeah, it’s not uncommon for tackles to be deeper than the rule states and not get penalized. I don’t think any player intended to line up out of place on this one, just that BS needed to be about another foot deeper than he was to be safe.
Click to expand...
The other thing is that Dotson can communicate with the official on that side and ask him if we are lined up as intended (which happens on most plays). We don’t get any interaction on the game feed, but I’d guess the coaches would put it particularly on Dotson if he didn’t check.
 
PSU Mike said:
Yeah, it’s not uncommon for tackles to be deeper than the rule states and not get penalized. I don’t think any player intended to line up out of place on this one, just that BS needed to be about another foot deeper than he was to be safe.
Click to expand...
Or Dodson. For both to be eligible one has to be off the LOS.
 
ApexLion said:
My take fwiw @PSU2UNC : Strange was a step or two back from the line but not completely off the line of scrimmage enough. He either should have been totally lined up on the line of scrimmage and Dotson a yard off or he should have been a H-back and Dotson would then be on the line of scrimmage.

Strange was in-between basically.
Click to expand...

Yeah. If you want to be unequivocally not on the line, you should line up such that your most forward point is being the back part of everyone on the line (especially the tackle closest to you who is the easiest reference point). I agree that by strict definition of the rule that Strang is probably behind the line but he's close enough to subjectively be called for it

(That being said, it's not uncommon for OTs to be lined up behind the LOS by rule when they form a more "curved" line versus a straight one at the LOS and it pretty much never gets called; the references and players are often a bit loose about this)
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister and PSU2UNC
PSU2UNC said:
Right, this is my understanding as well (thanks). That's why I was confused as to why CJF said it was a good call.
Click to expand...
Why complain? They scored on the next play. Why give the conference refs shade when we might get this crew in a future game this season. CJF is very careful with his responses. Adjust the formation and move on.
 
Erial_Lion said:
The other thing is that Dotson can communicate with the official on that side and ask him if we are lined up as intended (which happens on most plays). We don’t get any interaction on the game feed, but I’d guess the coaches would put it particularly on Dotson if he didn’t check.
Click to expand...
they said he was covered up by Dotson so they didn't feel Dotson was in the backfield. The other confusion is that they initially called Ineligible receiver downfield. Then they corrected that to say illegal touching. Then they said it came with a loss of down. then they talked for a bit told the operator it was second down but offered no further explanation.

It was a bad call. He was off the line, or it was extremely close. A very ticky-tack call at that point in the game and on a first and goal. Then they didn't know what to call and initially called it linemen being downfield.
 
  • Like
Reactions: summitlion1
Obliviax said:
they said he was covered up by Dotson so they didn't feel Dotson was in the backfield. The other confusion is that they initially called Ineligible receiver downfield. Then they corrected that to say illegal touching. Then they said it came with a loss of down. then they talked for a bit told the operator it was second down but offered no further explanation.

It was a bad call. He was off the line, or it was extremely close. A very ticky-tack call at that point in the game and on a first and goal. Then they didn't know what to call and initially called it linemen being downfield.
Click to expand...
it is a weird penalty in that it in effect only counts as an incomplete pass....we didn't lose any yardage
 
PSUQBKeeper said:
it is a weird penalty in that it in effect only counts as an incomplete pass....we didn't lose any yardage
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what they ended up enforcing - they initially said loss of down, but that is incorrect for this penalty - but it is supposed to be 5 yard penalty, repeat down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown
doctornick said:
I'm not sure what they ended up enforcing - they initially said loss of down, but that is incorrect for this penalty - but it is supposed to be 5 yard penalty, repeat down.
Click to expand...
the link I embedded above says it is a five yard penalty. The NFL is also a loss of down. So, if the link is correct, it should have simply been a five yard penalty.

www.rookieroad.com

Football Illegal Touching of a Forward Pass Penalty

www.rookieroad.com www.rookieroad.com
 
Wait...I see....they DID NOT give us a loss of down. They announced it was loss of down. Then after marching off the five, they told the stadium it was second down but did not correct themselves to say that it WAS NOT a loss of down.


  • ​

    (14:21 - 2nd) Timeout INDIANA, clock 14:21

  • 1st & Goal at IU 4​

    (14:12 - 2nd) Jahan Dotson run for 1 yd to the Ind 3

  • 2nd & Goal at IU 3​

    (13:36 - 2nd) Clifford, Sean pass complete to Strange, Brenton for 3 yards to the INDIANA0, PENALTY PENNST illegal touching (Strange, Brenton) 5 yards to the INDIANA8, NO PLAY.

  • 2nd & Goal at IU 8​

    (13:31 - 2nd) Sean Clifford pass complete to Jahan Dotson for 8 yds for a TD, (Jordan Stout KICK)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown
Obliviax said:
Wait...I see....they DID NOT give us a loss of down. They announced it was loss of down. Then after marching off the five, they told the stadium it was second down but did not correct themselves to say that it WAS NOT a loss of down.


  • ​

    (14:21 - 2nd) Timeout INDIANA, clock 14:21

  • 1st & Goal at IU 4​

    (14:12 - 2nd) Jahan Dotson run for 1 yd to the Ind 3

  • 2nd & Goal at IU 3​

    (13:36 - 2nd) Clifford, Sean pass complete to Strange, Brenton for 3 yards to the INDIANA0, PENALTY PENNST illegal touching (Strange, Brenton) 5 yards to the INDIANA8, NO PLAY.

  • 2nd & Goal at IU 8​

    (13:31 - 2nd) Sean Clifford pass complete to Jahan Dotson for 8 yds for a TD, (Jordan Stout KICK)
Click to expand...
Yep they tried....again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bkmtnittany1
Obliviax said:
the link I embedded above says it is a five yard penalty. The NFL is also a loss of down. So, if the link is correct, it should have simply been a five yard penalty.

www.rookieroad.com

Football Illegal Touching of a Forward Pass Penalty

www.rookieroad.com www.rookieroad.com
Click to expand...

Right. That is I said. 5 yard penalty, repeat down (NOT loss of down). It seems that is what they ultimately enforced.

IIRC the loss of down in the NFL is actually only for an illegal touch if a receiver goes out of bounds and comes back in. I think for a play like what happened in our game, in the NFL it is also just a 5 yard penalty and you repeat the down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister and Obliviax
AvgUser said:
A different twist/Q. I think Strange caught the ball behind the LOS. Why isn't this considered a "hand-off"? I suppose it is because it was a shovel pass (intentional tossing of the ball forward).

if it had been a clear underhanded throw, would it still be considered a pass? THAt seems to be similar to an old fashioned "sweep/toss" play.
Click to expand...
Yes any time you release the ball moving forward it is considered forward pass.
 
ApexLion said:
My take fwiw @PSU2UNC : Strange was a step or two back from the line but not completely off the line of scrimmage enough. He either should have been totally lined up on the line of scrimmage and Dotson a yard off or he should have been a H-back and Dotson would then be on the line of scrimmage.

Strange was in-between basically.
Click to expand...

The requirement in the rulebook is at least 1 Yard of LOS. Strange met the rulebook requirement.
 
CJFisJoePaII said:
The requirement in the rulebook is at least 1 Yard of LOS. Strange met the rulebook requirement.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's what the rulebook says. I think it in relation to the hips of the center. But either way he was off the LOS.
 
doctornick said:
Yeah. If you want to be unequivocally not on the line, you should line up such that your most forward point is being the back part of everyone on the line (especially the tackle closest to you who is the easiest reference point). I agree that by strict definition of the rule that Strang is probably behind the line but he's close enough to subjectively be called for it

(That being said, it's not uncommon for OTs to be lined up behind the LOS by rule when they form a more "curved" line versus a straight one at the LOS and it pretty much never gets called; the references and players are often a bit loose about this)
Click to expand...

Again, the rule requirement has nothing to do with your positioning relative to the Tackle's body - the rule requirement is quite straightforward, at least one yard off LOS. BTW, Interior Lineman are required to line-up "within 1 yard of LOS", so you are incorrect, a Tackle is allowed to offset themselves to the LOS by a yard effectively without penalty. If they offset by more than a yard, the penalty called is "Illegal Formation" - which is an entirely different penalty than what Strange got called for. BTW, I have seen Illegal Formation called many times on Tackles for lining up more than a yard from LOS (i.e., where the most forward part of their body is in their stance cannot effectively be more than 1 yard from LOS.).

In any event, the requirement by rule to be considered in Backfield as Flanker/H-Back is at least 1 yard off LOS, period. Which obviously is not remotely what you claim (fully behind Tackle next to you), especially if the Tackle is taking advantage of the 1 Yard offset he is permitted to take. Strange was more than a yard off the LOS and was an eligible receiver contrary to what the b1g "make it up as we go along" clownshow claimed.
 
PSU2UNC said:
I don't think that's what the rulebook says. I think it in relation to the hips of the center. But either way he was off the LOS.
Click to expand...

Really? See the following definition of the rule:

The NCAA rulebook defines eligible receivers for college football in Rule 7, Section 3, Article 3.[1] The determining factors are the player's position on the field at the snap and their jersey number. Specifically, any players on offense wearing numbers between 50 and 79 are always ineligible. All defensive players are eligible receivers and offensive players who are not wearing an ineligible number are eligible receivers if they meet one of the following three criteria:

Note point #2 below the paragraph. The rule says squat about positioning relative to Interior Lineman.... it says RBs (which is what a player in the traditional "Flanker" position is [also often called a "H- or J-Back]) must be lined up at least one yard from LOS and are ALWAYS eligible receivers regardless of whether the WR on their side is on LOS, or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Obliviax

Steelers "off sides" on Field Goal call

Replies
41
Views
1K
Penn State Football
Erial_Lion
E
P

Ironturd in HR .. spoiler alert, it's hilarious

Replies
27
Views
4K
The Wrestling Room
tullfan68
T
O

Starocci keeps getting better

Replies
6
Views
1K
The Wrestling Room
Cstroke
Cstroke
D

Hunter Biden, Yale Law Grad (along with Hillary) exemplifies perfectly the corruption of the so-called elites

Replies
1
Views
177
Current Events Board
lurkerlion
L
J

Jury duty...my (temporary) transformation into a soft-on-crime squish

Replies
30
Views
361
Current Events Board
LafayetteBear
LafayetteBear
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back