Adventures in officiating -
BostonCard - 10-23-2015
Apparently ASU's scrum run against UCLA did include one player grasping and pulling the runner, which should have been a 5-yard spot of the foul penalty, giving ASU first and goal at the 9 yard line or so.
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/93635/upon-further-review-arizona-st-scrum-run-should-have-been-flagged
In news relevant to Stanford, UCLA's targetting call when Blake Martinez was "blocked" was upheld.
Quote:He added that the officials made the right call when UCLA wide receiver Kenneth Walker III hit Stanford linebacker Blake Martinez on a blind-side block. He noted that WalkerÂ’s helmet hits MartinezÂ’s facemask, which is considered helmet-to-helmet.
BC
Re: Adventures in officiating -
CTcard - 10-23-2015
(10-23-2015, 01:43 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Apparently ASU's scrum run against UCLA did include one player grasping and pulling the runner, which should have been a 5-yard spot of the foul penalty, giving ASU first and goal at the 9 yard line or so.
Someone here - maybe you BC? - pointed that out in a thread just after that game.
I have to say that on first glance, I find it odd that pushing the runner is okay but pulling the runner is not.
[If I remember correctly, the sequence was:
- somebody was claiming we should have been flagged for pushing a runner in a short yardage play,
- someone else noted that pushing is now okay,
- I pointed out this ASU play made that pretty clear,
- another post noted that ASU play was still illegal because of the pulling ]
Quote:In news relevant to Stanford, UCLA's targetting call when Blake Martinez was "blocked" was upheld.
Despite the whining by Bruins and David Pollack, that was as obvious a targetting call as there is.