Dang, The Play of the Game, really was a
- Thread starter grengadgy
- Start date
- Jun 11, 2014
- 8,013
- 4,832
Founding Member
Sorry, must have been someone that I saw that just turned forty besides Ox.
- Jun 11, 2014
- 8,013
- 4,832
Founding Member
It wasn't high enough or close enough to #1 that he could call for a fair catch. Perfect kick.
- Jun 11, 2014
- 22,331
- 28,422
Founding Member
It appeared to the group I was watching the game with that Dabo was yelling about the Bama player illegally advancing the ball after he caught it.
- Jun 12, 2014
- 510
- 346
Founding Member
It was definitely legal. People think that the ball has to hit the ground. It doesn't. The reason that it gets kicked into the ground though, is more complex.
If the ball is kicked in the air, not touching the ground, the receiving team is allowed to fair catch it and must not be interfered with even without a fair catch signal. This keeps the kicking team from getting the ball, unless its muffed. In this case, the Clemson player closest to the ball could have called for a fair catch if he was heads up enough and went towards the ball, and it would have potentially nullified Bama from recovering. The Clemson player didn't play this, the ball wasn't even close to him. So the Bama player caught the ball in the air, before it touched the ground. Since it did not touch the ground, he could not advance it.
If the ball touches the ground, then a fair catch cannot be called, and you can run into the receiving team in an attempt to gain possession. That's why you see kickers intentionally kick into the ground to eliminate that fair catch clause.
So Bama noticed Clemson playing in on the kicks and decided if they saw that again, they would pop it in there. Clemson played in on that one, and the rest is perfect execution by Bama. There was no one offsides, Clemson wasn't near the ball, and the Bama kicker should be MVP in my opinion for that kick. My guess is that Dabo was probably trying to say the Clemson player was interfered with, when that is clearly not the case.
If the ball is kicked in the air, not touching the ground, the receiving team is allowed to fair catch it and must not be interfered with even without a fair catch signal. This keeps the kicking team from getting the ball, unless its muffed. In this case, the Clemson player closest to the ball could have called for a fair catch if he was heads up enough and went towards the ball, and it would have potentially nullified Bama from recovering. The Clemson player didn't play this, the ball wasn't even close to him. So the Bama player caught the ball in the air, before it touched the ground. Since it did not touch the ground, he could not advance it.
If the ball touches the ground, then a fair catch cannot be called, and you can run into the receiving team in an attempt to gain possession. That's why you see kickers intentionally kick into the ground to eliminate that fair catch clause.
So Bama noticed Clemson playing in on the kicks and decided if they saw that again, they would pop it in there. Clemson played in on that one, and the rest is perfect execution by Bama. There was no one offsides, Clemson wasn't near the ball, and the Bama kicker should be MVP in my opinion for that kick. My guess is that Dabo was probably trying to say the Clemson player was interfered with, when that is clearly not the case.
- Sep 9, 2014
- 5,193
- 9,072
Actually that's not entirely correct. The updated rule says you can still fair catch a kickoff that is kicked driven into the ground as long as it doesn't touch the ground a second time.
- Jun 12, 2014
- 12,929
- 32,582
Founding Member
- Jun 11, 2014
- 8,013
- 4,832
Founding Member
- Jun 10, 2014
- 16,578
- 20,016
Founding Member
Yeah, NFL kickers used to do that "spike" kick to get the huge bounce, and guys would get murdered trying to field it. That's what I thought last night's kick was until I saw the replay.
Bama&GatorFan
Friends in high places
- Dec 5, 2015
- 715
- 554
The play was completely legal. It just illustrates that Saban and his staff are looking for every potential advantage for their team on every play of the game. Offense, defense, and special teams. Special teams were important in this one. I think it was even more important that Clemson didn't cover Alabama's tight end. Two easy throws and catches for touchdowns. Having a championship team includes all phases of the game. Alabama makes mistakes, but they made fewer than Clemson. You didn't see Clemson receivers running open and free beyond the Alabama secondary.
ufgator2002
Bleeds Orange and Blue
- Aug 11, 2014
- 1,034
- 360
Dabo has to be one of the whining-ist azz coaches I have ever seen. That ref on sideline had some patience. I mean almost every dang play bama had success on he was yelling in that guys ear....news flash coach, how about blaming your players for not being able to stop them....
- Sep 9, 2014
- 5,193
- 9,072
Clemson was actually the better team on that day. They racked up 31 first downs (almost twice as many as Bama had), 40 points, and did a decent job on Henry. Unfortunately for them, there is 3 aspects of the game, not just offense and defense. They got smoked on a couple special teams plays which was the difference. I was very impressed with Watson who was effective both running and passing against what was felt to be the immovable object of Bama's front 7.
Bama&GatorFan
Friends in high places
- Dec 5, 2015
- 715
- 554
I would agree with you, except that "better team" should include special teams and the ability to cover a tight end. But their offense is phenomenal.
- Sep 9, 2014
- 5,193
- 9,072
I know. I wouldn't mind at all if our offense looked something like theirs. I kept thinking Watson is what Treon could have been if he could process quickly and throw accurately with a lightning quick release. Unfortunately Treon has none of those things LOL.
