forums

First penalty of game

E

edge

Junior
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
3,988
Someone please explain that one. FAU punts. They get an illegal procedure penalty. We get a block in back down field. Official says we had to decline their penalty and accept ours to keep the ball. What? Are those not offsetting?
 
Advertisement
edge said:
Someone please explain that one. FAU punts. They get an illegal procedure penalty. We get a block in back down field. Official says we had to decline their penalty and accept ours to keep the ball. What? Are those not offsetting?
Click to expand...

One was a dead ball foul.
 
edge said:
A block in back is dead ball?
Click to expand...

Yea I was lost, it was not a dead ball foul, but lets say it was... Possession changed hands, it would be canes ball and the penalty assessed from there.

Then we got a delay of game which seemed strange... Felt like we had no time to get on the field and snap the ball.
 
Advertisement
Is block in the back a personal foul? maybe they can't offset a procedural penalty.... who knows because I can't find an ncaa rulebook online anywhere...
 
Since UM's foul was after the change of possession, UM had the choice of accepting or declining the illegal procedure penalty on FAU. If they did not decline the penalty, FAU would retain possession on offsetting penalties. It would still be 4th down, and FAU would kick again. UM chose to decline the offensive penalty in order to get the ball. That means the block in the back penalty would be enforced. That's the way I understand the explanation of Rule 10-1-4.

I didn't like it. I thought UM should have made them kick it again (unless I misinterpreted the rule). Other opinions?
 
Block in back is not personal foul. Pretty sure the refs blew that one cause Golden was ****ed. Should have been offsetting with our choice to re-kick.
 
Advertisement
Don't know, but the delay penalty was because the officiating crew started the clock early. Al commented on that in one of his post game interviews.
 
Advertisement
I thought you were going to be asking the first penalty of the florida game....

My answer would of been porter & perryman decapitating the passer
 
Dingaan1828 said:
Since UM's foul was after the change of possession, UM had the choice of accepting or declining the illegal procedure penalty on FAU. If they did not decline the penalty, FAU would retain possession on offsetting penalties. It would still be 4th down, and FAU would kick again. UM chose to decline the offensive penalty in order to get the ball. That means the block in the back penalty would be enforced. That's the way I understand the explanation of Rule 10-1-4.

I didn't like it. I thought UM should have made them kick it again (unless I misinterpreted the rule). Other opinions?
Click to expand...

Your probably correct. So Al must have declined making them play 4th again. In a closer battle against a good opponent he probably does not make the same decision. The referee could have explained it better.
 
Advertisement
edge said:
Dingaan1828 said:
Since UM's foul was after the change of possession, UM had the choice of accepting or declining the illegal procedure penalty on FAU. If they did not decline the penalty, FAU would retain possession on offsetting penalties. It would still be 4th down, and FAU would kick again. UM chose to decline the offensive penalty in order to get the ball. That means the block in the back penalty would be enforced. That's the way I understand the explanation of Rule 10-1-4.

I didn't like it. I thought UM should have made them kick it again (unless I misinterpreted the rule). Other opinions?
Click to expand...

Your probably correct. So Al must have declined making them play 4th again. In a closer battle against a good opponent he probably does not make the same decision. The referee could have explained it better.
Click to expand...

If the illegal procedure was pre-snap movement by FAU (false start), then we can't decline that penalty (since the play technically never happened in the first place), and they have to rekick. If it was an illegal formation (not enough guys on the LOS), which it must have been in this case, we can decline that and take the ball, but then have to take the block in the back penalty. That's my understanding, but I'm no rules expert.
 
That's when I knew the season was ****ed. And to top it off we get a delay of game before we're able to run our first offensive play of the game. This kind of thing has been happening under Goldens since day 1.
 
Dingaan1828 said:
Since UM's foul was after the change of possession, UM had the choice of accepting or declining the illegal procedure penalty on FAU. If they did not decline the penalty, FAU would retain possession on offsetting penalties. It would still be 4th down, and FAU would kick again. UM chose to decline the offensive penalty in order to get the ball. That means the block in the back penalty would be enforced. That's the way I understand the explanation of Rule 10-1-4.

I didn't like it. I thought UM should have made them kick it again (unless I misinterpreted the rule). Other opinions?
Click to expand...

The not kicking it again part is where I got totally lost. I was too hyped up to watch our offense though.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top