Onside kick attempt

[QuattroCane]

Maybe somebody that’s smarter than me can answer this. It was always my understanding that if a kickoff went out of bounds, it was automatically a penalty. I don’t understand how either the onside kick went out of bounds from the kickers foot or B the kicking team recovered it and landed out of bounds. How is that not still a penalty?

 

[Gobuxcanes]

The review said he got it in bounds, so we didn’t have a choice of taking a penalty.

 

[coffeecane]

The review said he got it in bounds, so we didn’t have a choice of taking a penalty.

If he wasn't offsides would have been their ball. **** of a play and kick. Serious practice to get that down.

 

[Calicane02]

That was d*mn excellent play design and execution, first time I've ever seen that.....we dodged one there

 

[johnnytsunami01]

If he wasn't offsides would have been their ball. **** of a play and kick. Serious practice to get that down.

But if it wasn't offsides he wouldn't have caught it inbounds

 

[90scane]

Except he was 5yards offsides and doesn’t make that catch if he wasn’t.

 

[IbzRlz]

But if it wasn't offsides he wouldn't have caught it inbounds

That's why there was a penalty

 

[Cane30]

It's the opposite. He caught it out of bounds. The review was for us. If he caught it in bounds we could receive the ball at that spot with the offsides penalty added on to it. We would have been close to midfield.

 

[JamesQuall]

It's the opposite. He caught it out of bounds. The review was for us. If he caught it in bounds we could receive the ball at that spot with the offsides penalty added on to it. We would have been close to midfield.

This is not correct. They were reviewing it to see if it went out of bounds. If he caught it out of bounds, there would have been 2 penalties, one for offsides and one for kicking it out of bounds. Had he caught it out of bounds, it would have been our ball at the 40, not where it went out or where he caught it.

BUT because they determined he caught it inbound, the offside was the only penalty that applied.

 

[edge]

This is not correct. They were reviewing it to see if it went out of bounds. If he caught it out of bounds, there would have been 2 penalties, one for offsides and one for kicking it out of bounds. Had he caught it out of bounds, it would have been our ball at the 40, not where it went out or where he caught it.

BUT because they determined he caught it inbound, the offside was the only penalty that applied.

Correct.

It was also very clear on replay that he was out of bounds. White chalk flew up when his foot landed. The foot that was supposedly inbounds.

 

[JamesQuall]

Correct.

It was also very clear on replay that he was out of bounds. White chalk flew up when his foot landed. The foot that was supposedly inbounds.

Yes, I agree he was out of bounds. The same **** bag refs over turned Horton's TD catch with supposed indisputable evidence that even had the announcers which are huge anti-Cane fans baffled.

 

[TheU1984]

Correct.

It was also very clear on replay that he was out of bounds. White chalk flew up when his foot landed. The foot that was supposedly inbounds.

That was pretty clear to me. Not sure how that call stood. Our boy Riddick agreed too at first. Was about to list our hall of famers again too.

 

[CaneTheGaytors]

Except he was 5yards offsides and doesn’t make that catch if he wasn’t.

I agree. He was 5-yards offsides, yet the blind announcers were saying that he was “barely offsides”, and that was the “difference between a great play and a failed opportunity.”

 

[JamesQuall]

That was pretty clear to me. Not sure how that call stood. Our boy Riddick agreed too at first. Was about to list our hall of famers again too.

The call didn't stand, they over rode it. That the eve n more baffling part.

Nevermind. Wrong call, it was actually never "called" it was called in from the replay booth to be reviewed.

 

[IbzRlz]

It's the opposite. He caught it out of bounds. The review was for us. If he caught it in bounds we could receive the ball at that spot with the offsides penalty added on to it. We would have been close to midfield.

You couldn't be more wrong, but thanks for playing

 

[Rellyrell]

It's the opposite. He caught it out of bounds. The review was for us. If he caught it in bounds we could receive the ball at that spot with the offsides penalty added on to it. We would have been close to midfield.

No, that’s not what happened.

The penalty was off sides which negated the recovery. The review was to see if he caught it out of bounds, b/c if he did, the ball would’ve been ours at the spot the ball went out, & we would’ve declined the off sides penalty which forced USF to re-kick. The video review wasn’t conclusive enough to over turn the recovery, so we accepted the original off side penalty & forced USF to back up 5 & re-kick.

 

[Rellyrell]

I agree. He was 5-yards offsides, yet the blind announcers were saying that he was “barely offsides”, and that was the “difference between a great play and a failed opportunity.”

Yeah, it was pretty obvious he had a head start b4 the K. Lol. It was still a well designed off sides, but poor execution.

 

[Trav]

It's the opposite. He caught it out of bounds. The review was for us. If he caught it in bounds we could receive the ball at that spot with the offsides penalty added on to it. We would have been close to midfield.

That's not what happened.

 

[AbsoluteUnit]

Completely OT, but I hate the Pro grame kickoff has gone the way that it has because it doesn't allow for teams to run sneaky onsides like this

 

[D_G87]

We need to adjust to our alignment on kickoffs. I’m surprised more teams don’t try that on us. Not enough players on the first line