Oh let me be the first to say, I don't think or know if he saw it and I was okay with his initial reaction, but once we all knew (the ones watching it on TV), that it was a penalty then that is where I got upset.
Again one of the pieces that doesn't matter is that whether or not he made a FC call, it would have been a penalty because of the HALO rule. If he would have just made the same play without the targeting, it still would have been a penalty. He did not get the receiver a chance to catch the ball. Their were two penalties on the play,
--Not giving the receiver 2 yard circle to catch the ball
--Targeting
Here is the definition by the NCAA of the "HALO RULE"
The halo rule was an NCAA rule that protected punt returners who were looking to catch the punt. The halo rule stated that players need to give the punt returner a two-yard cushion before he catches the ball.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...7&action=click
I’m not sure he does not have the two yards distance before the catch is made also . . .
I don't think we'll ever know the truth (and it doesn't really matter)...but he was about 10 yards away from the returner when the fair catch was signaled, with no blockers in between. Clear line of sight. If he wasn't looking at the returner making the fair catch call, I don't know where he possibly could have been looking.
His momentum from his initial running pace was taking him to the left of the returner. Then the returner quickly moved that way to catch the ball. Instincts kicked in and he lowered his shoulder with the ball carrier now in his path.
Wasn't great. Wasn't dirty either.
This is also a pretty clear illustration of how the returners motion played into this. You can take a good guess from this picture about where the defender's line of motion was. But half a second earlier, the returner would have been a step or two further to the right in this picture. Those paths weren't going to cross until the returner moved.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)