Fair catch play

[RaginDave]

One play won’t define this game. At least for us. Some Marshall fans are hanging on to it and saying we’re a dirty team. I don’t think a thing could be further from the truth. If anything, we are disciplined. Our guy just made a mistake. Let it go.

I agree with this. We were not dirty, the play was questionable dirty, but as a team we have not played dirty all year and did not in this game either. The game was extremely chippy on both sides.

[CajunT]

Dude, he clearly made a FC motion, they showed it over and over on the TV replay. It was a clear Fair Catch. I don't care if he started to run, the FC was called for. Mike Golic JR almost lost his mind after they showed it the 2nd time. It wasn't like it was a questionable call if he raised his hand, he had it up and was waving it.

I think what we don't see is if his vision was obstructed while running down the sideline as a gunner and engaging a blocker. It was unfortunate and it was definitely targeting, but this has been a bit overblown.

If anyone hasn't seen, there is a video of a Marshall offensive lineman kicking Bralen Trahan in the head after he was tackled on the interception. And then there was the play in the fourth quarter where Chauncey Manac was punched in the ribs by another offensive lineman and went down.

The game got a little chippy and the officials should have done a better job of squashing this type of behavior.

[RedBug58]

RaginDave, I think it’s time to change your avatar again. The picture looks like a guy who knows absolutely nothing about football & that’s definately not you!!!

[RaginDave]

I think what we don't see is if his vision was obstructed while running down the sideline as a gunner and engaging a blocker. It was unfortunate and it was definitely targeting, but this has been a bit overblown.

If anyone hasn't seen, there is a video of a Marshall offensive lineman kicking Bralen Trahan in the head after he was tackled on the interception. And then there was the play in the fourth quarter where Chauncey Manac was punched in the ribs by another offensive lineman and went down.

The game got a little chippy and the officials should have done a better job of squashing this type of behavior.

I did see the kick. that was F'd up. I did not see the punch, but like you said this game was chippy.

I do agree this play is being overblown, my point was it was a penalty, we were in the wrong and it looked bad on TV. After everything has been discussed it was made more of a big deal that it actually was. But definitely a penalty and targeting were correct.

[Turbine]

check out the picture. Player does not have the ball and he is inside the 2 yards already.

I agree with your stance.

However he wasn't quite that close (in the picture)

2 yards vertical by three yards horizontal is roughly three and a half yards diagonal.

[CajunVic]

I agree with your stance.

However he wasn't quite that close (in the picture)

2 yards vertical by three yards horizontal is roughly three and a half yards diagonal.

Always believe the math. . . Math does not lie . . .

[ragin50]

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.

The Halo rule was removed from the NCAA many years ago, 2003 I think.

[RaginDave]

The Halo rule was removed from the NCAA many years ago, 2003 I think.

Yes, but you still have to give the receiver a chance to catch the ball, the 2 yard rule I believe is still in existence, it may not be called the Halo rule, but you still have to give the receiver a chance.

Here is the fact as I see them and the last I will say on this. Because at the end of the day it does not matter the referees made the call and I think the correct call.

#1--Returner called for a FC, that nulifies anything we are discussing, because whether or not Wilson saw this, the fact is it was a clear FC. At that point you are not allowed to touch the receiver.

#2--even if he had not called for a FC, you have to give the receiver a chance to catch the ball and he did not.

#3--It was clear targeting. No matter if he had not given the returner a chance and he had not called for a FC, it was targeting.

#4--The celebration was unwarranted because of the above. Now that being said if as some of you have stated he was trying to talk to the team and the referee after it was over, then I agree with that, but the chain needed to come off immediately when he found out the play was multiple penalties, which it was.

#5--the kid was in the moment and made a mistake, I don't fault him for anything he did during the play because, if he missed the FC and made a targeting play and did not mean to which is highly likely, I understand. I just think we need to make sure he understands what he did wrong, so it does not happen again.

[fanof71]

Marshall, for all the sideline posturing after that play didn't respond... UL did... we rented space inside those green helmets

[ragin50]

Yes, but you still have to give the receiver a chance to catch the ball, the 2 yard rule I believe is still in existence, it may not be called the Halo rule, but you still have to give the receiver a chance.

Here is the fact as I see them and the last I will say on this. Because at the end of the day it does not matter the referees made the call and I think the correct call.

#1--Returner called for a FC, that nulifies anything we are discussing, because whether or not Wilson saw this, the fact is it was a clear FC. At that point you are not allowed to touch the receiver.

#2--even if he had not called for a FC, you have to give the receiver a chance to catch the ball and he did not.

#3--It was clear targeting. No matter if he had not given the returner a chance and he had not called for a FC, it was targeting.

#4--The celebration was unwarranted because of the above. Now that being said if as some of you have stated he was trying to talk to the team and the referee after it was over, then I agree with that, but the chain needed to come off immediately when he found out the play was multiple penalties, which it was.

#5--the kid was in the moment and made a mistake, I don't fault him for anything he did during the play because, if he missed the FC and made a targeting play and did not mean to which is highly likely, I understand. I just think we need to make sure he understands what he did wrong, so it does not happen again.

If the refs did make the correct call, it was one of the few they did get right. Many flags required a meeting in which they were unsure of themselves. And if we did commit one bad penalty, it was greatly outweighed by the many late hits and dirty plays by Marshall, most of which weren't called. It was a very poorly officiated game.