You Will Never Guess What This Penalty Is

[@bunpeishiratori5849]

The opening kickoff play was not "overturned". The official on the field immediately called it dead at the spot of the recovery. It was the TV broadcast that was calling it a touchdown. The officials never did.

[@jeffbovee6510]

Exactly. Not sure why everyone does know this rule by now.

[@jacktem1]

@@jeffbovee6510the amount of people that still think that’s a td is hilarious to me honestly, until you try to explain it to them and they just don’t listen

[@jeffbovee6510]

@@jacktem1it's not just the fans. Announcers botch this all the time despite this being not all that rare.

[@jacktem1]

@@jeffbovee6510 yeah that’s wild 😭 like i get people seeing it for the first time not knowing but announcers don’t have that excuse

[@sacred_g]

As a Notre Dame fan and frequent enjoyer of your videos, I'm glad you helped break down why that formation was illegal. I was watching without sound during the game and the referees were making so many confusing calls. Also just a warning, I remember seeing somewhere in the past here on KZbin, in the comments section, that NBC is crazy with the copyright claims against videos of ND games. I hope they don't go after you for stupid reasons too!

[@bermchasin]

im not seeing how that illegal formation call/ rule improves the game at all.

[@Phl0gist0n43]

​@bermchasin because without the rule you wouldn't need any o liners at all. Which would change the game. The rule defines what a kicking formation is and grants an exception from the required number of o liners

[@goodmaro]

@@Phl0gist0n43 It's to make it harder to hide eligible receivers. Before the mid-1960s it wasn't a thing, receivers could have any number 1-99. The scrimmage kick formation exception is to relieve players from having to swap shirts when they assume a different position in kick formations -- especially long snappers.

[@bermchasin]

@@Phl0gist0n43 thanks for the explanation

[@lubrew5862]

The second and third play were correctly called on the field. Peoples lack of knowledge of the rules doesn’t trump that.

[@MiniTheEngi]

All correct, except for 1 thing, Jack Kizer did NOT line up under center. You can even see it at the 2:52 mark where he is standing before the snap, arms outstretched, not touching the center. The rulebook defines under center as taking the ball as a handoff from the center directly. The ball is snapped to Kizer through the air... not very far, but BY THE RULES he is NOT under center and therefore the fake should not have been penalized

[@matthewct20]

This play is still not a scrimmage kick formation, so it is a correct call. You are correct that the player is not under center, but due to his alignment behind the center, they are not in a scrimmage kick formation. I will attach the rule at the end so you can read it, but to be in a scrimmage kick formation, it must be obvious that a kick is going to happen. By his alignment behind center it does not apply. ARTICLE 10. a. A scrimmage kick formation is a formation with no player in position to receive a hand-to-hand snap from between the snapper’s legs, and with either (1) at least one player 10 or more yards behind the neutral zone; or (2) a potential holder and potential kicker seven or more yards behind the neutral zone in position for a place kick. For either (1) or (2) to qualify as a scrimmage kick formation, it must be obvious that a kick will be attempted.

[@ayarzeev8237]

@@matthewct20impressively correct

[@YellowSkarmory]

@@matthewct20 damn, so you can't run any formation where the intent is to be confusing about whether you're punting or not? surprised ND even tried that with that rule existing ohhh nevermind you still need 5 offensive linemen numbered to do that. that makes more sense

[@brandonchambers5397]

​@@matthewct20 put the snap was not hand to hand. It was snapped in the air, although a very short distance. ND said they gotten with officials to confirm if this play and formation was legal almost a year ago and they received the green light.

[@matthewct20]

@YellowSkarmory exactly, if they want to be tricky, they can just leave the normal lineman in and run it exactly the same way.

[@jmace2424]

My favorite call of all time is Giving Him The Business. 🤣

[@jyutzler]

Ron Cherry FTW.

[@craigbaxter4595]

Remember seeing that live

[@cosmicwedgie]

John Madden said it was the best call he ever heard

[@yunekoVT]

virginia given every oppertunity in this game and its still a blowout

[@ericdaniel323]

From inside the stadium it really felt like the refs were trying to show some mercy and throw UVA a bone after it got to 35-0.

[@raykrouse136]

I heard that Freeman talked to the referees pre-game to explain the fake punt that was going to happen but probably never discussed the "numbering" of the players on the line. I guess it would have been helpful if the referee explained what could be called in that situation.

[@joshuafinn6038]

Yes. This was the frustrating part. The coaches went to the refs to pre approve the play. The refs should have told the coach what he MUST do to make it legal. ACC refs have been so incompetent that it boarders on seeming purposeful....

[@cgh7337]

I heard the same & if its true then Freeman had a right to be pissed off at the refs for messing things up!

[@willhunter7363]

The last one was a bad call, the snap wasn't taken under center. The center snapped the ball backwards (it traveled some distance in the air) and the "qb" didn't receive it directly per the definition of the rule.

[@RoyalMela]

You can not line up under center on kick plays. They did. That is the rule, no matter who catches the ball in the end.

[@GavinSchmavin44]

@@RoyalMelathat's the thing, it wasn't under center.

[@GavinSchmavin44]

@@RoyalMelahe wasn't under center, he was shotgun. So it shouldn't have been penalized

[@beastateverythin]

@@GavinSchmavin44 someone else posted the rule. Here's the full comment from @matthewct20: This play is still not a scrimmage kick formation, so it is a correct call. You are correct that the player is not under center, but due to his alignment behind the center, they are not in a scrimmage kick formation. I will attach the rule at the end so you can read it, but to be in a scrimmage kick formation, it must be obvious that a kick is going to happen. By his alignment behind center it does not apply. ARTICLE 10. a. A scrimmage kick formation is a formation with no player in position to receive a hand-to-hand snap from between the snapper’s legs, and with either (1) at least one player 10 or more yards behind the neutral zone; or (2) a potential holder and potential kicker seven or more yards behind the neutral zone in position for a place kick. For either (1) or (2) to qualify as a scrimmage kick formation, it must be obvious that a kick will be attempted.

[@nathanturner966]

That second one is a bad interpretation of a good rule, if you muff the ball so far away from your body you can no longer catch it, you should lose the fair catch protection

[@IsaacPunts]

Completely agree

[@nspro931]

He could have caught it, but a player from the kicking team was occupying the space he needed to complete the catch

[@joshuafranke5238]

​@nspro931 sure you could say that, but then they could bobble every fair catch until they collided with a gunner to get a flag, or worse, bobble it to the end zone because no one can touch him until he completes the process of the catch

[@MREifert]

Adding a provision where the muff is far enough away from the returner that catching is impossible would leave a lot of room for judgement calls, and that's where controversy starts.

[@Maintenance_Mark]

That leaves far too much ambiguity. There's no way you can possibly enforce that fairly. It's just too open to interpretation and personal opinion and abuse. Plus, we're looking at things from a camera angle. we see these players make the most incredible plays all the time. So who's to say he couldn't have made that catch before it hit the ground by diving or something?

[@DrBoom-nt2pr]

I'm a waterboy for ND I have never seen Coach Freeman that pissed at the refs

[@FALMe2660]

1 78 yard td called back 2 17 yd third down pickup short of the first that leads to 4th and 5 3 fake punt td called back 4 UVA muffs ensuing punt but falls on it 5 Adam Shuler intercept uva and returns it to the 1 6 Riley Leonard td pass. We find ways to score!

[@IrishCarBombMeets12TeamPlayoff]

*Adon Shuler. Short for Adonis, the Greek god who was known for being a handsome fellow.. ✌🏽☘

[@Alea-Iacta-Est47]

Ball don’t lie

[@joea4133]

The fake punt call was WRONG, as discussed by other officials, because the number rule didn’t apply, because he WAS NOT UNDER CENTER. He was technically IN SHOTGUN. It was a short shotgun, but still shotgun. ND staff explained it to the officials & they STILL didn’t know that part of the rule.

[@goodmaro]

He wasn't exactly "under center", but by being where he was, he made it impossible for the deep player to take the snap without moving, which means the scrimmage kick formation exception was not in effect.

[@RoyalMela]

He was under the center.

[@goodmaro]

@@RoyalMela What's written in the scrimmage kick formation rule is whether there was a player in position to be able to take a hand-to-hands snap between the snapper's legs. Do you think he could've reached and done that without moving his feet?

[@goodmaro]

We're focusing on the wrong issue. It wasn't the player faking taking the snap, but the one who actually took the snap. He's in a sidesaddle T formation. The snap actually does go between the snapper's legs (which answers the question of whether there's a player who could take a snap between the snapper's legs), but it's not clear to me whether he took the snap, or even could have taken the snap, hand-to-hands. In my sidesaddle T, it is hand-to-hands, and it looks like he probably could have done so here, whether the ball was actually handed or thrown. That would make it not a scrimmage kick formation, so the usual numbering rules apply.

[@TNCMemesnBurner]

Second one sounds like a rule that really needs to be changed

[@ivanwilliams7413]

Gotta say, I LOVE your commentary because it focuses on shit I'd NEVER think of while watching.

[@ericdaniel323]

Worst call of the day was UVA’s incomplete pass that was ruled complete and fumbled, recovered by the offense, on their first scoring drive. The DB and Wr both showed incomplete with their body language, the entire north end of the stadium saw it was incomplete, and the video clearly showed it. The officials didn’t even signal that it was complete - instead they conferred for a moment and announced that it was complete, as if expecting a review, which never came. ACC officiating is complete amateur hour. At that point it was 35-0 and it very much felt like the refs were trying to show some sort of mercy.

[@DontHateItsBased]

AR v Texas had great special teams game by both sides. Including a huge hit by the punter I believe. Good stuff

[@peterhenryzepeda3484]

I disagree with a lot of the comments on the Notre Dame muffed punt. If the pall is still in the air then the return man still can catch it. If we allow that to happen then it can become arbitrary.

[@goldflame3390]

Yeah, maybe in this case it seems too far away to think he might have gotten it, but how do you draw the line? Is five feet away too far? Four? Three? In the end I don’t mind the no-call, it would have been a massive and undeserved bailout, but still

[@jonathanbedsole1671]

I have to correct my earlier comments on the second call. Here is the rulebook. The last sentence is the key item. SECTION 5. Fair Catch Dead Where Caught ARTICLE 1. a. If a Team B player makes a fair catch, the ball becomes dead where caught and belongs to Team B at that spot. [Exception: If a Team B FR-74 RULE 6 / Kicks player makes a fair catch of a free kick behind Team B’s 25-yard line, the ball belongs to Team B at its own 25-yard line. The next snap shall be from midway between the hashmarks, unless a different position on or between the hashmarks is selected by the team designated to put the ball in play before the play clock is at 25 seconds or before any subsequent ready-for-play signal. After the play clock is at 25 seconds or any subsequent ready-for-play signal, the ball may be relocated only after a charged team timeout unless preceded by a Team A foul or offsetting fouls.] b. If a Team B player makes a valid fair catch signal, the unimpeded opportunity to catch a free or scrimmage kick continues if this player muffs the kick and still has an opportunity to complete the catch. If that player (or another Team B player) subsequently catches the kick, the ball belongs to Team B where the player making the signal first touched it. This protection terminates when the kick touches the ground. (A.R. 6-5-1-I-II).

[@jyutzler]

Thanks for the explanation. I was listening on the radio and was baffled.

[@m727yw]

The fake punt call was bullshit. If you read Marcus’ lips he said “we showed you this” he showed the refs the trick plays before to make sure that they were okay and they said that they were. Terrible by the refs and they should be held accountable.

[@ayarzeev8237]

Did they show them the numbers too?

[@andyd5492]

I was hoping to find out more about the fake kick play. Thanks for the explanation!

[@Xhadp]

My guess was on the player squatting down because they can just get blown out by a rushing defender with the thought that they had no clue they were there. Tried looking up to see if something similar was called for players lying down in the endzone during kickoffs for reference but no dice.

[@FALMe2660]

This was such a goofy ah game as an nd fan cuz we went for it on 4th in the red zone twice up 28 points as well as all those rules enforced but still won by 21 cuz of a uva garbage time td

[@MikeQuinn71]

I think the second one is a good no call based on the wording of the rule. It says, "...if this player muffs the kick and still has an opportunity to complete the catch." That ball bounced far enough away that there is a pretty good case that the receiver didn't still have a chance to complete the catch.

[@morefiction3264]

We've been screwed by that Fair Catch Interference rule before. Coverage player gets down there, ball bounces off the returner into his hands, he catches it and gets called for a 15 yard penalty.

[@tomspagnuolo4289]

ACC refs have always hated the Irish

[@MSWSB]

The way the fair catch rule is written, if the defenders hold off far enough to let the ball hit the ground after it’s muffed, it becomes a live ball, at that point. By getting too close so that the muffed ball hits them first, they “impededed”, by the rule and screwed up their opportunity to recover the live ball. By the rule, the returner can’t advance the ball from where he catches it cleanly, or first touches it. So, there is nothing to gain by keeping him from diving forward and catching it after it bounces off of him. Let him catch the ball, or stay far enough away so that if he muffs it, it can hit the ground and become a live ball. I think it makes sense to give the guy a chance to make a miraculous catch, if it bounces far away from him, because he cant get any forward progress from where he first touched it. I’m not sure what the rule says about if he makes a muffed catch behind where first touched. I would think it should be he can lose ground, but not gain ground, which would negate any reason to purposely batt the ball.

[@damnthegrifters7313]

I learned a lot. Cheers

[@evanbartholio]

Can't wait for your video on the Kansas vs. BYU pooch punt disaster that ruined BYU's perfect season.

[@jpengle4466]

Based on your interpretation and the rules analyst's interpretation you could technically just bobble the ball to the end zone since you would be considered in the process of the catch.

[@AisuruMirai]

I legitimately want to see someone try this now-fair catch signaled at the 15 and bobbled for 85 yards. 😆

[@DanielHarveyDyer]

​@@AisuruMiraiYeah that would be wicked. How about we keep this open in the rules until someone is crazy enough to try it, and then we close up the loophole after? Also it's a fairly easy loophole to close, you just say after completing the fair catch the ball is placed wherever the catch was signalled for from, not wherever the player and ball end up.

[@FM4AMGV]

@@AisuruMirai Could be considered an illegal bat?

[@Steelscizor]

Similar to the NFL 2 feet in catch rule. Technically you could catch a ball at the 10 yard line on one leg, hop to then end zone and out of bounds. Wouldn't be a catch because you never got 2 feet in. Some rules need to have common sense involved

[@IsaacPunts]

Similar to what AllofPokemon said, I'm sure at some point the juggling of the ball would be seen as intentional and someone could simply pick the ball out of the guys hands the same way hopping on one foot would definitely establish yourself in bounds at a certain point.

[@itsOasus]

As far as I'm concerned, the Fair Catch attempt was already made and he blew it. The rule should be adjusted accordingly.

[@gendrol259]

Then you have the refs trying to decide how far the kick receiver "could have dove" to catch the ball. Easier just to say the kicking team must allow the ball to touch the ground before recovering it, IMO.

[@goodmaro]

At one time a fair catch had to be a clean catch, but that was a very long time ago. Even in rugby it doesn't have to be a clean catch any more.

[@bsanaee]

Nah. It's a good rule that keeps a kick returner from getting blown up when he's flat-footed and defenseless. It's shocking that the refs didn't get it right. They had a terrible game.

[@ericdaniel323]

@@bsanaeewith the demise of the PAC-10, the ACC is in sole possession of three title of “worst officials.”

[@light-master]

Am I the only one just now finding out that the numbers on the jersey mean something other than identifying who a player is?

[@sscswimmer1]

There was a play in the Seahawks vs niners game where a player muffed a kickoff forwards about 15 yards until it went out of bounds and never had control of the ball. They got the ball where it went out instead of where it hit him, is that correct and why? Please help I'm so confused

[@davidwurbel6610]

It is still considered a kick that went out of bounds. But since a receiver player touched the ball prior to it going out of bounds, R gets the ball at the out of bounds spot and no penalty on K for a free kick out of bounds.

[@FALMe2660]

What a way for the seniors to play their final home regular season game!

[@JSeriously]

100% no doubt in my mind that ND player was going to get back to that ball and catch it. That was a good call by the ref.

[@chrisjamesr77]

WOW, those penalties sound like something that would have happened to the Detroit Lions!

[@RSQ-z4m]

Re: "...you don't deserve to be bailed out by rule..." Yes you do, always and absolutely. Otherwise rules are meaningless.

[@RockChalk-n9i]

Can you do a vid on the Kansas vs byu jalon daniels punt last night?

[@lc9991x]

Special teams coaches need to start teaching returners to bobble the ball 75 yards forward until they change this rule

[@IsaacPunts]

You would get the ball where it's initially touched if moving while bobbling it.

[@lc9991x]

@ ahhhhh Still could be an interesting trick play to bait an interference call. Catching punts is already hard enough, though haha

[@wozo9210]

You upload, i click

[@ziaboulder1]

Time for the BYU Kansas quick kick analysis😊

[@MashaRistova]

1:50 that’s a bad take by you

[@gendrol259]

Why can't the kicking team advance the ball after recovering (legally) their own kickoff? They're all onside at the start of the play, by definition. What situation is this rule mean to avoid?

[@rockerfarm6445]

Ah, I saw this game and thought of you xD

[@YodaIsDrunk]

ND scored 20 times in that game, but they were called back on b.s. calls

[@jyutzler]

And still won easily because my Cavaliers were so awful.

[@Thesportskid3605]

Go notre dame

[@itsmychannel]

The second one is pretty questionable. If you bounce it upwards and still in arms reach I think it should be 100% protected. If it’s outside of his reach he wouldn’t be able to catch it. They shouldn’t be able to hit him to get him away from the ball but the ball shouldn’t be completely protected.

[@ericdaniel323]

@@itsmychannel I wouldn’t want to leave the interpretation of that in the hands of ACC refs…

[@itsmychannel]

@ yeah that’s fair. It would have to be something that is reviewed after the call. Or be allowed to challenge it.

[@amirgamzu5917]

can someone explain the first call for me? Great videos!

[@MREifert]

On any kick that is muffed, the kicking team can recover the ball but is not allowed to advance towards the goal. What we're taught in officiating class is "K cannot advance a kick." Had the returner caught it clean, made some sort of football move, then dropped the ball, then ND could have scored because at that point it's a fumble and not a muff.

[@Rindiculousfun]

Just here to say the fair catch rule is the most idiotic rule in all of sports. Just use the CFL no yards rule instead which is infinitely superior

[@SirLionofBiff]

Huh. I haven't worked a game of Yankee ball since 2015. 3/3 for this retired (mostly Canadian) official.

[@panurge987]

0:05 - it's "versus", not "verse". Sheesh.

[@sleekhangman1590]

Welcome to English pal

[@peter-jx3uc]

The fair catch interference only states "if a player from the kicking team makes contact with the receiver." No contact was made to the receiver so this does not apply here. Assuming he made a valid signal which I think happened but I didn't watch it; "If a Team B player makes a valid fair catch signal, the unimpeded opportunity to catch a free or scrimmage kick continues if this player muffs the kick and still has an opportunity to complete the catch." So basically it is entirely up to the refs to decide if the returner "still has an opportunity to complete the catch. The wording could be less subjective, but it is not currently phrased to say the returner has an unimpeded opportunity until the ball hits the ground or anything more objective. The so "expert' makes up his own interpretation in response to the other announcer who asked a very good question. However, nowhere in the rules does it state the it is illegal for the kicking team player to touch the ball mid air. They are supposed to allow him the opportunity as long as he has an opportunity but the only penalty is for making contact with the returner himself. Weird scenario but it displays a point in the rule book where they honestly left a gap. I found no penalty or even a statement on where the ball should be spotted if a player is deemed to have impeded this opportunity but does not make contact with the returner.

[@RoyalMela]

Kicking team player made contact after the ball hit kick returner.

[@AndrewMyYouTubeThingsAndStuff]

Saw it live...odd rule issue as called but Notre Dame deserved some kind of instant karma for wasting a sweet fake punt play on trying to put UVA away before half time instead of saving it for a playoff game.

[@wompa70]

Fair catch eligibility should stop if the ball goes more than a yard away after touching it.

[@IsaacPunts]

This seems reasonable

[@goodmaro]

You really want officials to rule on that 3-foot distance in such a case? There's going to be a lot of 2'8" and 3'4" muffs to discriminate.

[@IsaacPunts]

@ it’s really not that combo of an experience

[@sumdolt8948]

Ah, so it's physically impossible to muff a punt. Good to know!

[@RoyalMela]

You can muff a punt easily.

[@ericjepson3765]

I hate when ppl are so bad at explaining simple things. The "rules analyst" should just say the punt never hit the ground... It's not a muff and he wasn't "given the chance" to complete the fair catch bc the other team caught it in the air.

[@sleekhangman1590]

Yeah but didn’t they go to the officials before the game and they gave the ok for the fake punt?

[@josephcarnevale2786]

On the fake punt, wouldn’t the individual receiving the ball need to actually be under center? This appeared to be a shotgun formation.

[@RoyalMela]

To get certain rules on your side on kick plays, you must be in kicking formation. Having a player under center is not a kicking formation.

[@ericdaniel323]

@@RoyalMela no one was under center

[@p_dux]

Not to be off topic or anything but isaac is going to have a field day when he sees the saints vs browns game💀

[@EpicConspiracy]

That’s a fumble

[@DuckoPlaysRoblox]

Ikr

[@fuhbox]

Well… Chris Boswell Did it Again…

[@jonathanbedsole1671]

The second call is a really bad interpretation of the rule. He had the opportunity to complete the fair catch and didn't. The ball bounced of the player and then was live.

[@ericdaniel323]

@@jonathanbedsole1671 it isn’t live on a fair catch until it touches the ground.

[@troopercoopert431]

2nd one is just flat out wrong

[@hieroglyph4721]

I was there... there was definitely some B.S. in the air.

[@ericdaniel323]

@@hieroglyph4721 I was in section 25. It felt like the refs were trying to force some mercy after it got to 35-0.

[@brendenstyre4784]

I’m not exaggerating, this game was the worst officiating I have ever seen. I hate the ACC refs. They always call bad games against notre dame but this game was horrible

[@jamessimms415]

Nationwide, college sports refereeing is on a downward spiral.

[@ericdaniel323]

@@jamessimms415 the ACC is leading the march down the drain. With the demise of the PAC-10, the ACC has the worst officials.

[@justjoking7756]

So ND got screwed on 3/4 touchdowns? lol

[@anthonymaxwell7320]

Oh hell naw if he muffs it into the air and other team play catches in the air it should just be a muff, announcer basically saying defender has to wait for the ball to hit the ground in order to grab a muff punt smh and u can get in the punt returner face as long as you don't touch him or make contact with him until he catches it or he calls for a fair catch but don't touch him get in his way of catching the ball

[@williamvandorn2892]

That rules analysts is wrong. That’s no5 a bobble or a muff,

[@plessis2023]

Football rules are wonky.

[@cinimatics]

Those are all dumb rules if you ask me.

[@RoyalMela]

We are not asking you, but thanks anyways.

[@sleekhangman1590]

@@RoyalMelasomeone woke up with an attitude

[@johnobrien1759]

There are too many rules in football

[@joshuamessenger]

The play didn't count because of JERSEY NUMBERS? What an arbitrary rule.

[@timbowden1680]

I thought it should have been flagged because ND had 3 guys moving before the snap.

[@thelendalrock8675]

@@timbowden1680doesn’t matter as long as they get set before the ball is snapped. Even one can still be in motion

[@checkmateking235]

I understand that refs are there to enforce the rules, but it's BS rules like this one that make me search for a less annoying alternative on the movie channels. 📺

[@njmksr8686]

I've also seen plenty of legitimate explanations as to why the formation was, in fact, legal. Very upset about that

[@SuperDuperHappyTime]

It doesn’t matter what the call was, because it was a makeup for absolutely fucking the second call.

[@cgh7337]

Penalty was lame asf. PR for a TD should've stood.

[@HolyShnikeez_1975]

My knowledge of football is average but my knowledge of sports gambling is better. ND needed to win by 22.5 and only won by 21 which is why there were so many $hitty calls

[@ericdaniel323]

@@HolyShnikeez_1975 the final line was 21.5 and there were some very weird calls at the end. Including the penalty in the fake punt that we will probably never see called again.

[@MajinSupernova]

1:00 this is NOT fair catch interference, not even close to it lmaoooo. They let him catch it unimpeded, but guess what? He didnt catch it, now it's a live football.

[@goodmaro]

Where the ball was coming down again after his muff, he could have caught it, so it's interference. His opportunity continues to exist until the catch becomes impossible due to the ball's touching the ground or bouncing so far away from him that he couldn't've gotten to it.

[@Christopher-tayso]

You missed the part where it says unimpeded opportunity to COMPLETE the catch.

[@teofilstevenson]

The rules really don’t matter to the result of the game when you play a weak ass schedule. If ND wants to be respected, outside of their fan base, then they would join the B10 or SEC. Though probably too late for that. Oh yea, they beat a mediocre A&M in the opener…woo-hoo! They won’t play anyone else of that same caliber the rest of the season…nor a better than mediocre opponent in a conference champ game. Here is a wild prediction, something that has never happened before: they get shellacked in the playoffs. A playoff spot in which they don’t deserve.

[@pseudohippie55]

So if you call for a fair catch, you can muff the catch? How is that fair?

[@HenryOesterle]

Nah he didn’t completely muff it cause it never hit the ground. Like if a ball is tipped then caught it’s still a catch. It technically shouldn’t have been a live ball until it hit the ground. Not that it mattered anyways

[@goodmaro]

@@HenryOesterle It was a live ball from the time it was snapped or free-kicked.

[@RoyalMela]

It becomes a muff only if the ball touches you and hits the ground.

[@Paul-p3p]

That’s some BS

[@TheCpadron19]

I'm just waiting for your next video explaining why Justin Tucker sucks now. Will you keep blaming the holder, or will you actually put some blame on Tucker himself?

[@calebwilliams2587]

He did have an opportunity to catch it unimpeded, he fucked up that chance, virginia ball

[@IsaacPunts]

Now I agree, but in the technicality of the rule book, he's still supposed to be protected even when "bobbling" it. Like technically he should be able to dive at the ball in the air under his protection and still be unimpeded. That being said I'm glad the on field refs interpreted the rule the way they did, great "no call"

[@timbowden1680]

@@IsaacPunts I'm not sure sending the ball 5 yards forward is 'bobbling'.

[@weet_bred]

So did the dude on the kickoff

[@IsaacPunts]

@@timbowden1680 I would agree to that as well, but I think “bobbling” in the technical sense just refers to the moment between it hitting the returners chest and the ground.

[@peterhenryzepeda3484]

He still has an opportunity while the ball is in the air

[@thehitomiboy7379]

Youre both wrong lmao. Not fair catch int

[@sunspots6077]

the second one I never saw a fair catch signal.. just from what was shown it was a muff, also after giving a fair catch signal the player that gave that signal loses protection if he is no longer making a bone fide effort to catch the ball,, The return man clearly no longer made any effort to catch the ball after the muff...even if he made a signal .. VA ball either way.. I could make an argument either way. so it defailts to ND. nNver listen to idiot TV people.... That last one was correct One of the hardest things in officiating is keeping track of eligible s in weird kicking plays goofy coaches dream up

[@67L48]

The fake punt is the absolute definition of poor coaching. It was run exactly as designed ... and it was designed in a way that was illegal. It's one thing when players fail to execute. It's another thing entirely when the coaches don't know the rules and design plays that end up being illegal. That should never happen. EVER.

[@crashnbl1]

You should not be allowed to call for a fair catch once a kicking team player is within two yards of you... it should be too late at that point

[@DORRogue]

i am not sorry for the obscenities i yelled towards the refs during the punt TD, nor am i sorry for the middle fingers thrown. Worst call ive ever seen in person

[@RoyalMela]

It was correct call, like or not. It was correct.

[@aheroictaxidriver3180]

The word is VERSUS, not verse!

[@BenMiller-j3f]

Hi

[@alacade111111]

Liv u isaac

[@IsaacPunts]

Liv u too alacade

[@crashnbl1]

​@@IsaacPuntsbro liv is awesome!

[@matrixphijr]

Good video. Wouldn't have known the illegal formation college rules, but at minimum that play was an illegal shift for multiple players in motion not resetting before the snap.

[@vmax4575]

The second one, the muffed punt reception is just that “muffed”. The receiver didn’t execute the catch. No one interferes with him and he just screwed up. Ball lost. It sounds like the guy trying to justify calling it a penalty is more likely an Irish fan.

[@goodmaro]

No, that's literally the rule as written.

[@RoyalMela]

No, that's literally the rule as written.

[@Xeractyll]

Is the first one different in college from NFL? I thought kickoffs were live balls, whether it touches someone or not. 2nd one is just stupid, "technically" correct under rules but we all know that the rule shouldn't apply here, whether correct or not. Bro failed that catch miserably. 3rd is super weird but I understand it at least. They tried fancy, but got too fancy for the rules.

[@TheUpAndComingNobody]

I'm not entirely sure about NFL, but in college. If the status of the ball is a kick (muff does NOT change the status of the ball) then it will be dead as soon as the kicking team possesses it. But if the receiving team fields it, then fumbles it, the kicking team can recover the fumble and progress it because the status of the ball at that point is a fumble, or a loose ball.

[@goodmaro]

Yes, kickoffs are live balls -- they're not dead balls! (What good would kicking off be if the ball remained dead?) But there's no difference in this case between NCAA and NFL in terms of whether the kicking team can advance the kick.

[@PrinceTalonSabre]

I only knew about the return team being unable to advance the ball of the 3. Huh. I also agree with you on that muffed punt situation. Glad the refs didnt call it, altho ND fans might not have liked it 😂

[@CombatIneffective]

Hey! I'm an ND fan. I am fine with that call there. He muffed it. To me that was a muffed punt and rightly recovered by the kicking team.

[@ORTHADOZ]

That was a late fair catch he should be penalized

[@sleekhangman1590]

For what? Fair catch signal is fair catch

[@Tryp-j9d]

A kick can ONLY be recovered by the kicking team. ??? Um…it can only be ADVANCED by the RECEIVING team. EITHER team CAN recover it. LEARN ENGLISH, GOOFBALL!!!

[@notmelenda]

Learn how to type

[@bpuryea]

All 3 rules are just the opening argument for what is wrong g with sports today. All sports. There are rules that just don't make sense, like all 3 of these There are rules that are too subjective like PI, a catch, a football move, in BBC charging, blocking, reaching, touching And there are rules that are ruined ing the game like targeting

[@RoyalMela]

They all make sense. Just because you think they are stupid, does not mean the rules are bad. They are not.

[@bpuryea]

@RoyalMela Agree to disagree!

[@sleekhangman1590]

@@bpuryea he’s an ND hater. Seen him reply to everybody.

[@YouTubetail]

Haha bro 🤣