Yea common sense has gone off a cliff. If kid tried to scoop and score or engage and block I would get it but he did none of that. Gotta just let em play then.
Wrong. He should have stopped IMMEDIATELY when his helmet came off. He should have felt it coming off. He "participated" in the play by running after the ball. I know it's instinct, I too played the sport. What if someone on the kicking team nailed him with his helmet off. Possibly, injuring him unnecessarily. I am going out on a limb in assuming each rule is debated on at length, by several different people in various fields of "expertise", excluding Monday morning quarterbacks The rule is a good one. Nothing bad about it.
UTEP ended up winning 24-21. Would've been a shame if they lost. I agree with what someone mentioned below that they shouldn't be allowed to retry EP. Should be enforced on kickoff.
@@elhior23 You had two sentences. One saying that isn't on the referee, and the other saying that is the rule. Both in response to what the original comment is saying. I'm only responding to the true point the original comment was making which is that it _shouldnt_ be the rule. But sure, you can insult my reading comprehension for no reason
I get that the 2 point conversion shouldn't count (although the rule is just implemented in a silly way), but why did they get to kick again? It should have just been a dead ball.
@@dougsholly9323 It’s just like any other live-ball penalty. FAU can either decline the penalty and take the outcome of the play, or accept the penalty and replay the try half the distance to the goal.
Not only did he block it with his helmet, he lowered his head, launched and used the crown of the helmet near the head/neck area of a defenseless ball. Therefore, this is technically targeting. He should have been ejected, and forced to sit out the next 164 quarters of football. (Yes, this is how bad the game rules are getting)
I think we need to determine whether he hit the ball low (illegal), high (also illegal) or middle (sometimes legal, but sometimes not legal depending on which way the wind blows the refs farts that day) before we can determine anything else. Since "low", "high" and "mid" are nothing more than social constructs, the way to do that is to ask said football what the part of it that was hit identified as in that moment. NOBODY should be allowed to force their concept of location on innocent footballs.
@@TheOriginalChronic Agreed! It may state that it identifies as all three (low, mid, upper). It would further claim that unwanted sexual contact was made by the player, and will file lawsuits shortly. Additionally, the ball will protest its use as a so called a "pig skin", when in reality it's made from cow hide (both members of the even toed ungulate genus). Backed by PETA, all balls made from such product (free range or farm factory raised) will protest worldwide by throwing cans of tomato soup at Van Gogh paintings at your local art museum.
Live ball foul during the kick. (Since no player had gotten possession of it, the kick continued.) No team change of possession before the foul. No loss of down. So if the offense has the choice of repeating the down (penalty enforced from the same spot) or accepting the result of the play and having the penalty enforced on the kickoff. They wanted that point, so they chose to repeat the down.
Yes to the first part, but because possession was not yet established when he participated and the play wasn't called dead, the penalty happened before the change of possession so it is applied prior to the change of possession. The scoring team is allowed to re-try the PAT.
He did immediately stop participating. He was penalized for unintentionally impeding the progress of a player he couldn't see. If he simply stops, then the ball touches him, that is also a penalty. What was he supposed to do?
Why would it not be a penalty in your book? The player continued to run after the ball and then got in the way of a player from the other team who was trying to get the ball... how is that not clear participation without a helmet?
Poor guy. Makes a great play and the refs erase it. Sometimes these highlight plays are great moments and memories in our personal lives. It sucks when they get wrongly taken away. Great play #23
He erased it himself by failing to strap his helmet on so it wouldn't come off. Wear your equipment correctly if you want to play the game. It's personal responsibility, and these kids need to learn the importance of it, or to accept the consequences.
It wasn't wrongly taken away. First off, it's likely that his helmet wasn't properly secured. If it had been, the kick wouldn't have been able to knock his helmet off. That's neither here nor there, however. It's been a rule for a long time now in college football that when a player's helmet comes off on the field, he cannot continue to participate in the action. The kid chased after the ball and even screened one of the kicking team's players from potentially recovering the ball. He realized his mistake, but the infraction had already been committed by then. Because the kick never crossed the line of scrimmage and there had been no change of possession on the play yet, his penalty was a live ball foul. That's why FAU got to retry the PAT.
the refs didn't "erase it"- the player made a penalty, the refs enforced the rules. when someone pulls off a well thought out robbery but get caught anyway, did the cops "erase" the robbery or did they do their job? rules are rules
Why did they get a rekick? Shouldn't it be like a block in the back after a interception? Where the interception counts but the run back gets called back?
Because until UTEP physically gains possession of the ball, even with it being loose, it's a penalty while FAU has "possession". It would actually be more similar an illegal contact penalty on the defense that occurs prior to an interception. That's why FAU gets the ball back and a rekick.
Think about it this way. The ball was still live. The kicking team was still theoretically in position to recover the ball and continue to try to score. In theory, a player on the kicking team could have picked the ball up and ran it into the end zone for two points. But he was impeded in his pursuit by a player without his helmet who was still running after the ball.
An exception is made for change in possession. In this case, the penalty occurred before the change in possession. Had he lost his helmet after his teammate picked the ball up, there would not have been a rekick and UTEP would have maintained possession.
@@basedbear1605”. . . at all . . .” Is incorrect. He did recognize that he couldn’t continue with the play before he got to the ball. Up to that point it appears he was acting by instinct to continue the play, which I think everyone is good with, and should be. You never want to player to stop immediately and walk off the field. If he did that anyway, he’d be in a worse position physically than where he ended up.
@@NWtoSFO That isn't the rule. The rule states that you will receive a personal foul if you continue to participate, which he did. "if a player's helmet comes off during play, he must not continue to participate in the play to prevent injury" (per NCAA rules) Nice try, but wrong.
@@steveswangler6373it’s a adrenaline thing to keep going once he relized what he was doing he stopped and u think 90% of players would have reacted the same way
Ok, after hearing the explanation, I understand that he wasn't penalized for losing his helmet but rather for interfering with the play AFTER losing his helmet. What I do NOT understand is the re-kick. The penalty occurred AFTER the extra point was blocked, so it should have been assessed on the kick-off. This isn't a field goal. It's an extra point. Either you make it or you do not. You don't get to RETAIN POSSESSION after missing an extra point, and you don't get another try simply because you recovered the blocked kick. If the penalty had been called BEFORE or DURING the extra point attempt, I would understand the replay, but it didn't. The penalty pretty clearly took place AFTER the kick was blocked. The penalty I get. The re-kick makes ZERO sense to me.
No the explanation is still crap, his immediate reaction was to go after the ball, then he quickly realized and took himself out the play. He had no affect on the opposing player whether intentional or unintentional. His teammate came up and blocked the same guy he supposedly affected. Even with all of that two guys from the opposing team had an opportunity to grab the ball untouched. This is just poor reffing by at its finest
@@grainofsalt9237 "Quickly" was 20-25 yards too late. If he takes 1-2 steps and pulls up, there is no penalty. He runs 20-25 yards down field then there is and should be. Doesn't matter how much or little you think he affected the play. Nostradamus was not one of the officials. They are not paid to guess how much the play was affected.
Because the penalty took place before the ball crossed the line of scrimmage (it actually never did cross), and the defense had not recovered yet. So it was a live ball and technically still an offensive play.
I am not real sure he actually did interfere, though. He seemed to be far enough out ahead of those other players that he wasn't in their way. One got blocked but by another helmeted player.
I knew UTEP was playing, but seeing the throwback Texas Western unis really threw me for a loop for a good few seconds. Good thing I watched Glory Road and remembered the connection.
By the rules, the re-kick should not have happened. The penalty happened after the blocked kick and because of his participation the play should have been called dead and the next play would have been effected (kick off). No redo of the previous play.
I've been watching pro and college football for 60 years and I don't recall ever seeing a player get injured after his helmet got knocked off. I've seen pretty much every other kind of injury, but not that one.
I mean, that's just not good reasoning..players used to die all the time because they didn't have helmets a century ago. The point is, that what happened on this play is not the purpose of the rule
@@packers256 True on the first part but I kinda beg to differ on the latter. Someone running after a loose ball and then getting close enough that he could easily have been slammed in a scrum for that loose ball... sounds even more dangerous to me than it did when I even started typing this sentence. His demonstrative raising of his hands and then turning away in my opinion actually hurts him more than it helps him in regards to the ruling, because that makes it obvious that he knew very well what he was doing and tried to bend the rule by participating but kinda not participating. And participate he does - he blocks an opponent's path to a loose ball. And in the process of doing this he could have easily gotten run over by an opponent going for said loose ball and sustained serious head injuries. Hence I don't really think the call here was not in the spirit of the rule at all.
He got flagged because he cut off #10 who would have gotten to the ball first. That's when he became an active participant. He didn't do it intentionally but because he ran and then stopped when he did, he actively blocked #10 from the ball.
@@themandownthehall I saw what happened, and it was clearly unintentional and highly questionable if it affected the play at all. That sort of thing is such a freak occurrence that it's shocking to me that he even had the presence of mind (even when seeing the flag) to run out of the play. The refs have to go by the book, but how can you penalize a guy for that?
Years ago Federation rule books *did* include such flow charts. The National Federation of State High School Associations has put out some great sports rule books over the years, very easy to use.
I'm okay with not allowing the play to continue but the field goal was blocked they should not have given another play it was almost like the Tennessee Titan rec in the 2002 NFL playoffs....crazy!
Yeah, if you're going to call that (which I wouldn't have to begin with), the penalty occurred after the kick was blocked, so the yards should have been assessed on the kickoff. No score for UTEP, but no second chance for FAU either.
Even though the PAT was blocked and behind the line of scrimmage, the ball was still live. So FAU could still pick up the ball and score for a successful 2-pt conversion. That penalty is like any other defensive penalty. If the kick is unsuccessful and the defense commits a penalty, the kicking team(offense) gets a second shot closer in.
Wrong, there was no clear recovery before the player with no helmet interfered with #10's path to the ball. Without the helmet less player getting in the way, 10 could have grabbed the ball and ran it in for 2 points. The reason for the re-kick was that the play was still in progress and possession had not yet changed hands.
And if you refused to enforce the rules, as written, your assignor will de-rate you and probably remove you from college assignments for a couple weeks. And you can forget about post-season work for a couple years. We can't pick and choose which rules we want to enforce just because we "don't like them".
That’s old school football you don’t stop till the whistle blown. Dude was trying to go for the win. I do understand safety first, but who wouldn’t go after a block FG to help your team win.
letting them redo the extra points is the most bullshit thing. the kick was blocked. then the foul was made after the blocked kick. the foul applies to the two points conversion not the extra point kick. Absolute insanity
The penalty occurred during the loose ball after the block. The kicking team has an opportunity to recover and advance the ball, possibly even scoring. It's not like in high school where a blocked try can't be advanced.
@@daytonduck No, the play should have been blown dead as soon as the helmet comes off. There is no "live" ball as soon as the helmet comes off. Dead ball = no extra point.
@@richardallangarcia you are incorrect. Here is the text from NCAA Rule book, Rule 3, Section 3, Article 9, subparagraph c. If the ball carrier’s helmet comes off as in paragraph a (above) the ball is dead (Rule 4-1-3-q). If the player is not the ball carrier the ball remains alive, but that player must not continue to participate in the play beyond the immediate action of which they are engaged. Prolonged participation is a personal foul (Rule 9-1-17). By definition such a player is obviously out of the play (Rule 9-1-12-b). By that text, the correct call was to allow the play to continue so long as #23 did not become the ball carrier.
@@daytonduck Okay, I'm following you, SO if a personal foul is called AFTER the blocked kick, during a live ball, then any recovery by the defense is negated? In other words, only the offense can recover and advance the ball? Because in this case, #23 did not become the ball carrier, his teammate did. But, the recovery was influenced by #23's actions, so his teammate should not be allowed not only to advance the ball, but even simply recover it because of the personal foul actions. Therefore, only the kicking-team can legally do anything with the ball. In that case, the defense should have allowed the kicking-team to recover the ball, then immediately tackled them. Is that right!?
@@richardallangarcia since this was a try, here's the set of possible scenarios once #23 continues to participate in the play without his helmet: A) 23 recovers the ball>>it's dead immediately, personal foul is assessed and the kicking team can re-attempt the try. B) 23's teammate recovers the ball while down>>same as A above. C) 23's teammate recovers and advances the ball>>either it's coming back for the penalty, or, if he somehow loses it, a kicking team player can recover and possibly advance it. D) A kicking-team player recovers the ball >> they can attempt to advance it, including by forward pass, or even score by drop-kick. If successful, they will decline the penalty (unless they scored by drop-kick and are willing to erase that score from history for a chance at going for 2 from slightly closer to the goal line), and if unsuccessful, they will accept the penalty. E) same as D, except the kicking team commits a penalty, as well, (e.g., holding, IBB, pass interference or ineligible downfield, all of which are likely given the confusion) >> offsetting penalties, attempt the try again. With this in mind, when I officiated youth games, (JV, Pop Warner, etc.) it was common for officials to blow the ball dead on a breakaway play when the defense committed a penalty prior to change in possession. While it's "highly discouraged" (that is, you'll get marked down and likely unassigned) in HS and higher, at lower levels, it's considered "preventative officiating". As far as "who can advance the ball" both teams can advance a scrimmage kick that has not crossed the line of scrimmage, regardless of other penalties committed. Since no one official likely knows the full set of circumstances until the ball is dead by rule, they really NEED to allow the play to continue. Then, after the play, they confer, figure out what happened, assess any penalties, and set the ball for the next play. That process happens about 180 times on an average game. Most of the time there are no penalties, timeouts, etc., so they just shout or hand-signal the status to each other, setup and move on. When there's a penalty, or the goal-line or line-to-gain are threatened, or the line-of-scrimmage or forward-pass rules are in doubt, it slows *a little bit*, but not much. Next time you watch a game (preferably one you're not invested in), watch the refs. If you get a chance to watch something like the bowl games from the Skycam, watch that broadcast. It's a very well-executed ballet of signals, commands, and judgment calls performed very quickly, and it usually is so smooth you never notice it!
I can see why the helmetless guy got a flag thrown. He did kinda participate after since he boxxed out the opposing team. However, a re kick? Are you kidding?
But, the penalty occurred after the kick was blocked. I can see negating the 2 points but he didn’t participate in the play after he realized he didn’t have his helmet and that shouldn’t negate the blocked kick.
You would think by this point in sports with all the reviews and help from the booth that calls like this would be done right and not affect games, it’s really pathetic that this many people can mess up
I think it's one of those rules that needs some clarifications. If you have a player catch a pass, have his helmet pulled off which keeps him from being tackled he shouldn't be penalized if he scores. Jason Whitten did that while playing for Dallas as I recall but was not penalized. What if a running back has his pulled off but now has open field or is already a few steps from the endzone when it happens? Should he be required to stop? What if there's no flag for face mask because that isn't what knocked if off? What of he is tackled after he stops and there is already a flag?...you can't add to it. I can see why we have it but it doesn't seem like it is sufficiently fleshed out.
This also just happened last weekend in the San Jose state- Reno game where a San Jose player lost his helmet and was also penalized for continuing to play.
I totally get why so many people disagree with allowing a second attempt at a conversion - you want to see the original block rewarded. I feel the same way. But the sad fact is that the penalty occurred while the ball was still live, and either team could have scored. In theory his participation could have prevented the kicking team from advancing the ball into the end zone had they recovered (it was a block, not a fumble) - the ball is not dead following a black. If the defense takes a penalty on a conversion attempt, the offense gets to re-try the conversion - it's just that simple.
@@tatertots0046 The refs disagreed, though; the folks I'm replying to are the ones who wondered why the flag wasn't enforced on the kickoff rather than the try. Whether he participated is debatable; everyone agrees he realized he couldn't pick up the ball, but before his hands went up he was arguably an obstacle to the offense recovering the block. The refs no doubt considered that his illegal participation. It does seem very unfair but those are the breaks sometimes.
@@johnmcaraher he was in between the ball and the entire offense when his helmet was knocked off so how can you say he was an obstacle? It was horrible call by the refs
@@tatertots0046 My main point is that the refs could not enforce this penalty on the ensuing kickoff, regardless of how bad their call was. Beyond that I'm just trying to imagine what they thought they saw. After the helmet came off the kick blocker chased the loose ball and passed the kicker and holder; I'm guessing the refs flagged that part of the play on the basis of his possibly impeding a recovery by the kicking team. But I think that's a weak basis for a call; he didn't throw a block, barely got in the way of one player, and within 2 seconds put his hands in the air and tried to get out of the play. So I think they basically called him for carrying his own momentum forward for two seconds, which I agree totally sucks. To recap: I don't think it was a good call, but given that they made it, it had to be enforced the way they did.
Actually the call was correct, he did continue and interfered or participated in the play after his helmet was off. Even he realized it but can’t blame him for going after the ball from instinct. I don’t like the rule because it goes against the training of 99.9999999% of all football scenarios. But it is a rule, like it or not. Hate the rule not the refs
The penalizing of UTEP for illegal participation itself was correct, but the issue is how said penalty was enforced. The illegal participation occured only after the kick was blocked, which, yes, erased the touchdown. But the extra point was no good and instead should have been a kickoff by FAU, albiet with UTEP recieving the penalty yards then. In a gross oversimplification of the ref's logic, the UTEP player was basically penalized for doing everything he can to block the kick (you know, the job he's suppossed to be doing) by using a body part that was properly protected. This was bad calling, misinterpretation by the refs of the rulebook, or intereference by NCAA or conference officiating officials. Or Vegas just gambling on games like usual.
Why would the TD be erased because the PAT kick was blocked? The ball didn't cross the line of scrimmage, so that is likely why the penalty was assesed for a rekick.
This type of stuff turns people off to the game. It’s a sports game meant to be enjoyed. Total lack of common sense here to give him that penalty. The fact he even realized in the moment he shouldn’t touch the ball is impressive
These players aren't robots. They're not going to instantly shutdown if their helmet is unexpectedly knocked off. It's like the ppl who write these rules never played a down in their life.
@@JessyFinch you also gotta secure it properly. This rule was put in because too many players were wearing it loose so helmets were falling off all the time.
Ok, i can understand thats there is no 2-Point conversion. But the starting play was over and blocked, why did they get a new Extra-point- attemt? Play was over after the block, game should continued with kick-off ...
The player didn't participate after he lost his helmet. He didn't block anyone. He didn't tackle anyone. He didn't touch the ball. I'm no fan of UTEP, but they got hosed on that call.
It was unintentional, but he very clearly blocked an opposing player from getting to the ball. That has to be called, otherwise FAU would be getting "hosed". The only issue is whether FAU should have been allowed to rekick. I don't know what the rule is there, so I don't know what the correct ruling is.
Most ridiculous sh*t I've ever seen. Happy UTEP won in the end. BTW, those Texas Western throwback uniforms are about the coolest thing I've ever seen!
I swear that every game I watch, there’s always some archaic penalty called that I’ve never heard of. It’s one of the things that’s making me slightly lose interest in football.
Penalty occurred while FAU was still considered in possession. Possession doesn't change until UTEP physically possesses the ball. Think of it like if FAU had fumbled, but before the fumble, the was a penalty on the defense for illegal hands to the face. FAU would get the ball back - it's the same principle.
There was a play similar to this where a player lost his helmet but was completely alone running it into the end zone but they had to call it back to where he lost the helmet .
Misleading title to this video. He was not penalized because the ball knocked his helmet off, he was penalized because after his helmet was knocked off he participated in the play by running after the ball with his helmet off. Makes sense.
Wow, so a very random rule that's gotta be super old & im sure that they're gonna vote to have it removed from the rulebook because the athlete NEVER touched the ball, but based on the rule, he did originally chase after it, but he NEVER hindered anyone else. I'm calling that super lame and I feel for the team as I'm sure that even the coach never heard of such a rule.
It was instinct for the player to run towards the ball. It was common sense that made him pull out of the play to surrender himself. The player should have been given credit for having the piece of mind to do just that.
He should use those straps his helmet is equipped with to make sure it can't be knocked off so easily. I'm sure his coaches will make sure he, and the rest of the team, doesn't have that problem next week.
For those who have never played the game, it's hard to appreciate the speed of game progression. The time from when he realized his helmet was gone as he was still moving forward and knew he needed to stop should be factored in. He never actually had an impact on the play and the officials should know this when imposing this penalty. BTW, being hit in the head with a kicked ball can cause a concussion. He could have blacked out for a second--yes, still moving forward. Concussions are weird.
I agree with you everywhere except him not having an impact on the play. Him initially going for the ball allowed for a block to he thrown, had he not been there. It would have been recovered POSSIBLY. But him being there definitely had an impact
@@bakedpotatow Yeah and that’s why they ultimately called it. I have a feeling if he’d just stopped and not intentionally gotten in another player’s way, it’s a no-call.
That was the correct call. Once your helmet comes off, by the ball or otherwise, you are required to stop participating in the play. He clearly ran toward the ball and ended up attempting to impede an opponent.
If he was to touch the ball or actually physically block someone...sure, but that's not what happened. After he dipped, the other team landed on the ball and it got pushed out and then the blocking team picked it up. I don't trust these rules that help favor betters.
This makes no sense. Regardless of what he did after the block, why would they get another kick? It should have just been a failed try then. Honestly, even though I think it was a bad call, the guy right behind him blocked another guy on the back, so the return still shouldn't have counted.
Wow. Just when one thinks they've seen everything. Dudes helmut gets popped off by a kicked ball and yet he gets penalized which gave the kicker a rekick. I would love to see how they came up with that one from the rule book.
I just don't understand why they got to kick the extra point again. Negate the recovery and 2 point conversion, fine, but what did that have to do with the blocked kick.
So, if any player loses their helmet they aren't supposed to 'participate'? So if a player is running with the ball and he gets his helmet knocked/taken off he has to drop down to one knee immediately or else he will get penalized for participation?
Essentially the other team shouldnt get awarded for the other team taking their helmet off. In this case the football unintentionally hits his helmet and would leave a 10 to 11 playing field. Which is already just unfair. And then giving them a rekick that is also closer is bs. I dont watch college football because of broken shit like this targeting and pass interference.
@@ratdaddee it's a signal like my bad didn't know helmet was off I didn't do that And if you see replay the football was the HOODLUM responsible for the incident
LOL. He's penalized because it took him a moment to realize what was going on and that he had to get out of the play. By this logic anyone who's helmet comes off should be penalized as they will always at least get in the way. Never seen a defender who lost their helmet and finished a tackle get penalized. Never seen a running back who finished a run after their helmet came off get penalized. It is the selective enforcement of rules that is the problem. Dude was clearly trying to comply.
The rules in this game are specific and do not call for much if any discretion by the refs. The people who write these rules need to consider all angles and all possibilities prior to the rule being put in place.
Since no one has mentioned this yet. And I think it is a possibility. I think it shouldn't be a penalty for the reasoning of after sustaining the impact of a kicked ball to his head. It is very possible he was momentarily stun/confused, and was just doing what his instincts told him which is what has been taught to him for years, and that is get the ball. After he fully recovered from the hit to the head he realized the situation and stopped playing. With that in mind it seems kinda dumb to penalize a player for being "injuried". I am more just saying this is a possibility that the refs should be considered when looking at this play and it shouldn't be a penalty
I think this is a prime example of what happens when you implement well-intentioned rules and then just blindly follow them right off a cliff.
Yea common sense has gone off a cliff. If kid tried to scoop and score or engage and block I would get it but he did none of that. Gotta just let em play then.
The rules are the rules anyway
the networks and the advertisers have ruined college football.....and now the players are getting paid? 😂😂😂 garbage
Great comment.
Wrong. He should have stopped IMMEDIATELY when his helmet came off.
He should have felt it coming off. He "participated" in the play by running after the ball. I know it's instinct, I too played the sport.
What if someone on the kicking team nailed him with his helmet off. Possibly, injuring him unnecessarily.
I am going out on a limb in assuming each rule is debated on at length, by several different people in various fields of "expertise", excluding Monday morning quarterbacks
The rule is a good one. Nothing bad about it.
UTEP ended up winning 24-21. Would've been a shame if they lost. I agree with what someone mentioned below that they shouldn't be allowed to retry EP. Should be enforced on kickoff.
Not on the refs though. That is the rule.
@@elhior23 true
@@elhior23 dumb rules should be pointed out as dumb rules
@@10thletter40 Reading comprehension is not your thing? That was exactly my point.
@@elhior23 You had two sentences. One saying that isn't on the referee, and the other saying that is the rule. Both in response to what the original comment is saying.
I'm only responding to the true point the original comment was making which is that it _shouldnt_ be the rule.
But sure, you can insult my reading comprehension for no reason
Play-by-play guy did a really good job explaining the situation. He seems to have a good handle on the rules too. Very refreshing.
Yeah he killed it
he’s definitely in the right line of work, good commentary
Get him a better game to cover
I get that the 2 point conversion shouldn't count (although the rule is just implemented in a silly way), but why did they get to kick again? It should have just been a dead ball.
@@dougsholly9323 It’s just like any other live-ball penalty. FAU can either decline the penalty and take the outcome of the play, or accept the penalty and replay the try half the distance to the goal.
Not only did he block it with his helmet, he lowered his head, launched and used the crown of the helmet near the head/neck area of a defenseless ball. Therefore, this is technically targeting. He should have been ejected, and forced to sit out the next 164 quarters of football.
(Yes, this is how bad the game rules are getting)
Was the ball defenseless though? I would have thought at that point it would be considered a runner.
I think we need to determine whether he hit the ball low (illegal), high (also illegal) or middle (sometimes legal, but sometimes not legal depending on which way the wind blows the refs farts that day) before we can determine anything else. Since "low", "high" and "mid" are nothing more than social constructs, the way to do that is to ask said football what the part of it that was hit identified as in that moment. NOBODY should be allowed to force their concept of location on innocent footballs.
@@TheOriginalChronic Agreed!
It may state that it identifies as all three (low, mid, upper). It would further claim that unwanted sexual contact was made by the player, and will file lawsuits shortly.
Additionally, the ball will protest its use as a so called a "pig skin", when in reality it's made from cow hide (both members of the even toed ungulate genus). Backed by PETA, all balls made from such product (free range or farm factory raised) will protest worldwide by throwing cans of tomato soup at Van Gogh paintings at your local art museum.
Hold up, hold up, hold up you both are wrong because we need to establish what a defenseless ball looks like first.
someone check the air pressure in that ball!
the refs this year are truly wild ASF out here looking goofy as hell all confused
Refs were just doing their job, blame the rules committee if u really want to
@@popfizz55 no I will blame Putin
@@popfizz55 no
@@codyrileywilliams6342 Him, too!
Strange play, officials are just doing what they are supposed to. They got the call right.
Even if it’s a penalty, it was after the kick. How do they get to retry the kick? It should’ve been enforced on the kickoff…
Live ball foul during the kick. (Since no player had gotten possession of it, the kick continued.) No team change of possession before the foul. No loss of down. So if the offense has the choice of repeating the down (penalty enforced from the same spot) or accepting the result of the play and having the penalty enforced on the kickoff. They wanted that point, so they chose to repeat the down.
The play should’ve been called dead after the helmet came off. CUSA officials already stated they made the wrong call by replaying the down.
@@raulvizcarra1899 lol, no
@@gmarolda no what?
@@raulvizcarra1899 the play should not have been called dead.
yea, you have to IMMEDIATELY stop participating. They really shouldn't get another shot at it, though. It's after the kick.
Yes to the first part, but because possession was not yet established when he participated and the play wasn't called dead, the penalty happened before the change of possession so it is applied prior to the change of possession.
The scoring team is allowed to re-try the PAT.
He did immediately stop participating. He was penalized for unintentionally impeding the progress of a player he couldn't see. If he simply stops, then the ball touches him, that is also a penalty. What was he supposed to do?
@@roberthudson1959 I agree. Also a player should be allowed to protect themselves especially if they lose a helmet imo lol
@@roberthudson1959 Peeling off at the end isn't the issue, chasing the ball 30 yards downfield is.
@@roberthudson1959 he ran 20 yards downfield chasing the ball 😂. That is not stopping and removing himself from play immediately.
You can't hear it very well in the video but let me tell you this crowd was HEATED for a while after this.
Can’t blame them lol
Sure we're. Was there. The refs took so long to come to their decision did not help the matter either.
Billy, I'm a Seahawks fan..
@@TheGtagtr I'm happy for you
Bullshit chant
This is one of those "1 in a billion" moments. Talk about using your head to block the PAT. At least give him that much.
He needed some FACE time.
Like that georgia tech game?
At the minimum The blocked kick should have counted because it was before helmet came off
@@tyelerhiggins300 Could you share that? I wanna see.
don't think that was the intention
The penalty (not in my book) took place after the blocked kick, so shouldn’t it have been assessed on the kickoff? Why did they get a 2nd chance?
No one had possession of the ball. Well, his team didn't have possession of the ball at the time
Why would it not be a penalty in your book? The player continued to run after the ball and then got in the way of a player from the other team who was trying to get the ball... how is that not clear participation without a helmet?
The ball was still live!!!
@@djsideeye564 He didn't "get in the way" of anyone dear TW fan.
@@djsideeye564 he didn’t get in the way that’s a BS call
I was at the game!!! The whole crowd was pissed!! It was crazy!
Only because the "fans" (short for fanatics) don't know the rules and have never played organized sports themselves.
Poor guy. Makes a great play and the refs erase it. Sometimes these highlight plays are great moments and memories in our personal lives. It sucks when they get wrongly taken away. Great play #23
He erased it himself by failing to strap his helmet on so it wouldn't come off. Wear your equipment correctly if you want to play the game. It's personal responsibility, and these kids need to learn the importance of it, or to accept the consequences.
It wasn't wrongly taken away. First off, it's likely that his helmet wasn't properly secured. If it had been, the kick wouldn't have been able to knock his helmet off. That's neither here nor there, however. It's been a rule for a long time now in college football that when a player's helmet comes off on the field, he cannot continue to participate in the action. The kid chased after the ball and even screened one of the kicking team's players from potentially recovering the ball. He realized his mistake, but the infraction had already been committed by then. Because the kick never crossed the line of scrimmage and there had been no change of possession on the play yet, his penalty was a live ball foul. That's why FAU got to retry the PAT.
the refs didn't "erase it"- the player made a penalty, the refs enforced the rules.
when someone pulls off a well thought out robbery but get caught anyway, did the cops "erase" the robbery or did they do their job? rules are rules
Why did they get a rekick? Shouldn't it be like a block in the back after a interception? Where the interception counts but the run back gets called back?
Because until UTEP physically gains possession of the ball, even with it being loose, it's a penalty while FAU has "possession". It would actually be more similar an illegal contact penalty on the defense that occurs prior to an interception. That's why FAU gets the ball back and a rekick.
Think about it this way. The ball was still live. The kicking team was still theoretically in position to recover the ball and continue to try to score. In theory, a player on the kicking team could have picked the ball up and ran it into the end zone for two points. But he was impeded in his pursuit by a player without his helmet who was still running after the ball.
An exception is made for change in possession. In this case, the penalty occurred before the change in possession. Had he lost his helmet after his teammate picked the ball up, there would not have been a rekick and UTEP would have maintained possession.
Good on the player for knowing he couldn't advance the ball after losing his helmet
Unfortunately, the rule is that he can have no further participation in the play.
If that thought had occurred to him 20-25 yards sooner, there would have been a 3 point swing in his team's favor.
He didn't know the rule at all... or he would have STOPPED participating and his team would have gotten 2 points.
@@basedbear1605”. . . at all . . .” Is incorrect. He did recognize that he couldn’t continue with the play before he got to the ball. Up to that point it appears he was acting by instinct to continue the play, which I think everyone is good with, and should be. You never want to player to stop immediately and walk off the field. If he did that anyway, he’d be in a worse position physically than where he ended up.
@@NWtoSFO That isn't the rule. The rule states that you will receive a personal foul if you continue to participate, which he did. "if a player's helmet comes off during play, he must not continue to participate in the play to prevent injury" (per NCAA rules)
Nice try, but wrong.
Na his adrenaline was pumping, his instincts kicked in but then his brain reacted and he put his hands up. I think he reacted perfectly imo
if he had reacted "perfectly" he wouldn't have chased the ball at all after blocking it.
@@steveswangler6373it’s a adrenaline thing to keep going once he relized what he was doing he stopped and u think 90% of players would have reacted the same way
@@steveswangler6373you never played sports huh?
@@steveswangler6373or tell us you did and what you would have 100% done correctly in the situation!!!
It’s still against the rule
Ok, after hearing the explanation, I understand that he wasn't penalized for losing his helmet but rather for interfering with the play AFTER losing his helmet.
What I do NOT understand is the re-kick. The penalty occurred AFTER the extra point was blocked, so it should have been assessed on the kick-off.
This isn't a field goal. It's an extra point. Either you make it or you do not.
You don't get to RETAIN POSSESSION after missing an extra point, and you don't get another try simply because you recovered the blocked kick.
If the penalty had been called BEFORE or DURING the extra point attempt, I would understand the replay, but it didn't. The penalty pretty clearly took place AFTER the kick was blocked.
The penalty I get.
The re-kick makes ZERO sense to me.
No the explanation is still crap, his immediate reaction was to go after the ball, then he quickly realized and took himself out the play. He had no affect on the opposing player whether intentional or unintentional. His teammate came up and blocked the same guy he supposedly affected. Even with all of that two guys from the opposing team had an opportunity to grab the ball untouched. This is just poor reffing by at its finest
@@grainofsalt9237 "Quickly" was 20-25 yards too late. If he takes 1-2 steps and pulls up, there is no penalty. He runs 20-25 yards down field then there is and should be.
Doesn't matter how much or little you think he affected the play. Nostradamus was not one of the officials. They are not paid to guess how much the play was affected.
Because the penalty took place before the ball crossed the line of scrimmage (it actually never did cross), and the defense had not recovered yet. So it was a live ball and technically still an offensive play.
I am not real sure he actually did interfere, though. He seemed to be far enough out ahead of those other players that he wasn't in their way. One got blocked but by another helmeted player.
The referee thought he saw Tom Brady about 20 yards away from where the helmet landed and instantly panicked.
I knew UTEP was playing, but seeing the throwback Texas Western unis really threw me for a loop for a good few seconds. Good thing I watched Glory Road and remembered the connection.
By the rules, the re-kick should not have happened. The penalty happened after the blocked kick and because of his participation the play should have been called dead and the next play would have been effected (kick off). No redo of the previous play.
UPDATE: UTEP won with a Field Goal before the 4th Quarter ended.
Ball don’t lie
Vegas calling about the point spread.
I've been watching pro and college football for 60 years and I don't recall ever seeing a player get injured after his helmet got knocked off. I've seen pretty much every other kind of injury, but not that one.
And wouldn't you prefer it remain that way?
I mean, that's just not good reasoning..players used to die all the time because they didn't have helmets a century ago. The point is, that what happened on this play is not the purpose of the rule
@@packers256 True on the first part but I kinda beg to differ on the latter. Someone running after a loose ball and then getting close enough that he could easily have been slammed in a scrum for that loose ball... sounds even more dangerous to me than it did when I even started typing this sentence. His demonstrative raising of his hands and then turning away in my opinion actually hurts him more than it helps him in regards to the ruling, because that makes it obvious that he knew very well what he was doing and tried to bend the rule by participating but kinda not participating. And participate he does - he blocks an opponent's path to a loose ball. And in the process of doing this he could have easily gotten run over by an opponent going for said loose ball and sustained serious head injuries. Hence I don't really think the call here was not in the spirit of the rule at all.
@@jonashelmke2564 This is possibly the most compelling ,complex ,and complete RUclips comment I’ve ever read. Bravo on making a great point.
@@austonmcclure5921 Thank you! A compliment on a point I'm making, now that is a first around here for me as well.
What in the Hell!??? The ball knocked the guy's helmet off, he didn't participate in the play after that...and he got flagged?! Insanity!
He got flagged because he cut off #10 who would have gotten to the ball first. That's when he became an active participant. He didn't do it intentionally but because he ran and then stopped when he did, he actively blocked #10 from the ball.
@@themandownthehall I saw what happened, and it was clearly unintentional and highly questionable if it affected the play at all. That sort of thing is such a freak occurrence that it's shocking to me that he even had the presence of mind (even when seeing the flag) to run out of the play. The refs have to go by the book, but how can you penalize a guy for that?
@@themandownthehall#10 was not the closest to the ball. Try again.
football rules are getting ridiculous, need a encyclopedia and a flowchart to enforce these
Years ago Federation rule books *did* include such flow charts. The National Federation of State High School Associations has put out some great sports rule books over the years, very easy to use.
I'm okay with not allowing the play to continue but the field goal was blocked they should not have given another play it was almost like the Tennessee Titan rec in the 2002 NFL playoffs....crazy!
Nah, ball never made it past the line, so it was a live ball, but a change in possession had not yet occurred.
To be honest I didn't even know UTEP had a football team
The fans blew it. They should have thrown trash on the field until the refs reversed the call.
Good reference (although it sounds like this time it was actually the correct ruling, just a bad rule)
Better yet, fans go home and throw trash in their own yard.
Yeah, if you're going to call that (which I wouldn't have to begin with), the penalty occurred after the kick was blocked, so the yards should have been assessed on the kickoff. No score for UTEP, but no second chance for FAU either.
Even though the PAT was blocked and behind the line of scrimmage, the ball was still live. So FAU could still pick up the ball and score for a successful 2-pt conversion. That penalty is like any other defensive penalty. If the kick is unsuccessful and the defense commits a penalty, the kicking team(offense) gets a second shot closer in.
Wrong, there was no clear recovery before the player with no helmet interfered with #10's path to the ball. Without the helmet less player getting in the way, 10 could have grabbed the ball and ran it in for 2 points. The reason for the re-kick was that the play was still in progress and possession had not yet changed hands.
And if you refused to enforce the rules, as written, your assignor will de-rate you and probably remove you from college assignments for a couple weeks. And you can forget about post-season work for a couple years.
We can't pick and choose which rules we want to enforce just because we "don't like them".
Good thing UTEP won this game. Can't imagine the anger if they'd lost.
Anger for not understanding football rules? That’s a common “anger” these days
Oh, it's the classic... "We can't review a play and then add a penalty... but we're going to this time cAuSe ReAsOnS!!"
Talk about a strange series of events in a football play
But can we talk about halfway through the fans were like: oh crap we should be cheering
They were. The volume raise was due to poor sound quality. It happened all game
That’s old school football you don’t stop till the whistle blown. Dude was trying to go for the win. I do understand safety first, but who wouldn’t go after a block FG to help your team win.
letting them redo the extra points is the most bullshit thing. the kick was blocked. then the foul was made after the blocked kick. the foul applies to the two points conversion not the extra point kick. Absolute insanity
The penalty occurred during the loose ball after the block. The kicking team has an opportunity to recover and advance the ball, possibly even scoring. It's not like in high school where a blocked try can't be advanced.
@@daytonduck No, the play should have been blown dead as soon as the helmet comes off. There is no "live" ball as soon as the helmet comes off. Dead ball = no extra point.
@@richardallangarcia you are incorrect. Here is the text from NCAA Rule book, Rule 3, Section 3, Article 9, subparagraph c.
If the ball carrier’s helmet comes off as in paragraph a (above) the ball is dead (Rule 4-1-3-q). If the player is not the ball carrier the ball remains alive, but that player must not continue to participate in the play beyond the immediate action of which they are engaged. Prolonged participation is a personal foul (Rule 9-1-17). By definition such a player is obviously out of the play (Rule 9-1-12-b).
By that text, the correct call was to allow the play to continue so long as #23 did not become the ball carrier.
@@daytonduck Okay, I'm following you, SO if a personal foul is called AFTER the blocked kick, during a live ball, then any recovery by the defense is negated? In other words, only the offense can recover and advance the ball? Because in this case, #23 did not become the ball carrier, his teammate did. But, the recovery was influenced by #23's actions, so his teammate should not be allowed not only to advance the ball, but even simply recover it because of the personal foul actions. Therefore, only the kicking-team can legally do anything with the ball. In that case, the defense should have allowed the kicking-team to recover the ball, then immediately tackled them. Is that right!?
@@richardallangarcia since this was a try, here's the set of possible scenarios once #23 continues to participate in the play without his helmet:
A) 23 recovers the ball>>it's dead immediately, personal foul is assessed and the kicking team can re-attempt the try.
B) 23's teammate recovers the ball while down>>same as A above.
C) 23's teammate recovers and advances the ball>>either it's coming back for the penalty, or, if he somehow loses it, a kicking team player can recover and possibly advance it.
D) A kicking-team player recovers the ball >> they can attempt to advance it, including by forward pass, or even score by drop-kick. If successful, they will decline the penalty (unless they scored by drop-kick and are willing to erase that score from history for a chance at going for 2 from slightly closer to the goal line), and if unsuccessful, they will accept the penalty.
E) same as D, except the kicking team commits a penalty, as well, (e.g., holding, IBB, pass interference or ineligible downfield, all of which are likely given the confusion) >> offsetting penalties, attempt the try again.
With this in mind, when I officiated youth games, (JV, Pop Warner, etc.) it was common for officials to blow the ball dead on a breakaway play when the defense committed a penalty prior to change in possession. While it's "highly discouraged" (that is, you'll get marked down and likely unassigned) in HS and higher, at lower levels, it's considered "preventative officiating".
As far as "who can advance the ball" both teams can advance a scrimmage kick that has not crossed the line of scrimmage, regardless of other penalties committed. Since no one official likely knows the full set of circumstances until the ball is dead by rule, they really NEED to allow the play to continue. Then, after the play, they confer, figure out what happened, assess any penalties, and set the ball for the next play. That process happens about 180 times on an average game. Most of the time there are no penalties, timeouts, etc., so they just shout or hand-signal the status to each other, setup and move on. When there's a penalty, or the goal-line or line-to-gain are threatened, or the line-of-scrimmage or forward-pass rules are in doubt, it slows *a little bit*, but not much.
Next time you watch a game (preferably one you're not invested in), watch the refs. If you get a chance to watch something like the bowl games from the Skycam, watch that broadcast. It's a very well-executed ballet of signals, commands, and judgment calls performed very quickly, and it usually is so smooth you never notice it!
Imagine being the ref that calls this and then genuinely thinking you did a good job after
It still should have counted as a blocked extra point
and the penalty assessed on the kickoff, the penalty
happened after the play.
I can see why the helmetless guy got a flag thrown. He did kinda participate after since he boxxed out the opposing team.
However, a re kick? Are you kidding?
But, the penalty occurred after the kick was blocked. I can see negating the 2 points but he didn’t participate in the play after he realized he didn’t have his helmet and that shouldn’t negate the blocked kick.
You would think by this point in sports with all the reviews and help from the booth that calls like this would be done right and not affect games, it’s really pathetic that this many people can mess up
The refs got it right tho lol
it was the right call, the rule is just bad
Nope wrong call
The call was correct, the rule might suck, but they got it right
@@richardallangarcia Elaborate or be full of shit.
I think it's one of those rules that needs some clarifications.
If you have a player catch a pass, have his helmet pulled off which keeps him from being tackled he shouldn't be penalized if he scores.
Jason Whitten did that while playing for Dallas as I recall but was not penalized.
What if a running back has his pulled off but now has open field or is already a few steps from the endzone when it happens? Should he be required to stop? What if there's no flag for face mask because that isn't what knocked if off?
What of he is tackled after he stops and there is already a flag?...you can't add to it.
I can see why we have it but it doesn't seem like it is sufficiently fleshed out.
I’m an NMSU fan and even I’m saying UTEP got robbed.
Wow congrats on having the brain capacity to not show bias
Damn.... I thought seeing a 1 point safety on a tipped extra point was the weirdest thing I would ever see, until I saw this!!
the player knew more about the rules than the officials
It was the right call. You can't continue participating, which includes running after the ball
Clearly he didn't😂
This also just happened last weekend in the San Jose state- Reno game where a San Jose player lost his helmet and was also penalized for continuing to play.
Kicking team should get an extra 1-1/2 points for kicking the opponent’s helmet off.
I totally get why so many people disagree with allowing a second attempt at a conversion - you want to see the original block rewarded. I feel the same way. But the sad fact is that the penalty occurred while the ball was still live, and either team could have scored. In theory his participation could have prevented the kicking team from advancing the ball into the end zone had they recovered (it was a block, not a fumble) - the ball is not dead following a black. If the defense takes a penalty on a conversion attempt, the offense gets to re-try the conversion - it's just that simple.
The problem is he didn't actually participate
@@tatertots0046 The refs disagreed, though; the folks I'm replying to are the ones who wondered why the flag wasn't enforced on the kickoff rather than the try. Whether he participated is debatable; everyone agrees he realized he couldn't pick up the ball, but before his hands went up he was arguably an obstacle to the offense recovering the block. The refs no doubt considered that his illegal participation. It does seem very unfair but those are the breaks sometimes.
@@johnmcaraher he was in between the ball and the entire offense when his helmet was knocked off so how can you say he was an obstacle? It was horrible call by the refs
@@tatertots0046 My main point is that the refs could not enforce this penalty on the ensuing kickoff, regardless of how bad their call was.
Beyond that I'm just trying to imagine what they thought they saw. After the helmet came off the kick blocker chased the loose ball and passed the kicker and holder; I'm guessing the refs flagged that part of the play on the basis of his possibly impeding a recovery by the kicking team. But I think that's a weak basis for a call; he didn't throw a block, barely got in the way of one player, and within 2 seconds put his hands in the air and tried to get out of the play. So I think they basically called him for carrying his own momentum forward for two seconds, which I agree totally sucks.
To recap: I don't think it was a good call, but given that they made it, it had to be enforced the way they did.
It's sad that they didn't show the crowd chanting "bullshit" because that was a bad call. Glad I was at that game though.
Actually the call was correct, he did continue and interfered or participated in the play after his helmet was off. Even he realized it but can’t blame him for going after the ball from instinct. I don’t like the rule because it goes against the training of 99.9999999% of all football scenarios. But it is a rule, like it or not. Hate the rule not the refs
They wonder why game attendance and ticket sales are down. Recession and now you have to deal with the prices AND the refs! Insanity..
The penalizing of UTEP for illegal participation itself was correct, but the issue is how said penalty was enforced. The illegal participation occured only after the kick was blocked, which, yes, erased the touchdown. But the extra point was no good and instead should have been a kickoff by FAU, albiet with UTEP recieving the penalty yards then.
In a gross oversimplification of the ref's logic, the UTEP player was basically penalized for doing everything he can to block the kick (you know, the job he's suppossed to be doing) by using a body part that was properly protected.
This was bad calling, misinterpretation by the refs of the rulebook, or intereference by NCAA or conference officiating officials. Or Vegas just gambling on games like usual.
Why would the TD be erased because the PAT kick was blocked?
The ball didn't cross the line of scrimmage, so that is likely why the penalty was assesed for a rekick.
@@steveaustin2686 wasn't a touchdown
@@lesprentice4816 Then why were they kicking an extra point?
This type of stuff turns people off to the game. It’s a sports game meant to be enjoyed. Total lack of common sense here to give him that penalty. The fact he even realized in the moment he shouldn’t touch the ball is impressive
This is what happens when lawyers decide what the rules are for a game.
UTEP ENDS UP WINNING, CONGRATS ON THE W MINERS! 🧡💙
Clear refball.
These players aren't robots. They're not going to instantly shutdown if their helmet is unexpectedly knocked off. It's like the ppl who write these rules never played a down in their life.
There's a huge difference between intentionally taking your helmet off and having it accidentally removed during play .
You're not allowed to participate in the play after losing your helmet.
@@JessyFinch you also gotta secure it properly. This rule was put in because too many players were wearing it loose so helmets were falling off all the time.
He was just fleeing from the other players! Lol
Ok, i can understand thats there is no 2-Point conversion. But the starting play was over and blocked, why did they get a new Extra-point- attemt? Play was over after the block, game should continued with kick-off ...
The player didn't participate after he lost his helmet. He didn't block anyone. He didn't tackle anyone. He didn't touch the ball.
I'm no fan of UTEP, but they got hosed on that call.
He literally took a dozen steps toward the loose ball
@@jpt4409 BFD, if he had stood still and someone ran into him, would that be participation? He did nothing that influenced the result of the play.
@@derekjtaylor Are you blind? He literally peeled off in front of #10 and prevented him from making a play on the loose ball.
It was unintentional, but he very clearly blocked an opposing player from getting to the ball. That has to be called, otherwise FAU would be getting "hosed". The only issue is whether FAU should have been allowed to rekick. I don't know what the rule is there, so I don't know what the correct ruling is.
5 steps is considered football moves.
Most ridiculous sh*t I've ever seen. Happy UTEP won in the end. BTW, those Texas Western throwback uniforms are about the coolest thing I've ever seen!
What a shitty call. Those refs should be fired.
I swear that every game I watch, there’s always some archaic penalty called that I’ve never heard of. It’s one of the things that’s making me slightly lose interest in football.
why do they get another pat attempt? the block was still legal.
Penalty occurred while FAU was still considered in possession. Possession doesn't change until UTEP physically possesses the ball. Think of it like if FAU had fumbled, but before the fumble, the was a penalty on the defense for illegal hands to the face. FAU would get the ball back - it's the same principle.
There was a play similar to this where a player lost his helmet but was completely alone running it into the end zone but they had to call it back to where he lost the helmet .
stupid refs always ruin everything.
blocked kick with helmet flying off was hilarious 😂 tho
Misleading title to this video. He was not penalized because the ball knocked his helmet off, he was penalized because after his helmet was knocked off he participated in the play by running after the ball with his helmet off. Makes sense.
Stupid rule.
ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS! 🤦♂️
bruh he almost got it again too afterwards lol
Wow, so a very random rule that's gotta be super old & im sure that they're gonna vote to have it removed from the rulebook because the athlete NEVER touched the ball, but based on the rule, he did originally chase after it, but he NEVER hindered anyone else. I'm calling that super lame and I feel for the team as I'm sure that even the coach never heard of such a rule.
Football is becoming so broken because of all these rules for the "safety of the players".
It was instinct for the player to run towards the ball. It was common sense that made him pull out of the play to surrender himself. The player should have been given credit for having the piece of mind to do just that.
Charlotte QB broke a tackle on 4th down but the guy ripped CLT qb helmet off ending the play immediately and resulting in the turnover
That's should have been seen as face mask
The refs definitely had money on FAU
Bruh i laughed hard af when he put his hands up💀💀😂😂😂
He didn't take his helmet off. It was knocked off.
He should use those straps his helmet is equipped with to make sure it can't be knocked off so easily. I'm sure his coaches will make sure he, and the rest of the team, doesn't have that problem next week.
For those who have never played the game, it's hard to appreciate the speed of game progression. The time from when he realized his helmet was gone as he was still moving forward and knew he needed to stop should be factored in. He never actually had an impact on the play and the officials should know this when imposing this penalty. BTW, being hit in the head with a kicked ball can cause a concussion. He could have blacked out for a second--yes, still moving forward. Concussions are weird.
I agree with you everywhere except him not having an impact on the play. Him initially going for the ball allowed for a block to he thrown, had he not been there. It would have been recovered POSSIBLY. But him being there definitely had an impact
@@bakedpotatow Yeah and that’s why they ultimately called it. I have a feeling if he’d just stopped and not intentionally gotten in another player’s way, it’s a no-call.
That was the correct call. Once your helmet comes off, by the ball or otherwise, you are required to stop participating in the play. He clearly ran toward the ball and ended up attempting to impede an opponent.
Bad Call .. 👎 👎
literally how
If he was to touch the ball or actually physically block someone...sure, but that's not what happened. After he dipped, the other team landed on the ball and it got pushed out and then the blocking team picked it up. I don't trust these rules that help favor betters.
I don't think they should get another try at it but come on guys, playing football without a helmet should be the last thing you want guys to do
I was watching this live and this was the most random thing ever🤣 never sleep on unknown college games
Absolute horrible rule.
This makes no sense. Regardless of what he did after the block, why would they get another kick? It should have just been a failed try then. Honestly, even though I think it was a bad call, the guy right behind him blocked another guy on the back, so the return still shouldn't have counted.
Garbage officials and garbage rules.
Wow. Just when one thinks they've seen everything. Dudes helmut gets popped off by a kicked ball and yet he gets penalized which gave the kicker a rekick.
I would love to see how they came up with that one from the rule book.
It came from the dark side of the moon section of the rulebook
Basically where the sun doesn't shine n you'll find it LOL
I love college Football=)
That doesn’t seem right. Give them credit for the blocked kick and call the play dead afterwards…
That was gay..
🇦🇬✊🏾🇵🇷
I just don't understand why they got to kick the extra point again. Negate the recovery and 2 point conversion, fine, but what did that have to do with the blocked kick.
So, if any player loses their helmet they aren't supposed to 'participate'? So if a player is running with the ball and he gets his helmet knocked/taken off he has to drop down to one knee immediately or else he will get penalized for participation?
They blow the play dead immediately if the ball carrier loses their helmet
@@digitalbath101 dumbest rule ever
@@8015908 It's literally one of the only sensible rules...
@@8015908 It's to protect the players. It ruins the flow of game but at the end of the day, he gets to go home without brain damage
He has to immediately kill himself or it doesn't count!
I miss it when UTEP is in 2021 they’re so good that season but they ended up losing to Fresno State in the New Mexico Bowl
I understand that they are trying to protect the players, but this rule is stupid.
I liked this video simply because I saw that most comments are spot on. What a ridiculous penalty.
Anyone complaining needs to learn to count, and then count how many steps he took playing before he peeled off.
Not the point the penalty happened after the block they shouldnt get a rekick it should be a penalty on kick off.
Essentially the other team shouldnt get awarded for the other team taking their helmet off. In this case the football unintentionally hits his helmet and would leave a 10 to 11 playing field. Which is already just unfair. And then giving them a rekick that is also closer is bs. I dont watch college football because of broken shit like this targeting and pass interference.
@@jacobclaspill1773 The ball didn't cross the line of scrimmage.
@@jacobclaspill1773 you probably don't watch NFL then. Qbs can't even be sneezed on there without it being roughing the passer.
@@Chuckworth_F7 no i do the roughing the passer calls this year have been horrendous
why he put his hands up like that 😂😂😂😂😂😂
He knows the rules
Afraid of the guy in the white hat. Understandably so...
Old habit from the 'hood.
@@ratdaddee it's a signal like my bad didn't know helmet was off
I didn't do that
And if you see replay the football was the HOODLUM responsible for the incident
LOL. He's penalized because it took him a moment to realize what was going on and that he had to get out of the play. By this logic anyone who's helmet comes off should be penalized as they will always at least get in the way. Never seen a defender who lost their helmet and finished a tackle get penalized. Never seen a running back who finished a run after their helmet came off get penalized. It is the selective enforcement of rules that is the problem. Dude was clearly trying to comply.
You can tell which team the refs wanted to win
The rules in this game are specific and do not call for much if any discretion by the refs. The people who write these rules need to consider all angles and all possibilities prior to the rule being put in place.
He said, “hands up don’t shoot” 😂
Since no one has mentioned this yet. And I think it is a possibility. I think it shouldn't be a penalty for the reasoning of after sustaining the impact of a kicked ball to his head. It is very possible he was momentarily stun/confused, and was just doing what his instincts told him which is what has been taught to him for years, and that is get the ball. After he fully recovered from the hit to the head he realized the situation and stopped playing. With that in mind it seems kinda dumb to penalize a player for being "injuried". I am more just saying this is a possibility that the refs should be considered when looking at this play and it shouldn't be a penalty
First
Congratulations 👏 👏