.

[Bootie]

I was going to go through the same bit, but you beat me to it.

The rule book definition is "obvious intent to impede" and "could" prevent the eligible player from catching a forward pass.

In my view, the defender is obviously intending to impede Harris. He's using his right arm to grab Harris' left arm while he was running. You can see at the :45 mark that the DB has grabbed Harris' left arm and doesn't let go of it until the ball lands. It's pretty clear because you can see his black gloves on top of Harris' arms.

So, the parts of the rule are met - ball is in the air, Harris is an eligible receiver, the is obvious contact by the defender with the intent to impede the receiver, and the ball was such that Harris could have caught it if not for the DB grabbing his arm while he was running.

Man y’all crazy
Sorry to beat a dead horse but I don’t think y’all are being objective at all. I think if y’all were Sammy fans you’d be looking at it much differently. I still wouldn’t throw the flag. The still shot by FUBear is misleading as though the defender pulled Harris’s hand in… note watching the slo-mo that Harris voluntarily puts his hand on the defender’s stomach, and keeps it there himself. By the time the defender puts his hand over Harris’s, the ball is well out of reach. The defender could’ve been without a left arm and I don’t think Harris could have caught that ball in the position he was in.

[The Jackal]

Just out here relaying facts, man.

It's a play that is correctly called, but if it goes against your team you think it is a ticky tack terrible call.

Bottom line, this didn't make or break the game for Samford. Furman didn't score on this drive.

[gofurman]

Just out here relaying facts, man.

It's a play that is correctly called, but if it goes against your team you think it is a ticky tack terrible call.

Bottom line, this didn't make or break the game for Samford. Furman didn't score on this drive.

NINE SACKS. That was a big factor in deciding the game !

[FUBeAR]

Just out here relaying facts, man.

It's a play that is correctly called, but if it goes against your team you think it is a ticky tack terrible call.

Bottom line, this didn't make or break the game for Samford. Furman didn't score on this drive.

FUBeAR and Jackal agree about as often as we have a red weeping wolf moon on a Friday the 13th in a Leap Year…so you know if we agree on something, it’s pretty certainly true.

It was very much like the holding call against FU at the end of the Incarnate Word game…the call was correct by the rules of the game. Could the Official have reasonably let it go because it was so close to not being a foul? Sure…but as an appointed arbiter of the game, that’s the Official’s job to decide. If it’s against your Team, you hate it. If it helps your Team, you like it…but you can’t say it is a “bad call.”

The call is OBJECTIVELY correct. Did he need to make it? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. In the end, it didn’t really matter - very much unlike that holding call @ UIW…that FUBeAR, to the great displeasure of many Furman Fans (and Furman Football Coaches ), has always opined was the correct call…just like this DPI call on Samford was.

For fun…let’s try this NOT MISLEADING 3 Photo sequence…

Ball is in the air. FU WR running free from the Sam. DB that he is behind and the FU WR is looking for the ball…Sam. DB not playing the ball and NEVER looked for ball. That matters.


Ball still coming in air. FU WR still looking for the ball . Sam. DB now holding FU WR’s left arm with his right hand (circled) and still has not looked for the ball. He NEVER looks for the ball.


Ball has just passed over the heads of both Players. The FU WR is STILL looking to catch the ball. The Sam. DB is now holding the FU WR’s right arm with his left hand (circled). Yes. The FU WR put his hand in position to be easily held, while he was looking for the ball. No penalty for that…kinda victim-blaming as a matter of fact.

The Sam. DB is not, has not, and never does try to make a play to catch the football. He has only physically impeded FU’s WR from getting to and catching the ball, while the ball was in the air, by 1st holding his left arm and then holding his right arm just as the ball passed.

After this review FUBeAR has realized the call was not so 50/50. It was clearly DPI and FUBeAR also noticed the Sam. DB never for 1 second looked as if he disagreed with the call. He knows.

[The Jackal]

Were there any complaints with Samford's field?

I noticed a few times that players were losing their footing on plays. For instance, it appeared Huff slipped on a third down run that ended up as a tackle for a loss.

Just watching this play, I can count four players that appear to lose their footing:

1. Ryan at the top of the screen when he breaks on the Samford receiver.

2. Hiers' foot slides back as he starts into his run.

3. Stansfield's foot slips while gaining leverage and causes him to fall under the Samford OL. (At first I thought this was an old fashioned pancake block, but it seems pretty apparent his foot slides backwards causing him to lose his leverage)

4. Sciana slips just before attempting the tackle.

Granted, in isolation I would think that might just be unlucky. Still, I noticed it several times during the game. It was odd to see four guys lose their footing on one play.

[The Jackal]

Shiflett slips coming out of his break:

[FUBeAR]

Were there any complaints with Samford's field?

I noticed a few times that players were losing their footing on plays. For instance, it appeared Huff slipped on a third down run that ended up as a tackle for a loss.

Just watching this play, I can count four players that appear to lose their footing:

1. Ryan at the top of the screen when he breaks on the Samford receiver.

2. Hiers' foot slides back as he starts into his run.

3. Stansfield's foot slips while gaining leverage and causes him to fall under the Samford OL. (At first I thought this was an old fashioned pancake block, but it seems pretty apparent his foot slides backwards causing him to lose his leverage)

4. Sciana slips just before attempting the tackle.

Granted, in isolation I would think that might just be unlucky. Still, I noticed it several times during the game. It was odd to see four guys lose their footing on one play.

The field may have had issues…on this play, though, FUBeAR sees…

* Ryan tripped over his own hind foot when he was trying to change directions. He didn’t slip.
* Scianna was trying to work around the Umpire (who should have been reaching for his flag - see below) and Hiers gave him a little shimmy wiggle…think he just fell from all that ‘static’…may have slipped a bit.
* Hiers may have slipped…or maybe he was just trembling. He was facing a lot of live fire on Saturday. THANKS COACH VAUGHN, COACH LEWIS, COACH BYERS, AND FURMAN D FRONT!
* Stansfield fell victim to one of the perpetually-every-play-executed, almost never called acts of holding on Samford’s OL (3 circled on this play below).


Looks like the Sam. OLman here used a classic wrestling overarm trap modified front hip toss - perhaps he’s done some GrecoRoman work - to get Stansfield off his feet and on the ground. FUBeAR actually noticed this one live…and is pictured below while watching it during the game.

[AllTimeFU]

Yes. I heard quite a few complaints about the condition of the turf.

[Furman Sports Report]

http://www.furmansportsreport.com/2023/ ... mford.html

[The Jackal]

http://www.furmansportsreport.com/2023/ ... mford.html

Good writeup. Thanks for posting.

Because I'm a rules nut, my only quibble is the bit about the targeting.

I may be misunderstanding your point, but even if Marsh led with his shoulder, it's still targeting.

If a player is a "defenseless player" - and a WR in the process of making a catch is definitionally a defenseless player - then the refs look to an "indicator" of targeting. Using a shoulder to make forcible contact with the head or neck of a defenseless player satisfies that portion of the rule.

So, if Jackal was the judge and jury on that one, it's plainly targeting. Harris was in the process of making a catch (i.e., defenseless) and Marsh used his shoulder to make forcible contact with the head or neck.

The "crown of the helmet" portion of the targeting rule applies regardless of whether the player is defenseless or a "runner."

[The Jackal]

I went back and watched the play.

100% no-questions-asked correctly called targeting. Would have been upheld on replay. Not even a close call.

[FUBeAR]

I went back and watched the play.

100% no-questions-asked correctly called targeting. Would have been upheld on replay. Not even a close call.

You get a much higher grade if you include visual aids, y'know.

[FU Hoopla]

It was 100% classic targeting no question, Sammy dude was leading in head first and made really dangerous helmet to helmet contact

[The Jackal]

I went back and watched the play.

100% no-questions-asked correctly called targeting. Would have been upheld on replay. Not even a close call.

You get a much higher grade if you include visual aids, y'know.

Haven't figured that part out yet.