SixmanMom said:

You are correct! This kick was actually made with over 3 minutes left on the clock. Happy would have taken a totally different approach during those minutes if they were behind. Who knows how the game would have ended then. They could have beat miami by 6 with no overtime.

Click to expand...

51eleven said:

So, with enough XP's Newcastle might be state champ's?

Click to expand...

Leman Saunders said:

I saw the film the day after on facebook I think...and ya the PAT was made and 100% one ref was going to say good and the other one over ruled him (watch the two refs head movements in the video)...but like you said who knows what would happen with that much time so cant say it cost Miami the game...it stinks but one of those who knows type of deals...Miami had chances after that to win as well.

I dont have that film but if I get it I will put it on youtube

Click to expand...

Techman32 said:

@tdog5344

Click to expand...

tdog5344 said:

Lol maybe UIL will here your complaining and give yall a do over. Have a great day and remember it's easy to look for excuses and not our own mistakes. Many opportunities were squandered by both teams including yours!!!!!

Click to expand...

Zebra Watcher said:

The initial punt by Miami punter strikes the ground and continues to bounce and roll down the field (Miami is responsible for where the ball goes at this point) . As seen on film, the Happy player bats or attempts to grasp the ball while making contact with ball (changed which team was responsible for the ball's direction or impetus) which leads to the ball crossing into Happy's end zone where the Happy player recovered ball but is tackled in his end zone. As a result, a safety would be the correct call.

-Per NCAA Rulebook FI-63 Sect 7 II. and FR-90 & 91 Sect 7 Responsibility - Article 1 and Initial Impetus - Article 2

Click to expand...

dammitbobby said:

I disagree; definitions matter, and this is NOT batting. That word is not interchangeable with touching (or muff, or to use your words, 'attempts to grasp'); they have very specific definitions, and consequences.

Rule 2-11-2: To muff the ball is to touch the ball in an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover it. Muffing the ball does not change its status.

Rule 2-11-3: Batting the ball is intentionally striking it or intentionally changing its direction with the hand(s) or arm(s). When in question, the ball is accidentally touched rather than batted. Batting the ball does not change its status.

Rule 2-11-4a: Touching a ball not in player possession denotes any contact with the ball. It may be intentional or unintentional, and it always precedes
possession and control.

Attempting to field a punt and not completing the catch or recovery does not qualify by definition, or rule, as batting; that is an explicit, intentional act to move the ball to a different location on the field, primarily to push the ball towards a teammate or to a boundary, to prevent an opposing player from reaching the ball.

Rule 8-7-2-a: The impetus imparted by a player who kicks, passes, snaps or fumbles the ball shall be considered responsible for the ball?s progress in any direction even though its course is deflected or reversed after striking the ground or after touching an official or a player of either team

...so impetus was not changed, because the ball was not batted, it was touched.

AR 8-7-2 does not apply, because by rule this was not a bat. However, AR 8-7-3 does apply:

III. Team A punts. The ball is touched by Team B (no impetus added) and crosses Team B?s goal line. Then Team B falls on the ball or the ball goes out of bounds from the end zone. RULING: Touchback. The same ruling applies if a kick in flight strikes Team B or merely is deflected by an attempted catch. Team B may recover and advance, and it is a touchback if a Team B player is downed in the end zone or goes out of bounds behind the goal line (Rule 8-6-1-a).

It's a unfortunate quirk of the rulebook that had A recovered at the six inch line they would retain possession of the ball since B touched it and A recovered the loose ball, but since it was recovered in the EZ, it is by rule a touchback.

Click to expand...

Zebra Watcher said:

I can appreciate your refute of my interpretation of the play in question. However, I see a BAT (Intentionally) of the hand on the ball and the ball's course of action changes directly because of it. I stand by my call how I see it from the film and angle provided.

Click to expand...

dammitbobby said:

If you see a bat, then you see a bat... I do not, but it's definitely up for interpretation of the calling official. The main point is that we have to be very careful with our terminology around batting and touching.

Click to expand...

Zebra Watcher said:

I can appreciate your refute of my interpretation of the play in question. However, I see a BAT (Intentionally) of the hand on the ball and the ball's course of action changes directly because of it. I stand by my call how I see it from the film and angle provided.

Click to expand...

pistol said:

I agree with Bobby? the play in question he was trying to pick the ball up.. which would not be batting. Did the ball move as a result of him touching it, sure but he wasn?t intentionally trying to change the direction by doing that. Which is what batting the ball is

Click to expand...

Leman Saunders said:

I saw the film the day after on facebook I think...and ya the PAT was made and 100% one ref was going to say good and the other one over ruled him (watch the two refs head movements in the video)...but like you said who knows what would happen with that much time so cant say it cost Miami the game...it stinks but one of those who knows type of deals...Miami had chances after that to win as well.

I dont have that film but if I get it I will put it on youtube

Click to expand...

MargieAbshire said:

It seems like there was some controversy regarding a play in the game, but ultimately, it's hard to say if it cost Miami the win. Regardless, Miami had opportunities to turn things around. Without the film, it's challenging to make a conclusive judgment. If you manage to get the footage, sharing it on YouTube could provide clarity.

Click to expand...

dammitbobby said:

There is a 100% likelihood that there is additional film - the one available now was shot on the sideline; coaches always film their games especially in playoffs... My guess is that if it hasn't leaked out, it's because it shows that the kick was not successful.

Click to expand...