Please help me understand these penalties.

[MMW]

We won the game so this is not sour grapes or excuse making.  I was watching the game in a public setting and could not hear the announcers and could rewind.

1. Roughing the passer - To me it looked like the QB still had the ball when he was hit.  Did the defender do something like lead with his head?

2. Horse collar - looked to me that he had the guys shoulder pads not his jersey.

3. Tripping - happened fast and I only saw it once.  It looked like it was inadvertent.  He certainly didn't stick his foot out as the defender was running by (not that that is the rule, it just didn't look blatant).

4. Roughing the kicker - looked more like running into the kicker and even weak for that.  The punter flopped like a champ though 

Even if all these calls were bad the guys did the right thing and won the game anyway.  It just can be a little frustrating, especially when you have a few beers in you.

Overall, we had 60 yards worth of unsportsmanlike conduct and they all seem to happen at unfortunate times.  Not a conspiracy just a huge hill to overcome.  

Along with being on the road against a big 10 opponent and no kicker, I think we did pretty well overcoming adversity.

[Apis Bull]

2 minutes ago, MMW said:

We won the game so this is not sour grapes or excuse making.  I was watching the game in a public setting and could not hear the announcers and could rewind.

1. Roughing the passer - To me it looked like the QB still had the ball when he was hit.  Did the defender do something like lead with his head?  The tackle was below the waist, but it looked like the QB jump

2. Horse collar - looked to me that he had the guys shoulder pads not his jersey.  That one was complete BS.  Even the head ref was asking the guy that called it if he was sure.

3. Tripping - happened fast and I only saw it once.  It looked like it was inadvertent.  He certainly didn't stick his foot out as the defender was running by (not that that is the rule, it just didn't look blatant).  This was complete BS too.  The blocker fell and as you said, didn't stick his foot out.

4. Roughing the kicker - looked more like running into the kicker and even weak for that.  The punter flopped like a champ though  Unfortunately, IIRC college doesn't make a distinction between the two.  By the letter of the law, I guess it was the right call, but it easily could not have been called either. 

Even if all these calls were bad the guys did the right thing and won the game anyway.  It just can be a little frustrating, especially when you have a few beers in you.

Overall, we had 60 yards worth of unsportsmanlike conduct and they all seem to happen at unfortunate times.  Not a conspiracy just a huge hill to overcome.  

Along with being on the road against a big 10 opponent and no kicker, I think we did pretty well overcoming adversity.

 

[chapelbull]

It was the kicker and not punter.  By rule it is roughing if contact is made with the plant foot with kicking foot still in the air.  It's to protect the kicker/punter and it was the right call.

[usfgrad84]

Personally I felt there were a couple of very questionable calls.

1.  The horse collar.  Sure looked like the tackler was outside the shoulder pads.  As I understand the rule, you can even grab the inside of the shoulder pad collar as long as you don't pull the runner down by that grasp.  It didn't look like he was pulled down from the grasp.  Again, I thought he had the outside of the pads anyway.

2. The roughing the punter was kind of questionable, but technically the correct call.

3.  I thought the chop block by Wilcox was a bit questionable.  The block initiated above the waist and he slid down the body of the defender.  Not sure how that can be avoided.  A little strange after all the below the waist blocking we saw last week, but again, technically a penalty since it was done outside the box.

4.  The one that irked me the most was the blocking in the back on the punt.  The defender fell down on his own.  There wasn't even contact that I could see, but the ref called it from up field and across the field. 

Many questionable calls that technically could have one either way.

The offensive line really needs to get their heads on straight.  The false starts are what can be controlled and those were killers yesterday.

 

[Guest]

Roughing the passer penalty was because the defender hit the QB at or below the knee... this is a rule that went into effect in 2014.

The tripping was 100% legit. Mayes fell down on his butt, and then kicked his legs out to try to trip the defender -- and was successful.  It seemed obvious intent.

College does have a 5-yard running into the kicker penalty ... but I don't recall this one.

The Wilcox block was illegal because of a rule change that requires the block from the front not the side.
 

[Apis Bull]

2 minutes ago, JimUSFSig said:

Roughing the passer penalty was because the defender hit the QB at or below the knee... this is a rule that went into effect in 2014.  The hit was below the waist, but above the knee

The tripping was 100% legit. Mayes fell down on his butt, and then kicked his legs out to try to trip the defender -- and was successful.  It seemed obvious intent.  I saw it differently, I'd have to look again

College does have a 5-yard running into the kicker penalty ... but I don't recall this one.

The Wilcox block was illegal because of a rule change that requires the block from the front not the side.  They called a chop block, not an illegal block.

Just my two cents

[Guest]

The hit was right about the knee... might have to look again.

The chop block has 2 definitions:

• When a defenders is engaged with one offensive player, and a second offensive player blocks below the waist
• When an offensive player blocks below the waist from the site, instead of from the front

They would not have called an "illegal block" on Wilcox.

[Apis Bull]

1 minute ago, JimUSFSig said:

The hit was right about the knee... might have to look again.

The chop block has 2 definitions:

• When a defenders is engaged with one offensive player, and a second offensive player blocks below the waist
• When an offensive player blocks below the waist from the site, instead of from the front

They would not have called an "illegal block" on Wilcox.

You may be right, but it looked higher than at the knee to me at the time.

[Gatorbull325]

We had bad luck on the calls period. 

[DELdaBull]

McGee hit the QB right at the hip then as he was finishing his tackle ended up at the knee. 

Initial contact was at the waist/hip