Penalty on field goal attemt in 4th Quarter

[chevy49]

I watched the replay and am still unsure what the penalty called leaping rule is. GF Herald said that if you attempt a block on the field goal you cannot land on the opponent in the attempt. It is hard to say what would have happened if we got the ball back but it sure would have been interesting. Thanks go to the entire team and coaches for a gut check season. No one thought you would be in the playoffs but then they did not consider the work ethic of the team and coaches. Thanks for a great entertaining season!!

[jimdahl]

I'm certainly not a football rules expert, and couldn't hunt down a rule named "leaping", so was wondering if it was the "no hurdling" rule: rule 9, article 2, section i, in the NCAA football rules? Regardless, nothing I've heard said the call was anything other than legit, it's just rare enough that most of us don't understand it.

[Diggler]

It was a penalty, what I don't understand is why it is a penalty. What is wrong with landing on a teammate or opponent? I can see not using a teammate to help you jump, but how is landing on a teammate/opponent something terrible? In goalline situations, it happens all the time when you are trying to stuff the run.

[tony]

It's a rule change for 2004. I'm pretty sure NDSU got called for earlier this year and Phil Hansen explained it then.

Anyway, this .PDF will probably answer your questions:

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/football/20...seasonRules.pdf

[UND92,96]

Thank god for this rule. Prior to this year, the number of players seriously injured on field goal and extra point attempts due to being landed on by a leaping defender was just out of control. My next suggestion would be to ban leaping by receivers and defenders on high passes.

[Poncho & Lefty]

It is a rule whether its a good one or not is to be determined. I believe a similar penalty was called on the Bucs Simeon Rice on Monday Night Football at the start of the year. Vanderjagt missed a kick on the initial play then the flag came out for upsportsmanlike concuct (leaping) and vanderjagt made the kick forcing ot, eventually leading to a colt win.

[Diggler]

It is a rule whether its a good one or not is to be determined.  I believe a similar penalty was called on the Bucs Simeon Rice on Monday Night Football at the start of the year.  Vanderjagt missed a kick on the initial play then the flag came out for upsportsmanlike concuct (leaping) and vanderjagt made the kick forcing ot, eventually leading to a colt win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That happened last year, I think. The stupidest thing about it was that Rice jumped and while he was in the air, an offensive player pushed a defensive player under Rice. So when Simeon came down he landed on this teammate. What exactly was Rice supposed to do? Stop in midair, magically fly to the right a foot and then land?

[UND92,96]

I just saw the replay on the Lennon show, and although the angle wasn't the best, it certainly looked like a highly questionable call. It did not appear that DeSautel (the player on whom the penalty was called) landed on anybody at all.

[BigGame]

I just saw the replay on the Lennon show, and although the angle wasn't the best, it certainly looked like a highly questionable call. It did not appear that DeSautel (the player on whom the penalty was called) landed on anybody at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats what I thought while watching the game.

Did that punt in the first half actually hit a UND player?

[teamsioux]

After seeing the replay a couple of times, it was a horrendous call. DeSautel didn't come down on anybody. If anything happened the Pitt St center came across and got under people. If anyone listened to Lennon Sunday night or this morning on the radio, he says the same thing and when asked on his thoughts...he just says to watch and replay and it will speak for itself.

[The Sicatoka]

tony: Thank you for the link explaining the rule.

From page 7 of that link:

Play 8: Fourth and 17 for Team A from Team B

[U2Bad1]

I think this was a significant call, but the turning point in the game was when UND punted on 4th and 1. Although punting is the safe call, it didn't really help them much. The UND offense wasn't the same after that.

[bisonguy]

I think this was a significant call, but the turning point in the game was when UND punted on 4th and 1. Although punting is the safe call, it didn't really help them much. The UND offense wasn't the same after that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fumble when UND was driving (for the lead, if memory serves me right) didn't help much either. Both of those plays seemed to have an effect on momentum.

[BigGame]

The fumble when UND was driving (for the lead, if memory serves me right) didn't help much either. Both of those plays seemed to have an effect on momentum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I really felt that was one of several key plays in the game as well. To march down the field and turn the ball over really hurts momentum.

[Northcountry]

The really big call, in my opinion, came in the first quarter with the Sioux up 7-0 and Philpot overthrew the receiver on a 3rd and 9, but JB got called for an unsportsmanlike hit and Pitt gets the first down. They scored on that drive to tie it at 7 and instead of gaining monentum it became a punch/counterpunch game. If the Sioux could have maintained the emotional edge through that period and put up another score, Pitt would have been forced to play a different game ---- AHHH the rosy glow of speculation. We all know that games are decided by how teams react to circumstances, not necessarily calls that officials make.

[UND92,96]

The really big call, in my opinion, came in the first quarter with the Sioux up 7-0 and Philpot overthrew the receiver on a 3rd and 9, but JB got called for an unsportsmanlike hit and Pitt gets the first down.  They scored on that drive to tie it at 7 and instead of gaining monentum it became a punch/counterpunch game.  If the Sioux could have maintained the emotional edge through that period and put up another score, Pitt would have been forced to play a different game ---- AHHH the rosy glow of speculation.  We all know that games are decided by how teams react to circumstances, not necessarily calls that officials make.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Was that call on Brandsted or Greenwood? I had thought it was Greenwood.

[Northcountry]

You may be right - I got so used to seeing #4 in that spot that I may have had one of those moments where what you remember is what you think you see rather than what you really see, do you see?

[The Sicatoka]

Was that call on Brandsted or Greenwood? I had thought it was Greenwood.

The answer is in the play-by-play summary.

[UND92,96]

Greenwood had kind of a tough game. He was also the player whom that punt may or may not have touched in the first quarter.

[redwing77]

As I understand the rule, no defensive player may land on a player who is a teammate. They implemented this rule solely to prevent injury and to prevent teammates from using each other as springboards. It isn't so much to protect the leaping player from injury, but rather the player who is landed upon. 250+ pounds of player landing on you isn't that good for you, especially when you are bent over at the angle of a grappling linesman.

I would understand it more if the rule was for landing on opponents rather than teammates, but I don't even think that isn't allowed (meaning you actually can land on the opposing players).

What I don't understand about the penalty is why it had to be called in the first place. I would understand completely if the play was a blocked field goal. SOmething was done that wasn't right. If effected the play. In this case, the jumping player completely missed the ball. It doesn't effect the play, it shouldn't be called.

It is like holding. Is there a single play that is done from scrimmage where holding DOESN'T occur? The answer is no. It is called when the hold prevents a player from making a play... if affects the play.

This is a penalty that is based, loosely, in legitmacy, but is called for the wrong reasons.

Nevertheless, we didn't lose by 3 points, so the argument is rather moot.

[Stack]

The really big call, in my opinion, came in the first quarter with the Sioux up 7-0 and Philpot overthrew the receiver on a 3rd and 9, but JB got called for an unsportsmanlike hit and Pitt gets the first down.  They scored on that drive to tie it at 7 and instead of gaining monentum it became a punch/counterpunch game.  If the Sioux could have maintained the emotional edge through that period and put up another score, Pitt would have been forced to play a different game ---- AHHH the rosy glow of speculation.  We all know that games are decided by how teams react to circumstances, not necessarily calls that officials make.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This was just one of many breaks that went Pitt's way instead of ours. I have always thought that the calls usually favor the home team and once again I was proven correct.

Now after listening to the Pitt State coach Broyles talk about " No matter how good their defense is we will eventually wear them down , score and win" I will be a Valdosta fan on Saturday. Coach Broyle's gave little or no recognition to the Sioux defense. The reality folks is that when you play at home, don't turn the ball over, and get a few calls you win. Pitt got every break they could during that game and until the last 8 minutes of the game the game was still in question.

So next year the key is to get those home playoff games and not be seeded 5th in the region so you have to play games on the road and play an extra game.

Go Valdosta!

[UND92,96]

The biggest thing for the northwest region next season is that it will be matched up with by far the weakest region--the northest--in the semi finals. That obviously means that the northwest won't have to travel to Pitt St. or a southeast region team and will play them on a neutral field in Florence (unless North Alabama is in it, of course).

[Wilbur]

You could tell it was a bad call by how much Lennon was arguing. Usually he just kind of stays back and takes them as they come, but with as furious as he was you just knew something had to be wrong.

I agree about Broyles. He seems like a class guy, but not once did he give any credit to the UND defense....

ANOTHER THING!!!!!! The post game interview. Did that Pitt State announcer want Dale Lennon to get fined by the NCAA? If he says ANYTHING regarding poor officiating he could very well be punished by the NCAA.....That idiot just kept talking about the call though....

[ZYX]

ANOTHER THING!!!!!!  The post game interview.  Did that Pitt State announcer want Dale Lennon to get fined by the NCAA?  If he says ANYTHING regarding poor officiating he could very well be punished by the NCAA.....That idiot just kept talking about the call though....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given coach Lennon's reaction, the TV reporter had every right to ask about the leaping penalty. And it was obvious what Lennon thought about the call when he declined comment. You know other reporters asked Lennon about it later...because The GF paper gave it quite a bit of covreage...with Lennon saying he didnt want to talk about it till he saw replay. I didnt think the interviewer belabored the point.

[Wilbur]

Okay, if a coach was asked a question for every time he got upset the post game interview would end up being half an hour. Lennon said it was a tough call against his team. RIGHT THEN AND THERE, the reporter should have stopped.

That reporter should also know that coaches can get fined for speaking negatively about officials, yet he asked the question. In fact the head coach of the University of Kansas (Mark Mangino or something like that) was fined for talking about poor officiating in a post game interview after they lost to Texas.....That reporter showed poor judgement, and is an idiot in my book......