On Foucha's 3rd Qtr Roughing Call

He obviously tripped over his own players leg (after he was cut down) and somewhat plowed into the QBs legs. My question is this, if you’re blocked into someone, do the officials ever treat that as a no-call?

Additionally, to me it appeared that Foucha was trying to cushion the blow, yet unfortunately, he flew into the QBs leg which was fully extended.

Looked like a rough roughing call to me, especially as others on the Hog D made a great play.

I’ve seen that happen more often than not (guy getting tripped and hitting the QB low), I’ve only seen it not called a roughing penalty once (or reversed by the officials on the field after a discussion). I don’t believe you’re supposed to receive a penalty for being pushed into the QB (even low), but Foucha wasn’t pushed. I’m not sure exactly what the rule is. Maybe one of our Insiders can get a clear definition from one of the coaches or maybe the league?

I’m sure intent was not the factor, but the collision below the knees was. Tough call, but
the game has changed a lot on all levels…

It looked to me like he fell into the QB’s legs. It didn’t look like he tried to go there. Seems to me that should be a factor in making a call, but with the new emphasis on safety, maybe it’s not.

I suspect that “protecting the QB” is a high priority and calling all hits on the lower leg a penalty whether “intentional” or not is the way college football wants it called. Just like “coaching how to hold in the O-line and get away with it” is an integral part of football, you can see them “coaching how to hit the QB and knock him out and get away with it” would be “part of the game” if they weren’t tough on this call.

If Starkel had been the QB, what argument would you make that it was the correct call?

It is football. He could have been blocked into the QB or like our tackle on second day of practice , tearing his ACL doing normal non contact things.

Very true

I think that is a call the refs make just about every time 'cause the QB is involved. Aggravating to me was the announcers not saying a word that he tripped over his own player as the replay was showed multiple times. The call I didn’t like that went our way was the “blind side” hit against Scooter.

That’s one of those new rules this year. It’s a tough one on blockers. Some might be pretty blatant, but it sure seems to me it’s the kind of thing a blocker could inadvertently do, especially if a defender turns before contact. Maybe it’s because we’re not used to it, but when they showed the replay I thought, “just looks like football to me.”

I agree 100%. I thought that call on the blind side was wrong. It may be a penalty now days, but that was just a football play. I commented on that during the game.

I did not thinkk it was “blind” I thought our guy was hit from the front.

I contend football is headed for a version of flag football. I suspect the next big change will be the elimination of kickoffs, the receiving team will merely get the ball at the 25 yard line.
Actually I do think the kickoff is the most dangerous play in football so I would not argue with this move.

As an aside I have never figured out why the clock does not start with foot hitting ball, but the ball travels 65 yards but is not clocked.

I don’t think intent is a part of that play on Foucha’s penalty. I think it’s a penalty every time with the QB.

I have seen a flag picked up on a interference for a fair catch when it was determined by a second official that the player was blocked into the punt returner. That’s the only thing close to this, but it’s not the same thing.

I read a lot of post on the CSU message board, and as expected, they are screaming it was a dirty play, #7 should be suspended, hope he has the same thing happen to him, etc…

Pretty ugly discussion

Ha…I think your on to something here. Somebody should restore games digitally going back years and sell season packages, hell I can’t remember who won those games, so folks can watch REAL football. Some of those old AFL games were great. :sunglasses:

That’s annoying. It was anything but a dirty play. It should be clear to any objective observer he wasn’t trying to dive at the guy’s knees. At worst, his intent was ambiguous. Ironically, if he hadn’t done that, we’d have gotten the ball on a lost fumble. The penalty negated the turnover & set them up to take the ball in for the tying TD.