I have to admit, I did not know this rule before the refs flagged Auburn last Saturday.
Obviously, if I didn’t know that, I didn’t know this, either.
I spent the entire time during review looking at replays to see if an Auburn player had touched the ball before it had traveled ten yards. No such luck.
One thing I did notice at the time, though, was that Kirby was on the mother with the refs. He gestured that the ball was going back before the replay official’s ruling was announced.
Get The Picture 
As Big Cat points out that rule is clearly prejudiced against Auburn and the replay officials doubled down on prejudice by enforcing an ant-Auburn rule.
LikeLike
Actually think its better for the game if they get rid of all these new rules about onsides kicks…. Only rule should be ball has to go 10 yards before kicking team can touch it….
LikeLike
The rule has value. The receiving team may catch the ball before it goes 10 yards so the rule is functionally like not allowing a punting team from hitting a returner before he catches the ball. The rule prevents a kicking team from interfering with the only players eligible to get the on-sides kick.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Damn, no kidding, right? THIS is the rule you want to get rid of, 79Dawg? You’d allow the kicking team to block their way to recovering a kickoff?! No one would ever kick off to the other team again.
LikeLike
I believe this rule was largely the result from when kickoff teams were lining up a bunch of players in the middle of the field, the kicker would kick a slow roller and use the players as a wall of blockers, so that he could recover his own kickoff right at the 10 yard mark.
I think it’s a good rule and the Auburn player blocked the UGA player 2-3 yards early as the replay showed. That block was pivotal in enabling the barn boys to recover the onside kick. In other words, tough shit Gus & Co.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why does the kicking team deserve a do-over in that situation instead of having the ball placed at the spot of the foul? Allowing them to re-kick it deep or try another onside kick hurts the receiving team more than the kicking team. Treat the infraction as if the receiving team actually recovered the kick.
LikeLike
Agree with that. I guess awarding the receiving team the ball at the spot would disincentivise ( is that a word?) onside kick attempts.
LikeLike
Agree, should be treated like Kick Interference on a punt receiver. 15 yards from the point of contact against the kicking team. May not be quite as dangerous, but same principle, and the player is not watching anything but the ball, so is basically defenseless.
Knew the rule, and it was clearly violated, but didn’t know it was reviewable. Hoe can AU fans complain about this? Guess rules don’t apply to them anywhere in the sport.
LikeLike
This rule is absolutely necessary. I assumed we were completely caught off guard by the kick until the replay. Our player was in position and was blocked away from having any chance at fielding the ball before the ball crossed the line. Without this rule, you could scheme a kickoff that could successfully recover an onside kick most of the time: send in big guys to take out the opposition and dribble the kick behind them.
LikeLike
We were completely off guard. Just because it rolled to one of our guys (not a “hands” guy, BTW) doesn’t mean we were prepared. Just lucky.
Or maybe Kirby thinks having 4 vs 8 in covering a kick is “prepared”.
LikeLike
Maybe, he does like running behind a 5 on 8 blocking scheme. 😀
LikeLike
It’s one of the reasons why it almost never works unless it’s a surprise. When they know it’s coming everything works against you. Need a perfect kick. Poor ball skills by the returning team and luck.
LikeLike
I have to admit I learned a new rule Saturday. I knew they couldn’t touch the ball before it traveled 10 yards but did not know they can’t make contact with a receiving team player.
Auburn does not recognize rules in general so that explains their outrage.
LikeLike
Number 5 for AU was also offsides, but that penalty cannot be reviewed. Due to the fact that he WAS offsides, however, he made an illegal block which is reviewable.
LikeLike
The sideline AU catch that was ruled OOB was correct, too. The week prior to the game, the rule was discussed on the First Take morning show on SXM 84: if the receiver is going forward, a toe down is sufficient, but going backwards the entire foot must land in bounds. AU guy was going backwards, toe was in, but the heel then came down on the line.
LikeLike
I was watching it with no sound, so I don’t know what all was talked about there… Did the fact that he bobbled the ball have anything to do with that? We had a what I thought was a catch in the 17 NCG that was ruled incomplete because the receiver didn’t have “possession.”
LikeLike
The bobble is precisely why it was overturned. The heel didn’t factor because his OTHER foot touched down in bounds prior to the heel landing out of bounds, so if he hadn’t bobbled the ball, it would have been a catch. The bobble, however, restarted the process of the catch, after which he had zero feet in bounds.
LikeLike
That rule has been around for a long time. Not much different than say pass interference, the only difference is you can not block anyone till the ball goes over the line.
Several times as a high school coach there was a trend to pop the ball off the tee by kicking it above the white stripe on top which basically promoted a jump ball and scrum effect. The offensive player that goes up high was a setting duck. ( defenseless ) The receiver is still that after 10 yds. Probably one of the most dangerous play in football. I guess you don’t see that anymore since the targeting rule was introduced.
Then there was a trend of the pooch kick ( kickoffs that were aimed placement kicks ) where the kicking teams out side gunner’s would actually go down and catch the ball, it’s live. That is before the offense could get a receiver in position to catch the ball.
The other rule that is not informed as much is the 4 yard zone, 2 yards on either side of the ball where you can do anything ( Tech carried this way beyond +2 yards where you can actually clip or chop block without a penalty. ) the advancement of the spread has taken that away because schemes rather than drive blocking are moving laterally. Where rather than creating a hole by being physical, the hole is created by spacing the field.
Lastly the blind side block has almost been taken out of the game where the slot receiver angles in on a backer who’s focus is still in the backfield and blindsides him. It still occurs but it’s more of a basketball screen where the backer has to go either under ( not good ) or through or behind the slot. Same principle as trips on the goal line and the two outside receivers run a slant ( screens ) the two inside DB’s and the inside slot does a out pattern. Which is their crazy enough to be in man and don’t switch it’s basically the toss sweep you all have been asking for. Same principle, different method.
LikeLike
Nobody knew this rule. Not anyone in the stadium as a fan, not anyone in the broadcast booth whether TV or radio, and apparently not the refs since no flag was thrown (although maybe they just didn’t see it). Nobody but Kirby. How the hell he saw it from his vantage point is beyond me but he does have assistants in the booths with binoculars and he does have a headset, so maybe this is just the kind of belt and suspenders preparation he does that wins us a game every now and then.
LikeLike
Only Mark Richt could have pulled this off. Sorry, Barn.
LikeLike
I saw it called earlier this year in a game, OU against K State. OU was mounting a furious comeback and apparently recovered an onside kick but was overturned for the same reason, blocking before going 10 yards. Before that, I’d never heard the rule before. The OU announcers (was listening to the radio) didn’t catch the infraction at first, but once called agreed with it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We all shit on SEC refs, myself included, but give them or the replay booth guys credit for getting this right.
LikeLiked by 1 person