Terry McAulay

Football rules analyst. I don’t have a team. Nor do I care about your team or the teams they play.

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

@AntarcticPasta @Bobbyhugz @PistolRick @OKSTProbs It’s perfectly legal for any player of either team to bat a forward pass in any direction at any time.

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

Here's the updated language for unsportsmanlike conduct in college football. Note that "spiking the ball" is not included. My understanding is that it is no longer an automatic foul. Spiking toward an opponent would, of course, be taunting.

Bottom line, it appears a celebratory "spike" after a touchdown is now legal.

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

@CoachMack36 Quite the thought-provoking response.

You should present that to the rules committee and surely they will reconsider.

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

@LyddonB The mistake you make here is assuming that I am trying, in any way, to “win people over”.

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

Apparently, opponents of the rule change want kicking teams to both: use speedier, eligible numbers on punts for better coverage *AND* sometimes use those same players as eligible receivers by putting them on the end of the line, often through deceptive shifts and alignments.

The old rule affected the precarious balance between offense and defense on punt plays and placed the defense at a significant disadvantage.

It's not surprising that fans don't understand this. It's disturbing that so many coaches don't (or at least don't care).

The NFL has understood this for decades and why players must report when playing in a different position than their number requires.

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

@Coach_Macella @clarkescanlon It helps maintain a balance between offense and defense. The offense knows the play. The defense has to be able to easily identify who is and who isn't eligible based on formation and number in order to defend.

This rule is intended to achieve that purpose.

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

@clarkescanlon I see how my phrasing may not be read as I intended. I edited to make it more clear.

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

There are no numbering exceptions for "five OL to the left of the offensive Center on 2nd down" so the defense is likely not confused about eligibility.

However, I do believe the rules should be changed so all ineligibles must be covered and no ineligible can be uncovered, but that's for another day.

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

@sschaub95 @TylerKluver Correct.

https://t.co/ibF7gOYMp2

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

Not when it gives an unfair advantage at the snap not intended by rule.

The numbering exception allows the kicking team to use speedier players in punt coverage. It's not intended to use them to confuse the defense as to who they have to cover if there is a fake.

We know that teams had the snapper or guard covered most of the game and then at some point move the WR on that side off the line just before the snap, putting C or G on the end of the line making them eligible. This would be an unfair advantage not intended by rule.

A better rule would have been for the eligibles to report ineligible positions as they do in the NFL, thus declaring to the defense who is and isn't eligible. But this rule is fine.

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

There most certainly is a compelling reason. Kicking teams had become extremely creative with formations in order to confuse the receiving team with respect to who may or may not be eligible, i.e., who needed to be covered in case of a fake punt.

There was an unfair advantage that is now significantly reduced or eliminated.

Fundamental principle of the rules: Start the play fairly for both sides of the ball.

[Pete Thamel @PeteThamel]

The issue that the Big Ten coaches are most animated about at Big Ten meetings? The new/complicated punting rule (below), as the Big Ten coaches are 18-0 against it. Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz, a longtime punt advocate, was among the many animated coaches. “There’s no compelling reason to change it. It was already perfectly fine.”

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

Not when it gives an unfair advantage at the snap not intended by rule.

The numbering exception allows the kicking team to use speedier players in punt coverage. It's not intended to use them to confuse the defense as to who they have to cover if there is a fake.

We know that teams had the snapper or guard covered most of the game and then at some point move the WR on that side off the line just before the snap, putting C or G on the end of the line making them eligible. This would be an unfair advantage not intended by rule.

A better rule would have been for the eligibles to report ineligible positions as they do in the NFL, thus declaring to the defense who is and isn't eligible. But this rule is fine.

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

Best investment I’ve made in years. Absolutely nothing compares to vinyl. It’s been 35-40 years since I’ve listened to LPs. Spectacular!

Fluance RT85.

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

👍

[United Football League @TheUFL]

🚨RULE UPDATE 🚨

The United Football League is updating OT rules so players decide the game, not penalties.

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

I struggle not only with putting points on the board with what seems to be a marginal foul at best, but actually deciding the winner suggests the rule needs some work.

The theory behind it makes sense. Its application here is the problem.

https://t.co/ZbS2HgnFfA

[United Football League @TheUFL]

ORLANDO WINS IT ON A PENALTY IN OVERTIME ‼️

Dean Blandino is in the Command Center with more ⬇️

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

@UConn6thBorough You tagged me three days later and have the gall to say “yet you persist”? Projection much?

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

@nychudsonwest Shocking

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

Zero chance. This take three days later more than convinces me that my assessment was correct.

[Storrs South @UConn6thBorough]

Delete your account @tjmcaulay

[Terry McAulay @tjmcaulay]

@TylerWong65 This goes more to judgement based on current rules. All I can say is that many years ago when I officiated basketball, it was most definitely an offensive foul.