Expert: Vic Winnek - 10/30/2011

Question
Should Wade have been ejected from the game. And if so what farther sanctions could the SEC impose against him.  A fair catch could not have been called because if so then Vanderbilt should not have been allowed to advance the ball. That being the case, which rule did Wade break and was the penalty given appropriate to the infraction?

Answer
Phillip
Thank you for your question. I did not see th eplay you describe live, as I was working my own game elsewhere.  I have reviewed the played, discussed it it with some officiating superiors, officials and officiating analysts.  The play was correctly ruled on the field and the ejection was proper, by rule. The contact was made with a kick returner whose focus was on catching or recovering a kick in the air - the contact was made with the helmet. This is a double whammy.  There is a point emphasis in the rules on this type of action to penalize it and to eject players because it is dangerous act.  

In brief, the answers to your questions are as follows:
1) Should Wade have been ejected from the game? Yes, for a flagrant personal foul, initiating contact against a defenseless kick returner whose focus is on catching or recovering a kick in the air with his helmet; but also for it could have been a flagrant or deliberate Kick Catch Interference foul.  Targeting the kick returner and initiating contact with the top of his helmet is an automatic Ejection for a flagrant foul. Rule 9-1-3; 9-1-4

2)What farther [sic] sanctions could the SEC impose? It will likely be at least a one game suspension. Flagrant personal fouls mandating conference review [Rule 9-6].  The rule is broad to allow the conference office leeway in assessing whatever sanctions it deems proper.  If the player is a repeat offender or has a history of unnecessary roughness fouls the conference office could consider this in dealing with additional sanctions and multiple game suspensions.  [Rule 9-6-1 This is a new rules so not much precedence.]

3) Which rule did Wade break and was the penalty given appropriate?  It was a flagrant personal against a defenseless player, not kick catch interference.  The penalty was 15 yard foul plus an ejection. This was proper and appropriate by rule.

Please know that the foul occured during the loose ball, so if it was to be enforced it would have to be done from the previous spot, therefore the penalty yardage was declined and Vanderbilt took the result of the play, but the ejection remains by rule.
  
Is this the play you ask about, if so here is my review and analysis:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDEHflpbzko  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9POA_QC0Yg ?  I am using this video taken from YouTube for not for profit educational and instructional purposes only.

For purposes of the answer I will objectively explain what happened and what the proper result should be.  You ask which rule did No. 1 of the kicking team break and was the penalty given appropriate to the infraction and Should No. 1 of the kicking team have been ejected from the game and what further sanctions could the SEC impose?

FOUL COMMITTED RULE
Number 1 of the Kicking team was ejected for a Flagrant Personal Foul, hitting a defenseless player with this helmet [RULE 9-1-4; 9-1-3]. By listing to the Referee's announcement of the Penalty, the foul was deemed deliberate, which by rule is a flagrant foul that requires an ejection.   

Rule 2-27-24 defines "a defenseless player is one who because his physical position
and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury.  The following are examples of
defenseless players:
a. A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
b. A receiver whose focus is on catching a pass.
c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball.
d. A kick returner whose focus is on catching or recovering a kick in the air.
e. A player on the ground at the end of a play.
f. A player obviously out of the play.

A flagrant personal foul is a rule infraction so extreme or deliberate that it places an opponent in danger of catastrophic injury.  Listening to the Referee announce the penalty you will hear him state the foul was deemed deliberate and thus results in an ejection.[Rule 2-10-1]

PROTECTION OF DEFENSELESS PLAYERS AND CROWN-OF HELMET ACTION
The NCAA Rules Committee has made it a point of emphasis that players and coaches should emphasize the elimination of targeting and initiating contact against a defenseless opponent and/or with the crown of the helmet. In 2008, the committee introduced a separate rule prohibiting initiating contact with the helmet and targeting a defenseless opponent. These actions are now in two rules: Targeting/Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) and Defenseless Player: Contact to Head or Neck Area [AT OR ABOVE THE SHOULDERS](Rule 9-1-4). Use of the helmet as a weapon and intentional (targeted) contact to the head or neck area are serious safety concerns. Flagrant offenders must be disqualified from the game. The committee continues to emphasize that coaches and officials must be diligent to insure that players understand and abide by these rules. Rule 2-27-14 defines and lists characteristics of a defenseless player.

RULE 9-1-3 PROVIDES: "No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with
the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. (SEE Rule 9-6.)"

RULE 9-1-4 provides: "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area
of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. When
in question, it is a foul (SEE Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6)."

EJECTION AND SANCTIONS BY THE SEC
By Rule 9-6-1, When a player is disqualified from the game due to a flagrant personal foul, that team’s conference shall automatically initiate a video review for possible additional sanctions before the next scheduled game.

FAIR CATCH:
Before I get into the play in depth, I am very impressed with your knowledge of the game, you picked up on something that 90% of fans would miss - following a fair catch the Receiving Team may not advance the ball [RULE 6-5-2].  You are spot on with this.  However, the foul was for a flagrant personal foul, not KCI [Kick Catch Interference] so that helps tell us there was not a fair catch.  Further if you watch the Field Judge, he continues to officiate as the Receiving team advances the ball.  This tells be there was no fair catch and the ball is live.  The Receiver was shading his eyes and not waiving his hand side to side.  This is something that the Deep officials (BJ, FJ, SJ] would have discussed in their pregame and with both special teams coaches and with the Kick Receivers in Pre game warm ups.  This is one on many reasons why officials are at the Stadium at least 3 hours before kick off - for their pre game meetings and duties.  I am very impressed with your knowledge.  The TV announces are what lead you to believe it was a fair catch. However for there to be a valid fair catch the Receiver must raise his hand above his head and wave it side to side [Rule 2-8-2: "valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signaled his intention by extending one hand only clearly above his
head and waving that hand from side to side of his body more than once"]; and for there to be an invalid fair catch he would still need to do some type of "wave signal" [Rule 2-8-3].  In this play there is no such signal the right hand is shading his eyes which is permitted.  So in this play the ball could be advanced by the Receiving team.

Had there been a fair catch or KCI the player still would have been ejected. The Approved Rulings in the Rulebook address Kick Catch Interference under rule 6-4-1 and provides the following play situation and ruling to be followed: a Team B player, about to catch a scrimmage kick, is tackled before the ball arrives but catches the kick while he is falling. RULING: Kick-catch interference. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the foul. Disqualification of the Team A player if the contact is flagrant.  Another example is 4th and 10 at the 50-yard line. B17 is at Team B’s 20-yard line and in position to catch Team A’s high scrimmage kick. During the downward
flight of the ball, A37 contacts B17 viciously and flagrantly before he touches the ball. A37 did not alter his speed or make any attempt to elude B17. RULING: Team A flagrant personal foul, interference with the opportunity to catch a kick. Penalty— 15 yards from the spot of the
foul. A37 is disqualified.

I hope this completely answers your question.



FOLLOW UP:
I SPOKE TO MIKE PERIERA ABOUT THIS TOO.  HE AGREES THAT IT WAS A GOOD CALL AND AN EJECTION WAS IN ORDER. HERE IS WHAT HE SAID ABOUT IT ON HIS COLUMN ON THE FOXSPORTS.COM
http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/missouri-puzzler-highlights-gap-i
By Mike Pereira (Fox Sports)
THE GAME: Arkansas at Vanderbilt

THE SITUATION: Arkansas had the ball, fourth-and-19 at its own 38-yard line with 9:32 left in the third quarter. Vanderbilt led 21-17.

THE PLAY: Arkansas' Dylan Breeding punted 36 yards, and as Vanderbilt’s Jonathan Krause was attempting to field the kick, he was leveled by Arkansas’ Marquel Wade. Vanderbilt’s Kenny Ladler picked up the ball and returned it 24 yards to the 50-yard line. A personal foul was called on Wade and the penalty was declined. Wade was ejected.

MY TAKE: Kudos to referee Mark Curles and his crew for ejecting Wade. There’s not a more defenseless player than a receiving-team member looking up in an attempt to field a kick. He expects not to be hit until after he has made the catch. I love the ejection because it likely takes away any thought of retaliation. As soon as you saw the play end, you could see Vanderbilt’s players were very upset, as you would expect them to be. The rule book states that flagrant offenders will be disqualified. The officials did exactly what they should have done.

FOLLOW UP:
THE SEC WILL SUSPEND THE PLAYER YOU ASKED ABOUT FOR 1 GAME FOLLOWING THE PERSONAL FOUL AND EJECTION..