(Written by kencraw)

In addition to the obvious pushing violation on the 2nd ASU drive, there was the earlier on the same drive, drive-extending, “leaping” penalty on the blocked field-goal . I looked up the rules for this a couple days ago (and michias was nice enough to post the rule as well in the comments). It reads as follows:

No defensive player, in an attempt to gain an advantage, may step, jump or stand on an opponent. No defensive player who runs forward from beyond the neutral zone and leaps from beyond the neutral zone in an obvious attempt to block a field goal or try may land on any player(s). It is not a foul if the leaping player was aligned in a stationary position within one yard of the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped.

So, just so we’re clear on the play, here’s what happened:

1. The Cal player of note is 5 yards (approx) behind line of scrimmage
2. Ball was snapped
3. Cal player takes 1 step forward
4. Cal player leaps straight up, still well behind the neutral zone
5. Cal player blocks kick
6. As Cal player is coming straight down when ASU player comes flying out from line of scrimage and knocks legs out from under Cal player as he’s about to hit the ground.
7. Penalty called on Cal player

So let’s break it down clause by clause to see if the Cal player broke the rule:

No defensive player who runs forward from beyond the neutral zone

OK, the Cal player in question does meet this requirement of the rule in that his step forward can be considered “running”, albeit a bit of a stretch, and he started from behind the neutral zone.

and leaps from beyond the neutral zone

Here’s the rub, right here. It’s the use of the word FROM. Generally speaking, the word ‘from’ is used when going ‘to’ some where. This is not always the case. I can call someone on the phone ‘from’ Ohio and it doesn’t indicate that when I’m done I’ll be somewhere else. However, the way this reads, it makes me think that the implication is that the leap must start ‘from’ behind the neutral zone and ends in the neutral zone. The idea being that all the linemen will be in the neutral zone when this forward (since he was running) leaping guy falls on top of them. However, taking the most broad definition of ‘from’ here, technically speaking, that’s not a requirement that he land in the neutral zone, so our poor Cal player continues to meet the clauses for the rule even if it wasn’t intended.

in an obvious attempt to block a field goal or try

No one would debate that the Cal player was attempting to block the kick so this clause is also satisfied.

may land on any player(s).

And sure enough, the Cal player did land on someone. Now, the ‘catch’ here is that he didn’t land on them because his jump took him into that person but because that person effectively ran under him while he was in the air. There was nothing our poor Cal player could have done to avoid coming down on him nor could he have anticipated that the ASU player would be under him when he started his vertical leap as the ASU player was caught up in the line at the time. So, as much as we’d like to excuse this clause, the reality is that it is indeed satisfied in this case.

So, when one takes the most broad definition of ‘running’ and the most broad definition of ‘from’ and the most broad definition of ‘land on’, sure enough, the Cal player did, as much as it is a stupidly written rule, commit a personal foul.

But here’s my gripe (in addition to the overly generous interpretation of the rule):

If we’re going to have this sort of a nit-picky call of the rules, then where THE HECK is the pushing call later in the drive. I’m OK that some refs are more sticklers for the letter of the law than others who take a more “intent” based perspective. What I’m not OK with is such wreckless inconsistency. It would have been the same ref who called the leaping penalty who would have been in perfect position to call the pushing penalty. And if that ref is going to be an AMAZING stickler for the leaping penalty when it is clear when you read the rule that while he may have JUST BARELY violated the letter of the law, he did not in any way shape or form violate the intent of the rule, then he’d better stinking call pushing in a case where not only was the letter of the law broken but also the intent AND the very strick interpretation that generally limits the use of the the rule in the modern era.

That’s the way I see it anyway. It was a bad call because it was a ridiculously broad reading of leaping and completely inconsistent with both the calling of the rest of the game and of how modern officiating is called these days.