I don't feel I have indicated I don't call in accordance with the rules. The reason I visit forums is to exchange knowledge, ideas, and to enlighten myself. I don't readily accept everything that is said just because it comes from a respected authoritative figure. Certainly, your opinions weigh heavily in my learning process. However, when I feel I have documentation which can substantiate a different position I may seek more detailed information.
FYI, I've called Fed since 1980, I like the Fed rules, and I wish ALL amateur would go that route. It's not going to happen. Your issue of "certainty" is not one I have seen in print or training and IS new to me. I am still learning. I have provided info on benefit of doubt taught to me by Kyle McNeely at state Fed meeting. Now, which do I go with. Both have substantial roots and reasons. I think I agree to disagree. IN DETERMINING MY JUDGMENT, if I err, it will be against the potential offending team and not the team at risk of being at a disadvantage. I feel that is fairest way to ATTEMPT to maintain balance. Please keep in mind, this only applies to those plays involving "doubt factor" where possibility of error is certainly higher.
I agree with you on pushing the limits. Show me a cornerback who has never had pass interference on him, and I will show you a cornerback who is not covering close enough. Unfortunately, I have seen too many "tests" go unanswered particularly at the Fed level. I would hope you would agree that the better you know the game, the more you call, the less doubt factors you will have. I don't feel I penalize good play. Thank you for your input.
|
Thu Dec 07, 2000, 05:34pm
Hybrid Mode
