shot hits support wire

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Calling all violations are judgment calls. Part of that judgment is whether we see it or not. It is still a judgment call and part of it being a judgment call is recognizing what you saw, and then calling it. I have missed travel calls, carry calls and even out of bounds calls when I "thought" I saw something and I never blew the whistle. I do not understand why because he saw the ball hit the support, means there was no judgment involved? Why did he not call the violation if he clearly saw a violation committed?

Again, go back to the play. The T didn't call it because they thought the rule says the ball is still live and in play when it hit the support. There was no question in their mind the ball hit the support. That's what I mean when I say there's no judgement involved. It was only an issue of the T mis-applying the rule by saying the ball is still in play. We aren't talking about a question of whether the ball did or did not hit the support.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Again, go back to the play. The T didn't call it because they thought the rule says the ball is still live and in play when it hit the support.

There was no question in their mind the ball hit the support. That's what I mean when I say there's no judgement involved. It was only an issue of the T mis-applying the rule by saying the ball is still in play. We aren't talking about a question of whether the ball did or did not hit the support.

I think this is a slippery slope and if you say this was a misapplication of the rules, then why not travel calls, out of bounds calls, carry calls or any other violation we missed then a score was made? This was not a misapplication of the rules as much as it is a missed judgment. This mistake might motivate this official to actually pick up the rulebook outside of taking a test so they know what a violation is despite if the question was asked on the test.

Peace