Pac-12 suspends line judge for inadvertent whistle ruling

[Suudy]

Line judge suspended by Pac-12 for ruling in Washington State win over Arizona State

I was at the game, and watched the replay at home.

Here's a link to the play (I still can't figure out how to embed links).

https://youtu.be/qGlr548biy4

I disagree with the Pac-12 that forward progress was stopped. We'd never rule that kind of action (a simple push backward) as stopped forward progress in the middle of the field. I think the IW ruling was the right one.

Comments?

[HLin NC]

So it was an inadvertent inadvertent whistle??

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

So it was an inadvertent inadvertent whistle??

So it appeared to me. I couldn't hear it in the stands, but it was clear in the replay. And the players seemed to have heard it.

[JRutledge]

I love how Spencer Tillman just created a ruling out of thin air. Commentators are great. Now we should use discretion when they like it and then rip us when we don't use the "right" discretion.

Peace

[BoomerSooner]

I read an article shortly after the game that claimed the line judge initially ruled forward progress had been stopped, and then he changed his mind and determined it hadn't been stopped, he and/or the crew decided to rule it an inadvertent whistle.

I don't know how the information was obtained that he initially ruled forward progress had been stopped, but if it came from him or another member of the crew, that is where I would think the trouble started. The article I'm referencing (unfortunately I can't find it now) came out before the announcement of the suspension, so it is possible what I read was the assumption of a reporter, commentator or other analyst. If that is the case, then I think the PAC-12 office owes it to the line judge and the crew as a whole to investigate what happened and not let the public outcry for "justice" dictate its response (which is what appears happened IMO).

Personally, I think he blew the whistle because he assumed the play was going out of bounds. I'm also of the opinion that forward progress was stopped, however, there isn't any point in arguing with his judgement. This is where I was disappointed with the PAC-12's statement about the incident. Had they come out and stated the suspension was due to a procedural error, poor game management, misapplication of a rule, incorrect interpretation of a rule, etc. then so be it. The wording of the PAC-12's statement can be reduced to this: "We don't agree with the line judge's judgement on this play, so we are suspending him".

I'm not saying the PAC-12 doesn't have the right to disagree with his judgement and take action if they view it as evidence of poor performance when evaluating him, but they don't come out and publicize the ratings of every official on every game. Deal with it privately, inform the involved schools and ask them to announce their support for the decision. The schools don't have to agree with the outcome of the call or the game, but the should be willing to acknowledge the conferences decision and accept the outcome when suspensions or other corrective action is taken. It is as simple as 2 statements:
1. From the conference office: "We have evaluated the performance of the officiating crews from all of our games over the past weekend. These evaluations have been reviewed with the crews as part of our continual performance improvement process. Where needed we have made recommendations for improvement, but we remain confident in the quality of our officials."
2. From the school(s) involved: "We have been in contact with the conference office regarding the officiating from this past weekend. We are disappointed with the outcome of the game and have discussed several items that concerned us. The conference has reviewed these items, shared their findings with us, and reviewed the steps taken to assure continual improvement surrounding these areas. We appreciate their attention to the matter and support the conference's efforts.

These two statements show that the conference has dealt with the matter and that the school accepts the response. Beyond that, what else is needed?

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

It is as simple as 2 statements:
1. From the conference office: "We have evaluated the performance of the officiating crews from all of our games over the past weekend. These evaluations have been reviewed with the crews as part of our continual performance improvement process. Where needed we have made recommendations for improvement, but we remain confident in the quality of our officials."
2. From the school(s) involved: "We have been in contact with the conference office regarding the officiating from this past weekend. We are disappointed with the outcome of the game and have discussed several items that concerned us. The conference has reviewed these items, shared their findings with us, and reviewed the steps taken to assure continual improvement surrounding these areas. We appreciate their attention to the matter and support the conference's efforts."

If you don't do PR for a living, you should.

[Canned Heat]

Originally Posted by Suudy

If you don't do PR for a living, you should.

I agree.....I also concur with others on how the NFL could better handle their internal matters on similar events, as well.

We are slowly regressing back to the days of heads on a stick in the town square. "Reparations!" as George Costanza would say.

[ajmc]

At some point, hopefully very soon, rational people are going to stop overreacting to the whining of those who are offended, put off, demand attention to every little infraction (real or imagined) they (and usually ONLY they) feel slighted about.

Like any other bad behavior, the more attention paid to unnecessary whining only serves to increase the volume of unnecessary whining you'll need to deal with.

Football would be a great place to start.