Another classy move

[TriggerMN]

This happened this past weekend in one of Minnesota's state football championship games:

Prep Bowl: MSHSL reviewing eye-gouging by Minneapolis North player - StarTribune.com

Here's a link to the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yViNgvtBAHI

[IAUMP]

I have to ask, what was the U looking at? He was right there as soon as the offender got up. I'm an U myself and if I am that close to where a play ends, I am looking at the ball carrier and the tackler to make sure nothing

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by IAUMP

I have to ask, what was the U looking at? He was right there as soon as the offender got up. I'm an U myself and if I am that close to where a play ends, I am looking at the ball carrier and the tackler to make sure nothing

First, I don't reach the same conclusion the writer does, looking at the photo he provided. THEN of course most Umpires continue to observe the ball carrier and those defending, while they get up after a tackle, but that usually doesn't include laying prone on the ground within 6" of the pile.

The Umpire's responsibilities include observing the pile, THE ENTIRE PILE AND ALL THE PLAYERS INVOLVED IN IT. Getting within a gnat's eyelash of any specific players, unless something has commanded your focus, will more often cause you to miss, "what's going on in the forest, by guessing at specific trees". This Umpire may well have been in excellent position, focusing on exactly what he should have been focusing on and DID NOT SEE, (which, based on the photo provided) may, or MAY NOT, have happened as alleged.

[IAUMP]

AJMC, I understand what you are saying. However, if I am the closest official to the tackle and in this case it appears only 3 players involved in the "pile" then my focus is going to be tight. I have 4 other officials to watch the "forest". In looking at the video, you did not have to be "laying prone on the ground within 6" of the pile" or "Getting within a gnat's eyelash of any specific players" to see this.

It is MY and only my opinion that this should have been caught.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by IAUMP

AJMC, I understand what you are saying. However, if I am the closest official to the tackle and in this case it appears only 3 players involved in the "pile" then my focus is going to be tight. I have 4 other officials to watch the "forest". In looking at the video, you did not have to be "laying prone on the ground within 6" of the pile" or "Getting within a gnat's eyelash of any specific players" to see this.

It is MY and only my opinion that this should have been caught.

Obviously, you are fully entitled to your opinion, but one of the most persistent MISTAKES people (including some officials) make when assessing a situation from viewing film/video, is ASSUMING that the view the camera has is the same view an official AT GROUND LEVEL (who is often OUTSIDE the film/video view) are the same.

Was the Umpire, in the op, looking at other players who may have been gearing up for a problem, was his view blocked by a mass of humanity between him and the players on the ground (for just a second). If you have NO IDEA what he was looking at, how can you honestly declare what he "should have been" looking at. It's also quite possible that the Umpire actually did vave a BETTER view of what happened and came to a different conclusion than you, based on what he ACTUALLY saw.

Even "facing" something can be quite different than "focusing on" that same something, or even "seeing" something when there are all sorts of things going on in the direction an Umpire may be looking. Even from the video, can you be sure the opponent didn't believe the ball was still loose and was reaching for it? Can you see him ACTUAL "poking in the eye"? Remember, we're not supposed to guess what happens, or surmise what likely happened, we're held to a higher standard of absolutely KNOWING what happened.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Obviously, you are fully entitled to your opinion, but one of the most persistent MISTAKES people (including some officials) make when assessing a situation from viewing film/video, is ASSUMING that the view the camera has is the same view an official AT GROUND LEVEL (who is often OUTSIDE the film/video view) are the same.

Was the Umpire, in the op, looking at other players who may have been gearing up for a problem, was his view blocked by a mass of humanity between him and the players on the ground (for just a second). If you have NO IDEA what he was looking at, how can you honestly declare what he "should have been" looking at. It's also quite possible that the Umpire actually did vave a BETTER view of what happened and came to a different conclusion than you, based on what he ACTUALLY saw.

Even "facing" something can be quite different than "focusing on" that same something, or even "seeing" something when there are all sorts of things going on in the direction an Umpire may be looking. Even from the video, can you be sure the opponent didn't believe the ball was still loose and was reaching for it? Can you see him ACTUAL "poking in the eye"? Remember, we're not supposed to guess what happens, or surmise what likely happened, we're held to a higher standard of absolutely KNOWING what happened.

Here we go again. It's impossible for an official to mess up in your eyes (pun intended.)

Yes, you can definitively tell there was eye-poking. Whether U saw it or not, or should have, is a different question, but for you to argue substantive issues of fact when there is no question is absolutely juvenile.

[Canned Heat]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Obviously, you are fully entitled to your opinion, but one of the most persistent MISTAKES people (including some officials) make when assessing a situation from viewing film/video, is ASSUMING that the view the camera has is the same view an official AT GROUND LEVEL (who is often OUTSIDE the film/video view) are the same.

Was the Umpire, in the op, looking at other players who may have been gearing up for a problem, was his view blocked by a mass of humanity between him and the players on the ground (for just a second). If you have NO IDEA what he was looking at, how can you honestly declare what he "should have been" looking at. It's also quite possible that the Umpire actually did vave a BETTER view of what happened and came to a different conclusion than you, based on what he ACTUALLY saw.


Even "facing" something can be quite different than "focusing on" that same something, or even "seeing" something when there are all sorts of things going on in the direction an Umpire may be looking. Even from the video, can you be sure the opponent didn't believe the ball was still loose and was reaching for it? Can you see him ACTUAL "poking in the eye"? Remember, we're not supposed to guess what happens, or surmise what likely happened, we're held to a higher standard of absolutely KNOWING what happened.

Agreed. The angle and the B player down next to the RB likely helped #32 get away with it (at the time). As stated, this was apparently a pretty chippy game and the U very well may have been cleaning up another issue or even separating two opponents on his way in to the ball on that play for all we know.

I think we all like to think we'd see that and yet we all know we don't see everything.

MN is 5 man mechanics in playoffs, correct?

My guess is this kid is sitting out of his BB or WR season for a bit.

[jTheUmp]

If you watch the video, you'll see that there's another Team B player laying on the ground directly between where the umpire is (presumably, based on the angle of where he is when you see him a few seconds later) and where the runner is laying.