More Ohio Micromanaging!

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

A lot of good advice and practical applications . Don't know about "The
receiver must have the opportunity to perform a second act (i.e. dive to pylon, possess & turn up field in order to rule catch.

Sounds like a "bridge too far" and is a lot closer to NFL than NFHS.

And what if a 2nd act makes no sense? What 2nd act does the receiver have to have the "opportunity to perform" if he catches the ball in the opposing end zone? Besides, "opportunity" is usually used in the sense of lack of hindrance; seems more likely they want the receiver to actually perform a 2nd act.

Over many decades, the rules makers have fiddled with the presence or absence of add'l wording to clarify what "possession" is, and I don't know if they ever succeed in clarifying it or taking any element of judgment out of it.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Over many decades, the rules makers have fiddled with the presence or absence of add'l wording to clarify what "possession" is, and I don't know if they ever succeed in clarifying it or taking any element of judgment out of it.

I agree that far too often the effort to add generalized clarifying language creates more additional questions than it does answers. I submit the focus, and concentration, should be directed more at a thorough understanding of "possession" (NFHS:2-34-1 & 2) and the requirements of a "Catch"
(NFHS : 2-4).

"Perform a second act" seems extraordinarily ambiguous, subject to never ending interpretation and dispute, where as assessing and judging "possession", maintained while in contact with the ground in-bounds is finite, after which whatever happens, happens. (continues to advance, stopped, fumble, TD, OOB, etc)

[bigjohn]

Personal Foul
1. Contact with the helmet in an attempt to punish is a foul & may result in a
DQ.**


If you judge contact to be an attempt to punish why would you say may? Shouldn't any contact that is deemed an attempt to punish be a DQ??

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Personal Foul
1. Contact with the helmet in an attempt to punish is a foul & may result in a
DQ.**


If you judge contact to be an attempt to punish why would you say may? Shouldn't any contact that is deemed an attempt to punish be a DQ??

Because an "attempt" to punish may not actually result in the player punishing the opponent.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I agree that far too often the effort to add generalized clarifying language creates more additional questions than it does answers. I submit the focus, and concentration, should be directed more at a thorough understanding of "possession" (NFHS:2-34-1 & 2) and the requirements of a "Catch"
(NFHS : 2-4).

"Perform a second act" seems extraordinarily ambiguous, subject to never ending interpretation and dispute, where as assessing and judging "possession", maintained while in contact with the ground in-bounds is finite, after which whatever happens, happens. (continues to advance, stopped, fumble, TD, OOB, etc)

It is no different than the usage of "common to the game" that is used for years. The NF to me has always been behind the times in how they give interpretations or even set up standards that are almost never covered directly by rules. Because what is actual possession when other aspects of the game take place? Now again if the NF does not want to be more clear, then state organizations will set the standard. Honestly, if you do not work in Ohio, you can do whatever you wish. But for the rest of us, we will use some standard that is not always illustrated in the rulebook. I will use the "holding" foul that is called in my area when it has a POA element or so obvious it cannot be ignored and that is not something you will see in the current rulebook.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is no different than the usage of "common to the game" that is used for years.

No different in the sense of being just as superfluous. NCAA deleted the phrase long ago, then put it back in (while NFL kept it), and to what gain? It's asking the official to rule on the hypothetic, i.e. could the player with the ball have done this? Gee, I don't know, how could you tell? Only by judging the firmness of the player's grip, which is what it boils down to. So why don't they just say that?

Even the various codes' use of the concept of "control" of the ball as something possibly distinct (Because why else use a different word?) from "grasp" or "possession" is fishy. Yes, "possession" has a technical meaning to which "grasp" and "control" are only inputs, but the language could easily be simplified.

[bigjohn]

Makes sense Rich

http://www.ipfo.us/Targeting%20and%2...r%20Review.pdf

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is no different than the usage of "common to the game" that is used for years. Peace

EXACTLY the point, I was attempting to make. "Common to the game" as well as "Perform a second act" mean different things to different people, and have done so for years, which is an ever present problem with trying to create a "simple" statement that covers an infinite number of variations, equally.

What seems far more important is reaching a thorough understanding of what "possession" and "maintaining it" actually means, and then applying that understanding EXCLUSIVELY to what you actually see unfolding before your eyes, in the unique circumstance you're looking at.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

EXACTLY the point, I was attempting to make. "Common to the game" as well as "Perform a second act" mean different things to different people, and have done so for years, which is an ever present problem with trying to create a "simple" statement that covers an infinite number of variations, equally.

What seems far more important is reaching a thorough understanding of what "possession" and "maintaining it" actually means, and then applying that understanding EXCLUSIVELY to what you actually see unfolding before your eyes, in the unique circumstance you're looking at.

It does not have to mean different things if it is taught the same way. The problem as I see it is we have rules book nazis that go around getting upset when everything is not perfectly listed in the rules book. Well not every application or philosophy is listed that perfectly. These philosophies are so that you are consistent. And honestly I do not worry about what others around me do, I care mostly about what I do because I am the one that can control what I call. As a crew we talk about these things so we share the same philosophy as well, but everyone has to live and die with their calls. Not everything is a group thought.

Peace