More Ohio Micromanaging!

[bigjohn]

http://www.ohsaa.org/officials/bulle...ilosophies.pdf

[Line_Judge]

Great clarifications and improvement to the Ohio Gold book. The Gold Book has made significant advances to officiating in Ohio.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Line_Judge

Great clarifications and improvement to the Ohio Gold book. The Gold Book has made significant advances to officiating in Ohio.

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.

[JRutledge]

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.

You want consistency don't you? And every thing from the NFL is not foreign to the high school level.

Peace

[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 JRutledge

You want consistency don't you? And every thing from the NFL is not foreign to the high school level. Peace

There's no reasonable expectation of consistency between NFL and NFHS. NFL is game played by exceptional adults designed to generate huge sums of money, NFHS is an interscholastic sporting event played by teenagers.

NFL players ROUTINELY perform physical acts teenagers usually only fantasize about. The two games are on completely different levels, for completely different purposes (each of which work very well on their own LEVEL).

Consistency is a laudable and achievable objective, within a game, maybe within a season at the same level. EXPECTING it on EVERYTHING between different levels is simply an impossible overreach.

As levels rise, so do individual skills and rules, at times, need to adjust to keep pace with higher skills.

[bigjohn]

Too bad you can't fine coaches who let players violate uniform rules like the players get fined in the NFL!!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

There's no reasonable expectation of consistency between NFL and NFHS. NFL is game played by exceptional adults designed to generate huge sums of money, NFHS is an interscholastic sporting event played by teenagers.

NFL players ROUTINELY perform physical acts teenagers usually only fantasize about. The two games are on completely different levels, for completely different purposes (each of which work very well on their own LEVEL).

Consistency is a laudable and achievable objective, within a game, maybe within a season at the same level. EXPECTING it on EVERYTHING between different levels is simply an impossible overreach.

As levels rise, so do individual skills and rules, at times, need to adjust to keep pace with higher skills.

Individual skill has nothing to do with ruling on a catch. We expect similar things at all levels for a holding to be called or a passing interference to called. I really do not understand why people think a player cannot expect them to control the ball similarly as someone at the higher levels? Heck, if you do not have the ball at the end of the catch anyway, I am supposed to use some artificial standard as to when you had the ball and I have no replay to confirm or deny such a call?

Actually, I think it is easier to rule on catches because the players are a little slower, but I still use the same basic standards before I rule a catch. I don't need state guidelines to make those rulings either.

Peace

[Welpe]

You see micromanaging, I see philosophies to ensure more consistent officiating.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Welpe

You see micromanaging, I see philosophies to ensure more consistent officiating.

I have been critical of the Gold Book in the past and the whole "contenders/pretenders" nonsense, but this is a great document I will probably use myself in an association meeting.

[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??

[Rich]

I may not connect the way I wanted.

No targeting is an automatic DQ in NFHS football.

[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.