IW and unknown status of ball

[Reffing Rev.]

3rd & 20+ from A's 20 yard line.
A1's pass is caught by A2 at B's 40 yard line, the defender falls down and A2 has a likely touchdown. However B99 starts throwing punches at the LOS during the pass. The umpire blows an inadvertent whistle and the back judge and line judge disagree on whether or not the pass was caught before or after the whistle. Aside from the obvious ejection for B99 and first round from the U, how would you go about deciding which official to go with?


On the field, LJ was more adamant. Went with his call. If video shows he was wrong. He is beating himself up over 40 yards in a 10 point game. Crew chiefs, how would you pick him up to regroup for next game?

[Robert Goodman]

If the cover player had fallen before the whistle, then hearing the whistle (if it sounded before the ball was caught) didn't affect his play. Completed pass.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

3rd & 20+ from A's 20 yard line.
On the field, LJ was more adamant. Went with his call. If video shows he was wrong. He is beating himself up over 40 yards in a 10 point game. Crew chiefs, how would you pick him up to regroup for next game?

Although every such situation is unique I usually allow the contesting officials to review with each other what they believe they actually saw (and in this case heard) to resolve their difference, and arrive at a consensus.

Failing that, I usually give additional credence to what is ACTUALLY seen (or heard) over what may not have been seen or not heard.

If the discussion is thoroughly reviewed, and the decision is carefully explained, including the responsibility for the call being totally accepted by the Referee, there is no need for anyone to "beat themselves up". If necessary, appropriate details of the decision may be included to both coaches, when advising them of the decision.

[w_sohl]

B was in the wrong here so if a consensus cannot be reached then I am going to do whatever benefits A here. In this case it is definitely a catch. May not get the TD, but I'm going with the catch then the IW.

[bwburke94]

Anything less than an awarded touchdown would be unfair from team A's perspective, as it would allow team B to gain an advantage by fouling.

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

Anything less than an awarded touchdown would be unfair from team A's perspective, as it would allow team B to gain an advantage by fouling.

I'd have no problem with this either, kinda HTBT though.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

Anything less than an awarded touchdown would be unfair from team A's perspective, as it would allow team B to gain an advantage by fouling.

That may be the case, however, there's no basis in the rules for giving A an awarded touchdown in this situation.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

Anything less than an awarded touchdown would be unfair from team A's perspective, as it would allow team B to gain an advantage by fouling.

B's unfair advantage came from the inadvertent whistle. Unless you're saying the U intentionally blew his whistle to stop the impending fight even though the ball was live. If so, the IW rules wouldn't apply would they? And you'd need a ruling under the God rule (in which case I'd say you should award a touchdown and eject the player who was fighting.)

[BoomerSooner]

From the what feels "fair" point of view, it is hard not to agree with awarding a touchdown.

Unfortunately, I don't know that the rules support awarding a touchdown in this case. As best I can recall, the only spot where awarding a touchdown is discussed is under "Unfair Acts". In that section, the only potential articles that apply are article 1 (shall not hinder play by an unfair act which has no specific rule coverage) and article 5 (shall commit any act which tends to make a travesty of the game).

I don't think the player's act directly hindered play. If you argue that it did by causing an inadvertent whistle, then you don't have a situation without specific rule coverage. I also don't think this made a travesty of the game.

In the end, I think the rules would support treating this like any other inadvertent whistle situation. With that in mind and given the situation, I'd be in the corner of whichever official thought the catch was before the whistle even though I realize the different opinions on their part was probably the result of one of them not hearing the first of several whistle blows from the umpire.

[ajmc]

The problem with imaginary (hypothetical) sample plays is that they are usually full of a lot of potential "ifs" that everyone can interpret differently. Hopefully, everyone considers each of the "ifs" that they visualize in considering their reaction and response, and comes to a conclusion on what they perceive happened.

Unfortunately, for someone who has painted a different perception, your conclusions may not make as much sense, or seem as clear, as that different perception suggests.

We can only make rational judgments on what we see (or perceive we see based on someone else's description. Each perception may have a different correct assessment.