Inadvertent Whistle While FG Is In Air

[jblowery]

Yes, short of the goal line. So replay no matter what or option for K? I know they'd want another chance at the FG. Actually it was R that was complaining because when the whistle blew K stopped trying to do anything and R took off with the ball down the sideline making it look like he would have returned it for a TD.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jblowery

Yes, short of the goal line. So replay no matter what or option for K? I know they'd want another chance at the FG. Actually it was R that was complaining because when the whistle blew K stopped trying to do anything and R took off with the ball down the sideline making it look like he would have returned it for a TD.

So it was short of the goal line at the time of the whistle, and did not bounce into the end zone subsequently to it? I read "whistle before it crosses goal line" as meaning it did cross it after the whistle.

[jblowery]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So it was short of the goal line at the time of the whistle, and did not bounce into the end zone subsequently to it? I read "whistle before it crosses goal line" as meaning it did cross it after the whistle.

It was short. After the whistle the receiver caught the ball on the 2 yard line.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So it was short of the goal line at the time of the whistle, and did not bounce into the end zone subsequently to it? I read "whistle before it crosses goal line" as meaning it did cross it after the whistle.

All that matters is where was the ball when the whistle was blown. If it was in the air, and not in possession of R, K will choose to replay the down.

[jblowery]

Originally Posted by OKREF

All that matters is where was the ball when the whistle was blown. If it was in the air, and not in possession of R, K will choose to replay the down.

Ok, so it is K's choice since they last had possession, just like it is A's choice when there is an inadvertent whistle during a fumble. That's basically what I was looking for. Thanks.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jblowery

Ok, so it is K's choice since they last had possession, just like it is A's choice when there is an inadvertent whistle during a fumble. That's basically what I was looking for. Thanks.

If the ball is loose, the team last in possession has the choice to put the ball in play where possession was lost or replay the down. On a kick where an IW blows before being caught by the returner, I wouldn't even present a choice -- we would replay the down.

To answer Robert's question - If a whistle was blown just prior to a ball breaking the plane of the goal line, sure I'd rule that it was incidental. But if the whistle prevented any play by either team, I'm hanging my hat on the rule.

(I blow my whistle -- as the R -- on a PAT the second the kicker's foot hits the ball. I remember a silly argument here how this is really an IW. Umm, no.

As an R, I *never* blow my whistle on a FG. That task falls on the BJ.

[jblowery]

Originally Posted by Rich

If the ball is loose, the team last in possession has the choice to put the ball in play where possession was lost or replay the down. On a kick where an IW blows before being caught by the returner, I wouldn't even present a choice -- we would replay the down.

To answer Robert's question - If a whistle was blown just prior to a ball breaking the plane of the goal line, sure I'd rule that it was incidental. But if the whistle prevented any play by either team, I'm hanging my hat on the rule.

(I blow my whistle -- as the R -- on a PAT the second the kicker's foot hits the ball. I remember a silly argument here how this is really an IW. Umm, no.

As an R, I *never* blow my whistle on a FG. That task falls on the BJ.

One of the reasons I asked is because it would actually be more fair to give the choice to R instead of K because the only portion of the play that was prevented was R returning the kick. The kick was way short of the goal posts. The rule is the rule and we have to enforce it but I'm sure this wasn't the type of situation the rulemakers had in mind when they wrote it. Just saying that it in this situation R really gets screwed. If you re-play the down and K makes the FG (this was end of regulation with game tied) the refs basically lost the game for R.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jblowery

One of the reasons I asked is because it would actually be more fair to give the choice to R instead of K because the only portion of the play that was prevented was R returning the kick. The kick was way short of the goal posts. The rule is the rule and we have to enforce it but I'm sure this wasn't the type of situation the rulemakers had in mind when they wrote it. Just saying that it in this situation R really gets screwed. If you re-play the down and K makes the FG (this was end of regulation with game tied) the refs basically lost the game for R.

The IW provisions should be amended to make it that when a scrimmage kick is beyond the ENZ, and has not been first touched by any player of R, team R gets the choice. I think they way they have it now was arrived at to keep the rules shorter, going by team possession consistently with the rest of the book.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by OKREF

All that matters is where was the ball when the whistle was blown. If it was in the air, and not in possession of R, K will choose to replay the down.

Would you actually make that mechanical a ruling if it was clear that it could not have been played by R, or anyone, in the field of play? What could possibly have affected the outcome that would justify mechanical application of the rule? The whistle took away K's ability to apply body English to a live ball?

The situation described upthread, where the ball actually never did cross the goal line, dead or alive, is different. There I get application of the rule as written. But there are some cases where the right thing would be to rule equitably instead.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Would you actually make that mechanical a ruling if it was clear that it could not have been played by R, or anyone, in the field of play? What could possibly have affected the outcome that would justify mechanical application of the rule? The whistle took away K's ability to apply body English to a live ball?

The situation described upthread, where the ball actually never did cross the goal line, dead or alive, is different. There I get application of the rule as written. But there are some cases where the right thing would be to rule equitably instead.

Applying a rule as it is written will never get you in trouble. Doing the "right" thing with no rules basis is wrong, an will get you in even more trouble. The IW rule is clear. Apply it the way it is written, and understand someone's going to be upset, however that will happen when we have an IW.

[jblowery]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Doing the "right" thing with no rules basis is wrong, an will get you in even more trouble.

Usually but maybe not in this case. If you let K (the visiting team BTW if that is relevant at all) re-kick and they make the game winning FG you're going to be running for your life.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jblowery

Usually but not in this case. If you let K (the visiting team BTW) re-kick and they make the game winning FG you're going to be running for your life.

I'd fire any crew that set aside a rule so blatantly.

[APG]

Originally Posted by jblowery

Usually but maybe not in this case. If you let K (the visiting team BTW if that is relevant at all) re-kick and they make the game winning FG you're going to be running for your life.

You've (in the ambiguous sense) already screwed up once...no need to compound it with a rules misapplication.

[ajmc]

Insisting that "One size fits all" can cause a lot of truly unnecessary pain. Perhaps the most important quality officials provide to Interscholastic Football is common sense (which often includes sound judgment and the courage to apply it).

As written the IW correction procedures are clear, concise and understandable, and relies on the common sense of officials to administer. A situation where a FG attempt was blown dead inadvertently that clearly disadvantaged either team is simply different than a FG attempt that concludes, one way or the other, (Good-No Good) and does not unfairly or inappropriately disadvantage either team, during which there might have been a whistle sounded while the kick was in flight, that had no bearing WHATSOEVER on the success or failure of the attempt.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Insisting that "One size fits all" can cause a lot of truly unnecessary pain. Perhaps the most important quality officials provide to Interscholastic Football is common sense (which often includes sound judgment and the courage to apply it).

As written the IW correction procedures are clear, concise and understandable, and relies on the common sense of officials to administer. A situation where a FG attempt was blown dead inadvertently that clearly disadvantaged either team is simply different than a FG attempt that concludes, one way or the other, (Good-No Good) and does not unfairly or inappropriately disadvantage either team, during which there might have been a whistle sounded while the kick was in flight, that had no bearing WHATSOEVER on the success or failure of the attempt.

A FG attempt that's short is no different than a punt.

What do we do if there's an IW while a punt's in the air?