Inadvertent Whistle While FG Is In Air

[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.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

The issue with this quote is that possession doesn't change just because the ball has crossed the ENZ. There are a variety of possible actions that could occur after an IW with the ball in the air that would determine which team is awarded possession at the end of the down. Some of those possible actions may never occur because some players stopped playing once the IW is blown.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

The issue with this quote is that possession doesn't change just because the ball has crossed the ENZ. There are a variety of possible actions that could occur after an IW with the ball in the air that would determine which team is awarded possession at the end of the down. Some of those possible actions may never occur because some players stopped playing once the IW is blown.

True, but...so what? It doesn't answer the question of how the situation should be administered. Many actions may also occur because of how IW is ruled, too -- no matter how the rule is written. It just seems the rules makers would want to provide for the likeliest outcomes, rather than less likely ones.

Suppose a game is called early, due to no fault of the administration of the game. Sure, many things could've happened if they'd played on, but doesn't it make more sense to think that the team that was ahead would've stayed ahead, if a result needs to be adjudicated?

[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.

[jblowery]

Just pointing out that in this case there could be worse trouble if you apply the rule correctly. Personally, I can't think of anything worse as an official than for a team to win a game because an official screwed up, outside of a kid getting seriously injured because of an official. I'd rather get "fired" than have either one of those happen. However, I'd still apply the rule correctly if I was a referee and pray that the re-kick was no good.

We weren't 100% sure what to do. I may have been the only one that thought K would "probably" have the choice to re-kick but I'm not going to push the referee to make this application unless I'm 100% sure of it. Now I know though so I will be more adamant to the referee if it ever happens in the future. It won't happen though. I'm going to make it more clear that the two officials back at the goal post have the whistle on a FG attempt (unlike an extra point).

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by jblowery

Just pointing out that in this case there could be worse trouble if you apply the rule correctly. Not saying that was the wrong thing to do.

We weren't 100% sure what to do. I may have been the only one that thought K would "probably" have the choice to re-kick but I don't think this is the type of rule you want to apply unless you are 100% sure because in this case the rule isn't really fair. Now I know though so I will be more adamant to the referee if it ever happens in the future. It won't happen though. I'm going to make it clear that the two officials back at the goal post have the whistle on a FG attempt (unlike an extra point).

There's no chance you will get in more trouble for correctly applying a rule, there is 100% chance there will be more trouble for doing something blatently wrong with zero rules support, and it doesn't matter if you think the rule isn't fair or not. Just remember the two officials should wait to blow their whistle until after the ball has crossed the goal line.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jblowery

Just pointing out that in this case there could be worse trouble if you apply the rule correctly. Personally, I can't think of anything worse as an official than for a team to win a game because an official screwed up, outside of a kid getting seriously injured because of an official. I'd rather get "fired" than have either one of those happen. However, I'd still apply the rule correctly if I was a referee and pray that the re-kick was no good.

We weren't 100% sure what to do. I may have been the only one that thought K would "probably" have the choice to re-kick but I'm not going to push the referee to make this application unless I'm 100% sure of it. Now I know though so I will be more adamant to the referee if it ever happens in the future. It won't happen though. I'm going to make it more clear that the two officials back at the goal post have the whistle on a FG attempt (unlike an extra point).

One official. The back judge. He's the guy ALWAYS under the posts.

And let me suggest that the crew spends more time in the rules book and knows the IW choices / provisions cold. They aren't supposed to happen, but there's a reason there's a half-page in the rules book devoted to them.