Inadvertent Whistle While FG Is In Air

[jblowery]

Referee sees that it is short or that the ball is away (like in an extra point) and blows whistle before it crosses goal line. R doesn't have the opportunity to return the scrimmage kick as a result. What is the call on this? I think the kicking team would get choice to replay the down but could this be similar to PSK where we're talking about the receiving instead of kicking team after the ball is kicked? If we don't have a re-kick where is the ball spotted?

[Rich]

Replay the down. The ball's loose after a kick. R eats a lot of deserved crap from the coach.

I read on Twitter there was (locally) an IW on a short FG the was returned for the winning score and time expired on the play. Game went OT and the return team ended up winning.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jblowery

Referee sees that it is short or that the ball is away (like in an extra point) and blows whistle before it crosses goal line. R doesn't have the opportunity to return the scrimmage kick as a result. What is the call on this?

Did it look like R would've had even a chance or been willing to play the ball? I could see this being an innocent error that had no possible effect on play, and therefore should be ignored, depending on the details.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Did it look like R would've had even a chance or been willing to play the ball? I could see this being an innocent error that had no possible effect on play, and therefore should be ignored, depending on the details.

The R has no business blowing his whistle on a FG attempt. Unless it's at rest, it's an IW. Nothing more despicable than officials pretending an IW didn't happen.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Rich

The R has no business blowing his whistle on a FG attempt. Unless it's at rest, it's an IW. Nothing more despicable than officials pretending an IW didn't happen.

Yes, there's something more despicable than that: allowing an IW call to affect play that otherwise wouldn't've been affected. If that ball was out of everyone's reach & crossed the goal line a second after the whistle, what sense would it make to enforce the IW to the letter?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Yes, there's something more despicable than that: allowing an IW call to affect play that otherwise wouldn't've been affected. If that ball was out of everyone's reach & crossed the goal line a second after the whistle, what sense would it make to enforce the IW to the letter?

The OP said R lost the opportunity to return the kick. So I read it as short of the goal line.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.