Inadvertent Whistle While FG Is In Air

[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.

[jblowery]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

Yes; I agree.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jblowery

Yes; I agree.

What's the saying....I've made every mistake once -- I'm trying not to make any of them twice.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jblowery

Just pointing out that in this case there could be worse trouble if you apply the rule correctly.

You cannot base your decisions on the field based on which decision keeps you in less trouble.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You cannot base your decisions on the field based on which decision keeps you in less trouble.

The rules should serve the game, not the game the rules.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

The rules should serve the game, not the game the rules.

Game officials can't put themselves in a position to make those decisions on the fly. That's the job of rules makers and administrators.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Rich

Game officials can't put themselves in a position to make those decisions on the fly. That's the job of rules makers and administrators.

Why? Who are the game officials working for (provided they're paid)? To put it another way, why should the rules makers (who are paid by someone else) even care about it, when they're not on the scene? The rules makers do their job to provide a tool for game officials (and ultimately the people playing the game) to use. When the tool's useless, why should it be used?

Why shouldn't game officials discriminate between a ball that was going into the end zone anyway when the whistle was blown (meaning the written IW provision should be ignored), and a ball that would've remained in play?

There's only one reason to have IW provisions: to make sure the players respect the whistle. Otherwise you wouldn't have a whistle, hence no IWs. If they know that nothing they can do after the whistle will affect the play, they have no reason to play on. However, there are situations where it's obvious that factors beyond human control -- in this case the motion of a ball out of players' reach -- would produce a certain outcome. The ball's never going to respect the whistle, so why administer a rule as if it did?