The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 17, 2016, 09:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 17, 2016, 09:40pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 17, 2016, 09:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomerSooner View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 17, 2016, 09:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 18, 2016, 11:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 561
Send a message via AIM to BoomerSooner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomerSooner View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
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?
So if we give R an option on any scrimmage kick that has crossed the ENZ, what options are we giving them? Do we give them the option to replay the down or take possession from the dead ball spot (have fun determining where that was)? You could propose awarding possession to R at the end of the kick, but that requires both teams to continue playing after the whistle with R having to move into position to field the kick and K continuing to have to cover the kick in the event the kick is not fielded by R.

Concerning the intent of the rules makers; I don't think their intent is to provide for the likeliest outcome. I think the intent is to arrive at the most equitable outcome as often as possible even if the outcome is less likely than some other outcome. The other component of the rules is that we have something that can be consistently applied. The value of consistency is that an IW is probably going to disadvantage one team or the other in most situations, and I bet the rules makers saw the danger of having officials try to correct a situation they created via the IW by using their own judgement as to what could/should/would have happened.
__________________
My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 12, 2017, 10:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT1 View Post
If the ball is loose following a legal forward pass or kick, there's no choice -- the down must be replayed. (FED)
This is an old thread, but this needs to be highlighted if any officials (especially newer ones) come through and read this thread thinking either team has a choice in this instance of an IW. There is no option on an IW during a legal kick or forward pass, the down must be replayed as CT1 said. (4-2-3-a)

The choice everyone else is speaking of only pertains to a loose ball following a backward pass, fumble, illegal forward pass, or illegal kick. Then the team in last possession may choose to either put the ball in play where possession was lost or replay the down. (4-2-3-b) This is an important distinction, especially for newer officials who may be more susceptible to these situations presenting themselves.

Last edited by VA Official; Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 10:31am.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Inadvertent whistle The R Basketball 60 Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:31am
Inadvertent Whistle Johnny Ringo Basketball 9 Thu Dec 30, 2010 09:47pm
Inadvertent Whistle Boni Basketball 7 Mon Dec 15, 2008 07:42pm
Another NBA Inadvertent Whistle Nevadaref Basketball 30 Mon May 15, 2006 01:06pm
My first inadvertent whistle OverAndBack Football 22 Tue Oct 19, 2004 09:34pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1