Inadvertent Whistle While FG Is In Air
 

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?

Inadvertent Whistle While FG Is In Air
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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

If the ball is loose following a legal forward pass or kick, there's no choice -- the down must be replayed. (FED)

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.

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.

You keep asking questions whose answers would not change anything.

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

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.