I will take a beating...

[JustMy2Cents]

on this post, but I think it is something all officials need to keep in mind.

I get a sense from the posts that I read that there is a cavalier attitude by many of the posters that the coaches in general don't know the rules. This may be the case. But it has been my experience, that most coaches do know the rules. In fact, many times better than the officials who are calling the games.

I will cite one example to illustrate my point (although, there are others as well):
there was a discussion about how a player's head placement has absolutely (not a tinker's damn, quite an enteratining discussion by the way) nothing to do with whether or not a clip or a block in the back has occurred. The official that posted that is 100% correct. But as a coach reading this message board, I took that as slap against the coaching profession, and probably wrongfully so, because I am accused of being wrong more than I am right.

The reason that I am taking it that way is because the wording, in my opinion, gives the impression that coaches teach it that way, with the implication that we don't know the rules (again, this is my interpretation of what was written). We coaches know the rule exactly...and it is exactly as the official said it was. The problem lies in the interpretation.

We coaches teach to always place the head in front of a player to assist the official in making the correct call. Not because we don't know the rule. It is physically impossible to hit someone from behind with your head in front of them. It could be at one side and hit a player from behind, but if your head is in front of them you will always hit them in the front (unless you have a 2 foot anaconda neck that could wrap around a "victim").

If you are blocking into the side of an opponent (perfectly legal as pointed out in the post that I am referencing), and you were to have your head behind that opponent, dependent upon the official's perspectice, it could appear as a block from behind. And that has happened to my players MANY times. Officials, in general, in my personal experience, tend to flag anything that looks like it could be a block in the back for fear of NOT calling a legitimate block in the back.

While most of you who read this board probably know the rules very well, I think that you are in the minority of all officials that work high school games. Obviously, those of you who do post here are very serious about the craft and have a thirst for more knowledge in the hopes of betterment of the trade. Quite admirable in my opinion, and I appreciate all of you who take this approach.

Unfortunately, football is a very fluid and dynamic game with rules interpretations that can go either way. Officating as a trade is very similar to economics. If you ask 100 economists what is going to happen in the future, you will get 100 different responses based on the same set of parameters. This is all too frequently the case in officiating.

I am not talking about the rules interpretations that are spelled out in the rule book. I am talking about the ones that aren't. My post about the change in possession is a prefect example. The rule book doesn't specifically define how the situation would be handled, and therefore leaves the crew working the game with the decision. Obviously, we can't have rules defining every concievable scenario that can happen in a football game.

Therefore, don't be so quick to say that coaches don't know the rules. Coaches tend to draw on past interpretations as to how they react to calls. If an official rules on a play one way in a game, we have a tendancy to believe it to be the correct call the next time it happens to us. Then when the next set of officals interprets the rules just the opposite, that is when the frustration comes out.

Additionally, remember that officials aren't fired as a result of a bad calls. Coaches are.

And if you don't believe that bad calls impact certain teams more than others...how about an illegal kick ball and a 5th down as witnessed against the Univ of Missouri.

How about an additional down as a result of DPI in overtime of a national championship game (obivously, that call was debateable)? That call was the turning point in the game whether or not one's view is that Miami did nothing earlier in the game to deserve the win. As for whether or not that call impacts Larry Coker's job at the Univ of Miami, it probably doesn't, but it sure makes a difference on the dollars that he could command with 2 National Championships vice 1.

I am sure that some of the posters to this board will be quick to point out that those officals won't be able to work future games as a result of bad calls -- which I am sure is the case. But they are not relying on the officating income to take care of their families, put food on the table, and purchase adequate housing. We coaches are.

Please keep this in mind when you are working a game and feel that a coach doesn't know the rules.

[JasonTX]

No beating here. I respect you for coming to this board and posting. It's a great place to learn and better yourself. I have never seen a perfect coach nor have I seen a perfect official. Coaches and Officials should all be striving for the same thing. We are all role models for the students and their education should be top priority. Football is a great place for building players for a better tomorrow. As you said some coaches do know the rules, but their are others who don't know anything and it shows and it paints that image onto all coaches, just the same as if one official makes a poor judement call it affects all of us officials because everyone assumes we all have poor judgement. One thing about coaches that is very upsetting is they teach the player to play until the whistle. That is very poor because the whistle don't kill the play, unless it is inadvertant. The proper way to teach them is to play until the ball is dead. Often times the runner will be tackled and in the process of getting the whistle to my mouth a kid comes in late and hits the player on the ground. That's a foul regardless of if the whistle. The coach will scream and holler, "hey the whistle wasn't blown yet." If you are one that truly does know the rules, then keep learning because there are very few coaches that do. I know this will never happen but next time you are in a game and the officials make a call, just accept their call and move on without argument. If you do that then I will assure you that they won't tell you that you should have ran the ball on 4th and 1. Best of luck and keep posting.

[MD Longhorn]

There are coaches that know the rules.

There are officials that don't.

But by and large, due to the way games are scheduled (for officials) and the training available in most area, I think it's a safe assumption that the officials on the field (at least collectively) will know the rules better than the coaches on the field.

You mention that officials don't get fired for bad calls - but they do. They most definitely do.

You may be the exception among the general coaching population, and I would agree that the rules knowledge of the average varsity coach is far better than that of the average subV coach. Most of the stories you see here are the worstcases - there's not much point in making a post where nothing exciting happened and the coaches knew the rule! Also - many of the horrible coaching interpretations are at lower levels, but I'm sure you've worked across the sideline from someone who didn't have the slightest clue more times than you've worked with officials that didn't. At least one can hope that's the case.

[MD Longhorn]

To Jason's point...

I agree - this is the worst misnomer I've heard. PLAY UNTIL YOU HEAR THE WHISTLE. This may be true if you have the ball, or are unclear about whether a player was down.

But the play is not dead because of the whistle. The play is dead by RULE (a good number of rules). The whistle is used to indicate that one official or another has seen enough to know that the play is dead. However, the whistle is absolutely not the ONLY thing that makes a play dead, and to teach the kids to play until they hear the whistle is a mistake.

There will be several plays, if the crew is good, that will be dead without a whistle ever being blown, in fact.

[parepat]

2 Cents:

I agree that most coaches coach to avoid penalties and that we officials might be a little overzeolous in our approach to blocks in the back. However, I disagree that the coaches know the rules.

Case in point, I have a brother whis is a head coach at the high school level. He was also an official for a couple years going back about 8 years ago. Even though he took the class and officiated a few years he does not know his rules anymore. Nor should he. It is too difficult to know them if you, as a coach, are not required to interprete them on a daily basis.

If you ever want to learn just how little you know about the rules, go take the class. As someone who played football through my college years, I was stunned how much I didn't know.

I'll ask a question now to you coach. Why is it that most of the time when a call goes against a coach do they imply that we are cheating them ("you are homering us, you don't like our kids, you never call anything on them" are all implications that we are cheating you)? Do coaches really think that officials care which team wins?

P.S. There was a bad call on that play in the Ohio St. v Miami game. There should have been a face mask on Miami as well!

[ABoselli]

I couldn't disagree more.

That's a cop out. There are officials in the major conferences who have lost their jobs due to low ratings. Not just one call, but a series of them. If a coach has fired because of one call, I'd like to see it. I can't recall a coach who got bagged because he came out on the wrong side of one call. Major college coaches usually are canned because they 1) lose a lot 2) lose to the college's main rival too much 3) get caught in some sort of recruiting scandal 4) lose big games on a consistent basis.

Controversial call in the national championship game? Yep - sure was. Do you think there is any less hue and cry if he doesn't throw it? OSU faithful would decry him for years. That's part of the territory - have a little courage to make a call that some will disagree with - that's what you get paid for, not just to sit back there and hope to please everyone.

Maybe there are coaches who rationalize their firing by blaming it on one bad call - but I think if you asked the people who did the firing, they'd have a few other reasons.

As far as coaches knowing the rules, it has been my experience that they usually know the fouls, but don't really know enforcements. I know you would never do this, but we also get 'worked' by coaches hoping for that one call to go their way based on a game full of badgering and comments. I tune it out - not to be aloof or arrogent, but to keep myself in the game. I'll answer questions, but I will not address every disagreement I hear behind me.

[JustMy2Cents]

parepat,

That's a good question. And a fair question. I think that by and large, all officials could careless who wins the game and I don't think that they carry biases against either team (even when a coach on one side or the other just won't shut up!).

My opinion is that most officials are simply members of the community that have a love for the game and that they do the absolute best job that they can do. I really believe that.

As for me personally, I don't yell at officials. I used to, but I have realized how counterproductive it is. Once a call has been made, the play is over, regardless of how I thought I saw it on the field. And after having the benefit of reveiwing plays on tape, I have found that over the course of time, I am only about 50% right on the calls that I thought at the time should have been called the other way. I have realized that, for the most part, it is better to give the officials the benefit of the doubt during the game. That has worked well for me.

Now there are times when the officials are just flat wrong on calls. Example, we were running a formation that is commonly referred to as Deuce (2 TEs and 2 Slots). Ran a zone play, gained 6 yards. Unfortunately, we were flagged for not enough men on the line. And to the crew that was working the game's credit, they reversed the call (they had already brought the ball back to the LOS and walked off the penalty, when we called for a conference).

So, I don't think that officials are biased nor unreasonable. We coaches just want what you officials want and that is the right call evertime. Obviously that will never happen. But that is what we all strive for.

[Ed Hickland]

2cents,

Generalizations about coaches or officials is not fair to those who put the time and thought into becoming a better coach or official. We are all individuals and have differing motivations. To say all coaches don't know the rules is totally unfair to those who do and work to learn them.

I was impressed in my travels at a recent clinic when a debate on blocking in the free blocking zone came up. The coach addressing the interpreter stated, "the free blocking zone disintegrates when the ball leaves the zone." Now, how many coaches really know that rule?

I feel coaches don't need to spend there time learning the complete body of rules. They need to understand the basics and should be able to have the trust that the guys in the striped shirts on the field know them completely.

It is unfortunate for those of us who study and know the rules to follow in the path of those who do not. Example, my crew is rules knowledgeable or else they would not be on my crew. It gets to my last nerve when a coach debates a ruling by saying, "the crew last week did not do it that way" and I have full knowledge that what they did was incorrect.

If all officials spent time learning the rules and developing good mechanics it is possible coaches would feel more comfortable with officials.

[JustMy2Cents]

Mr. Boselli,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, which I respect.

However, I don't think that I was clear on what I was saying as witness from posts including and in addition to yours.

My assertion that officials don't get fired is related to the impact on the individual more so than the actual firing -- you are fired from officiating, but it really isn't going to impact how well you are able to care for your family. Therefore, if an official is fired, while he might not like it, he still has his "real" job that allows him to provide for his family. The fired official will go back to being a doctor, lawyer, or business man on Monday.

Coaches (college coaches specifically) don't have this luxury. If we get fired, the gravy train stops. I do agree with you that rarely (if ever) does one call make the difference, but it can significantly impact our earning power.

I will give you one "for instance" and then I will shut up. I don't think this has ever happened, but it certainly could happen. Let's use the overtime DPI in last year's National Champ Game.

For the sake of argument, let's just all agree that upon further review, it was NOT DPI (regardless of how you felt about the particular play in question). Now further suppose that play had occurred at the Div-II level. D-II National Championship game, one team is awarded the win and the other a loss because this particular call (remember, for the sake of argument, we all agree it was a bad call, whether it was in your opinion or not is irrelevant for this argument). Now, the winning coach at the D-II level has a NC on his resume and the other doesn't. As a result, that is the deciding factor in how the applications commmittee for a D-IAA or small D-IA school decides who gets the job. The loser of the game, as the result of the bad call, his resume doesn't stand out. While the winner, as the result of the bad call, gets the job, which is probably at least double the pay he was earning at the D-II school. In case you are wondering, yes, this is a large portion of what is used to decide who gets the higher paying job -- as unfortunate as it may be.

Not exactly what I described in my previous post, but similar enough that I feel it is relevant. So, yes, the financial implications of a bad call for the coach are far more significant that the financial implications of a bad call for an official.

[PiggSkin]

$.02...

I understand your point, but keep in mind, the official in your scenario has repercussions to deal with as well... The official for this D2 game is likely trying to move up in the ranks as well.. Given that he is working the championship game, he is likely on some Division I lists for being 'hireable'... If he kicks this call, and it is that blatant, then he is going to lose credibility, and his chances of moving to "big time" football have gone down...

Thank you for presenting your points in a civil manner... I enjoy speaking with coaches who do so, even if our points of view differ... And you do present a valid point... We should not say "All coaches" do anything, much like coaches should not say "All officials" do anything...

[JasonTX]

"While the winner, as the result of the bad call, gets the job"

I don't believe that one call will decide who gets the job. It boils down to 60 mins of football per game times the amount of games played. And for your sake of argument the DPI call in the Championship game. That one call did not win or lose the game for either team. Both teams had fair oppurtunities during the game to win. Playcalling and execution on the coaches and player parts make up the difference in the games. Sometimes a better play could have been called (and coaches do admit that, "We should have ran the ball there") and sometimes player miss their assingnment. Had Miami did their part they could have won and maybe if OSU didn't miss a few assignment they may have won by a larger marin. Either way you look at it the game is never won or lost on 1 call by the officials. I can guarantee you that Coaches and Players make more mistakes in a game than the officials do. The bottom line is don't wait for the last play of the game to win game. Execute all game and you won't never be in that position.

[JustMy2Cents]

I disagree Jason.

One call can be the difference in a win or a loss. I agree with the assessment that "play well the whole game and don't put yourself in that position" is a fair one.

But that is the equivalent of saying that Miami did put themselves in a position to win it at the end. So, yes, that one play ultimately made the difference in the game.

And, yes it does matter on a resume. Results matter. Period. That is the case in all things in life. Ceteris paribus, one resume with an NC will get the job over the one that doesn't...10 out of 10 times.

[Rich]

Why would a no call be a better call than the call that was made? Surely, as intelligent as your discourse has been, you can't possibly believe the amount of time the flag took to hit the ground means anything.

That seems to be the overriding problem with the call, not the call itself.

Rich

[ABoselli]

So in your scenario, the losing coach loses his ability to "take care of their families, put food on the table, and purchase adequate housing"? Umm, no. How many guys are walking around with it on the resume to start out with? How many of them are competing for other jobs? Most (97%) jobs are being competed for by coaches who have not won a NC.

If he is in the DII NC game, he's moving up in the ranks. His earning power has not been cut off (or end of the gravy train) but he may not realize his big payday - maybe. Jim Tressel won multiple NC's at Youngstown St, as I recall, and it took him a while to land the OSU job.

What it boils down to, I guess, is can you look yourself in the mirror and say you have done all you can to make yourself the best official / coach you are capable of being? That's what I go by. If I don't move up as fast as I think I should be, or don't get as big a game as I think I should - its on me and no one else.

[JustMy2Cents]

Rich,

No, I don't care about the call/no-call against Miami...or when the flag hit the ground. The point that I was trying to make was that one call can impact the outcome of the game. I don't know whether the right call or the wrong call was made in that game (I have an opinion, which I will keep to myself, and it is probably counter to what each of you reading this post thinks), but to say that it did not impact the outcome of the game, is naive in my opinion.

To say that Miami should have done more things in the course of 60 minutes is a slap in the face of the coach. The team did enough things to give it a shot at winning. Past plays are irrelevant...similar to sunk costs in economics.

Bottomline was that a call/no-call in that particular situation is the decider. At that point in the game, it is the decider. To surmise less, is simply to deflect responsibility.

The coach called the right play, had the match-up he wanted, the players on both teams executed to the best of their abilities. The call made a difference.

Whether it was the right call or the wrong call is debateable, but the call did make a diffence in that game.