Siding with Your Sidelines - Page 2

Green · #16 (**permalink**) Sun Sep 12, 2004, 03:31pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob Lyle

Quote:

Originally posted by Green
Youre working a game and the coaches on the Line Judges sideline are fairly calm but every now and then, they complain about something. At the end of the game it seems like the LJ had a tendency to side with the team at his back. Youve worked other games with this same official and in those games he showed the same tendency. During the game, when to coaches complained, he throw a flag at the time or a couple of downs later. His calls werent blatantly in favor of the team but when the pressure was on, the calls when their way.

After the ratings, the Line Judge learned he was not rated all that high and doesnt quite understand why. The coaches didnt seem to complain all that much during the season, so why not a higher rating?

If the ratings could talk Between-the-Lines, they might say something like this. This official makes calls in our favor and he can also be talked into a call. We know, if we can talk him into a call, when hes on the other side of the field, they can too.

Coaches want the feeling that their interest is being protected, regardless of what position the official is working, and have little use for an official who has a tendency to side with the other team.

Any thoughts?

Ten years ago when I started football, I had this problem. The coaches were in charge of the ratings and I subconciously favored the coaches that were in my ear. I was more worried about the coaches than what was going on between the lines. My ratings were horrible and it was a disaster for my career.

After two years, I went to another organization where officials controlled the ratings. This allowed me to concentrate on my game and improve. If I had not found a more friendly work environment, I would now be an ex-football official.

A number of members on this board have made commments about coaches rating the officials and how it effects the way an official makes calls, is it just understood that the official is expected to favor the team on his side-of-the-field or in favor (in the case of the home team hiring the crew) the home team?

schmitty1973 · #17 (**permalink**) Sun Sep 12, 2004, 09:42pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Texoma_LJ
I agree with the rationale of 40-0 blow outs, and think the(3) "must" fouls idea is great. I was thinking more of a ball game that goes into overtime. Do you tend to "stuff the flag" and "let the players decide". (OT in hockey with no calls comes to mind). Or do you call the OT in the same mindset you would all others. Aother example might be...4th and inches late in the game, defenders are tight up on the line and a head(s) are in the neutral zone. To me the defense is trying to gain an advantage in being up so close, though some may see this as ticky-tack.

I also agree with the 40-0 "no calls". Last year a team was up BIG in the 4th and was inside the 5 again, and the DE on my side lined up with his head in the NZ, I didn't call it, but the LJ called it instead. Then the next play the same thing happened, except this time the LJ seemed it was necessary to yell at me and tell me to call my side of the ball. I told them why I didn't call it but he went on and on anyway.
As far as the OT thing goes, I would think the same thing. If someone is clearly in the NZ, then I throw the flag, but if it's nit-picky then I would let it go. I don't see how you can gain much of an advantage just because your finger is even with the ball. That's just my opinion anyway.