|
Thu Sep 16, 2004, 04:01am
|
|||
|
|||
|
All I am saying is that everyone does not learn the same. If someone uses a phrase or a concept that helps them further understand how to apply a rule that is something I can never get upset by. Many of these sayings are just concepts. When I gave a series of presentations, I taught concepts. I did not read the rule to them. I would simplify the rule with concepts. There are always exceptions to these or any phrases, but that is not the point.
I know in my job, I have to deal with my customers with concepts. If I read every detail they will get confused and not want to do business. You teach concepts so that the complicated can become easy to understand. The ground cannot cause a fumble in my opinion. All the point means is that if a player is down by contact, they cannot fumble the ball by rule. Nothing more, nothing less. It is easier to say that than say, “well if the knee is down before the ball pops out......." Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) 
|
|
Thu Sep 16, 2004, 06:26am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Mike Sears
|
|
Thu Sep 16, 2004, 06:34am
|
|||
|
|||
|
My goal in writing an article is to teach people the rule behind the axiom(s). I'm not saying we should never teach with axioms because they may help someone remember the rule. It is troubling to me when officials simply rely upon the axiom and don't bother to understand the rule.
By the way, if this thread is troublesome to any of you, please skip it. I've got a desire to teach through the written word and I believe my reasoning is sound.
__________________
Mike Sears
|
|
Thu Sep 16, 2004, 06:58am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have nothing against axioms. I just don't think we should use the ones that are wrong. There are lots of good axioms that can help you make a good call. Then there are some that officials, who are supposed to be (or to become) rules experts, should not use.
I have sometimes used these popular, but incorrect, axioms when instructing, to teach WHY they are wrong. That works quite well, and the "students" get a feeling of "insight", when they feel they have learned one of the "secrets" of the rules.
|
|
Thu Sep 16, 2004, 07:44am
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The ground cannot cause a fumble" is so ingrained into the conscious of even the most casual TV viewer. I bet Madden says it 30 times a year. On one hand, the axiom is inaccurate at best... but on the other hand, simply BECAUSE it is "common knowledge", one can use this axiom to train, by forcing the learner to reason his way through it.
For example, in front of 200 new officials, play a video of Madden saying this, and show a "typical" example - one that proves the axiom correct. Then ask the audience, "Everyone has heard this 100 times. However, now that you know the rules ... when is this statement not accurate." Eventually you will have audience members thinking it through and giving examples of where this axiom is not true. You could even further use this as a kickoff to a discussion of "Learn the book, not 'rules of thumb'", or as my mentor used to say... "As far as TV goes, learn on Saturday, enjoy on Sunday... and NEVER believe an announcer."
|
|
Thu Sep 16, 2004, 07:49am
|
|||
|
|||
|
To Mike Sears:
For what it's worth, I think you've got a great subject for an article. I've heard a bunch of these already this year and some from officials I thought had a good grasp of the rulebook. I look forward to reading your article.
__________________
kentref
|
|
Thu Sep 16, 2004, 09:23am
|
|||
|
|||
|
About the "catch phrases":
There are problems when using a phrase that is not correct for all cases. It takes years to learn all the cases. Generally: When a new official begins to study, he knows and understands very little. Catch phrases can be use so that they know and understand a lot more. At this point they are not a complete official. If they stop learning here , they are wrong. I have more concern about officials that continue to work games but stop trying to improve in all aspects of their officiating career. In another thread, a new official wanted advice for his first varsity game. It was to be in his 3rd week as an official!! If you are trying to get people onto the field, even for youth league games, you must give them as much information as fast as you can. Part of the training process includes using statements that are not absolute truths.
|
|
Thu Sep 16, 2004, 10:12am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry guys, but I feel the worst one is "I didn't flag the penalty because it didn't have an effect on the play." This means that the officials are not enforcing the rules but are writing there own rule book since they are deciding what to enforce and what not to enforce. I don't feel that we have the right to decided what part of the book we are going to enforce and when we will enforce it. By making this decision, we are giving the offending team an advantage by not penalizing their fouls. It allows a team to "get away" with something. Will the coaches wonder what we are doing and lose respect for officials?
|
|
Thu Sep 16, 2004, 10:21am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't know if that's an axiom... but I'll speak to it.
Most veteran officials will not flag every single penalty they see, especially those that are not A) safety related or B) relevant to the play. If we did - you'd have Holding on nearly every single play. I'd even go so far as to add that officials are coached to ignore ticky-tack irrelevant penalties. I've often heard the phrase - "Did the team gain advantage due to the foul?"
|
|
Thu Sep 16, 2004, 12:31pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Indyref,
I have to totally disagree with you. One of the reasons I disagree with you, because the powers that be disagree with you. Our job as officials is to call obvious fouls and violations of the rules. We are not supposed to call every little foul that no one can understand. That is a philosophy I have seen taught at every single level. Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
|
|
Thu Sep 16, 2004, 03:55pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe that, with the exception of 3 or 4 here who will disagree solely for the satisfaction of disagreeing with JRut (and will be lying as they disagree), we have a rare instance where the VAST majority of the board will agree wholeheartedly with JRut.
 It doesn't help the game, and it is not within the spirit of our purpose on the field, to call every little inconsequential ticky-tack foul.
|
|
Fri Sep 17, 2004, 12:08am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ground can cause a fumble??
How can the ground cause a fumble?
|
|
Fri Sep 17, 2004, 12:39am
|
|||
|
|||
|
A runner is down (fed and NCAA) when any part of his body except his feet or hands contact the ground
If a runner is carrying the ball in his hand and then falls with his hands out in front of him thereby the ball contacting the ground and then becoming loose. In this case the ground caused the fumble ( and yes the ground can cause a fumble in the NFL as they must be contacted by a defender as well as the above rule)
|
|
Fri Sep 17, 2004, 01:21am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Really??
Quote:
 Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
