I am considering authoring an article for my website about the dangers of applying clever axioms to all situations. I've come up with a couple and wanted to see if this collective think-tank can come up with more of them.

"The ground can't cause a fumble".

"The kicking team can't advance muffed kick".

"Penalize the offense where it hurts them the most".

What other axioms do we hear as officials that make us cringe because we know they don't apply to all situations as they suggest?

Not sure I understand.
 

Why do these statement make you cringe?

Peace

Re: Not sure I understand.
 

Because they aren't right. I understand the desire to teach newer officials or fans by using clever sayings. However, clever sayings can lead to an incorrect ruling on the field. MOST of the time, the axiom is true. It is those cases where the axiom isn't true that concern me.

The ground can indeed cause a fumble, the kicking team can advance a muff under certain conditions, and we don't always penalize the offense where it hurts them the most. If someone relies upon the axiom rather than understanding the rules behind the axiom, it is bound to lead to an incorrect ruling. My desire for writing such an article is to help people understand the rule behind the axiom.


"Cringe" is a strong word. Maybe I should say, "Shake my head".

Put blinking lights around this one!

A similar muff one:

"You can't advance a muff."

Team pitches the ball forward behind LOS, coach starts yelling.
"That was a foward lateral!"

"The end can move!".
 

This is one that a lot of guys in our association are still having problems with.

Yes, the offensive ends can move if its a legal shift as long they reset for 1 second prior to the snap.

However, a lot of guys still don't shut the play down and call a false start when the ends and backs lurch forward and/or make any sudden movement that simulates action at the snap. Or they allow the end to be shifting at the snap and don't throw their flag for illegal shift and/or illegal motion.

A wise referee in our association has taught us this axiom to use for offensive teams that use a hard shift: "If your intent is to DRAW, you DRAW the flag!". In other words, shut the play down as a false start, even on the tight end and other ends in addition to the interior linemen and backs.

Addendum to my last post...
 

"The backs can reset!"...

Not true if they miss the snap count, lurch forward, perform a hard shift, etc. We have been instructed to shut the play down as a false start.

"That pass was uncatchable" (of course NFHS only)

and one from Saturday night "what about the late hit, he hit him at the goal line" (after their player was called for taunting-struting into the end zone from the 5-yd line)

"The half (game) can't end on a penalty"

Re: Re: Not sure I understand.
 

Well you do penalize the offense on many penalties where it hurts the most. I have never heard anyone say "always" in using that phrase.

Of course the ground can cause a fumble, but the term is used to suggest a specific situation.

I understand that these might not go right along with all the possibilities, but they can help those understand the basics. You still have to read the rulebook. You still have to understand what the rulings are in the casebook

I have used the saying about penalizing the offense in teaching new officials, but I do not say "always." It can help in letting officials understand where the basic spot is and where you enforce a penalty.

I guess I do not see the problem. <a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_28_113.gif' alt='Confused' border=0></a>

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Not sure I understand.
 

First of all I often hear "penalize where it hurts the most," with no mention that it applies only for the offense.

Also "penalize the offense where is hurts the most," does not include something to the effect of "in most cases" or "usually," and a newer official might assume it means always.

I agree that it is probably not a big deal, but I do not think it is that tough to learn about basic spots, the all-but-one principle, etc.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure I understand.
 

I guess that has to do with the people you hang around. This comment I have always heard refers to the offense.


New official assume a lot of things. So what if they assume something without reading the rulebook? But that term helped me understand the basics of that rule. It does the same for a lot of other officials. It is called rule study that is how you know for sure. I have heard this in many presentations over the years and it is never said to replace all situations. These things are used to deal with the lowest common denominator. You cannot explain everything in the rulebook by just one phrase.

I disagree with that. I find more officials have a problem with what the "basic spot" means and how it relates to where you apply the penalty. Hurt them where it hurts the most clears that up for many officials.

These statements are used to simplify which can seem to be complicated applications. It takes awhile to completely understand all the language of the game. I really see not harm in using these terms. If you want to make this a word game, you will have more officials confused and not understanding the nuance of the rules.

I have never met anyone that stopped reading the rulebook because they said one of these terms.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure I understand.
 

"Penalize where it hurts the most," has got to be the worst possible phrase tossed around by officials. These guys are taking the easy way out instead of just learning and applying the “All But One”. I’ve seen very experienced officials kick simple enforcements relaying on this faulty logic. And as far as teaching this to a new guy, I can’t believe someone would start a new guy out by teaching him such a bad habit and IMHP taking the lazy way out

How about
'He punted it off the ground' (A kick where the kicker didn't have control of the ball before hand)
'You can't have block in the back on interior linemen'
and I think everyone here would agree to the coachs problematic
'Play till the whistle'
I've also heard some (of the refs that I refuse to work with in my area) say
'Don't throw a (meaning ANY) flag far away from the point of attack' - respectively
'Action away from the point of attack is unimportant'

James

I agree with Rut that the 3&1 is not that easy to understand for rookies, but I disagree that you should make up a rule-of-thumb that is so often incorrect and use it as a teaching aid. There are some thing that you simply have to learn properly, without any "quick fixes", and unfortunately, football rules (especially enforcement) are one of these things.

And James, at the higher levels, most things that happen away from the POA, ARE unimportant. Not everything of course, such as safety fouls, which should be called.

The problem is when you try to make absolute statements about these things. Most of the time, it simply can't be done.