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.

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

But the ground CAN cause a fumble. Why do you even feel the need to use this one?

I've only got two articles out there right now and both deal with penalty enforcement. The site is www.footballrefs.com . Click on the "Articles" link.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

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.

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?

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?"

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

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.

Ground can cause a fumble??
 

How can the ground cause a fumble?

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)

Really??
 

Do you really feel that people misunderstand the rule based on this statement? <a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_12_10.gif' alt='I Dunno' border=0></a>

Peace

Fumble
 

Not to get picky about semantics,but your explanation to me is just a fumble. The runner lost possession due to the absence of having a hand under the ball!

Yes, but the contact with the ground CAUSED the fumble, did it not?

great
 

Guys, this was a GREAT thread...not only great, but awesome!! thanks :)

I believe you actually reinforced my point. I was just trying to list things that get said - that are not ALWAYS true, even though they can be (depending on the way the official says it) presented as always true.

There are important things that happen away from the point of attack, and a new official that hears that nothing important happens there will be looking at the point of attack, maybe even when his coverage zone is somewhere else (like behind).

Point was using a general rule for specifics can be misleading.

James

James,

Then we are 100% in agreement.