Need some feedback on the videos:

Go to http://www.suffolk-football.org/Rule.htm

Look at the Action Videos under the Interpreter's Desk.

What do you think? Good concept for learning?

What was the call, unnecessary roughness, block in the back or a no-call? Why?

I couldn't tell where the action of the ball was. But I can't see calling BIB on the defense on this. Maybe UR, but that's hard to call during a play, as you never know when the play will change direction. I probably have no call on this.

How many officials on the game? I'm assuming 5.

Looks like the U would be the official with a good view of this cheap shot by the defense. The play appears to be over and ended OOB. The defensive player was quite relaxed when the hit in the back occurred.
I would not pass on this one and would call it a personal foul rather than a BIB.

I think the use of video does provide for learning. I wish we had more up my way. The problem has always been marginal quality tapes or on the "key" play, the angle was just not there.

I wish we had five. I agree the U should have seen that and when we reviewed the tape he also agreed. It was his first varsity game and first at that position.

We had tried using videos from the teams but found two problems: 1) they turn the video off during dead ball periods, and, 2) the tape we got was always a copy and the quality was indeed marginal.

Thank goodness, my lovely and devoted wife loves using the camcorder and does two to three games a year. She is still getting used to shooting football as you can see on the roughing the kicker play but it gives us enough to review our performance after the game. I make copies for the other officials and there were quality problems. Next season we will transfer video using S-video to a DVD recorder, or, possibly direct to the computer. Then make digital copies.

As Theisey pointed out the player appeared to have relaxed IMO. The other players also appear to have been "quiting" on the play. The hit itself appeared to have been from the side based upon the direction the player fell but #80 blocks the view to say for sure. Personal foul for hitting a player who is out of the play is my call. It looks like the hit occurred prior to the officials signalling time out so enforcing this as a live ball foul would be my call.

If the play was over (and from the film, I can't tell), then I agree - PF-late hit. (Although if it's a late hit, by definition it's not a live-ball foul.)

But if the play was not over, what PF are you calling? I suppose unnecessary roughness is a possibility, but I have trouble with making this call if the play is still going, and still somewhat nearby (as this one seems to be). I can see a live-ball UR when the ballcarrier is way downfield and these two players could not have possibly been involved in the play any longer. But on a play like this, unless the hit was a blow to the head or a spearing or something, all this is is an aggressive play.

That's all I can see here. After looking again I'm not 100% certain that the ball wasn't dead. This could probably sell as a dead ball foul but it's hard to see on the tape. I'm just basing this upon how all the players "let up" on the play as if it was dead. Also during the review the kid that gets hit actually pushes the snapper in the back to the ground and then not long after that is when he gets popped. If I don't call anything, I'll definitely let the kid know how close he was to drawing a flag.

The team in red lacked discipline and the coach admitted it. Later in the game another player was disqualified for attempting to knee an opponent.

This was a tough game to control. Most of the time the philosophy on my crew is to verbally let the player know we saw him and there better not be a next time.

I thought it might have been a block in the back. The offense is coming in the direction of the two players and a legal block on 84 would have been OK.

From the camera across the field it is hard to tell whether the whistle was before or after the hit. I suspect it was before and all that has to do with the speed of sound and the fact my linesman needs to put more volume to the whistle. Given the conditions of the game it would have been easy to give a dead ball personal foul for unnecessary roughness as a clear message to the players.

It may be less obvious from on the field, but it seems pretty clear to me on the video - this is a hit on a player who is out of the play. PF for unnecessary roughness - live ball or dead ball, as appropriate. (Sound's not working on my machine right now, so I can't tell when the whistle was.)

Just guessing here but 84 looks like a pretty big kid and may have been wrecking havoc on #38 and his boys all day. #38 sees a chance to take a cheap shot and takes it. Not a BIB but definitely UR as play is apparently ending OOB for a yardage loss way back upfield. And since play lost yardage, defense may refuse the penalty anyway.

The play I am looking (TD pass by red) at no BIB by number 50.

One the other I would have had personal foul on it. Player was not trying to be an active player and it was a cheap shot in the back.

Roughing the kicker? was ball tipped? hard to say from the video because of where it stopped. Poor video for training on that.

Pass interference. I would call it. It looks to me the defender got there too soon and played nothing but the player.

This one was interesting for me. Watched it twice at full speed and concluded that I wouldn't have thrown the flag - it looked to me like the player arrived at the same time as the ball. Slow-motion replay clearly shows I'm wrong, but unless the view from the field was VERY different (possible due to the lack of depth perception on film), my flag's staying in my pocket anyway - if the timing is so close that I can't tell, then I can't flag it.

On the pass play...
Almost looks like maybe pass was too high to be catchable (if that matters in your game). But the camera angle can be deceptive so I don't know for sure.

And the real test is the coaching staff reaction (or lack thereof in this case) No foul