Another mistaken ruling in Referee

[ljudge]

These guys are slipping pretty bad (unless I'm missing something). It seems like the frequency of errors has gone up quite a bit lately. Page 62 of May edition (Case Play - "Helmet Comes Off."

Play: First and 20 on A's 20 yardline. QB A1 wants to throw a forward pass to halfback A2, who is at team A's 15 yardline. Linebacker B3 covering A2, grasps and twists A2's facemask, causing A2's helmet to come off. The ball is then passed to A2, who catches the ball at team A's 23 yardline.

Ruling: It says that A has the choice of DPI or enforcing the face mask foul. This is incorrect.

First, the wording is poor in that you really can't tell exactly where B3 fouled. Did B3 foul at the 15 or the 23? From the way I read it the foul occurred at the 15. But either way it was BEFORE the pass so this can't be DPI regardless of where the foul occurred. And if was during the pass you really don't know if the foul occurred at the 15 (which again you can't have DPI because it's behind the NZ). Bad wording, and bad ruling.

[cowbyfan1]

I agree. I think defensive holding or the facemask would be the choice if you are going to call it as 2 seperate fouls which I do not see. Flag the 15 yard facemask and give that as the only foul.

[wisref2]

Plus, the ball is dead when caught since the runner's helmet came off.

[Warrenkicker]

But the runner's helmet did not come off. A player's helmet came off and then he possessed the ball. That does not cause the ball to become dead. The rule is written to say "When the helmet comes completely off a player who is in possession of the ball" and not when the helmet is completely off of a player in the possession of the ball. That indicates that possession comes first and then the helmet is removed.

Maybe they want us to rule that play dead because logic would seem to say that this ball should have become dead but the rule does not say that.

[ljudge]

I sent a message to the editors. They agree this ruling was published in error and will be making a correction in a future publication.

[Forksref]

Originally posted by Warrenkicker
But the runner's helmet did not come off. A player's helmet came off and then he possessed the ball. That does not cause the ball to become dead. The rule is written to say "When the helmet comes completely off a player who is in possession of the ball" and not when the helmet is completely off of a player in the possession of the ball. That indicates that possession comes first and then the helmet is removed.

Maybe they want us to rule that play dead because logic would seem to say that this ball should have become dead but the rule does not say that.

There is NO way I am going to let the play continue if the player in possession of the ball does not have his/her helmet on. This is a safety issue. The rule obviously is intended to protect the player with the ball, even though the rule apparently could not foresee this play.

[cowbyfan1]

Originally posted by Forksref

There is NO way I am going to let the play continue if the player in possession of the ball does not have his/her helmet on. This is a safety issue. The rule obviously is intended to protect the player with the ball, even though the rule apparently could not foresee this play.

I agree, player with no helmet gets possession of the ball, I am killing the play right there.

[TXMike]

Originally posted by Warrenkicker
Maybe they want us to rule that play dead because logic would seem to say that this ball should have become dead but the rule does not say that.

From the NCAA book, ball becomes dead: "When a runner’s helmet comes completely off. The ball belongs to the
runner’s team at that spot."

Now you can read that any way you want and be as technical as you want, but the intent is obvious...they do not want someone with the ball to be running without a helmet. As soon as he gets possession of the ball he is , by definition, a runner. The ball is dead by rule, whether you toot the whistle or not. This is a safety rule and you are opening yourself wide open if you enforce it differently. (And good luck trying to find other officials who will testify on your behalf at the trial and who will say they understand the rule same as you.)

[jfurdell]

Referee magazine = completely useless, because of these rules quiz mistakes. This happens almost every issue.

[James Neil]

Yes it’s true Ref Mag makes a lot of mistakes. I’ll go as far as saying it seems the mistakes are so lame and frequent, they do it on purpose just to see if we’re paying attention. But until someone else comes up with an officiating publication that covers even half of what these guys cover, I’ll be excitedly waiting by my mail box for my current issue of Ref Mag.

[kentref]

Originally posted by ljudge
I sent a message to the editors. They agree this ruling was published in error and will be making a correction in a future publication.

I'm glad to hear they responded to your inquiry. I agree, they seem to have a high percentage of "errors" in their case play examples.

[Texas Aggie]

I was a subscriber through about 10 years ago. Now that I'm getting back into working, I went to their site. They more than DOUBLED the subscription rate. I know things go up, but the magazines I've had went up in the same period from like 19 to 24.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
I was a subscriber through about 10 years ago. Now that I'm getting back into working, I went to their site. They more than DOUBLED the subscription rate. I know things go up, but the magazines I've had went up in the same period from like 19 to 24.

Join NASO instead, get the insurance and the magazine(plus other small perks). That's what I have done.

[PSU213]

Originally posted by James Neil
Yes it’s true Ref Mag makes a lot of mistakes. I’ll go as far as saying it seems the mistakes are so lame and frequent, they do it on purpose just to see if we’re paying attention. But until someone else comes up with an officiating publication that covers even half of what these guys cover, I’ll be excitedly waiting by my mail box for my current issue of Ref Mag.

Nothing profound here (as if I ever post something profound)--just wanted to say I second that.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Always looking for the gold nugget in the slag heap, I could add: That you can read these rulings and recognize the flaws in them should be reassuring to you even though it is frustrating to see this type/frequency of error appearing in a national publication.