The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Ed Hochuli out of control (https://forum.officiating.com/football/23274-ed-hochuli-out-control.html)

mcrowder Mon Nov 21, 2005 09:55am

I usually like his explanations, but yesterday he was out of control. (Not to mention his selection of shortsleeves to show off those biceps in the frigid weather probably hacked off his crew!)

"We have a personal foul, roughing the passer, on the defense, number 54. The defender contacted the quarterback, causing him to fall to the ground. By rule, this is a personal foul. (Really, Ed? By RULE? Did we need the extra description - wasn't this a typical RTP?) We also have a personal foul on the offense, number 48, for a late hit, after the play was over (Ed - when else could a late hit occur?). By rule (again with the by rule? Should we infer that if you don't say "by rule", you're making things up on your own?), a hit after the play was over is a personal foul. (Ah, good - cause I didn't get that from the first sentence). By rule (Good grief), these fouls offset. It will be 1st and 10 for the offense (Oh, so in this case, it's not 1st and 10 for the DEFENSE?!?!?! Thanks for that helpful tip)."

I had to rewind and play it over and over to make sure I caught all the extraneous explanations. By rule, I'm required to not omit any words.

TXMike Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:28am

Until you have walked a mile in his shoes you might want to be a little more forgiving. The NFL has told these guys to give detailed explanations and some of them have been slammed for being too brief. Hence the long-winded stuff. And since Mr H is an attorney, he may be prone to even more verbiage than others. And it sounds like the NFL enforcement of this foul situation is different than NCAA/Fed where we do not offset live ball-dead ball stuff so maybe he felt the need to be more detailed.

I am assuming you have been miked before or else you would not have commented at all.

Sonofanump Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:29am

The explanations are not for those of us that know the rules, but rather the lowest common denominator, i.e. Joe Thiesman or average Raider fan.

irefky Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:38am

Mr. H is the real deal along with the Mr. Carey. These two WH IMO are the folks NFL want and the lower level conf.

I think Mr. H and his so-called bi-ceps look a lot better than some big rump bouncing side to side to spot the ball.

I agree with sonofanump that the explanations are for fans who don't understand the rules. I love to hear the explanation, it's professional, sounds good, what is wrong with that?

mcrowder Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:52am

TXMike - please don't assume that because I have a criticism, that I have no ability. Judging from your response here and the one in the admittedly absurd thread from the OU-Tech game that was deleted, you seem to be of the opinion that if we have not worked at a particular level, we are not allowed to comment on it.

I'd give an arm to walk in Ed Hochuli's shoes for just one weekend, or even to be the lowest of the low on the NFL totem pole. But I don't think that disqualifies me from having an opinion or the ability to express it.

You missed the beginning of my post - normally, I think Hochuli is the best. And perhaps the NFL made a general comment to ALL referees to explain more - but yesterday, Mr. Hochuli took his already verbose style to the point of absurdity. The worst were the two mentions of "By Rule". "By rule" makes sense when there is some sort of odd play (maybe even appropriate when saying, By Rule, these penalties offset). You don't need to tell us that BY RULE, a late hit is a personal foul. As an unbiased, non-official observer, it was really bad (as evidenced by the peanut gallery I was watching the game with). As an official, it was beyond bad - and borderline painful.

TXMike Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:57am

What I mean by waliking in his shoes has nothing to do with the level. It has everything to do with using a microphone in front of 70000 lunatics and trying to follwo the instructions of your bosses. Have you walked in those shoes? If you have not then it does not mean you don't have the ability but it does mean you do not know what it is like.

BktBallRef Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:03am

Quote:

Originally posted by Sonofanump
The explanations are not for those of us that know the rules, but rather the lowest common denominator, i.e. Joe Thiesman or average Raider fan.
EXACTLY. Yes, we understand what the call is without all the jargon but Mr. Beerbelly, sitting at home in the Lazy Boy, it's the bst thing that could happen to him. It's a helluva lot better than letting some talking head explain it.

Stockdown, mcrowder. :(

mcrowder Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:10am

If the requirements are only A) use a microphone in front of innumerable people, and B) follow the directions of my boss, then yes - I qualify. It wasn't as an official though. :)

I would say that I might have an equally abysmal performance in front of that many people, especially my first 1 or 2 hundred times... but he has more experience than me, and nervousness was CERTAINLY not a factor.

I just thought it was way overboard - that's all.

TXMike Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:14am

If you know anything about public speaking then you know nervousness is ALWAYS a factor, on your 1st speech or your 100th. ;-)

Brad Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:41am

Ed Hochuli is one of the best ever in the NFL - and it seems that his bosses agree, as evidenced by his recent superbowl assignment.

Snake~eyes Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:27pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Brad
Ed Hochuli is one of the best ever in the NFL - and it seems that his bosses agree, as evidenced by his recent superbowl assignment.
No one is disputing his abilities in this thread.


I do agree that he did some overexplaining but that's just my opinion. Also I don't think his crew had a very good game.

JugglingReferee Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:35pm

Somewhere in the middle
 
I'd with mcrowder on this one, but maybe not 100%.

Quote:

Originally spoken by Ed Hochuli
The defender contacted the quarterback, causing him to fall to the ground. By rule, this is a personal foul.
This opens the can of worms that any hit causing the QB to fall to the ground is a PF. We all know that this is not the case.

If he wanted to be clear, perhaps this would be better, "The defender didn't alter his behavior to the QB after the pass was released."

As for all the "By rule"s, my English teacher once told me that you take away from your writing by using the same beginning to a sentence. IOW, don't start each sentence with "I", "By Rule", etc.... To this day it is good advice.

"By rule" should only be used when communicating non-obvious information. What is non-obvious is open to debate, but I would have only used "By rule" once.

Here's what I (hope) I would have said:

Quote:

Hopefully spoken by JugglingReferee
There are two fouls on the play. Personal foul, roughing the passer, defense number 54. After the play was over, personal foul, offense number 48. By rule, these fouls offset. It will be 1st and 10 for (team name).
I've been a fan of Ed's for about 6 years now. There's no doubt he's the best R in the NFL, but some of his verbiage was not necessary in this case.

As for public speaking, I have done it before an was not nervous at all. I've also been nervous at other times. I think it comes down to confidence and being prepared.

kdf5 Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:35pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Sonofanump
The explanations are not for those of us that know the rules, but rather the lowest common denominator, i.e. Joe Thiesman....
:D :D :D


grantsrc Mon Nov 21, 2005 01:31pm

I think Hoch does a good job overall. Sometimes he goes a little overboard, sure, but I think that's what makes him identifiable to the everyday fan.

Last night while watching the KC game, I came up with my "Dream Team" for announcers. What about this: Tim McCarver, Joe Theismann, and Randy Cross. Now that would be a game worth watching! Not only would they get in a fight over who would talk next, the average fan would have zero clue about the rules!

Snake~eyes Mon Nov 21, 2005 04:34pm

Quote:

Originally posted by grantsrc
I think Hoch does a good job overall. Sometimes he goes a little overboard, sure, but I think that's what makes him identifiable to the everyday fan.

Last night while watching the KC game, I came up with my "Dream Team" for announcers. What about this: Tim McCarver, Joe Theismann, and Randy Cross. Now that would be a game worth watching! Not only would they get in a fight over who would talk next, the average fan would have zero clue about the rules!

Should throw Billy Packer in there for good measures. He can be the sideline doink. :D

jfurdell Mon Nov 21, 2005 06:48pm

"Ed Hochuli out of control"

When I saw the thread title, I immediately thought:

RAAHHHHRRR! HOCHULI SMASH PUNY HUMANS!

(I'm a little strange.)

Texas Aggie Tue Nov 22, 2005 01:05am

I agree with Jugs. The "by rule" verbage shouldn't be used except in situations, like exceptions, where the enforcement isn't obvious. An example is offensive holding in the end zone, being, "by rule", a safety. In the majority of cases, the "by rule" verbage will be used to explain enforcements and not fouls. But I could see it being used in rare cases. For example (NCAA), "while the pass was uncatchable, the defender was flagged for his hit on the receiver after a pass was clearly uncathcable; by rule, that is a personal foul."

But I'm not going to be too harsh. As a litigation attorney myself, I've probably overdescribed things before.

JDLJ Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:22am

By saying "The defender contacted the quarterback, causing him to fall to the ground. By rule, this is a personal foul." Ed is saying that anytime a defender contacts the QB and the QB falls to the ground, it's a PF. I don't think that is the case so he missued the phrase here.

He should only use "by rule" when an action leaves no judgement at all in deciding what happened,i.e., "The kicking team recovered the ball. By rule, the ball is dead where recovered."





rulesmaven Wed Nov 23, 2005 03:41pm

A lawyer was a little wordy?

Shocking.

;)

irefky Thu Nov 24, 2005 07:54am

What are you guys doing Sunday?

exactly!

Hoch is taking this WH to the next level of officiating, educating the millions who do not know the rules. An explanation goes very far. I understand what you guys are saying about "by rule" and maybe that is too much for us but not for folks who do not follow the game as closely as us.

Also, our HS coaches watch these games and get the understanding of nfl, ncaa rules to bring to the game on Friday night. Uncatchable pass, outside of the tackle, reporting enelgible number, lineman left before the punt, that kind of stuff that make us look bad on a Friday night in front of the fans that Hock is educating.


JugglingReferee Thu Nov 24, 2005 09:16am

Quote:

Originally posted by irefky
What are you guys doing Sunday?

exactly!

Hoch is taking this WH to the next level of officiating, educating the millions who do not know the rules. An explanation goes very far. I understand what you guys are saying about "by rule" and maybe that is too much for us but not for folks who do not follow the game as closely as us.

Wouldn't it be better then to say, "By NFL rule..." :D :D

Quote:

Originally posted by irefky
Also, our HS coaches watch these games and get the understanding of nfl, ncaa rules to bring to the game on Friday night. Uncatchable pass, outside of the tackle, reporting enelgible number, lineman left before the punt, that kind of stuff that make us look bad on a Friday night in front of the fans that Hock is educating.
The thing is, IMO: anybody with part of a brain should be smart enough to realize that the rulesets for a professional league and amateur level are going to be different. (It's just way-out-there for it not to be.) So watching the NFL for rules for Friday night is not a good idea. As for the NCAA, I dunno...

Dommer1 Fri Nov 25, 2005 05:56am

Not a very good idea for NCAA either...

While I can agree that perhaps Ed overused the word "by rule", suggesting that because of this he is out of control is, well, out of control.

Ed is still one of the very best R's on the mike.

NoTrumpKing Fri Nov 25, 2005 07:41am

Off his case --- please.!!!
Hoc got to the top by visceral introspection of his behavior, industrious study and physical culture. He knows what he said & it won't happen again. Even after 30 years, professional thises & thats get verbose, and in his case --- tautologic. Relax; he's human; if this is the level of mistake that is manifested by any of us commenting on his, then we'd be pretty damn good!

Dommer1 Fri Nov 25, 2005 08:47am

Yes, I agree. It's all very, what was it, tutol... toato... totalo... ehh! What he said!


buckrog64 Fri Nov 25, 2005 06:10pm

Hock should include the following disclaimer with each penalty announcement: "This rule interpertation is not necessarily the same interpretation you may experience on Friday nights or Saturday afternoons, therefore please understand that this interpretation is subject to various interpretations of the variety of officials serving in the various football games that require rule interpretation.


ASA/NYSSOBLUE Fri Nov 25, 2005 08:38pm

I went to a HS game in NJ, and they announced after the sportsmanship rules, that 'this game is played by rules established by the NFHS,and these rules may differ from those at the collegiate or professional level..' It has been awhile since I had been to see a HS game,so this kind of stunned me....they do this anywhere else?

Ed Hickland Sun Nov 27, 2005 09:03am

Quote:

Originally posted by Sonofanump
The explanations are not for those of us that know the rules, but rather the lowest common denominator, i.e. Joe Thiesman or average Raider fan.
Does this imply Joe Thiesman does not know the rules?

NoTrumpKing Sun Nov 27, 2005 12:26pm

All,

That is, appearantly, the concensus.
He has no room for apologia. I didn't know the rules until I became an official ... and I've played ball from 2nd grade through collech.

No choice ... no democracy!

Texas Aggie Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:42am

Ed was on the NFL network last night. The league dinged him on the RTP call -- at least the one against Detroit that he said involved helmet to helmet contact.

grantsrc Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:06am

Quote:

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
Ed was on the NFL network last night. The league dinged him on the RTP call -- at least the one against Detroit that he said involved helmet to helmet contact.
It was a great program. Something all of us should watch. It is amazing the amount of work those guys do on a weekly basis. Crazy! He seems like such a cool guy.

After watching it, I thought the league's stance on the RTP was accurate. I also thought Ed's reaction and description of it later with his crew was exactly right. Things happen so fast, even at the lower levels, where something happens and our mind subconsciously fills in the missing pieces. Tell us what we saw when it might not have happened like that.

Did you see the amount of time and effort those guys at the league office put in too? It is amazing how much time and effort it requires!!

This program is something all fans should be required to see. It would give them a new-found appreciation for the work these guys do.

Texas Aggie Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:50pm

I agree with everything you said.

Now, get back on that stairclimber while reading your rule book! And I want to see you bench at least the 60lb. dumbells Hock was using.

Snake~eyes Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:57pm

I missed it, what's the name of the show - maybe it'll reair or somthing. :/ I heard Periera talking about it on NFL Total Access but didn't get a chance to see it.

grantsrc Fri Dec 02, 2005 02:41pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
I agree with everything you said.

Now, get back on that stairclimber while reading your rule book! And I want to see you bench at least the 60lb. dumbells Hock was using.

Actually I do read the rule book when I am on the elliptical machine. As for the dumbells, I think I'm the only dumbell that I can lift!!

The name of the program is "6 Days to Sunday". The program is on all the time, with this week's focus on Senor Hochuli. It is on again, check the listings.

sm_bbcoach Tue Dec 13, 2005 09:52pm

NONE NEEDED
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Ed Hickland
Quote:

Originally posted by Sonofanump
The explanations are not for those of us that know the rules, but rather the lowest common denominator, i.e. Joe Thiesman or average Raider fan.
Does this imply Joe Thiesman does not know the rules?

Not an implication..... "Just the facts!"

If he does know the rules, then he either intentionally messes them all up so they have something else to talk about, OR he just does not understand them. He is more often incorrect with the enforcement or the call.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1