3 Plays

[MJT]

1. Bad communication and someone should have caught, what I think is just a stupid mistake by the R.
2. Good call on late hit.
3. Could say both playing the ball, but also kind of looks like player was pulled down a little from behind. Angle and long look from camera makes it tough.

[UmpJM]

Gentlemen,

Thanks for your commentary.

I was filming the game for the team in the white jerseys (who were visitors) & was up in the "tower" with 3 adults from the team in the blue jerseys.

The three plays in the clip occurred in the 4th quarter, with the defense ahead 50-0 and the game being played under the "running clock" provision, and the visitors starting backfield had not played a single down in the 2nd half. The home team scored a touchdown shortly after the 3rd play in the clip.

Other than the 3 plays shown, the officiating seemed quite godd to me throughout the game.

The adults from the home team seemed to share my opinion that the calls on the 3 plays shown in the clip were not especially good calls.

On the "defensive offsides" call, there was no action outside of the camera view that could have related to the call.

At the time I was filming, I initially thought that the "late hit"/USC flag had been thrown on Blue #16 and I thought it was a pretty "nit-picky" call. I was quite surprised whent thre referee indicated that the penalty was on the defense. In terms of "history", there had been two previous late hit/USC calls in the game, both against Blue and both quite obvious & blatant.

I would agree that the camera view is a little "long" on the DPI call to say anything definitive, but it appeared to me AND the blue team supporters that it looked like "nothing".

I came away with the impression that the officials "wanted" the blue team to score. Again, other than those three plays, both before and after, the officiating seemed quite good to me. There had been a more or less equal number of flags thrown against each team, all of which were supported by the action documented on the video.

Thanks to all who chose to comment. I was just looking for some objective opinions on the calls to see whether my view was completely biased.

JM

[cmathews]

I know I am fashionably "late" to the party but here goes....1 and 3 are pretty unanimously discussed above. 2 has some differing opionions and here is my 2 cents worth....When I first started officiating I heard a white hat that helped train me use the following statement a whole lot of times "66 if you have to dive at the ground to hit him, he is already down" The contact by white on play 2 is the perfect example of this axiom. Had I told him early in the game that diving on the ground meant the player was already down, I would have flagged this as well....if this play had occured early it would have warranted a warning of this type from me.....

[Bob M.]

REPLY: First off...I agree that these are probably new officials that still have a lot to learn. Don't we all.

#1 - Yikes...that says it all. Seems like just bad comunication with the R. I wonder just what the LJ called and was there a mistake by the R?

#2 - At first, I thought the call was against #16 blue, and my first thought was that it didn't even look like he hit him. But when I realized that it was against #66 white, I was even more amazed. The hit wasn't that late, nor was it flagrant. Also, didn't appear like he led with his head either. Looks like he just plopped down on top of him.

#3 - The hardest bit of judgment and philosophy for new officials to learn is just what constitutes PI. To many come into the program thinking that the receiver has a God-given right to the ball and that anything the defender does that involves contact should be called DPI. How many lower level games have you seen where the two opponents, both playing the ball, get their feet tangled up, one or both fall, and the flag for DPI comes flying in.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: First off...I agree that these are probably new officials that still have a lot to learn. Don't we all.

#2 - At first, I thought the call was against #16 blue, and my first thought was that it didn't even look like he hit him. But when I realized that it was against #66 white, I was even more amazed. The hit wasn't that late, nor was it flagrant. Also, didn't appear like he led with his head either. Looks like he just plopped down on top of him.

Bob,
How is "plopping down" on a player on the ground not late?? The more I look at this play the more I agree completely with the flag.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by cmathews

Bob,
How is "plopping down" on a player on the ground not late?? The more I look at this play the more I agree completely with the flag.

REPLY: With the players blocking the view, it looked to me like he plopped down with the majority of his body on the ground and just landed on the downed player with his arms and shoulder. But who could really tell? I used that language to distinguish my view from those that said he might have led with the helmet. Since I couldn't see the whole play, I could never determine whether or not to flag it. If you saw enough to warrant a flag, then by all means, you should throw it.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: With the players blocking the view, it looked to me like he plopped down with the majority of his body on the ground and just landed on the downed player with his arms and shoulder. But who could really tell? I used that language to distinguish my view from those that said he might have led with the helmet. Since I couldn't see the whole play, I could never determine whether or not to flag it. If you saw enough to warrant a flag, then by all means, you should throw it.

Ok I understand what you meant now, and why you used that language...just didn't read it that way the first time..

[bicepsforyou]

He gave the last play the wrong call.

[spyros]

USA against CHINA

[Mack10]

#1 is just horrible. #2 could go either way. I don't have audio, so I'd need to know when that whistle blew relative to B's hit. But on the last one, I see B shoving A in the upper back before making any play on the ball.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Mack10

#1 is just horrible. #2 could go either way. I don't have audio, so I'd need to know when that whistle blew relative to B's hit. But on the last one, I see B shoving A in the upper back before making any play on the ball.

Mac,
Why do you need audio for a whistle?? The whistle has no bearing as to when the ball becomes dead, except for one situation, the dreaded IW...otherwise all a whistle does is confirm the dead ball...Lots of plays at the college level don't even have a whistle...