2 Plays

[andy1033]

I would not have a flag on either of these plays. Down field block looks good.

[OverAndBack]

If I haven't mentioned it before, I love when we can see video clips from high school games and talk about them.

Keep 'em coming, guys.

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

If I haven't mentioned it before, I love when we can see video clips from high school games and talk about them.

Keep 'em coming, guys.

I AGREE! As a second year guy, I love when I can see and discuss the border line items. Reading the discussion from experienced folks helps me to improve and understand where I need to improve.

And for whatever the newbies opinion is worth...

I agree the first was borderline and would not have called it.

The second, I would not have flagged. I felt the blocker was leanning into the player at chest level to make the block, but the defenders movement downfield caused the blocker to subsequently fall to a BBW position. I would not make the blocker responsible for the defenders movement. However, it took me several viewings to determine what I had really just seen.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Smiley

What we need to remember is that the "momentum rule" is actually an exception to the rule that a safety results when the ball is carried into one's own end zone and subsequently becomes dead there. Therefore, if it is judged that momentum didn't cause the player to carry the ball into the endzone, its a safety. No way to have a touchback.

We do need to remember that.

Just not in this discussion, because I don't think either of these two plays had anything whatsoever to do with momentum or a safety or a touchback.

[Smiley]

Oops! Message deleted.

[SouthGARef]

Agree with the no flag on the ineligible receiver. By no means is it the most ridiculous call I've ever seen. Technically, it was the correct call. But bad officials are technical, good officials are practical. No call. I also don't have a problem with the wingmen calling ineligible downfield. After all, a lot of wings (myself included) will key on the tackle (as #78 is here) to figure out if the play is a run or pass. So it's not beyond belief for a wingman to call ineligible downfield. What I DO have a problem with is the wingman on the LEFT side of the formation, calling ineligible downfield on a tackle on the RIGHT side of the formation.

On the second one, we all need to be realistic. Technically, no, it's not a flag since contact originated above the waist. But the player left his feet, dove, and the majority of the contact was below the waist. This isn't a case of a guard making initial contact above the waist, and then gradually sliding down. This is a case of a downfield blocker diving for another player, and taking him out below the waist. This one could be called either way, and that's after watching it 10 times in slow mo. At full game speed, this definately looks like a BBW. Not thrilled about the R calling it from 20 yards away, but in three man you sometimes have to do what you've got to do. I have no major bones with this call.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by SouthGARef

What I DO have a problem with is the wingman on the LEFT side of the formation, calling ineligible downfield on a tackle on the RIGHT side of the formation.

Yes.

Maybe a little less of a problem with it when there aren't two wings, as there apparently weren't in this scenario.

If you've got two wings, you don't want the far side wing calling something in the other wing's territory, but if you're a solo wing, sometimes you have to kind of try to keep tabs on what's going on over there since there's no one else to do it.

[SouthGARef]

Didn't someone earlier say they ran two wings in this game, with no umpire?

[FootballRef05]

Originally Posted by SouthGARef

Didn't someone earlier say they ran two wings in this game, with no umpire?

I see guys here do that all the time and it drives me nuts. Our association's mechanics for 3 mean are R,U and L. Guys are always moving the U over to the J and it is not supposed to be that way. I don't know why guys insist on doing it their own way.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by FootballRef05

I see guys here do that all the time and it drives me nuts. Our association's mechanics for 3 mean are R,U and L. Guys are always moving the U over to the J and it is not supposed to be that way. I don't know why guys insist on doing it their own way.

Because it's better that way and those crews have common sense.

[FootballRef05]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Because it's better that way and those crews have common sense.

When they run for office, win and head up the association the can change the mechanics we are supposed to use. Until then they should follow the mechaincs.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by SouthGARef

Didn't someone earlier say they ran two wings in this game, with no umpire?

Ah, you're right. My bad.

Just in general terms, though, if you are the only wing (which happens), you have to pay a bit of attention to the other side of the line if you can. Other than that, no, you wouldn't want to call that over there, I don't think.

[SouthGARef]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Just in general terms, though, if you are the only wing (which happens), you have to pay a bit of attention to the other side of the line if you can. Other than that, no, you wouldn't want to call that over there, I don't think.

Agreed. If there's no wing over there, maybe you call it. But in this case, definately not.

At BEST, this is a marginal call. And you NEVER make a marginal call in your partner's area.

[OverAndBack]

Oh, I wouldn't have called it because he got 2 yards downfield and wasn't involved in the play and it wasn't in my area. I hopefully wouldn't have seen it at all, though maybe he's Peripheral Vision Man.

[SouthGARef]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Peripheral Vision Man.

You been watching Studio 60???