2 Plays

[Rich]

Originally Posted by FootballRef05

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.

I don't have this problem since I never work with less than 4. Heck, I wouldn't accept an assignment with less than 4.

But why should you CARE how a group of three officials work a 3-man game? You must be one of the leaders of the association or something.

BTW, if you've never done the R and 2 wing thing, you should give it a shot. It's much better than having someone try to get to an empty sideline on a sweep. And the R can spot the ball and watch the line play sufficiently well.

[MJT]

Just watched the videos and here is my take.

No foul in play 1. He is engaged at 2 yards and his forward momentum takes him to 2.5 yards after the D-lineman gets by him. This is why it is critical to see the whole play. We have a the same problem when we work 3-man for MS games in that the U has to drop back when there is a pass instead of stepping up to the LOS.

No foul in play #2. It looks to me as if although the blocker puts his head down, the initial contact is above the waist and then he slides down. This is a 15 yard penalty and you had better be sure if you are going to call it.
Remember, the "when in doubt" guideline for "block above or below the waist" is "above the waist."

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by SouthGARef

You been watching Studio 60???

My new favorite show, man!

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by MJT

.... This is a 15 yard penalty and you had better be sure if you are going to call it.
Remember, the "when in doubt" guideline for "block above or below the waist" is "above the waist."

Agree you have to see the whole thing. And of course you only get one shot at it. (unless of course your brain has a replay option for a couple of milliseconds )

Actually the when in doubt for a block below the waist is that it "is below the waist". (source below)
I had some doubts on this play, reviewed the play twice but stayed with my original call that it was below the waist.

The Redding book for NFHS lists many more WID statements than the NCAA formally does, but in both cases they are the same for this block.

[MJT]

I wonder where I had it is "above" IIDoubt? I had it in some of my notes. I have Redding, but didn't look in it.

[UmpJM]

MJT & Theisy,

From the 2004 and 2005 NFHS Football Officials Manual, p.84:

Guides For - When In Question
...

• Block above or below the waist...............................above

Pardon my ignorance, but what is "The Redding book"?

JM

[FootballRef05]

Where the cnfusion may be coming from is with regard to blocking in the back. The reul book stated "when the contact is ruled to be from behind, and the official has question as to the initial point of contact, it shall be ruled clipping".

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

MT & Theisy,

From the 2004 and 2005 NF HS Football Officials Manual, p.84:

Guides For - When In Question
...

• Block above or below the waist...............................above

Pardon my ignorance, but what is "The Redding book"?

JM

Coach... it's TheisEy...

Redding guide is a study guide published for both NCAA and NFHS football rules. It is not a rule book. While the authors says it is not a teaching manual, one can learn a lot from the detailed discussion and case plays they give to many of the rules. Not sure when the NFHS book was first published, maybe 2000, but the NCAA version has been around since at least 1993.

Well, there is apparently a conflict between the Officials manual and the Redding guide. One would say you have to believe the NF publication. I don't. Because this is one of those "safety" type fouls and normally is not permitted in the NF rules, I go with the NCAA version and this guide which as stated says when in doubt the contact is below the waist.

So MJT, you are not really wrong if your source was the officials manual.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by Theisey

Coach... it's TheisEy...



So MJT, you are not really wrong if your source was the officials manual.

I figured I typed it up from somewhere.

Since in college ball, if it was a BBW, it would be legal, I'd say it is less a safety issue than a clip where the codes line up in a downfield clip being illegal.

[Theisey]

There are many times when a BBW is illegal (NCAA) such as after any change of team possession, during a kick down, during a scrimmage down and you did it do an eligible receiver, a team-A player in position to receive backwards pass behind the NZ, team-A players 7 yards outside the middle lineman blocking towards the original position of the bali up to 10 yards beyond the NZ, same goes for backs.

When in doubt there, it is below the waist.

[andy1033]

THeisey
Posted on Monday, October 02, 2006 - 2:46 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initial point of contact on the block determines whether you flag for a block below the waist or not.

Ya gotta see the whole block from the start.
The comic book has an illustration on this if you have one.
One the initial point is above the waist, the blocker tends to start sliding downward and it now looks like a block before the waist. Howeverm this is no considered a BBW and not a foul.

I agree

[GBL]

Originally Posted by SouthGARef

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.

Am I watching a different video?
If this is 3 man there is no right side wing. I see a HL and an umpire. I'm assuming the R was out of the picture.
I don't agree with the call, but have no problem with the only wingman watching the entire line.
As a stand alone play I also disagree with the BBW. Initial contact was clearly made at the shoulder pads, however, who knows if there was previous history with this team or that player which made the referee interpret the block a little differently.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by Theisey

There are many times when a BBW is illegal (NCAA) such as after any change of team possession, during a kick down, during a scrimmage down and you did it do an eligible receiver, a team-A player in position to receive backwards pass behind the NZ, team-A players 7 yards outside the middle lineman blocking towards the original position of the bali up to 10 yards beyond the NZ, same goes for backs.

When in doubt there, it is below the waist.

I know the NCAA rules for BBW, but if this was an NCAA play, that block would have been legal even if it was no doubt below the waist.

[Theisey]

I'm not going to argue any further for or against it being a legal block above or illegal block below.

We've detailed the conditions of what makes such a block legal or not. We've reminded all that you have to see the whole block and not part of it. We have listed a guideline as to what to think about if you have doubts. You pick the one that you agree with (NF Officials manual vs NCAA/Redding guide).
Now it's up to the official to decide in a split second to flag it or to pass on it.

I will say that GBLs observation that is was clearly at the shoulder pad level level makes me wonder what film clip he was looking at. I stand by my initial reaction to watching the play and a BBW because as I see it it, the contact was just below the waist.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Theisey

I will say that GBLs observation that is was clearly at the shoulder pad level level makes me wonder what film clip he was looking at. I stand by my initial reaction to watching the play and a BBW because as I see it it, the contact was just below the waist.

Is this the initial contact? Not to get all Zapruder here, but if this is it, it looks to be at shoulder level:



Maybe the sequence can help:



This isn't meant to disparage the crew, which had to make the call at speed and in a split second while we dissect it long after the fact. But I think it's good to illustrate points in hopes they can help us all.