2 Plays
 

Gentlemen,

A couple of more plays from a recent game.

For your review and commentary, the link below will take you to a sequence of 2 different plays which occurred in a recent game.

This is HS Freshman ball, FED rules.

The first play involves an ineligible receiver call; I believe the call was made on the right OT, #78.

The second play involves an illegal block below the waist. This call was made against the right OG, who was the lead blocker at the end of the play.

Neither call had a material impact on the outcome of the game. Once again, I'm just looking for some objective opinion on the calls and the proper application of the relevant rules. Thanks.

http://home.comcast.net/~john.muller/2PlaysLV.wmv

JM

re: ineligible downfield:: By the book, the block did NOT continue beyond the expanded neutral zone. I would pass on this flag.

re: block below the waist:: It looks like the block was just at or just below the belt (i.e. waist) and it also does not look like the defender made any contact with his hands on the blocker.
I would flag this too.

By the strictest of definitions you might have an ineligible downfield in the first play. As an Umpire I'd probably let this go.

I think the second flag is justified. It's hard to tell if the initial contact was at or below the waist but the blockers intent was to go low.

Speaking of the Umpire.. It took me several viewings to even find this guy.
The wing official made the call.

Theisy,

I should mention that this game (as well as the other Freshman games I have attended) was officiated by a three-man crew; they generally took the positions that would be taken by a Linesman, a Line Judge, and a Referee (i.e. "behind" the offensive backfield), if my terminology is correct.

The IR flag was thrown by the linesman, and the IBBW flag was thrown by the Referee, who was trailing the action by about twenty yards when he threw the flag.

JM

I noticed that too. I'd have a stern word for a wing official working my game they threw for an interior lineman downfield.

Oh, now you're talking a horse of a completely different color. I've seen 3-man crews work in all sorts of alignments –

2 wings and a referee
referee, wing and umpire-ish
and just last week I saw 2 wings and an umpire.

No matter where you work you're going to miss something.

Knowing now that this was a 3 man game I'm even more convinced that the ineligible downfield should not have been called. The wing official has downfield responsibilities he should be worrying about.

And I still like the flag on the BBW. This is a real safety issue and should be called every time.

non-official (or soon to be official) comment:

I would not have called a foul on the first play.

Second play was a good call. IMO, the blocker definitely intended to cut the guy down field. He even left his feet to make the block.

REPLY: I agree with most: pass on the ineligible call in the first play and make the BBW call on the second. Three-man officiating is a bear. I also agree with walt...what in heaven's name is the wing official doing calling an ineligible downfield on a pass play that's so far downfield. He belongs down there--not watching the LOS.

Well there is no Umpire, so if someone is going to make the call on the ineligible, it has to be the wingman. The guy who threw the flag was on the far side of the play halfway between his deepest receiver and the LOS, looks like pretty good coverage to me. The OL is three yards down field when the ball is thrown. I probably would have let that go, but it wasn't a ridiculous call.

I can see why the Ref threw the BBW because from that distance, it looks like he goes low. Look at it again, first contact is with the defender's SHOULDERPAD then he leaves his feet. He doesn't dive for his knees, he lowers his shoulder, makes contact with the defender and then goes down. Bad Call.

BTW - I work as an LJ and have thrown the ineligible man down field flag on more than one occasion. Example, QB rolls to his right (away from me), left tackle drifts 8 yards down field, most of the other linemen have moved right with the QB. WR on my side goes deep middle, no receivers in the flats or short middle. QB throws to the right side, I probably have the best look at this OL and I'll help my U out.

Sorry but I don't think there were any fouls to call in this video. The ineligible call just wasn't worth calling as the blocker was maybe 2.5 yards down field and was just making a bad block and attempted hold.

The block was good. The contact originated above the elbow and possibly as high as the shoulder.

Working three-man means that someone needs to be busting it to get a view of these plays and not have flags flying in from way behind the play because somebody thought they saw something. Based on where this flag came from there is no way that he saw the entire play and saw the original contact. The end of the play looked bad and so it must have been a foul.

I thought I was the only one seeing contact first high, then sliding low on the block. Glad to see I wasn't.

I wouldn't flag either play.

I'm with the bandwagon here - no flag on the first play, but the second one's a good call.

I agree on the first, but on the second I'm not sure, looks like the block started high and he slid down.

With the benefit of being able to slow it down and look at it:

1 - The LOS is the 49. The TE gets as far as the other 49 and has made a block and turned around (or been turned around) and the ball goes to the sideline and pretty far downfield. As others have mentioned, maybe you should be looking there, maybe not (it's not just a lineman, it's a lineman on the other end of the line from where the wing is positioned), but I think I'd let that go. There is an end on the linesman's side of the field who's going downfield, that probably should have been where his focus was.

2 - Initial contact does appear to be on the upper chest and then sliding down to take the defender's legs out. You could make the case, I guess, and you can't go wrong in my book with a safety-type foul that could protect the next kid from getting it in the knees, but if you saw the contact from start to finish, you might very well say it started high.

3 - I do have a flag for lack of tripod, though. :)

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

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.

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.

Oops! Message deleted.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You been watching Studio 60??? :D

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.

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."

My new favorite show, man!

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 :D )

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...al_contact.jpg

Maybe the sequence can help:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...elow_waist.jpg

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.

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

On page 85 of the Fed Officials Manual

Guides for - When In Question

Incomplete pass or Fumble - Incomplete pass
Forward or Backward pass- Forward
Kick or pass touched or not - Not
Catch or not - No Catch
Passer has thrown or Fumbled - Has Thrown
Touchback or Saftey- Touchback
Fumble or Dead Ball - Dead Ball
Apparently Injured or Not- Injured
Apparently Unconscious or Not - Unconscious
Accidental or Intentional - Accidental (Contact,Touching,Kicking)
Legal Block or Clip - Legal
Block Above or Below the Waist - ABOVE
5-15 Face Mask- 15
5-15 Kicker/Holder - 15

Thanks Footballref05.. Just a pointer to that page would have been just fine.

It's just that I happen to believe "their" versions of when in doubt is on the wrong side of the coin.
I tend to hold more faith in the Redding guide and the NCAA way of handling the same kind of block.
Since it's not a rule, I can't be accused of making up my own.

I'll stick with when in doubt/question, the block is below the waist.

When you err on the side of saftey you usually can't get in trouble.;)

I thought the other "When in Question" examples would be a nice reminder/tool for those that have not see it in a while or maybe never have read it.

Don;t confuse safety with the knowledge of the rules. Example.... B grabs top of helmet and does not touch any opening or facemask. You might consider this a safety problem but it is not a foul.

I'm not confused between saftey and rules knowledge. While I don't necessarily agree with Theisey, I understand his point. My point was with the
BBW, if he deems that it was a saftey then that's his judgement and with a BBW he can't get into much trouble making that call. Contact with the top of a opponents helmet is not even close to BBW. Besides touching the facemask does not constitute a penalty. Grasping does 5 yards, twisting, turning or pulling 15 yards.