2 Plays

[UmpJM]

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

[Theisey]

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.

[waltjp]

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.

[Theisey]

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

[UmpJM]

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

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Theisy,

I should mention that this game (as well as the other Freshman games I have attended) was officiated by a three-man crew;

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.

[bossman72]

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.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Theisey

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

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

[The Roamin' Umpire]

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

[FootballRef05]

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

[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?