Announcers wanted U to signal TD

[HossHumard]

**Sigh**

I invite you to re-read my post as both of your concerns are dealt with.

With the U up on the line, one of the back guys fills the normal spot in the pit to cover the line play as usual. If the play turns out to be a pass (<10% of the time), he simply backpedals to cover our MASSIVE 20 yard end zone in conjunction with the wingman if it happens to go deep.

I didn’t see the play in the Rutgers game you speak of, but it sounds like the U was simply out of position to make the TD call, regardless of the applied mechanic. As I pointed out, in the three down method, if the U gets run over or the play goes wide, he doesn’t make the call…it’s that simple.

I have to admit I’m suprised at the repeated condemnation of our coverage of goal line plays. I don’t believe any of my fellow Canucks have suggested it’s better or worse than the way you do it in four down ball…it’s just different…and it works for us (and it might just work for you if you gave it a shot).

Given few of you guys south of the 49th have even see the mechanic occur, much less have actually worked it, I’m at a loss to explain as to how you could be so convinced it’s unworkable.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by HossHumard

Finally, with regard to the post about “closer doesn’t mean better”…whaaaa? Isn’t positioning what it’s all about? How many times have you worked the bench side as a coach screams in your ear about a play in the middle of the field and you’ve turned to him and said, “Coach, we’re 30 yards away, the guys in the pit have a much better view of what’s going on!”.

I have no beef with your mechanic, as it is what you're trained to do, and you obviously have different responsibilities than your American brethren do on a play like this. Your partners know that, and are doing their jobs as well.

But it will not work here. Reason one is that the rest of U's team is expecting him to be doing his job, and not theirs. I've actually seen an umpire go up with TD hands and HL rushing in blowing his whistle pointing at the ground to say "NO TD". It looked HORRIBLE, and the fault lies with the umpire who was doing someone else's job. Reason two is that U doesn't line up where you describe, and U would have a horrible angle on most plays, and would be too close. U would have to line up much further outside than he normally does in America, which would switch other people's responsibilities.

As to your derogatory comment re: Closer is not better. Closer is not better in THIS case. Do baseball umpires call plays at the bases from 2-3 yards away, with a poor angle? No - a bit of distance (no, not your absurd example of 30 yards away) and angle is a better view. Umpire is too close on most plays to make this call. He might be able to make a decent guess from about 5-6 yards from the play, but again, his angle would be bad in most cases.

PS - I would ask, by the way ... if the mechanic of having U make the call on TD vs no TD is inherently better, why would you only make this call at the goal line ... wouldn't it be better all over the field? If H and L have better views as to where a play ends all over the rest of the field, why do they suddenly not have the ability to do so at the goal line? No, I've not tried it ... but it makes no sense to me.

[saskbucks]

Can we not just agree to disagree on this one guys? It is different for each group, period. Different sized fields, different number of players, more room between the hashes, etc. It might not make sense to some, might make perfect sense to others.

[JugglingReferee]

I particularily like BBR's post.

Even after reading that Canadian mechanics are different because they have to be (larger field, different field layout), and that each Canadian official to date has said that the mechanics are fine and we are trained appropriately, he still thinks it's a poor mechanic, simply because NFL guys don't do it, that our side guys don't know how to close down, and that in goal line play, our Umpires somehow forget to watch line play. Oh yeah, and he has years of experience behind him to back up his statements.

Lah me....

There's an adage I hear a lot in basketball: trust your partner(s)! Canadians know that in 99.99% of the cases, US umpires do not signal a major. It was simply mentioned that in our game, such is not the case. In discussing this mechanic, all US officials need to do is trust their Great White North brethern and accept that Cdn Us called TDs is the right thing to do.

At least mbcrowder started to get on the right track. His comment that the U and side guys each do their job own job and not another's job is very well said. Unfortunately, his statement that being closer is not better falls off the track if he's commenting on anything other than US-only philosophies. The HL and LJ do have forward progress "all over the rest of the field", except in cases that are similar to this goal line play we're talking about. But then again, you didn't know that because (a) you have no experience with this mechanic, and (b) we have yet to talk about non-goal line mechanics.

[garwood8499]

Imagine. You're an umpire (I'm not fat enough yet, but I'm working on it). Your standing in the EZ looking for the usual blocking penalties. The ball carrier dives into the EZ near you, clearly across the plane before he is down. The nearest wing official is running in, spotting forward progress at the 1-ft line. Are you going to take the ball and spot it outside the GL? You know it's a TD!! My Ump will holler, "He's in, he's in!!", communicating to me to signal a TD. I take a half-step sideways and call it a TD. I consider this the middle ground between "don't signal a TD, ever" and "we're a team". I'm the wing and I didn't see it because there we 5 bodies between me and the ball. My ump did see it and he's gonna help me out b/c WE'RE A TEAM!!!!!!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by garwood8499

I consider this the middle ground between "don't signal a TD, ever" and "we're a team". I'm the wing and I didn't see it because there we 5 bodies between me and the ball. My ump did see it and he's gonna help me out b/c WE'RE A TEAM!!!!!!

The issue has nothing to do with being a team. You do not have the angle as an umpire to make that call. If you call a TD and the runner got off his knee and dove into the EZ, then that looks very stupid when you are wrong. I guess if the Referee thinks there is PI, they should call it as well because WE'RE A TEAM!! This is why the Umpire should not give the signal. If the wing does not see the runner cross, you communicate this with a signal to your partner or verbally, but you do not signal TD. I guess the Referee can signal TD as well?

Peace

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Also...I would never use a verbal communication ("he's in!"). Most experienced officials at the HS and college level would use a more discrete non-verbal signal to indicate one thing--that the ball is in the possession of a player in the endzone. Not saying it's a TD. That's the wings' call. If they see your signal, and they didn't see a knee (or other body part) hit the turf, they ring up the TD. Otherwise, it's their call on where forward progress stopped.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ref18

I think the U should signal. When I work the U, and the play comes right up the middle, the U should be right on the goal line on the short drives in and should have the best view of whether or not the ball breaks the plane.

The U is in the worst position to see if the runner legally made it in the endzone of the close in plays, plus, his attention should be concentrated on the close line play.

Add to that, wingmen should delay their signal until both have confirmed through silent signal the runner is in.

The worst possible situation is to have a runner down in the end zone with the U and a wing giving the TD signal while the other wing is indicating a knee down before the goal line.

[RoyGardner]

"The U is in the worst position to see if the runner legally made it in the endzone of the close in plays..."

Sorry guys but this statement is just flat out wrong. On quick dives up the middle from the 2 and in, with the QB or RB hitting a seam left or right of the center the U is the ONLY official on the field who has a view of the ball carrier without 4-6 opposing linemen directly in the field of view between him and the ball carrier.

That being said we still will never signal TD on these plays, since on those 90+/-% of the plays where there is a question in/not in we are not in the best position. Therefore the standard mechanic is for U to "provide guidance" to the covering official using some form of previously agreed signal. This accepted practice helps avoid those times where the ball is clearly in, but the U did not catch the knee down at the 1. If the U does not signal, then we avoid the absurd conflicting signals with the U going up with TD while at the same time a wing is running in pointing to the ground ("knee down") at the one.

The only objective here is to get it right, and IMO the best way for that to happen is for the TD call to be left to the wing officials with a little help as needed from the U.

[JugglingReferee]

Texas A&M vs. Cal. Late 3rd quarter...

Cal deep in A&M territory, RB jumps over crowd, breaks plane (or did he????) then ball comes loose, defence recovers. Nothing from side guys. Crew gets together. 1 minute goes by. R finally comes out and signals 1D for A&M.

Announcers claim a TD was scored. I bet the guys in the truck had it all cued up, RTG. They show all the replays... yup he broke the plane.

R gets the signal that the replay booth is reviewing the play. R goes over, 30s later comes back to tell everyone that the play was a TD.

If they were using the Canadian mechanic, the U would've signalled TD and there's be no unnecessary interruption in the game.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Texas A&M vs. Cal. Late 3rd quarter...

Cal deep in A&M territory, RB jumps over crowd, breaks plane (or did he????) then ball comes loose, defence recovers. Nothing from side guys. Crew gets together. 1 minute goes by. R finally comes out and signals 1D for A&M.

Announcers claim a TD was scored. I bet the guys in the truck had it all cued up, RTG. They show all the replays... yup he broke the plane.

R gets the signal that the replay booth is reviewing the play. R goes over, 30s later comes back to tell everyone that the play was a TD.

If they were using the Canadian mechanic, the U would've signalled TD and there's be no unnecessary interruption in the game.

I don't know how the U could have gotten to the LOS to see that the ball crossed the plane even if that is their mechanic. If he wasn't right there, he would not have been able to rule on it either.

[RoyGardner]

No matter what the mechanic here this one was going to be reviewed and it was going to take some time. Any play like this one where there is a loss of possession just as the ball carrier is crossing the GL is going to be reviewed. not sure any on-field mechanic would have made the final result here take any less time. Also, IMO the U had no angle to be making a call on this play anyway, regardless of the "standard mechanic".

[Soonerump]

I have been with the same crew for 5 years, and an Umpire for 4 of those years. The previous U of this crew would signal a TD every time.

Final game of the season 5 years ago and playoff implications were on the line. U signaled a TD with 32 seconds on the clock. He did not check with anyone else he just signaled. The bad thing was, the runner had lost possesion of the ball at the 3 yard line, and he did not regain possession of the ball. The HL and the LJ came in blowing their whistle saying runner did not have possession. Everyones Bean Bags were on the ground except for the U. Even the BJ saw the ball come loose.

The U was very adamant about it being a TD. We could not convince him otherwise, and he stated that if we overturned his call that he would never call with us again. We had a conference and overturned his TD signal. He walked off of the field with 32 seconds left on the clock, and has never officiated again.

If I see a TD I look to my wings, and if they need help I will walk over and confer with them, but I will never signal. Too many things can and will go wrong.

I wanted to share this with you guys, because bad things do happen when an Umpire thinks they have the proper angle and signal something that they have no business signaling.

[MJT]

The other 4 said fumble, he said he'd leave, then did after you overturned his call. The officiating world is better without someone like him anyway. I think the state would suspend him anyway.

[wwcfoa43]

I don't think that situation has anything to do with the mechanic of the umpire possibly signalling a TD. It has to do with an official who is inflexible. Every official on the field has to be able to swallow their pride and give in that they were wrong on occasion. This situation would be no different had it been the wing official who saw the play wrong and would not concede to what the rest of the crew was telling him.