Announcers wanted U to signal TD

[bisonlj]

If anyone was watching the Rutgers-WVU game on ESPN you saw the umpire signal touchdown on a 3rd and goal run from the 1 in the 3rd overtime to pull Rutgers within 2. It looked horrible because he was trying to run through the defensive players on his way to get the attention of the wing officials.

On a replay from the end zone it appeared the runner may have been down and then reached across, but it was impossible to tell because of the angle. The angle was similar to the U so I have no idea how he could have ruled the guy in. Rutgers failed to convert on the 2-point conversion so it had no impact on the outcome.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

If anyone was watching the Rutgers-WVU game on ESPN you saw the umpire signal touchdown on a 3rd and goal run from the 1 in the 3rd overtime to pull Rutgers within 2. It looked horrible because he was trying to run through the defensive players on his way to get the attention of the wing officials.

On a replay from the end zone it appeared the runner may have been down and then reached across, but it was impossible to tell because of the angle. The angle was similar to the U so I have no idea how he could have ruled the guy in. Rutgers failed to convert on the 2-point conversion so it had no impact on the outcome.

Just saw that myself - the U must have been DAMN sure that the ball was in before the runner's knee hit the ground.

[sj]

I'd have to see it again to be sure but from the angle from upstairs it looked like the runners knee wasn't down because he essentially was laying on top of other guys and was trying to churn his legs forward along with reaching the ball out. But yeah I saw the U signal and I thought holy smokes!!!

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by sj

I'd have to see it again to be sure but from the angle from upstairs it looked like the runners knee wasn't down because he essentially was laying on top of other guys and was trying to churn his legs forward along with reaching the ball out. But yeah I saw the U signal and I thought holy smokes!!!

It wasn't obvious that's for sure but that umpire was definitely positive. It did appear he was on top of a defender, but it almost looked like his elbow was on the ground before he moved the ball forward.

[grantsrc]

I saw that too. I was like, "what the heck is that umpire doing?"

[Forksref]

He set officials back about 5 years. First, the U never signals TD and he was very overweight and his flag looked like crap, dangling from his pocket. All the things we talk about to make officials better, he was exactly the opposite.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by Forksref

He set officials back about 5 years. First, the U never signals TD and he was very overweight and his flag looked like crap, dangling from his pocket. All the things we talk about to make officials better, he was exactly the opposite.

Well in his defense, he's a D1 football official, so he must be doing something right.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Forksref

He set officials back about 5 years. First, the U never signals TD and he was very overweight and his flag looked like crap, dangling from his pocket. All the things we talk about to make officials better, he was exactly the opposite.

Except that he's there in a D-I game. Are you a D-I official? Will you be a D-I official in 5 years? There are large officials in the NFL. Bernie Kukar did at least one season with the flag hanging from his front pocket. And he runs weird. And he could have been better on the mic. Did he send NFL officials 5 years back?

Edit: correct the spelling of Bernie's first name.

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Just saw that myself - the U must have been DAMN sure that the ball was in before the runner's knee hit the ground.

I think he was not only sure that it was in, but also that it would be tough for the wings to have seen what he saw.

It was a huge situation in a huge game with a lot at stake, and he had the play all the way, and he clearly knew what he saw and also knew that he had the best view on the field.

I thought the replay was conclusive by the way. It was a touchdown, and the U was in the right spot to see it.

Still very surprised that he called it.

[HossHumard]

With all due respect to my US brothers, just because the mechanic is Canadian doesn’t mean its stupid or wrong. In fact, it makes a ton of sense when you think about….if you bother to think about it.

Firstly, the Canadian mechanic dictates that the umpire be lined up just off the end’s butt wide side and make a step to the line as the play begins. The thought is that the majority of plays at that point are going to end up with penetration of the goal line somewhere between the hash marks, so the Umpire is either going to have the “magic moment” happening right in front of him, or he’ll just swivel around if the play if wider to the wide side.

In both cases, the U then has the play bracketed with his wingman for backup so either or both will have an excellent view of the break of the plane if it occurs. In addition, as previously mentioned, a back man slides into the U’s usual spot to cover the line play. If the U’s view is blocked, he doesn’t make the call, it’s that simple. And, in a mélange of bodies on the goal line, a view from someone who can actually move towards the pile for a diagonal look has to be better than a strict lateral view from 20 yards away; as for the “how can you see the knee hit the ground” comment, I would suggest in most cases, the knee NEVER hits the ground in a two tonne pile-up of players!

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!”.

Be open to another way fellas....you just never know.....

[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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by wwcfoa43

In Canadian four, five and seven man mechanics, with the ball inside the two yard line, the umpire positions himself close to the line of scrimmage and then steps forward on the line surge to be able to rule whether the ball crosses the line or not. In six man, we place two officials in this position. (Mind you, our fields are 65 yards wide, placing the outside wing man farther away.)

Do your wing officials not know how to close down?

If your umpire is watching the ball, who's watching line play?

Sounds like a very poor mechanic to me.

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.

Ever seen an NFL umpire signal touchdown on such a play?

I rest my case.

Originally Posted by bisonlj

If anyone was watching the Rutgers-WVU game on ESPN you saw the umpire signal touchdown on a 3rd and goal run from the 1 in the 3rd overtime to pull Rutgers within 2. It looked horrible because he was trying to run through the defensive players on his way to get the attention of the wing officials.

On a replay from the end zone it appeared the runner may have been down and then reached across, but it was impossible to tell because of the angle. The angle was similar to the U so I have no idea how he could have ruled the guy in. Rutgers failed to convert on the 2-point conversion so it had no impact on the outcome.

I saw the same play. It looked terrible.

[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.