Announcers wanted U to signal TD
 

Good post about ABC guys talking about the Side Judge in the OSU v. Mich game. They clearly gave credit where credit is due.

I watched two games yesterday, the other was Rutgers. I was doing a little bit of surfing of the channels during Rutgers so I'll say I'm 99% sure it was the Rutgers game.

I think the voice was Mike Patrick's. He criticized the U for not signaling TD. He said something like (I'm paraphrasing) "I can't understand why in the history of football the umpire can't signal touchdown. It was right in front of him and he just moves out of the way. It's a procedural thing that I don't understand."

Well the funny thing about this was it turned out to NOT be a touchdown and the wings nailed it. The players knee was down and it showed on replay which made him look like a complete dunce!

Ya, the talking heads can definitely have some classics at times. Like you said, the best part was he did not score on the play.

Canadian mechanics
 

Though the replay showed that the talking heads were incorrect about whether it was a TD, I agree with them that the umpire should be able to rule on TDs.

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.)

I believe that putting the umpire in a position to rule on a TD is a significant advantage in mechanics.

Since I have just disagreed with the mechanics of 90% of the officials in North America, I certainly do not expect much support from south of the border!

When you have 2 wing officials (even if both are 6 yards farther away than they are in the US), why would you need an umpire making a decision on something that he's likely to be incorrect about? Even if he's not incorrect about it, how is it an advantage?

Simple: the umpire is closer and therefore more likely to be in a better position than the far wing man to see the play. All he has to do is step forward to position himself on the goal line.

How will he do that if there are bodies everywhere covering the goal line?


As for the announcers comment..."It's a procedural thing that I don't understand."

.....Maybe it should dawn on him to go find out. He's got hours of prep time before a game. All he has to do is go ask the U. Too simple I guess.

I hope this doesn't sound too patronizing. In my opinion, this is one of the top fallacies of officiating: Closer means in a better position to see the play.

This play is an excellent illustration. The umpire, that close to the action, is likely to get jostled as he tries to make this call; also, he probably doesn't have a good view of the runner's legs & knees. I'll take the view from the wing.

The umpire's job is to watch for holding, and other infractions, in the line play. He doesn't have time to watch for scoring. If he did, a lot of "garbage" would go unoticed, and uncalled.

Bob

An announcer ask an official? That way he'd have to admit the zebras know more than he does about rules and mechanics.

Bob

REPLY: I heard the same thing and I was shaking my head too. It was Mike Patrick, another officiating expert that honed his skills working beside Joe Theismann.:D The umpire can certainly give a discrete signal to the wings to indicate that he has a ball in the runner's possession in the endzone, but it is the wing(s) only that can ultimately determine if the runner made it to the endzone before his knee hit the ground.

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.

DON'T signal, but grab your lanyard to let the wings know that you have the ball in the EZ. You are NOT on the LINE, so cannot see if a knee was down before the ball crossed. This is a pretty standard crew mechanic, which is VERY effective, but still allows the U not to signal. The U is watching for other stuff anyway, so wont have the best look. You are just saying "the ball is in and that is all I know" when you do this.

I also respectfully disagree with you. If the U is watching the runner cross the goal line, then who is watching the guard when he grabs a handful of jersey and takes down the the D-lineman to open the hole for the runner?

I told the local TV guy here that if his network ever does the HS championship games, that it would be good to have an official as a resource in the booth. I've heard some pretty unknowledgeable comments from the announcers in many games.

As for the umpire signalling, we say he NEVER signals it. I consider the ANGLE to be more important than being close. Wings are trained to be in position for the call of whether the ball breaks the plane. NOT the umpire.

Firstly remember one thing, I'm in Canada, it's the Canadian Mechanic.

That's why when the ball's being scrimmaged from the 2 and in, we bring up the back ump (FJ) to act as a second umpire, we both take a position on each side of the D-Line, and watch whatever is goes on on the line.

It's an effective mechanic. There's a lot the sideguys aren't going to be able to see because of the wider field up here.

And when you work the U, how in the world are you seeing the ball and the knees at the same time?!?!! You are TOO close for this call. As said above, closer is NOT better ,and this is a perfect example of that. Signal to your partners that the ball is in the EZ - let them determine whether the knee is down or not. And meanwhile, continue officiating - do YOUR job, not theirs... if you do theirs, no one is doing yours.

This is clearly a case of having to agree to disagree.

The Canadian mechanic is perfectly fine. Like 18 and 43 have outlined, it is our mechanic and we're trained with it from the get-go.

What this is, is an example of the differences between our games. The American field is 6,400 yds². The Canadian field is 9,750 yds². The Cdn field is over 52% bigger than the US field. Both the field of play and endzone are wider and longer/deeper in our game. It stands to reason that some mechanics will be different. One of them is the U calling TDs.

Frankly, you've got nothing but US training as your background and weapon for discussion. We have the training that is associated with the mechanic and rules for our game.

Trust me, we don't miss "things" the umpire normally observes. :rolleyes:

(Then again, maybe our umpires are better than your umpires. ;))

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I can share the frustration. You study the proper mechanics, you keep yourself fit and you maintian a clean professional appearence. Then you have an official that has made it to the higherst level looking like a first year underclass official. Are you going to tell me that this old boys judgement is that good that the other aspects of his work are overlooked? Is he better thab the thousands of other official that have good judgement and the rest of the package as well?

The more I do this thing, the more I feel like success is more to do with right place/right time or who you know.

Very often it is! And that's life. I've found that fitting in is just as important, perhaps more, than the job you do on the field.

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.

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.....

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.

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

I rest my case.

I saw the same play. It looked terrible.

**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.

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.

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.

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.... :rolleyes:

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.

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!!!!!!

Omg No!!!!
 

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

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.

Delay the TD signal
 

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.

"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.

Pacific Life Holiday Bowl
 

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.

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".

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.:eek: 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.:D

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.

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.

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.