Boise State

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I don't see how you can possibly make this comparison.

On the 2 point conversion by OU, the TE was called for an illegal shift because he did not reset for 1 second. You say that the defense is reading the formation to know who they need to cover. Are you telling me they didn't know he was an eligible receiver?

But then you turn around and say that OU was not placed at a disadvantage by the BSU QB miving toward the LOS at the snap. I saw it when the play was ran and was surprised there was no flag.

May I say that the same official had both calls?

Sorry but you can't have it both ways.

When two players are moving the defense does not think the snap is about to happen because they know the ball cannot be snapped while there is a shift. For the motion, they know the ball can be snapped if a player is in motion are are prepared for it. Here's a link to the final plays of the Boise game. Once it gets to the motion play look at the snap and the direction of the motion. It is a bang bang play with his motion and the snap. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...sta+bowl&hl=en

Another side of this type of motion is I have seen this as being under the philosophy of a "talk to first" before flagging it when the play goes the other way. If that is the case then I believe you'd have to adhere to that philosphy in this play as well.

[TXMike]

I ask all of you who are saying the flag should have been tossed on the BSU play to just tell me what advantage BSU got or what disadvantage OU was put at due to the QB's motion.

In the case of an illegal shift, defenses have to be given time to adjust after a shift. That was put in the rule book years ago when coaches were using shifts to put defenses at big disadvantages. After the change requiring all be motionless for a second, defense had time to react during and after the shift to get better positioned to deal with what was coming. We do not know what adjustments the defense might have made during and following the illegal shift had then been given sufficient time, hence the flag.

[ChickenOfNC]

Originally Posted by TXMike

I ask all of you who are saying the flag should have been tossed on the BSU play to just tell me what advantage BSU got or what disadvantage OU was put at due to the QB's motion.

In the case of an illegal shift, defenses have to be given time to adjust after a shift. That was put in the rule book years ago when coaches were using shifts to put defenses at big disadvantages. After the change requiring all be motionless for a second, defense had time to react during and after the shift to get better positioned to deal with what was coming. We do not know what adjustments the defense might have made during and following the illegal shift had then been given sufficient time, hence the flag.

Mike, I hate to keep coming back to this, but we do not judge advantage/ disadvantage on these types of fouls. The technical rules of football regarding shifts/motions/formations etc., must be adhered to in order to protect the integrity and legitimicy of the game. I can think of a thousand instances where a miniscule false start happens, and we call it every time. But most of those occasions, the offense doesn't gain an advantage. Heck, more than not, they are disadvantaged, because the offense guard or tackle gets out of position, etc.

Judgment of advantage/disadvantage on holds, block in the back, pass interference = yes absolutely. Judgment of illegal shift/motion/false start/formation = absolutely not.

[TXMike]

The black and white philosophy some of you want to adopt may work at the HS level and below. It does not work at higher levels. You can choose to disagree but once you get to that level, you will either adjust your thinking or move on.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

When two players are moving the defense does not think the snap is about to happen because they know the ball cannot be snapped while there is a shift. For the motion, they know the ball can be snapped if a player is in motion are are prepared for it. Here's a link to the final plays of the Boise game. Once it gets to the motion play look at the snap and the direction of the motion. It is a bang bang play with his motion and the snap.

I don' t buy it. How about the OU defender who sees the QB moving toward the LOS and is waiting for him to reset because he knows he can't be moving forward at the snap?

What has bang bang got to do with whether you flag an infraction or not?

Another side of this type of motion is I have seen this as being under the philosophy of a "talk to first" before flagging it when the play goes the other way. If that is the case then I believe you'd have to adhere to that philosphy in this play as well.

It's 4th down in overtime and you're still warning players?

Originally Posted by TXMike

I ask all of you who are saying the flag should have been tossed on the BSU play to just tell me what advantage BSU got or what disadvantage OU was put at due to the QB's motion.

In the case of an illegal shift, defenses have to be given time to adjust after a shift. That was put in the rule book years ago when coaches were using shifts to put defenses at big disadvantages. After the change requiring all be motionless for a second, defense had time to react during and after the shift to get better positioned to deal with what was coming. We do not know what adjustments the defense might have made during and following the illegal shift had then been given sufficient time, hence the flag.

You can't tell me that if the OU TE had reset one half second earlier, it would have made any difference whasoever. That's far fetched, Mike.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by TXMike

The black and white philosophy some of you want to adopt may work at the HS level and below. It does not work at higher levels. You can choose to disagree but once you get to that level, you will either adjust your thinking or move on.

So when you choose to apply a black and white philosophy, as in the illegal shift, it's okay.

But when someone else offers a black and white philosophy in another situation, then suddenly they have a lot to learn and may not be capable of working at the next level?

Pot meet kettle, kettle, pot.

I'm not saying there was or wasn't a foul on the BSU OT TD. I wasn't standing on the field, and didn't even get a real good look on TV. What I am saying is that you can selectively say that one foul at the snap should always be called while a similiar foul at the snap can be ignored.

If such BS is true, could someone please write a book and explain all these calls that have to be called versus those that might be called and finally those that shouldn't be called? Then, all officials can get on the same page and perhaps we can stop a lot of the criticism officials get for being inconsistent!

[TXMike]

Unfortumately there is no book that gives you what you seek. It only comes from experience and contemplation. That "no call" was huge in that it let the players decide the game. You do not and pretty clearly, never will, get it. It is disingenious to throw out the word "consistency" in this discussion because when we ralk about consistency, this is not what we are talking about. Consistency means if he passes on that call in that EXACT situation for team 1 , then he passes on it in the SAME EXACT situation for Team 2. That is what consistency is about.

[ChickenOfNC]

Ok I'm going to start a new thread on this, to see if we can spark some discussion from others.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by TXMike

You do not and pretty clearly, never will, get it.

So if someone disagrees with you, then they clearly don't get it and never will? You have no room for discussion or other people's ideas, eh? They're just automatically wrong? That's real mature, Mike.

This is officiating philosophy. There is no right or wrong, no black or white, only a variety of opinions and different ways of doing things. I'd bet there are college supervisors who would agree with you, and I also would be there are those that wouldn't. I guess those supervisoers who disagree just don't get it. And they never will.

[JasonTX]

I did some further study of the motion by the QB and from that angle of the video at full speed it does "appear" that he's moving forward. The problem is the camera is behind the play so it's diffult to tell exactly how much he really was moving forward. You would only be able to tell that if you were on the same yardline as the QB or if you look at the yardlines. I looked at each frame to determine the distance if any that he was moving forward. During my study I froze each frame starting at the hash mark (inbound lines) and if you notice his right foot is at the 8 1/2 yard line. As he continues his motion out to the 9 yard mark and when the snapper first starts his snap I froze the frame again and his right foot was still at the 8 1/2 yard line. His left foot is slightly forward by maybe a 1/2 yard. What makes this look bigger than what it really is was because he turned his body parallel to the LOS and put his left foot forward. Maybe if he would have taken a full step forward this would be called but I just don't see flagging him when he is still at the 8 1/2 yard line. It's going to have to be much more drastic than that. I suggest everyone to do the same as I did.

[BktBallRef]

Like I said Jason, I don't KNOW if he was moving forward or not. It appears he was but there wasn't a very good TV angle. It's could be like a lot of passes behind the LOS. It's difficult to know whether it's backwards/forwards without looking at a replay on the same yard line.

But whether there was a foul on that play or not is not my concern. I'm moreso discussing the philosophy of ignoring such an infraction (and then being critical of those who don't believe in your philosophy, which is not directed at you). If it was a foul, then I see no reason not to call illegal motion when you just made an illegal shift call against the opponent in a very similiar situation. I don't buy into that philosophy and I don't believe coaches would either. I'm probably not going to change anyone's mind but I believe I'm entitled to my opinion without being criticized for it.

Thanks for taking the time to break the video down.

[ChickenOfNC]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

But whether there was a foul on that play or not is not my concern. I'm moreso discussing the philosophy of ignoring such an infraction .

My thinking as well.

[ref5678]

to whomever stated "It's 4th down in overtime and you're still warning players?" that should be irrelevant. You call the game the same way in the first quarter, as you do through the final whistle. If you would warn them in the beginning of the game, you need to continue that in overtime, pending that they have not already been warned for this infraction. If they had already been warned then nail them, but you nor anyone else on this thread knows what was said between player and official.