Judgment calls on pre-snap and at-the-snap fouls???

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by sloth

Team B is having serious problems during their punts of keeping 7 men on the line...

Is Team "B" really team A?

[sloth]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

Is Team "B" really team A?

Yea...I don't suppose you give yourself much credibility when you get the "Team A" and "Team B" nomenclature backwards, huh?

[sj]

In thinking about this here's something for anybody to take shots at. Now just because there was thinking involved does not guarantee that it's the final answer and I understand that. But it's an attempt anyway.

There are 3 types of calls that we are talking about.


1) With some actions we know from understanding why a particular rule is written that there is an advantage gained so we flag them automatically.

An example of this would be false starts. If an offensive lineman is able to false start without impunity then the defender will be confused as to when the play is starting. With additional unpunished false starts he will consistently be confused and put at a disadvantage. So we flag it. We really don’t even think through this call because we understand the rule and know there’s an advantage to the offense if we don't call it. It's not that advantage/disadvantage isn't applied it's just that on this one we don't have to think about it at the moment of the action. The rules-makers already did the thinking for us and stuck the rule in.


2) With a second group of actions everyone is in agreement that judgment is used.

Example: Contact which may or may not be pass interference.


3) With a third group of actions it is easy to wait for the play to develop and see if it created an advantage or disadvantage. If it does then throw. If it doesn’t then don’t. And heres' a key.....by calling these in black and white you are not calling them consistently with the other two types of calls on the list all of which apply a principle of advantage/disadvantage.

Examples: Holding away from the point of attack and the motion no-call in the OU-Boise game.

[mcrowder]

I don't see how an official could have possibly made a decision regarding harm/no-harm on a procedure penalty like this one. It seemed obvious to me that the defense did not cover him because he was a lineman. You can't wait to see the result of the pass before deciding whether an illegal player was downfield. If I'm the wing, as soon as I see that receiver cross the LOS, I'm waiting to see if a ball is thrown... and if the ball is thrown, my flag is out. Regardless of where the ball ends up being thrown.

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I don't see how an official could have possibly made a decision regarding harm/no-harm on a procedure penalty like this one. It seemed obvious to me that the defense did not cover him because he was a lineman. You can't wait to see the result of the pass before deciding whether an illegal player was downfield. If I'm the wing, as soon as I see that receiver cross the LOS, I'm waiting to see if a ball is thrown... and if the ball is thrown, my flag is out. Regardless of where the ball ends up being thrown.

I assume you are talking about the Alamo Bowl play and not the Boise State-OU play?

[CruiseMan]

I most definitely apply advantage/disadvantage/common sense when it comes to Illegal Formation.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by CruiseMan

I most definitely apply advantage/disadvantage/common sense when it comes to Illegal Formation.

Monday-Thursday... sure.
Friday, in a blowout ... ok
Friday in a close game? No way.
Saturday in any game? Absolutely not.
Saturday on a nationally televised game with thirtysomething cameras and 100% chance that every call will be scrutinized? Hell no.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by TXMike

I assume you are talking about the Alamo Bowl play and not the Boise State-OU play?

Yes. (Added text because this ridiculous site feels the answer of "Yes." is not sufficient.)