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

[ChickenOfNC]

We had a discussion going in the Boise St. thread, and I wanted to start a new thread so that maybe we'd get a better discussion:

Basically, should we use advantage/disadvantage type judment on illegal motion/shift/formation type of infractions?

This discussion spawned from a reference to the OT touchdown in the Boise St. game, where it appeared that the man in motion turned upfield before the snap. This occurred on the opposite side of where the play eventually went, and the wing did not flag it.

Myself and others believe there should be no judgment on these types of fouls. Shifts, motions, formations, should always be called, regardless of advantage/disadvantage.

Others believe that we should be using judgment and only flagging these if a team gains an advantage.

Discuss:

[TXMike]

You have not fairly described what "others" think on the issue. That is not surprising as you continue to argue the issue from a perspective of not choosing to look at the issue in depth but rather to make "the easy call."

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by TXMike

You have not fairly described what "others" think on the issue. That is not surprising as you continue to argue the issue from a perspective of not choosing to look at the issue in depth but rather to make "the easy call."

And you continue to be critical of others because they disagree with you and to be close minded to anyone's thoughts and opinions except those that agree with your own.

[ChickenOfNC]

Originally Posted by TXMike

You have not fairly described what "others" think on the issue. That is not surprising as you continue to argue the issue from a perspective of not choosing to look at the issue in depth but rather to make "the easy call."

Listen, dude, I'm just trying to open a mature discussion on a worthy topic. I thought this was a forum to discuss our craft and to help us all get better. Yet you continue to be defensive about this.

It's obvious that we have some very differing opinions on this subject, and we're talking about very basic and fundamental tenants of officiating here.

So can we discuss this like men?

[TXMike]

Maybe in Fed ball you can make sweeping generalizations, i.e. always or never, but under NCAA rules and philosophy, there are not many absolutes. And even in these cases that you choose to make "absolutes" I suspect even you, when pressed, would say they are not absolutes....i.e. 45 - 0, middle of 4th quarter and team that is behind runs the same play Boise State did and scores the TD. Are you telling me you have a flag down? Face it, there are gray situations and you would do well to understand that and take the time to clearly consider every situation before robotically dropping the flag.

[ChickenOfNC]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Maybe in Fed ball you can make sweeping generalizations, i.e. always or never, but under NCAA rules and philosophy, there are not many absolutes. And even in these cases that you choose to make "absolutes" I suspect even you, when pressed, would say they are not absolutes....i.e. 45 - 0, middle of 4th quarter and team that is behind runs the same play Boise State did and scores the TD. Are you telling me you have a flag down? Face it, there are gray situations and you would do well to understand that and take the time to clearly consider every situation before robotically dropping the flag.

Listen, I really don't appreciate the condescending tone you continue to use toward some of us. If you NCAA guys have a different philosophy on these things than us Fed guys, then that's fine, I respect that. I'm not an NCAA guy, but that doesn't make you or me any better or worse than each other.

And of course in a 45-0 game with 10 seconds left I'm not going to call that illegal motion. And you know good and well that what we're talking about is when the game is still in doubt.

[sj]

What is now 2 seasons ago the NF made a change and made it a rule that contact obviously away from the direction of the pass should not be called pass interference. It's a pretty safe assumption that they did this because they are considering the issue of advantage and disadvantage. In this case they came down on the side of thinking that the contact does not affect the outcome of the play so they want officials to pass on it.

NCAA has the uncatchable provision for the same reason. You hold your flag on contact that otherwise would be interference if the ball is not catchable due to the fact that the receiver never would have caught the ball anyway....no disadvantage created.

So I guess you could say the philosophy of advantage/disadvantage is codified in some circumstances. Since it would be an impossibility to put into writing every rule and circumstance where it needs to apply it seems a pretty safe bet that we are to think this way. The committees do.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by ChickenOfNC

Listen, I really don't appreciate the condescending tone you continue to use toward some of us. If you NCAA guys have a different philosophy on these things than us Fed guys, then that's fine, I respect that. I'm not an NCAA guy, but that doesn't make you or me any better or worse than each other.

If you have very many discussions with him, then you'll realize that's how he is. Mike has a great deal of knowledge but he's very condescending if you disagree with his philosophy or if you officiate NFHS rules.

[Mike L]

getting back to the question at hand (rather than disparaging each other or the particular rule set you happen to call)....

Yes, there are certain calls in which advantage gained does not necessarily enter into the flag flying. We all know there are procedural calls that get called in this manner.
However, one must also consider if the action that would cause those calls is "big" enough in the game played at the time to make it worth calling. I did not see the particular game played that's been referenced here (and from all I've read about it, I sure wish I had) but when it comes to trusting the judgement of an official who is good enough to be selected for a big bowl game, I'll error on going with his apparent ruling that this was not "big" enough to warrant a call.

[sloth]

This is something that I have a problem with. I tend to be more black and white on procedure calls. I believe that my current crew is not.

I have no problem on calls like PI and holding being considered under the "did it effect the play" criteria. I do have a problem with procedure calls not being called as black and white. I agree with another poster that made the point that these calls are to maintain the structure of the game. I'm not trying to call out my crew here (I know my white hat frequents this forum), but I'll use a specific instance from this year where this was an issue.

Team B is having serious problems during their punts of keeping 7 men on the line. After having my L on the other side convey a warning to the team B coach, the problem doesn't get any better. In fact it gets worse and team B is lossing by a larger and larger margin. The last punt that B made I kid you not, I only had 4 players legitimately on the line. It was made clear during a discussion at half time (when A was up by 21 or 28 points) that I was not going to throw a flag for the illegal formation.

Did this help team B, maybe it saved the punter from getting nailed, btu B still lost. I had resolved myself to allowing A to do the same thing if they ever had an opportunity to punt in the name of consistancy...but looking the other way just did not feel right. An arguement can be made that we were using good game management, but that still doesn't make it okay that we butchered the formation rules that govern the game.

So I don't know. I suppose that until the federation comes down and provides more clarity on how we should call games, we just need to do what we believe to be right as professionals. For me that is to be black and white on procedure calls and use good judgement on fouls that effect the outcome of the play.

[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?