Plug, plug, plug . . .

[Tim C]

Rather than hijack the "Boise State" thread thought I would just drop in to this august body and drop a selfish line of advertising:

I spent a number of hours last night with Jack Folliard (insert advertisment here: My interview with Jack appears this morning on the paid side of this site) and discussed just a huge number of things.

Not only is Jack the referee for this year's National Championship Game he is also the Executive Director of the College Football Officials Association.

When we got to the point of talking about the Boise State play Jack laughed and noted:

"Now I am not in the head of the responsible official . . . I have no idea IF he selected to allow the play to stand as there was no advantage gained or if he missed seeing the action . . . but I will tell you this: I am very happy that no call was made -- in major college football and especially in a very important game by NOT making this call everyone, with the exception of people that officiate the game at different levels, ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GAME and they are not talking about an obscure call made by an official."

I deal with Jack on a day-to-day basis and I expect a very well officiated game betwix OSU/FLA.

"One Rule -- One Interpretation -- One Mechanic"

[ChickenOfNC]

Thank you for that.

This is a very interesting, and I think important, topic. I wish this was midseason, so we could get a really lengthy discussion going on this.

[Jim D]

There are two conflicting philosophies on officiating. One is that the coaches and administrators make the rules and pay the officials to enforce their rules (and I'm not aware of any level where the officials are represented on the rules committee). The schools sign the officials to a contract which obligates the officials to call the game the using the published rules. The individual official's opinion of the wisdom of the rule should be irrelevant.

The other philosophy is that officials need to let the players play, etc. Slavish adherence to the rule book will make the game excessively long/no fun/ not entertaining, etc. A good official will temper the rules as written with football sense and weigh the advantage gained by a foul against the disruption of the game by throwing the flag.

Every good official needs to balance these two philosophies and come up with the mix that is appropriate for the level of his game that day. That's why I have a problem with some posts that use the NFL as the ultimate authority on mechanics or enforcement. The NFL game is different from NCAA. NCAA differs from BCS bowls to non-bowl games. Div I is different that Div III. NCAA is different that NFHS. Jack Folliard's comments are appropriate for a nationally televised BCS bowl game and, personally, I agree with him on this game. To infer, however, that this interpretation is appropriate for games at other levels would be a mistake.

What is a good call or mechanic in high school may not good call in college. What's good in college may get you booted out of the NFL. What's works in the pros may be a terrible idea in high school.

[Tim C]

Over on the baseball side of this website we speak to the fact that, like everything else, there are two type of officials:

Black Letter Rule Officials - people that believe, in their heart, that the rules are written to be called and there is no grey. They question why anyone would go to the trouble of writing specific rules if they did not want them called.

Common Sense and Fair Play Officials -- these are the officals that believe in things like the "Tower Principle" and letting the players decides who wins. They look at a rule book as "guidelines" rather than black letter law.

Now I think both sides are needed in officiating and both sides get bit by their specific philosophy.

As noted there may not be a perfect blend but a blend is needed . . . more than that, as you noted so well, the level of game participants means that "one size" does not fit all.

There is room for both types of officials in all sports.

"One Rule -- One Interpretation -- One Mechanic"

[BktBallRef]

I too am glad there was no flag. But I maintain if the wing man is going to flag OU for an illegal shift and then there's an illegal motion on BSU, then he has to flag it as well. I'm left to believe that he did not feel there was a foul on the BSU play.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I'm left to believe that he did not feel there was a foul on the BSU play.

In my opinion as I stated previously I think that illegal motion must be obvious. I want that motion to be illegal without any doubt about it. If I have to take that video and look at it frame by frame and in slow motion to see if it's legal or illegal then I believe it's best not to call it. I would expect that most all levels of play the officials are instructed to not call a foul if it fits into the category of a call that could go either way. If this player would have taken a much more obvious motion forward I believe a flag would have been thrown. The illegal shift was obvious without any doubt and it was flagged.

[sj]

I forget. What happened on the illegal shift by OU?

[Warrenkicker]

That penalty nulified a successful two-point conversion which tied the game with 1:28 left. However Oklahoma then converted the try following the penalty.

The issue on that play was that first an Oklahoma back shifted to a new position and prior to him getting set again the motion man started his movement. The player who was then in motion at the snap also appeared to be the end receiver on the line-of-scrimmage and was in motion on the LOS and not a back in legal motion.

In other words, there were some real problems for Oklahoma on this play.