The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 04, 2007, 09:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 147
A case for encroachment as a live ball foul.

I had a situation occur tonight at a JV game that I handeled a certain way. I want the input if the hive mind here to help me sort it out. Down and distance are of little consequence.

I have a long run by A for a TD. Prior to signaling TD (I was the referee) I look for flags. LB has a flag. Apparently he has encroachment on B but neglected to blow the play dead. Now I have three options.

First, I bring the ball back and asses the penalty...by the book. Second, I could wave the flag off. Or third (which I did) follow NCAA rules and give A the option of accepting the penalty or declining it and taking the TD.

In retrospect I should have used the second option...but for some reason the first really didn't seem like an appropriate course of action.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 04, 2007, 10:04pm
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,648
I'd go with A)- bring it back by the book

Just because one official doesn't do what he's supposed to do means you throw the book out. Stuff happens
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 04, 2007, 10:07pm
MJT MJT is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton, Iowa
Posts: 1,796
I don't think you should have done what you did. You cannot waive it off either. You have no other choice than to tell the offensive coach that the official screwed up and the play never happened. When B encroached, the play never started. It was the officials error that allowed players to procede, but that doesn't change the fact that the play really was dead before it started.

I have done the same thing when an official in a lower level told me after the play he had a FS on the offense, but forgot to blow it dead. The coaches are not real happy about it, but they go on like they do with an IW.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 05, 2007, 08:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 415
Call it "tough love" or whatever, but having you're rookies own up to their mistakes rather than covering for them will be the best in the long run. If the play comes back and the new guy has to go with you when you explain to the coach what happened, he'll never make that mistake again.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 05, 2007, 09:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 147
I should also add that I'd relatively new to this (5years). I'm trying to develop as a referee and continually find that every game I have the pleasure of wearing the white hat provides new opportunities to learn.

When I first started I found myself calling everything. I knew the book backwards and forwards and was what y'all would dub a book official. I was then enlighetened by the practice of being more a game manager instead of rules enforcer. I'm sort of working through that right now. That was my logic in doing what I did. My descision had to be made fairly quickly. My rational was that unlike an IW, the play was NOT stopped. None of the player realized the play was not supposed to be occuring. So in my mind, from a fairness-advantage gained standing, this was not like an IW. I felt that I had at my discression an opportunity to rectify an officials mistake. Since no advantage was gained by the foul and the actions in the play.

I understand I lost an opportunity to show the LJ a "tough love" and teach him a lesson and I probably gave the coaches fodder to say the next time this happens "well the referee we had last week did this...". In retrospect I'm not trying to justify my actions. I'm trying to tweek my sense of how to be a great game manager while not completely trampling the guiding rules of the NFHS.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 05, 2007, 10:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 321
Cool - a chance to use my favorite saying, something I say to my crew all the time as a whitehat:

"You're gonna get yelled at anyway, so you might as well get yelled at for the doing the right thing."
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 05, 2007, 10:27am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Topeka, KS
Posts: 51
Send a message via AIM to kraine27 Send a message via MSN to kraine27 Send a message via Yahoo to kraine27
My first HS varsity game

In my first varsity game, I failed to blow a play dead where the tight end didn't place his mouth piece in his mouth at the snap and that play went 85yds for a touchdown. We brought that play back and I'm sure I won't make that mistake ever again.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 05, 2007, 11:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,193
I agree with the others. You have to follow your rules code. However, as the title suggests, this is a good reason for FED to adopt the NCAA rule in this case. This rule has a lot of potential for abuse. If the defense sees that a wideout is uncovered (by the defense) they can simply jump offsides and take the penalty -- who wouldn't take 5 yards over a TD? This can be coached.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 05, 2007, 11:39am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Aggie
I agree with the others. You have to follow your rules code. However, as the title suggests, this is a good reason for FED to adopt the NCAA rule in this case. This rule has a lot of potential for abuse. If the defense sees that a wideout is uncovered (by the defense) they can simply jump offsides and take the penalty -- who wouldn't take 5 yards over a TD? This can be coached.
The rule has worked fine in 48 states all these years. While I would like to see the live ball foul, I don't think it's coming anytime soon.

I've now told 3 rookie officials (wow, I've broken in 3 of the 4 officials on my crew, hadn't thought about that) about the mistake I made the first season I worked back in the days of stirrups.

I did exactly what the OP did, except my play (fortunately) was not run for a TD. My WH was pissed, told me that we didn't play on Saturday and Sunday, and that I should open the rulebook before I got him seriously yelled at.

(Not to wing it off topic further, but my other "rookie advice" is that I tell my deep guys that the worst thing that can happen is an IW on a muffed fair catch and I remind them that they need to be patient and remember that the rule protects the player, not the whistle. I've not done that myself, but have seen it enough to know the consequences and fallout.)
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 05, 2007, 01:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Aggie
I agree with the others. You have to follow your rules code. However, as the title suggests, this is a good reason for FED to adopt the NCAA rule in this case. This rule has a lot of potential for abuse. If the defense sees that a wideout is uncovered (by the defense) they can simply jump offsides and take the penalty -- who wouldn't take 5 yards over a TD? This can be coached.
It's been there for ~40 years, and you're right, and they're "right" too. In NCAA it just takes a little more to do it; the offside player has to commit encroachment by contact, or better yet (to get att'n), snatching the ball from the center. Yeah, great "defense" against a quick play.

(BTW, so-called "cynical" offsides in rugby to kill a team's momentum has been a similar problem in that it's hard to penalize equitably.)

During the 1960s (for I don't know how long) Fed had the same rule as now, except that if the ball was snapped too quickly for the whistle to be blown, play was to be allowed to continue. So you essentially allowed advantage or no advantage depending how quick you were with the whistle!

One reason I believe was cited for adopting kill-the-ball was to avoid situations in which a player's entering the NZ blocked an opponent's view of the ball, and then the opponent went offside too. It seemed wrong to allow a futile play to proceed, and also to have the fouls offset, when the second player's encroachment on the NZ was caused by the opponent's going offside first. Killing the ball on the first encroachment also avoided the judgement of "spontaneous reaction charge", and it relieved team A from putting the ball into play quickly just to draw the penalty. So I can't say Fed has the wrong idea, even though intuition says to allow the nonoffending team a choice.

Robert
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 05, 2007, 01:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 323
Nah, it won't be fun, but it has to come back. Then the next possible moment, have a discussion with your crew and get some things clear. All part of the learning curve. Stuff does happen.
__________________
Be like a duck: cool and calm on the surface but paddling like the devil underneath....
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 05, 2007, 01:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Ramon, CA
Posts: 57
IMHO, in HS it's a safety issue as players are not that skilled to play though encroachment. The offense lines in the NFL and college are far better. At the HS level I could see more PFs and injuries. I would love it to be live ball, for a free play for the offense.
__________________
Knowing the rules is half of what it takes to be a good official. Being in position to make the call is the other half.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 05, 2007, 02:07pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
You can always waive off a flag. I guess the issue is how far off sides as the player. That might determine a lot of what we should do. If the official did not shut the play down properly, it is kind of hard to come back and be so technical with the rule when the official was not technical with their mechanics. I do not think there is a right or wrong answer to this question other than I would not use the NCAA application of the NF rule.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Live Ball Treated as Dead Ball Foul GPC2 Football 9 Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:04am
live ball contact- technical foul? refnjoe Basketball 8 Wed Dec 06, 2006 09:53pm
Thrown Elbow - Live Ball vs. Dead Ball rfp Basketball 19 Sun Nov 12, 2006 05:15am
Coaches on field- live ball foul? bossman72 Football 6 Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:34pm
Foul Tip: Dead or Live Ball Gorkes Baseball 4 Mon Jul 21, 2003 05:29am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1