How Do You Penalize Chipping by the Offense?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Flagging this type behavior as a live ball foul, eliminating the score, will likely bring the standard list of predictable howls from the sideline affected, but the lesson learned by the offender, and his team, will last 1000 times longer.

But at the expense of: requiring the official to see which occurred first, the foul or the TD 50 yards away; and of an act having the same nature (and no effect on the play) being penalized according to where (as well as when) it occurred; and of encouraging players to wait to take a cheap shot until after the whistle, when the opponent is even less likely to expect it.

The basic spot enforcement system was devised to produce a relatively easy to administer way to prevent the gaining of an unfair advantage, not to penalize ill behavior like this. The fact that it is unnecessary roughness means that it didn't have an effect on the play, so if there's any way you could see it as occurring after the ball became dead, that's how I would. DQ if necessary, but depriving team A of an otherwise legitimate gain, no.

Robert

[ajmc]

aIf it wasn't for this, "human nature" thing, you might have a point. Officials are not out there to regulate behavior, that's the job of the parent, coach and school. Our job is to insure that everyone abides by whatever rules govern the contest.

Obviously, we can only respond to what we see, and sometimes that might be 50 yards away. The responsibility for bad behavior rests entirely with the player, or coach, who decides when and how to exhibit it. Every player and every coach is RESPONSIBLE to know the rules, which means understanding the consequences of choosing to violate them. That decision is theirs, not ours. We're responsible for observing the behavior and knowing if, and what penalty, may be associated with it. We don't have any control over deciding when a player, or coach, chooses to do something stupid - that's on them, entirely.

The player who chooses to take a cheap shot, that has nothing to do with the outcome of a play, MUST understand that he is writing a check, that his teammates may have to pay a very expensive penalty for. The coach, of that player, MUST understand that the players action provides him with a teaching opportunity, that he had thusfar failed to recognize.

The penalized team did not lose an "otherwise legitimate gain", one of their teammates chose to discount and reject it. If you choose to minimize the penalty by allowing a live ball foul to be arbitrarily reduced to a dead ball enforcement, you are guilty of enabling that player to behave badly, which may only encourage him, or others, to repeat that behavior over and over again. Who benefits from that?

[JasonTX]

For what it's worth the 2008 CCA Officiating philosophies states, "For late hits away from the ball near the end of the play, when in question lean towards dead ball foul rather than live ball foul."

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

The fact that it is unnecessary roughness means that it didn't have an effect on the play, so if there's any way you could see it as occurring after the ball became dead, that's how I would. DQ if necessary, but depriving team A of an otherwise legitimate gain, no.

Robert

I am not going to try to make it something that it is not. I am going to see it as it actually happened, not when it is beneficial for a particular team. If I think it deserves a flag, I am not going to try to lessen the effect by changing the time at which it occurred. If I don't think it deserves a flag, I don't throw it. When it occurred is not important to me if I think it was serious enough for a flag. The PLAYER is the one who deprived his team of a legitimate gain, not me.

Also, not all fouls/flags/judgments are meant to relate to whether they had an effect on the play. Safety has nothing to do with the play. Remember, there are 3 classifications of fouls:
1 – No Brainers – e.g., False start, encroachment…
2 – Safety - e.g., Helmet contact, personal fouls…
3 – Discretionary - e.g., Away from the point of attack
a "talking to"...

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The penalized team did not lose an "otherwise legitimate gain", one of their teammates chose to discount and reject it. If you choose to minimize the penalty by allowing a live ball foul to be arbitrarily reduced to a dead ball enforcement, you are guilty of enabling that player to behave badly, which may only encourage him, or others, to repeat that behavior over and over again. Who benefits from that?

The penalty isn't being reduced by this practice, it's being made uniform. In most cases the dead ball enforcement will be more severe than live ball enforcement would be, but in this rare case (foul by offense 50 yards behind the run's end) it will be much less severe than live ball enforcement would be.

Robert

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Forksref

Also, not all fouls/flags/judgments are meant to relate to whether they had an effect on the play. Safety has nothing to do with the play.

That's right, so why should the severity of the penalty in those cases depend on the outcome of the play?

[ajmc]

First, my focus is on High School Football, although I have no problem with the CCA advice that "When in doubt" lean towards a dead ball foul, key word being doubt.

Obviously the best solution is to be certain whether the ball was live, or dead, and respond accordingly. Perhaps it's just the phrasing, but, "any way you could see it as occurring after the ball became dead" sounds like making an apple an orange, and that doesn't benefit anybody.

In 99 out of 100 instances, observing a live ball foul, against the offense negating a score, will have a more serious impact that either half the distance on the try, or 15 yards on the ensuing KO.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Forksref

Two Flakes,
That snow scene by the road was shot about 3 miles from where I used to work. They had run out of snow in Minnesota so they came over here. The paper had an ad for extras for the movie. I decided not to quit my job to work at minimum wage for the movie. At the time, I didn't think the movie could be much if they were shooting here! It turns out to be a classic although I was a little put out at the extremely overdone accents.

Extremely overdone accents, eh?

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

The penalty isn't being reduced by this practice, it's being made uniform. In most cases the dead ball enforcement will be more severe than live ball enforcement would be, but in this rare case (foul by offense 50 yards behind the run's end) it will be much less severe than live ball enforcement would be.

Robert

Are you telling me that negating a score is less severe than allowing a score and penalizing on the try??

Since when is it the officials' authority to make penalties "uniform?". (whatever that means)

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Forksref

Are you telling me that negating a score is less severe than allowing a score and penalizing on the try??

No, I'm saying that in most cases of UR there's no score involved, so there's no score to negate. The down will count, and it will hardly ever make sense to decline the penalty, and the situation will usually be worse for the penalized offensive team if it's a foul between downs than it would've been had it been judged a live ball foul.

Since when is it the officials' authority to make penalties "uniform?". (whatever that means)

It means that if you look too closely for the time of the UR foul vs. when the ball became dead, you'll be basing a big swing in penalty on a small difference in judgement.

Robert

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

It means that if you look too closely for the time of the UR foul vs. when the ball became dead, you'll be basing a big swing in penalty on a small difference in judgement.

Robert

Coach: "Hey ref, that foul happened before the ball was dead."

Official: "I know, but I was told that there would be a big swing in penalty on a small difference in judgment so I decided that the foul occurred after the ball was dead. That OK with you?"

Coach: "Sure, go ahead and change it."

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Forksref

Coach: "Hey ref, that foul happened before the ball was dead."

Official: "I know, but I was told that there would be a big swing in penalty on a small difference in judgment so I decided that the foul occurred after the ball was dead. That OK with you?"

Coach: "Sure, go ahead and change it."

I'm not saying you should change it. If you and the coach and everyone for miles around could see that it was before the ball was dead, then you'd be erasing history. But when the ball and the foul are separated by a lot, that's not often going to be the case on a gratuitous hit (except in some instances where there's already a separate provision, such as roughing the passer).

If the coach says the hit was before the whistle, you could remind him that except in case of an inadvertent whistle, the ball always becomes dead before the whistle. We acknowledge that in cases where a hit comes close to the ball (so that a hit doesn't have to be after the whistle to be a "late" hit), so it should be kept in mind when a cheap shot occurs far from the ball.

If you're seeing unnecessary roughness, and then your eyes are still on that scene watching out for the retaliation that might follow, I'd say you'd have a tough time also seeing the ball become dead near the opposite sideline or well downfield. If someone who happens to have a better view and no responsibility sees that in some case you got it wrong and it was a live ball foul, you have a good excuse.

BTW, this is also why the Canadian PBH ("point ball held") can be a difficult spot to administer for penalty enforcement.

Robert

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I'm not saying you should change it. If you and the coach and everyone for miles around could see that it was before the ball was dead, then you'd be erasing history. But when the ball and the foul are separated by a lot, that's not often going to be the case on a gratuitous hit (except in some instances where there's already a separate provision, such as roughing the passer).

If the coach says the hit was before the whistle, you could remind him that except in case of an inadvertent whistle, the ball always becomes dead before the whistle. We acknowledge that in cases where a hit comes close to the ball (so that a hit doesn't have to be after the whistle to be a "late" hit), so it should be kept in mind when a cheap shot occurs far from the ball.

If you're seeing unnecessary roughness, and then your eyes are still on that scene watching out for the retaliation that might follow, I'd say you'd have a tough time also seeing the ball become dead near the opposite sideline or well downfield. If someone who happens to have a better view and no responsibility sees that in some case you got it wrong and it was a live ball foul, you have a good excuse.

BTW, this is also why the Canadian PBH ("point ball held") can be a difficult spot to administer for penalty enforcement.

Robert

This is true, on certain types of plays.

The teaching is that when there is a foul, it is still a foul 2, 3, 4 5, seconds later. In that time, the calling official can locate the ball. For the majority of plays where PBH is needed, the calling official has the flag and PBH. For the odd cases where the hit is 50 yards away from the ball, often another official has info to provide that increases the accuracy of PBH.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But at the expense of: requiring the official to see which occurred first, the foul or the TD 50 yards away; and of an act having the same nature (and no effect on the play) being penalized according to where (as well as when) it occurred; and of encouraging players to wait to take a cheap shot until after the whistle, when the opponent is even less likely to expect it.

The basic spot enforcement system was devised to produce a relatively easy to administer way to prevent the gaining of an unfair advantage, not to penalize ill behavior like this. The fact that it is unnecessary roughness means that it didn't have an effect on the play, so if there's any way you could see it as occurring after the ball became dead, that's how I would. DQ if necessary, but depriving team A of an otherwise legitimate gain, no.

Robert

If the all but one was a system produced to make it a relatively easy way to administer penalties then why are you advocating seeing one thing and calling another? We're not depriving anyone of anything. His teammate did that. If we started lessening the penalties because A gets deprived of an otherwise legitimate gain is a sure way to encourage more cheap shots, not less.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by kdf5

If the all but one was a system produced to make it a relatively easy way to administer penalties then why are you advocating seeing one thing and calling another?

I'm advocating seeing one thing well rather than trying to see two things: the foul and the ball's becoming dead.

If we started lessening the penalties because A gets deprived of an otherwise legitimate gain is a sure way to encourage more cheap shots, not less.

In the great majority of cases, a dead ball personal foul by the offense hurts them more than a live ball foul would. Are you saying you should skew the calls by favoring seeing it as a live ball foul just in those situations where it negates a long gain? If you did, don't you think it would encourage them to wait until the ball was clearly dead to get in a cheap shot, and wouldn't that be a bad development?

Robert