How Do You Penalize Chipping by the Offense?
 

Know we went through this sometime in the past and I seem to remember one association or state (commonwealth as in Kentucky, Mass. uses NCAA) that had a good solution.

A player running for a touchdown when A78 decides this is a good time to give opponent B78 a nice unsuspected de-cleater fifty yards away from the ball while it is still alive. Personal foul. How do you penalize if the result of the play is a touchdown? What if it results in a tackle at the one yard line still in A's possession?

Could someone refresh my memory? Thanks.

How Do You Penalize Chipping by the Offense?

What is chipping?

Ed, speaking NFHS, if the foul occurs before the touchdown is scored, treat it as a liveball foul and enforce it under the all but one principle. The penalty will be enforced from the spot of the foul since it was behind the basic spot. If the foul occured after the score, it is enforced as a dead ball penalty from the succeeding spot (the try). If there's any doubt, I'd consider making it a live ball foul. ;)

In either case, if the foul is flagarant, disqualify A78. I would strongly consider disqualification for a blind hit 50 yards behind the play that decleats the B player.

This is a penalty I flagged a lot last season. I was surprised how often it happened but that is why it is so important for those of us behind the play to be vigilantly cleaning up this kind of behavior.

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.

The Referee, or the Umpire or BJ (4 or 5 man) in the case of an interception or advanced defensive fumble recovery, should remain behind the flow just to guard against this type situation.

I read the title and pictured Steve Buscemi in Fargo putting his friend in the wood chipper.

Oh, back to the question, I agree with live ball foul from spot of foul.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

A hit like this 50 yards away is definitely Unnecessary Roughness: 15 yards.

If A78 has already scored the touchdown, B can apply the 15 yards:

• on the convert
• on the ensuing kick-off
  • + if the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd quarter ended with the TD, B can choose to apply the 15 yards on the KO to begin the next quarter (including the bridge from 2nd to 3rd)
  • + if the 4th quarter ended with the TD, B can choose to apply the 15 yards on the induced KO, or in OT, if the TD results in a tie game. If the convert breaks the tie, I will let B re-submit their answer to revert to the induced kick-off

If A78 is still in the field of play (no TD yet), but HAD reached the line to gain:

• 15 yards from where the ball was when the hit happened (called Point Ball Held), no TD, and 1D/10 after the 15 is applied

If A78 is still in the field of play (no TD yet), and HADN'T yet reached the line to gain:

• 15 yards from PLS, down repeated, or
• 15 yards from Point Ball Dead, AND roll the down

Both excellent points. When I give pointers to our new WHs, I looked for these plays to make sure that they're not marching downfield too quickly. I learned in basketball, and apply to football, "you have to know how a guy got on the ground."

As an older R, I find myself more and more remaining behind the flow. :) The excuse of anticipating a fumble return is a good one. Guard the goal line, the most important line on the field.

Seriously, though, whenever I have flagged this, I have heard 10 times more howls directed at the player than at any of the officials. The word "stupid" is usually the most common term heard.

I have given a "talking to" foul on simple pushes in the back that are far from the runner and don't bother the defender, but I never ignore it. I have even told some players who are close to a hit but change their mind, "smart choice in not hitting that guy."

The lead official, usually the BJ or a wing will have the runner and the rest of us need to be vigilant. An eye on the clock is important in this situation too. We record the time of the score in case the CO starts the clock on an untouched free kick that goes OOB.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qWFhDvURLg

A good wood chipper is a must in the north country.

Forksref has it exactly right as far as I'm concerned with this type of call, "talk to" if it deserves it, flag if it deserves a flag. His coach will be sure let him know how dumb he was when it costs them a score.

Fargo - certainly in my top 10 films of all time.
Love the way Margie points to the badge on her hat to emphasise she's the police. :) and Fargo is full of brilliant dialogue.....

REPLY: I had this situation one time where I flagged an ear-hole cheap hit well behind the play. It didn't go for a TD, but it was a long gain negated. The coach starts screaming at his player, "How can you be so (bleepin') stupid. Do you realize you just cost us xx yards?" And then he says to me, "How could you possibly call that?"

Multiple Personality Disorder is a terrible thing.

I had a great experience this past season where I nailed a cheap shot quite a distance away from the play and to my surprise the coaches were getting the guilty party out of the game before we could get the initial signal for the foul made. Never heard a complaint and it was my sideline.

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.

REPLY: About fours years ago, I took a few hours off of work to be an 'extra' in an episode of "Law and Order: SVU" that was being filmed at a local school. I played the umpire in a HS football game (already had the costume) and was on the screen for no more than 2 or 3 seconds. But I did get to catch and throw with Mariska Hargitay and Christopher Meloni before the 'takes' began. Of course the 'role' of U was completely out of character since I'm a BJ/LJ normally.

Bob,

MPD is situational, usually correlated with the score or recent events on the field.

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

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?

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."

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"...

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

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

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.

Extremely overdone accents, eh?

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)

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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

how about just calling it the way you see it so you don't have to play mind games with yourself.

You're advocating making one call regardless of what really happens: "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." If calling it like it is becomes a burden then maybe it's time to hand the flag to someone else.


I can't believe you think allowing a score to stand by calling the earhole shot a dead ball foul is less of a hardship on A than negating the score. I'm saying KNOW what happens in the order it happens. That's your job.

That works just fine for me.

Calling it as you see it works fine if you really do see it. But I'm afraid that some of you may not be actually seeing it, and then you're thinking ("mind games" again), "This foul must have occurred before the ball became dead, because I didn't hear a whistle, or because the ball just passed here x seconds ago, or because team A deserves to have this penalized as a live ball foul because they scored." And some of you may be looking away to see if the ball is still alive, and missing retaliation.

Robert

Robert-

That is why there is a crew of us to get together and to figure these things out. A perfect example from last season:

I am working at umpire during a free kick. As I am trailing the play up the field, there is a PF foul by R well behind the play and the ball carrier ends up scoring a touch down. At the position I was in, I had the entire play perfectly bracketed. I could clearly see that the ball carrier was not in the end zone when the foul occurred. Neither of the two officials on the other side of the field had a good view of the ball carrier in relation to the end zone. I came in, offered the information that I had and we got the call correct.

If nobody in the crew has solid information, then you need to rely on crew, association or conference philosophy and to govern your call. I'm sorry if you don't like that but I really don't know what to tell you.

I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about. I've called this from both the Umpire and wing positions, and never have I had a problem determining whether or not the ball was still live. Those that cannot figure it out are either out of position, not paying attention to their area or just flat out lazy.

I agree with the others....hang up the whistle & flag if you can't get this one right.