PAC10 Supervisor Discusses BYU-WA Call
 

No surprise in the substance of what the supervisor says: it's black letter rule. He might have backed up his official a little more forcefully than, "I can't really think of a way to fault the official."

What hes TRYING to say is " I dont understand why you idiots are faulting the official"

BAD rule, in my opinion.....

GREAT call....

NCAA not official
 

If there is a beef, it should be brought to the NCAA, who created this rule. Did anyone out there see the intent (taunting the defense)? It seemed to me that he was celebrating w/ teammates at a passionate time in the game.

If you saw the Women's Open last night, did Serena act unsportmanslike when she threw her raquet in the air after winning the final?

Good call by the official....bad rule by the NCAA.

Cheers,
tro

I said this somewhere else, but the rule does not talk about excessive celebration or says anything about premeditated celebration. The rule only talks about acts that should be considered unsportsmanlike. This is not different in other rules when it is clear that grabbing a facemask is illegal or going high and low on a block (regardless of the typical chop block). This rule clearly says throwing the ball high is illegal and is an unsportsmanlike act along with many other very specific examples of what the committee must consider illegal. The only judgment part of this was how high the ball was thrown. And it is clear this ball was thrown rather high. When the ball comes down and hits you in the head, after you have jumped into the arms of teammates and then you hit the ground, then the ball hits you in the head. That seems pretty high in my book.

For the record when I first saw this play I thought this was not a good judgment on the official’s part. Then when I actually read the rules (not just what ESPN referenced), it was clear to me the officials followed the rule. I think that took a lot of guts and was the right call. It is sad that we just turn the other cheek on obvious violations of the rules.

Peace

You can't hardly go wrong as an official, I guess, if you do what the rulebook and your supervisors tell/want you to do. It does seem harsh, but if the rule is clear, the rule is clear. Unlucky. I'm going to guess that guy will never do that again.

All that said, and this is just Devil's Advocate here...do we think that what the quarterback did was intended to be unsportsmanlike? I know what the rule says. There's no argument about what the rule says. I'm asking could one see that what the intent of the rule was, its raison d'etre, was not necessarily to punish spontaneous joyous celebrations?

Yes, the ball went high. No question. Did anyone really get shown up?

JRut is right, though, we do tend to turn a blind eye to obvious infractions. Probably 99% of those don't happen on a last-play-of-regulation, almost-game-tying touchdown in a DI game, though.

I have seen many times over the years with the NCAA (mostly as a fan and not an actual official). The NCAA gets a bug up their behind about specific acts and they want them penalized. A good example of this was the "Q" sign that many players of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity would give after touchdowns. Or the act of removing the helmet. There was even a time that kneeling and praying was outlawed, and then Jerry Farwell who was over Liberty University at the time, got the NCAA to back off of that specific restriction. And I could go on and on about other things the NCAA wanted players to stop doing and you do not see those acts anymore. And unlike the NF, the NCAA shows tape to back up their position and give bulletins to further express their position on these acts. It has nothing to do with showing up anyone. It has everything to do with they want these acts to stop and the NCAA has put their foot down. Does it mean it is fair or makes sense? It may be a terrible rule, but that is the rule and I can never fault officials for doing exactly what they are instructed. I can bet you there were more than one example of this action and this play fit the action. The NCAA has done the very same thing in basketball and even baseball as to what they want to eliminate. I can never fault an official for doing exactly that is on the tape. I just hate how we want to put the lighting back in the bottle.

Peace

I've been wondering that as well since there are several situations that do violate the letter of the law but you use good judgement and ignore them either because they had no impact on the play or one team didn't gain an advantage over the other. One example from our game Friday night...there were several plays where the receivers were outside the numbers when the ready for play whistle was blown. They stayed out there until the snap which should have been an illegal formation. But our wing officials know the intent of that rule. They saw that the defenders were with the receivers and there was no intent to deceive. Would we have been technically right to flag them, yes. Does the rule book allow for judgement of this penalty, no. Does good judgement apply when you let this go, yes.

What none of us know though is what specific instruction the officials were given in regards to this rule. It sounds like the D-I guys were told specifically to flag these types of situations always so that made it a very easy call for him to make.

Even better video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igjgU...eature=related

Oh, I agree with you. No question, the rule exists, and it's been explained to everybody. In the NCAA's mind, and as you point out, why is less important than if. That's fine. These things weren't arrived at by fiat.

I was just stepping outside the rule for just a second to ask (as I asked a veteran football official in my office this morning) if what he did violated the spirit of the rule (the reason it exists). He didn't think it did, and neither did I. But both of us (as well as the people who are important) agree that, yesindeedy, that right there is a rules violation and as harsh as it is and as bad as it might (or might not) make you feel if you call it, it is what it is.

I just think that maybe that if you have to make a call that makes you feel like, "Man, I'm sorry I had to call that" afterwards (and, as has been pointed out, we don't know that the official in question felt that way - only that some of us would have felt sorry if we had to call it), maybe that's a rule that should be looked at and addressed.

Sure, the simpler thing for all concerned is "don't do it, or face the consequences." Absolutely. But life's not always that simple.

I feel for the kid and the team and the official, but from what I read, the player accepted responsibility and everybody moves on. This isn't the first time it's happened (not this exact scenario, but something like this) and it won't be the last.

You can bet, that sure as shootin', college players are going to be handing footballs to officials in record numbers across the country going forward. Not all of them, but a goodly number, I'd bet.

Cutaia is a pretty no nonsense official. If you enforce the rules he stands behind you. His comment when taken in context simply means the official was doing his job, therefore, why are you asking.

The call has nothing to do with showing anyone up, excessive celebration, or anything to doing with taunting.

The call is a delay of game unsportsmanlike conduct foul.

After a score or any other play, the player in possession immediately must return the ball to an official or leave it near the dead-ball spot. This prohibits:
(a) Kicking, throwing, spinning or carrying (including off of the field) the ball any distance that requires an official to retrieve it.
(b) Spiking the ball to the ground [Exception: A forward pass to conserve time (Rule 7-3-2-d)].
(c) Throwing the ball high into the air.
(d) Any other unsportsmanlike act or actions that delay the game."

Sorry guys, I always give the benefit of the doubt to the field official who is reacting to something he sees in a split second. I can't this time. That call may have been justified by weasel wording the rule, but having seen the play live, the player DID NOT "throw the ball high into the air', he threw it over his right shoulder, backwards, straight down to the ground. It many have bounced high, but that was not visible.

This was clearly not intended as a "spike" and flagging it was an overreaction, had this play happened in the 1st quarter. The fact that it happened during the last timed down of a game, and the subsequent try could have tied the score and forced overtime, or potentially produced a potential 2 point conversion for the outright win ( not a likely choice) only adds to the unfortunate nature of the response.

Perhaps the supervisor wasn't more forceful backing this call because although it may have been proper, it wasn't right.

So that's the genesis? Because it delays the game? By how much? Four seconds? The same celebration with no ball anywhere but dropped two feet onto the ground wouldn't have delayed the game any more than what actually happened.

Marv Levy's "overofficious jerk" would apply here, methinks. Not to the official making the call, but to the whole concept. I mean, come on.

What?:confused:

So the video of him throwing the ball high into the air is lying?

The calling official, Mike McCabe, is an excellent official. But hearing Dave Cutaia speak numerous times at Camp, my interpretation of his statment is that the call is defensible by rule but shouldn't have been made. I would bet he graded it internally as a "marginal call."

Look for this call to be discussed in Dave Parry's training tape next year.

Not when the rule is so specific and outlaws a very specific act. The officials did not make up a situation and then decide it fit a vague rule. This rule is so specific that if they did not call this unsportsmanlike, someone would have accused the Pac-10 officials of favoring their conference team. Remember the Oklahoma-Oregon game a few years back?

Peace

Committee Person speaks out

It seems the NCAA Football Committee is also backing this call.

From the article:

When asked if the official should have used his judgment and let the play go, Edsall said the celebration rule has "been harped on as a point of emphasis" for the past several months. The official, Edsall said, had no choice but to call it or risk being suspended.

I guess the NCAA does not agree with many here. ;)

Peace

I have seen 3 different articles, each claiming a different official flagged. One said it was McCabe, one said it was the B and one said it was the L (that article said the L was chased off the field by a Washington coach after the game)

Do you know who actually flagged?

I have heard there is a long-standing resistance by the PAC10 to any sort of combined officiating organization, so perhaps they (Cutaia) are saying they really do not care what Parry says.

I don't know 7-man mechanics. The official on the near side, back of the endzone, threw the flag.

The F threw the flag. Seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igjgUKP3Uhc

I'm sorry but I must have missed the rule that states it's illegal to drop the ball to the ground. Could you please point it out for me?


Partner, you are truly clueless. I'd suggest you watch the play because you obviously haven't. The ball is tossed in the air and almost hits him in the head 3-4 seconds later.

Toss a ball over your shoulder and see if it takes 4 seconds to land AND see if it hits you in the head.

I don't even know what you are saying here.

I'm not questioning the call or that the rule exists.

I'm questioning why the rule exists. If it's delay of game, that seems pretty specious to me (and why it would then be 15 yards if it's not about showboating or grandstanding and not just 5 like every other delay of game I've ever heard of, I don't know).

The call was (obviously) correct by rule. That's the way your bosses (conference, supervisor, crew chief) want it called, you call it or you do something else with your leisure time. I get that. Harsh call. Unfortunate call. Brings unwarranted attention to what we do in a negative light and lets loose every columnist who's never officiated a snap in his life, yet who writes 600 words about how we do what we do and how every call is a judgment call despite the fact they've never ever sat in a rules meeting or had our mechanics explained to them.

I'm just saying I don't quite grasp why the rule exists in that form with the idea of it being called to cover that situation. I'm pretty conservative by nature, but I just don't see what harm was caused.

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_video/NCAAN...3/19830817.pdf

The rule was written into the rulebook apparently in 1983. (See page 7 of the linked document)

If the ball had bonked an opponent or an official on the head when it came down, would you concur with flagging that?

Excuse me "Over&Back", in the u-tube video, although somewhat conjested when the ball is released, it does look like it was thrown in the air. Watching the game LIVE there was a completely different, unimpeded, much closer view and it appeared he threw the ball over his shoulder, and it went directly down.

Needless to say, there were several repeats of the end of the play offered by the network, and they all looked the same. U-tube vs Network coverage, you be the judge.

If the ball was thrown high up in the air, I've got no problem with the call that was made, but that's not what I saw (or believe I saw) in which case although the call may well have been technically correct, I don't think it was right.

You don't suppose the networks realize that by showing the tight shot they can manipulate opinions do you??? The media are the ones who are the most vocal whiners right now about the call. The video has to support what the talking heads are saying to enhance their credibility.

The one camera shot that I have seen which has the true perspective is the one from the press box watching from a wide angle as Locker tumbled into the EZ and then hopped up and launching the ball underhanded. If you have not seen that then you have not seen what really happened.

And as the physics gurus here have shown the ball had to have been launched 15 - 30 feet high based on how long it took from release until it came down into view again.

I've heard Dave speak numerous times as well and that is not my impression.

Then you have no problem with the call. The ball was at my eye level 25 rows up.
________
Washington medical marijuana dispensaries

Rut IMO, this NCAA rule is akin to many baseball rules that are "the black letter of the law' so to speak yet as baseball officials we are to use good sound judgement.

Here's a baseball example:

When a player elbows another player it is considered a Malicous act.
Sitch; Player coming home and the ball is coming in from the out-field Player in an effort to protect himself, raises his hands however, he also contacts elbows F2 in the process.

Now the aforementioned ACT in an by istelf as with the player throwing the ball in the air is DEFINED by rule as unsportsmanlike etc. however, if a baseball official called MC on the part of the runner they would be chastized all over the place.

Over on the baseball side Carl Childress has written a book 51 ways to ruin a baseball game. In addition, Peter Osborne wrote an article Third world plays happen to third world umpires.

I am wondering if there is such a book or article for football referees.

i agree the NCAA should re-look at the rule but IMO, the official could have and should have "left it alone" similar to what we as basbeall officials have to judge whenever we toss someone.

Pete Booth

Bases loaded, 2 outs, top of the 9th, score is Visitors 3 - Home 2. Batter takes a called third strike for the 3d out. What is the catcher supposed to do with the ball? And if he decides to launch it 30 feet into the air over home plate, what do you do?

Shouldn't the catcher do whatever it is he does with the ball if the same situation happened in the top of the 8th? Or the 5th?

Is there a rule that says he can't throw it in the air, similar to the NCAA FB rule? If so, what's the prescribed penalty? 20 yards and a loss of down?

Pete,

This is not baseball. Baseball has a lot of things we do not have to call because of the nature of the game. And if there is certain celebrations in a baseball game, players tend to think they are Major League Baseball Players and start throwing at each other to correct it. That kind of justice is not something that you see in football circles.

Once again, the NCAA had a directive on how to handle these situations. They made it very clear this was illegal along with several other acts. And the NCAA used video to make that point clearer. This is not about Carl Childress or some book. The sports have different expectations and there is a lot more money and focus on the football side than there ever has been on the baseball side. There are a lot of acts that the football committee has curtailed this way and they are getting very specific. I do not see baseball having the same problem because they do not have a game stop after a score.

Peace

I didn't mean physical harm by "harm." Harm to the game. Harm to the proceedings.

A football weighs, what, 16 ounces? The players have helmets on. And if you've not been bonked by a football in the head area as an official, you've been extremely lucky.

I don't care how high you throw it spontaneously or what it does when it comes down. IMHO and IMHO only, it wasn't an attempt to showboat nor was it an attempt to delay the game or do anything that, in my mind, "harms" the game.

That said, yes, it's a rule. I get that. I'm questioning the need for the rule, which is different from questioning the call.

Then that should show up on the video, shouldn't it? I mean, Locker doesn't have some strange Lamont Cranston mind control way of making video appear different than reality, does he?

Yeah. The ball going up.

There's a reason eyewitness testimony isn't the #1 choice of lawyers in a courtroom. It's notoriously unreliable.

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008...ocker2_200.jpg

Where's the ball? Just curious.

My polite suggestion is that you didn't see what you thought you saw.

They may be lazy, but (by and large) they're not clever enough to be conspiratorial.

Plus, this'll be forgotten by this Sunday. It'll get some play on Saturday's pregame shows because it fills time and is sexy. But "the media" who has this grand house of cards to prop up, will be on to something else very shortly.

Look, seriously, Occam's Razor here:
1. Kid scored and tossed ball in air in celebration.
2. Official made a call that he was told to make. Sorry for your luck, but that's the rule.
3. Media goes nuts because media knows eff-all about officiating and because controversy sells.
4. Kid won't do it again.
5. Bunch more games this weekend and for the rest of the season.

No grand conspiracy. No overthinking necessary. Just sensationalism and blowing everything about major college football up to gigantic proportions (if this had happened in a game featuring Baldwin-Wallace, nobody would care).

Well it is not your opinion or my opinion that matters. I think the NCAA has the right to outlaw acts they feel are inappropriate. It happens all the time with leagues or organizations. This situation is not different. I know in all my sports there are things that are clearly outlawed. I also do not work on national TV with the level of scrutiny these guys go through. If they would have not applied the rule, they could get in trouble or suspended. Now I do not know about you, but I have never worked a game where the money I make can be taken because of a call I make or do not make.

Peace

The act of launching the ball 40' into the air is, even if spontaneous, showboating. There is no other reason to do it.

If you start splitting hairs about whether it was spontaneous or if it was an "attempt" to showboat, you'll create more of a mess than you fix.

The point about conspiricy is that if the teams were reversed, they wouldn't be pitching such a fit. Just like the media has a favored political party, there are "favored" conferences/teams. When a BCS conference team gets the short end of a controversial decision, it's a outrage. When a non-BCS conference team gets the same, it gets mentioned (maybe) and passes. :rolleyes: Or they'be be saying...but look how high he threw it....you simply can't ignore that. The refs are neutral, the media has favorites.

I have favourites, too. Lots of them. One favourite takes me to this website. Another to refstripes. Another to....... :D

I do not think it has anything to do with the media picking favorites. I think it has to do with the media is ignorant about how officials make decisions and the possible consequences to those decisions. I was watching 1st and 10 on ESPN just a few minutes ago and one of the individuals suggested that the officials ignore the rule and eat the flag. Now what people like that do not know, if an official ignores this call that has been beat into their head all summer and during meetings, then they might not have a job for a few games and could lead to being released at the end of the season. Just like in politics, when people do not understand all the elements of a group of people, you have sports commentators that run off at the mouth about things they do not understand. It is a lot harder to go find out the facts than just spout off about it. The same applies in this situation and the same applies in this political campaign. And it also does not help when you have people talking about these things that have no background in those areas. And the last I checked I have not seen a commentator in sports have an officiating background. I also do not see many political commentators have the background of the people or issues they are trying to cover either. Saying they have favorites is too simplistic.

Peace

Did anyone notice the freshman football player from Kansas State. He scored his first college touchdown this past weekend. Being a young, undisiplined kid we should have expected him to throw the ball high into the air especially given the back that it was his first ever TD. Well, he did not do that. He acted like he had been there before and tossed the ball to the nearest official and went to his sideline.

I always pegged you as a FireFox user.

So does the Canadian version of IE say "Favourites" instead of Favorites?

But the emotion of the game is so high with a game on TV. I cannot believe a kid actually handed the ball to an official, that has never happened in the history of football. :rolleyes:

Peace

[Sarcasm]We cannot expect them to act rationally and to control themselves. This is football we're talking about, not chess. It's amazing Locker didn't throw the ball into the crowd, strip down to his underwear and give the entire BYU bench the middle finger. But if he did, the refs should've eaten their flag on that too. After all, look at that drive he orchestrated.[/Sarcasm]

REPLY: Living in NJ, I got to see a lot of Rutgers football over the last two seasons, and with that, a lot of Ray Rice. Each and every time he scored a TD, without fail, he would pass through his teammates who were looking to celebrate, hunt out the nearest official, and hand him the ball. Each and every time...made it look like he'd been there before.

Ah, thanks. I avoid having umpteen different apps on my PC and IE crashes like twice a year - so I'm happy with it. They skipped the "u" because I still use "US English". But I use the Google Toolbar and my 'Bookmarks' travel with me when I sign into iGoogle. I just installed Chrome though... you could say that I'm a Google fan. :)

Oddly enough, that's the serious argument one the local sports talk hosts (who played college football) offered up yesterday. A guy called in and said he was a youth coach, and always taught his players to set the ball down and go to the sideline. You can celebrate there. The host then jumps in and says, "But it's football. It's an emotional game. [yadda yadda]." :rolleyes:

This stuff is why I don't listen to much sports radio anymore.

How is spontaneously throwing the ball 40' into the air less showboating than spiking 1' from the ground? :confused:

Its hard to believe any official would question this call. What if this had occurred in the first quarter and not been flagged, then, the opponent had scored in the second quarter and launched the ball. Therefore, since you did not penalize the first occurrence you cannot justify subsequent occurrences.

Well, aren't we suppose to officiate the game the same all the way from opening kickoff until the R holds the ball up to signal it over?

In order to be consistent you make that call anytime it occurs regardless of the clock or the score.

Sports in high school and college is suppose to be a learning experience and part of that experience is discipline and respect for the rules and authority.

This was a lesson in "tough love."

Oddly enough, if the official wouldn't have thrown the flag, there would most likely have been ZERO backlash for not calling it (moreover- nobody would have noticed or said "hey, he should have thrown a flag on that!").

Eh, go figure

Wrong. BYU would have complained as would have all BYU supporters and most all officials. The media might not have complained (except for BYU-connected media) but there would have been plenty of griping.

I recall a few bowl game last year in which there were players doing somersaults "spontaneuously" as they scored, and others who interacted with the fans and none of those were flagged. Those officials got ripped by the media for not flagging them. The media is going to rip the officials no matter how it gets called. Their sole purpose is to create controversy because it draws in an audience.

[Disclaimer: I belong on the round yellow ball board, but I'm a BYU fan and I like browsing your threads anyway so let me add a touch to this comment.]

Given the way the rest of the drive was "officiated," the hostility would have lasted a long time. The BYU radio guys were already up in arms about the typical experience of traveling to a PAC-10 stadium. The quote from the play-by-play guys just as the flag was thrown was: "If they hadn't thrown that flag, you never would have heard the end of it from me."
________
Roll blunts

Bingo. The cries of BYU being "homered" by a Pac-10 crew in a Pac-10 stadium would've been deafening.

For accuracy's sake, science tells us that the ball went about 25 feet into the air.

In other words, it wouldn't have hit the ceiling in an indoor basketball gymnasium. :D

I think that it's good that this type of controversy came out early in the year. The hope is that the authoritive acceptance of officials will increase.

Not necessarily true, my friend. And no, I'm not arguing with science; I'm no flat earther.

Which part is NNT?

I've reffed some basketball games where a ball could never reach 25 feet into the air. I'm not sure the court I played on as a kid didn't have rafters sitting below that mark.

Come to think of it, the small gymnasium attached to St. Mary's church in my hometown had a low ceiling.

No it doesn't.


I'm the one who posted the physics info. My range of heights was based on a estimate of the time in the air:

2 seconds -> 16 feet
3 seconds -> 36 feet
4 seconds -> 64 feet

If someone wants to pull out a stopwatch, we could tell for sure but most esitmates put it between 3 and 4 seconds. So, I'd feel pretty comfortable saying that science puts it closer to 40 feet.

I read somewhere that is was 2.36 seconds. (Or thereabouts - I don't recall the exact digits after the decimal point. Even if it was 2.5s, it is 25 feet.)

From what I recall, that figure was posted by someone who has a history of quality posts, so I accepted their determination of ~ 2.5s.

What does your stopwatch say about the length of time that the ball was in the air?

I found the video and timed it myself. It sure looks like 2.5s is an accurate duration for the ball being airborne.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbgOF71ORiw shows how 2.36s is the airborne duration of the ball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igjgUKP3Uhc

Is that a full speed video or a slowed down version? I never could find a full speed version trhat showed the whole toss

It looks full speed to me (other than when they clearly slow down the play).

Peace

Next up: an analysis of the Zapruder Film.

Very well. 25 feet it is.

if you get a good look at the entire play, one could surmise that the official on the grassy knoll was actually the one who threw the hankie.
cheers,
tro