PAC10 Supervisor Discusses BYU-WA Call

[TXMike]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...57_uwfb08.html

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by TXMike

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...57_uwfb08.html

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."

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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....

[trocared]

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

[JRutledge]

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

[OverAndBack]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

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?

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

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

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'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.

[IceGator8]

Even better video:

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

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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."

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.

[OverAndBack]

And, of course, a newspaper columnist has to chime in in that calm, reserved way that some newspaper columnists do....

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

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?

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."

[ajmc]

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.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

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.