New Orleans/Denver

[bisonlj]

I was just watching First Take on ESPN and they showed a play from near the end of the New Orleans/Denver. NO had a 3rd and 1 from around the Denver 30. One of the Denver DBs lined up on the end of the LOS and appeared to be in the neutral zone. No flag was thrown and the runner was tackled about a yard behind the LOS (the DB was not part of the tackle but it was right in front of him).

The commentators discussed if this call was worse than the Denver/San Diego call. They all agreed it was a horrible call but disagreed on the whether it was worse than last week's call.

Those who thought it was worse gave Hochuli the benefit of the doubt because his was a bang bang play from a weird angle while this play the official had several seconds to look at the defender and make a decision. If a flag had been thrown, NO would have a first down and could have driven closer for a shorter field goal or possibly touchdown. The player was on the bottom of the screen and they claimed it was the call of the official on top of the screen showing their ignorance.

My thought is the official probably had the right angle and in his judgement the player was either not in the neutral zone or not enough to gain an advantage. Thoughts?

[PSU213]

I was always of the thought that offsides/encroachment (depending on the level) is always called when a player is in the NZ, reguardless of ad/disad. When a DL is in the NZ, but moving back to his side at the snap, he is probably at a disadvantage by already having backwards momentum at the snap--yet that is basically always called.

As for worse than Hochuli's call--that is something for the talking heads to debate, but the wrong call is the wrong call (not saying this call was wrong--just that it is a silly debate to say one is worse that the other).

[With_Two_Flakes]

Where was the camera showing this alleged foul? Was it mounted on the officials cap? If not, then you cannot trust the camera angle that "appeared" to show an offside as it not exactly in line with the officials eyes....

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by With_Two_Flakes

Where was the camera showing this alleged foul? Was it mounted on the officials cap? If not, then you cannot trust the camera angle that "appeared" to show an offside as it not exactly in line with the officials eyes....

This is called the Tindell Effect.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by PSU213

I was always of the thought that offsides/encroachment (depending on the level) is always called when a player is in the NZ, reguardless of ad/disad.

I think the gray area here is how much of his body is in the NZ. If a NT puts his hand up and it is technically in the NZ, do you flag it? Probably not. If a DB is barely in the NZ out wide while head up with a WR, do you flag it? Probably not? In many of these cases, you ask the guilty players to make sure they stay back and prevent a penalty in the future. If it blatantly continues then you flag it.

I've also had situations where teams were constantly fidgeting, lining up a little too close and no amount of talking was going to make a difference. It wasn't a major issue and rather than start flagging it you just live with it as long as it wasn't providing the defense with a definite advantage (more common at the lower levels).

I've always understood the NFL is much less lenient with these types of things (slight flinches by the OL result in false starts much more than at the HS level) so I'm surprised this was not flagged. Again, we don't know what transpired on the field in the game prior to this that could have affected this official's judgement on the play.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

This is called the Tindell Effect.

REPLY: Also, an example of parallax.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by With_Two_Flakes

Where was the camera showing this alleged foul? Was it mounted on the officials cap? If not, then you cannot trust the camera angle that "appeared" to show an offside as it not exactly in line with the officials eyes....

It was a little off-center from the line of scrimmage. You could tell he was probably offsides though by looking at the hash were the ball was and looking at the hash where his feet were. No doubt the official had the best angle and made the call based on his judgement. It just didn't look good on film to an observer.

[Forksref]

I was just watching part of UCONN vs. Louisville from last year on ESPN Classic. They showed a wing gesturing with both arms waving a receiver back because he was in the neutral zone. I was very surprised to see such a visible signal, especially at that level.

I will sometimes give a little gesture with one hand to move a guy back if a receiver looks at me to see if he is on.

Nothing wrong with preventive officiating, but I've always wondered why receivers aren't taught how to line up on their own.

[wwcfoa43]

In Canada, our mechanic is to yell at the player who lines up offside to get back continuously until the ball is snapped, then throw the flag. If he gets back, great. If he doesn't, the coach of the offending team cannot possibly be upset with the official for the flag.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Forksref

.Nothing wrong with preventive officiating, but I've always wondered why receivers aren't taught how to line up on their own.

I don't think that's the problem. They're just not paying attention to their position, and instead focusing on their route, the coverage, game situation and whether to get out of bounds, etc.

Oh yeah: and the snap count!