Missing tailbone pad puts team in the playoffs

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by sloth

As a referee, I would stop the play and send the kicker off to get a new tailbone pad. This is a safety foul and it needs to be fixed before the next play, but the 15yard USC is overkill. Lets not forget, we're out there to insure the players safety and to proveide a fair contest.

The officials are not out there to do what is fair, they are there to officiate the game by the rules. It is not your job to decide what the proper penalty is.

Originally Posted by sloth

We need to look for ways to have a good game and NOT impact the outcome.

That is a myth spread by TV announcers. Everything the officials do the entire game impacts the outcome.

[mbyron]

I agree with 2 key points stated so far:
1. This is a crap tactic by the coach who's asking for the penalty.
2. If the opposing team wants to avoid being "victimized" by such tactics, all they have to do is follow the rules.

That said, I can't see a way to avoid assessing the penalty here. The closest thing would be to say that I didn't see the player participate without the pad on the previous play.

But if I knew he did participate -- if he's the QB, for instance -- it's just not plausible to say that somehow he lost the pad after the play.

So in the end I'd probably do what the R did in this game: assess the penalty and let the chips fall where they may. I agree with Luke's philosophy of enforcing the rules, at least up to the standards set by my state and my association.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree with 2 key points stated so far:
1. This is a crap tactic by the coach who's asking for the penalty.
2. If the opposing team wants to avoid being "victimized" by such tactics, all they have to do is follow the rules.

That said, I can't see a way to avoid assessing the penalty here. The closest thing would be to say that I didn't see the player participate without the pad on the previous play.

But if I knew he did participate -- if he's the QB, for instance -- it's just not plausible to say that somehow he lost the pad after the play.

So in the end I'd probably do what the R did in this game: assess the penalty and let the chips fall where they may. I agree with Luke's philosophy of enforcing the rules, at least up to the standards set by my state and my association.

There is a baseball play that comes to mind, I believe it was George Brett who was using a bat with more pine tar than allowed and Billy Martin was the Yankees manager. Martin saw Brett use the bat several times until one day he hit a crucial home run. Martin asked for the bat to be inspected taking away the home run from Brett.

But more important for football is a missing tailbone protector can subject the player to the possibility of permanent paralysis. I would rather be criticized for "over officiating" than being light on player protection.

[refbuz]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

There is a baseball play that comes to mind, I believe it was George Brett who was using a bat with more pine tar than allowed and Billy Martin was the Yankees manager. Martin saw Brett use the bat several times until one day he hit a crucial home run. Martin asked for the bat to be inspected taking away the home run from Brett.

You know that the Royals protested and had that call overturned, right? The Home Run counted and they won the game.

Pine Tar Game

This wasn't pointed out for the player's safety, it was merely pointed out to gain an advantage by the opposing coach.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by refbuz

You know that the Royals protested and had that call overturned, right? The Home Run counted and they won the game.

Brett's bat did violate the rule. But the AL President ruled that the bat didn't violate the "spirit of the rule."

The Royals did win, but they did have to play from the point of protest weeks later to complete the game. It was a big ol' mess.