Mississippi HS Game Protest Upheld

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Theisey

?????
What possibly be overcomplicated with the true result of the play is an incompleted foreward pass? Decline the foul... game over

No, I just mean in general. Too many rules, which change from year to year, not all of which you apply all the time and which we're expected to call up in the heat of the moment even though we haven't seen a similar situation in years.

Not that THIS particular rule is complicated. But the rulebook is unweildy and written in some other language. The fact the game is hard to officiate is evidenced by the numerous threads here and the debates over "what would you do?" or "what was the right call?"

Speaking in general terms, not specific terms.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

No, I just mean in general. Too many rules, which change from year to year, not all of which you apply all the time and which we're expected to call up in the heat of the moment even though we haven't seen a similar situation in years.

Not that THIS particular rule is complicated. But the rulebook is unweildy and written in some other language. The fact the game is hard to officiate is evidenced by the numerous threads here and the debates over "what would you do?" or "what was the right call?"

Speaking in general terms, not specific terms.

I don't buy this. It's our JOB to know the rules. Sure, the rules aren't simple in all places, but hey, it's OUR JOB to know them. If we miss one, SHAME ON US.

And too many officials in football act like "that's the white hat's job."

Sorry, no. Every member of this crew is equally culpable for screwing the pooch on this one.

[TXMike]

Just wondering what the Fed rule is on this if instead of the illegal fwd pass falling to the ground, it had been caught and taken in for a TD. I assume the penalty would be enforced and there woudl be an untimed down?

And what about this...play happened as described in the article but video was clear the pass was NOT forward but was backwards (even though had been flagged as illegal fwd pass). Would protest still have been upheld as that would have been a "judgment" issue?


PS - looks like the crew is getting hammered for the mistake

From: Leader Call - Walnut reinstated to 2A playoffs
Proctor wouldn’t give names of the officiating crew for the game, but says the entire crew has been suspended for the 2008 and 2009 playoffs. He says the crew will also be on probation during the 2009 regular season.

“We are real pleased with the decision,” said Walnut coach Timmy Moore, who has coached at the Tippah County school since 1993. “We felt like the activities association and executive committee would do the proper thing and correct a wrong. I knew I had a great case and I knew we were right.”

Leland coach Eugene Sanders says he and his players were disappointed.

“The (game) officials made their decision and it was a judgment call,” Sanders said. “It should be decided by officials and not people sitting behind a desk. What were my children supposed to do? All we can do is go by what the referees say.”

Leland finished the season at 9-3.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Just wondering what the Fed rule is on this if instead of the illegal fwd pass falling to the ground, it had been caught and taken in for a TD. I assume the penalty would be enforced and there woudl be an untimed down?

Mike, same as if it were incomplete. If the penalty is accepted, there would be a loss of down and there is no untimed down.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Just wondering what the Fed rule is on this if instead of the illegal fwd pass falling to the ground, it had been caught and taken in for a TD. I assume the penalty would be enforced and there woudl be an untimed down?

REPLY: No Mike...If the IFP was caught, the play would continue until the down ended by rule. Acceptance of the penalty would not result in an untimed down. That's the rule change referred to in an earlier post. A few years back the Fed changed the rule to say that if there is a foul during the last timed down of a period and the penalty for that foul includes loss of down, there is no untimed down.

[b10mtrk]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: No Mike...If the IFP was caught, the play would continue until the down ended by rule. Acceptance of the penalty would not result in an untimed down. That's the rule change referred to in an earlier post. A few years back the Fed changed the rule to say that if there is a foul during the last timed down of a period and the penalty for that foul includes loss of down, there is no untimed down.

Finally we are done! Thank-you Bob M.

[Sonofanump]

I guess I am missing a lot of this. A forward pass hit the ground? Was the pass behind or beyond the LOS, what down was it and how much time was on the clock when the ball touched the ground?

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Sonofanump

I guess I am missing a lot of this. A forward pass hit the ground? Was the pass behind or beyond the LOS, what down was it and how much time was on the clock when the ball touched the ground?

The article said the pass was 18 yards beyond the LOS. It didn't give the down but the clock did expire during the run so the previous down was irrelevant. You bring up a good point about the clock status when the ball hit the ground but they made it sound like there were only a couple seconds left so I assume the clock expired prior to the imcomplete pass.

[Scooby]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: No Mike...If the IFP was caught, the play would continue until the down ended by rule. Acceptance of the penalty would not result in an untimed down. That's the rule change referred to in an earlier post. A few years back the Fed changed the rule to say that if there is a foul during the last timed down of a period and the penalty for that foul includes loss of down, there is no untimed down.

Could someone give the rule that does not allow an untimed down in this situatation.

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by Scooby

Could someone give the rule that does not allow an untimed down in this situatation.

Got any books?

see rule book 3-3-4-b-3 and its "note"

Then see case book 3.3.4 Sit A and Sit B

it's spelled out about as clearly as you can.

[Scooby]

Originally Posted by Theisey

Got any books?

see rule book 3-3-4-b-3 and its "note"

Then see case book 3.3.4 Sit A and Sit B

it's spelled out about as clearly as you can.

Thanks

[sj]

Originally Posted by TXMike

.
Call - Walnut reinstated to 2A playoffs[/url]
Proctor wouldn’t give names of the officiating crew for the game, but says the entire crew has been suspended for the 2008 and 2009 playoffs. He says the crew will also be on probation during the 2009 regular season.

“We are real pleased with the decision,” said Walnut coach Timmy Moore, who has coached at the Tippah County school since 1993. “We felt like the activities association and executive committee would do the proper thing and correct a wrong. I knew I had a great case and I knew we were right.”

Leland coach Eugene Sanders says he and his players were disappointed.

“The (game) officials made their decision and it was a judgment call,” Sanders said. “It should be decided by officials and not people sitting behind a desk. What were my children supposed to do? All we can do is go by what the referees say.”

Leland finished the season at 9-3.

With due respect to a tough situation I always get a kick out of coaches when I read these things. If the roles were reversed the coaches would simply trade cue cards. The Walnut coach would say what the Leland coach says and the Leland coach would say what the Walnut coach says.

[Forksref]

The state got it right. I think the state should rule in such cases of an obvious mistake in rule interpretation. There should be no protests in judgment calls.

I don't think the rules are all that complicated. This rule was put in to eliminate a loophole that allowed the offense to get another play by deliberately fouling.

Good rule and good job by the state.

My problem is with the crew on the field. If it is like many crews, the non-whitehats usually leave penalty enforcement knowledge to the whitehat. What should have happened was one or more of them helping the whitehat get it right by stepping up and correcting him. As a whitehat, I'd love to have someone on my crew step up when I need help.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't buy this. It's our JOB to know the rules. Sure, the rules aren't simple in all places, but hey, it's OUR JOB to know them. If we miss one, SHAME ON US.

And too many officials in football act like "that's the white hat's job."

Sorry, no. Every member of this crew is equally culpable for screwing the pooch on this one.

Oh, I agree there should most definitely be repercussions (and now I see above that there are, and that seems appropriate), and I said above that out of all the people on the crew, somebody should have had a clue.

We have to get those things right. I'm just saying they sure don't make things any easier on us.

[Dakota]

I'm not a football official, but this topic is interesting.

I offer a couple of items to the discussion.

First, from the MHSAA 08-09 Handbook, Article III, Section A-1

The decision of game officials are final and no protests based on the decision of the game officials will be allowed.

I wonder how they managed to ignore that sentence in their own handbook.

2008 - 2009 Mississippi High School Activities Association, Inc. Handbook

Second, here is a (poor) video, and from the location in the stands, apparently shot by a Leland fan.

Walnut-Leland Game End

Third, despite the esoteric meaning by debate societies of the phrase "beg the question", in the English language the rest of us use, the phrase clearly means "raise the question"...