Mississippi HS Game Protest Upheld
 

MHSAA did right thing on protest | hattiesburgamerican.com | Hattiesburg American

MHSAA did right thing on protest
By Stan Caldwell • November 20, 2008
THERE ARE A LOT of sports fans across the state who believe the Mississippi High School Activities Association is a soulless bureaucracy and that executive director Ennis Proctor is little more than a greedy politician.


Having become acquainted with the man over the years, I think Proctor gets a bum rap in a lot of ways, but there is no question that the MHSAA is a bureaucracy and Proctor is a very political animal.

Nothing inherently wrong with that.

So it was to the surprise of the association's critics when it did the right and fair thing and upheld the protest of Walnut High School over the controversial ending to its Class 2A playoff game this past Friday at Leland.

Here's the back story.

Walnut was leading 21-18 with seconds remaining in the second-round game, but Leland had the ball inside Wildcat territory driving for a score.

On the final play of the game, the Cubs' quarterback scrambled around, turned upfield, then pitched the ball to what he thought (hoped) was a trailing back. This back picked the ball up off the ground and ran it in for an apparent touchdown.

Refs blew it
One problem. There was a penalty flag back at the spot of the pitch, which was ruled to have been a forward lateral, and thus an illegal forward pass, since it was made some 18 yards beyond the line of scrimmage.

This is where the game officials blew the call. They gave Walnut the choice of declining the penalty, which it wasn't going to do since the play resulted in a touchdown, or accepting the penalty and giving Leland an untimed play.

The Cubs threw a touchdown pass on that play and left the field with what they thought was a 24-21 victory.

The problem, of course, was that the referees erred when they gave Leland another play after time had expired.

Call reversed
National federation rules state that in such a case, the play - the touchdown on the forward lateral - should be disallowed and since time had expired, the game was over at that point.

Leland should never have been given an untimed play in that situation, and that was the argument Walnut coaches successfully made to the MHSAA's Executive Committee, which voted 10-1 with one abstention, to uphold the protest.

Naturally, the Leland coaches expressed their disappointment, arguing that the decision of the game officials should be final.

But when those officials make a mistake so obvious - and one that is so readily correctable - then it is incumbent upon the association to do the right thing.

This begs the question of how supposedly experienced referees could have blown such a critical call because they didn't know the rules. It raises a rather ugly question of just how competent some of these officials really are.

I genuinely hate this for the Leland kids who had their supposed victory taken away long after the fact.

But fair is fair, and in this case the right decision was made.

Someone missed the semi-recent rule change. Whoo boy.

Count me as one official who agrees with this ruling.

I just wish we could get people (fans and writers, primarily) to strike the word "lateral" and the phrase "forward lateral" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) from their vocabularies.

Obviously, out of however many officials they had, somebody should have gotten it right.

But, as we all know (and this is not to excuse anybody who kicks one, because we all do), the freaking rules of this game are out of control. They've just overly complicated the game and making it harder and harder to keep everything straight.

This was a tough situation, but the current rule is direct, simple and clear; (NFHS: 1.1.11 "Protests of NFHS rules are not recognized". I realize it's not a rule being challenged here, but the misapplication of a rule. That situation is covered in current rule (NFHS: 3.5.11 - The process designed for a coach to question a rule application, during the contest.).

In this actual situation, the team had the opportunity to question the application of this rule, and doing so may have well caused the Referee to correct his error on the spot and prevent what happened.

This decision sets a dangerous prescedent that Mississippi will likely have to deal with again, some time in the future, where some other post game discovery generates a similar request to change events after the fact.

There is no question that the officials misapplied a rule and that mistake produced the opportunity for a score to be added after the game should have been completed. The coaching staff of the disadvantaged team had every right and every opportunity to have followed existing procedures
(3.5.11) to question the ruling and ask it to be reversed.

The official's mistake was, "readily correctable" and could have and should have been corrected before the untimed down was played. Correcting it after the fact creates a dangerous and unfortunate prescedent.

An illegal forward pass beyond the line by A. The news article says "This back picked the ball up off the ground and ran it in for an apparent touchdown." So surely, if B decline the penalty, it is NOT a score, the result of the play is an incomplete forward pass.

Or am I missing something here?

Regardless of how anyone feels about it, states are free to use or ignore NFHS rules whenever they wish. Or not even use them.

In this case, I think the state did the right thing. It was the last play of the game and the game had (should have) ended.

The officials here should be held accountable, not the coaches.

They are? I don't think the Fed rules are all that complicated honestly.

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

I don't know if we have all of the information - perhaps the coach did attempt to get a clarification/correction at that time. This whole situation stinks. What if the coach got brushed off by the crew and they stuck with their call? What if the coach realized the next day (for whatever reason), or had someone call him the next day to tell him about the misapplication of the rule - hence prompting his protest - should the protest be upheld? Clearly the rule was misapplied, and OverAndBack, I gotta disagree with you on this one. This is a pretty basic rule (assuming the ball was caught and not recovered), that has been thoroughly discussed - and there is NO EXCUSE for a playoff crew to screw that one up. Now, if the ball was truly recovered as was stated in the article - then I truly have no words....

RichMSN, it appears I inadvertently raised somw questions in your mind that were not intended. I understand that States are (somewhat) free to disregard NFHS rules and suggestions, however that doesn't mean that NFHS rules and guidelines don't make sense and are good ideas.

I also had no intention to suggest the game officials weren't responsible. They blew the call, big time and I suspect will, as usual, be held accountable for their error. The point, I obviously failed to make clear to you, is that there currently is a really very simple, very direct procedure already in place where a coach can question rule applications, and those questions must be addressed. In this situation, the coaches apparently failed to avail themselves of this opportunity which was established for this very reason so that misapplication of rules could be questioned, and where necessary corrected, immediately before any lasting damage was created.

Coaches are responsible for knowing enough about the rules to be able to recognize a serious miscarriage, although clearly that is a primary responsibility of the game officials. This particular incident, and the result thus far, has crossed a line, one that had previously been a fairly bright line establishing the standard that the rules provide for an appropriate remedy for the misapplication of a rule during the contest, but once the game is over, THE GAME IS OVER.

Hopefully this incident won't serve as a model for Mississippi, or any other State, to consider post game reflections or observations as opportunities to serve as reasons for post game protests.

+1 for the MHSAA.

They sought truth and found it.

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 missed the part where the ball was picked off of the ground after a forward pass. That makes this even WORSE. I originally thought that they just missed the change on "no untimed downs" on this situation but they missed something much more fundamental -- that a forward pass that is incomplete is dead no matter where it occurs. Jeez.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The article has the mandatory sportswriters' abuse of this phrase. :rolleyes:

Weirdly, the second sentence exhibits correct usage.

(If you have no idea what I'm talking about, see this site.)

This begs the question of how supposedly college-educated sportswriters could have blown such a critical sentence because they don't know grammar. It raises a rather ugly question of just how competent some of these sportswriters really are.

All we needed were the terms "Physicality" and "Step Up" and we would've had most of the cliches covered, no? :)

110% and one game at a time were on the bench, waiting to come in.

Oh, I knew. We covered logic and argumentation in one of my college philosophy classes.

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.

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.

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-1I 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"... ;)

Going against your own constitution. Ouch.

All the articles I have been reading led me to believe MS's rules permitted protests/appeals based on "rules decisions" but not judgment. Now that I actually see the book, I realize once again the media does not know what it is talking about. The only place in here where there is differentiation between the 2 is in the section re ejections of coaches. If a coach is ejected after arguing a judgment call he cannot protest the ejection But if ejected for arguing a rule interp, he can protest.

Wow, very dangerous precedent, going against their own by-laws. I would imagine if the team that protested, if they were to win the state championship, would have a tarnished image. The constitution and by-laws are so extensive, I didn't really see if there's a bigger assembly that can override the board. If so, I can see some problems down the road when that assembly meets.

Apparently they appealed to the state supreme court, even.

See, this is the can of worms you open when you make exceptions to rules.

I’ll bet this situation is less about rule knowledge or lack thereof and more about how to apply filters to make an important decision while under extreme pressure - that’s the direction this discussion should move. A little empathy for a fellow official(s), that you know feels worse than anybody, wouldn’t hurt either.

It is ALL about what dumbref said.

It's about being able to step back, gather the crew, and lead. There's no way that a good crew chief wouldn't sort this out if he had kept a level head and asked the right questions. Unless, of course, he simply didn't know the rules, which would be a shame.

Mississippi High School Football Game Goes All The Way To State Supreme Court

Found this on another board

Thank the good Lord for web-embedded video!!

An incomplete IFP.

Could it be the crew ruled fumble, but then came and talked about it, and it then went to IFP? Play didn't end when the ball hit the ground. Rule fumble and it's game over. Perhaps they out-thought themselves.

regarding protests
 

Regarding the fact that protests are not allowed, I believe in 99% of all cases a reversal such as this would be dangerous as a precedent.

But in this case there is a clear and obvious exception.

By rule, the GAME WAS OVER. The mistake by the officials, therefore, actually came after the game was technically complete. I believe that gives the Mississippi office what it needed. Basically, they did not need to overturn anything. All they had to do was revert the game to the correct conclusion of the game.

The LJ/HL appears to have thrown a bean bag - I wonder how they came up to Illegal Forward Pass, and then if they did rule that, did nobody realize that the ball hit the ground??

Oh, no question.

What was the play in New York earlier in the year, the one that one of our posters had? We were empathetic in that instance.

No doubt, no one feels worse than they do. We ALL make mistakes. They're just not all in state playoff games, and they don't usually go to the state supreme court.

I agree with you, though - this is a pressure-filled job. Some handle it better than others. My guess is that one handles it better after one kicks it than after just studying. They always say "crash and burn is the way to learn."

from looking at the video.
There are two plays.
From what I see on the video it appears that they ruled the forward pass as a penalty. Becuase the black team recoved in the endzone.
And then gave an untimed down.
Why would they run another play after the forward pass?

NEVERMIND- I went back and read the first page again. Got lost in all the replys.

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

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.

At least all is now right in the world....Walnut lost to Eupora 28 - 7. No word on the controversial 22 point play allowed on the final play for the victory!:)

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

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.