Game Protest Brewing in California

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

If no one owns up to it, how is it an IW?

If one of the five whistles sounded through breath coming from the lungs and mouth of the referee, the umpire, the line judge, the linesman or the back judge, it's an IW. Whether someone owns up to it or not. It's not like you can pretend it didn't happen and boom! it just didn't happen, like a season of Dallas.

Did one of the officials just think they heard one? If so, how could they be sure it was an official and not something on the sideline? I'm sure there's more to the story. Interesting.

It's very possible, indeed probable, that we don't have the entire story.

However, we do have this, though it's not from the crew chief directly:

Smith said crew chief Rick Stannard couldn't tell him which member of his five-man officiating crew made the mistake.

"No one would take ownership of blowing the whistle," Smith said.

Which is not the same as the crew chief saying to his guys, "Did you blow your whistle? Did you blow your whistle? Did you blow your whistle? Did you blow your whistle? Did *I* blow my whistle?" and then saying to the coach, "There was no inadvertent whistle." Because if there's no IW, the touchdown stands.

We do also have this, which leads me to believe there was an IW:

They told Vacaville Christian coach Chris Smith there had been an inadvertent whistle as Wiest was picking up the ball.

So there was an IW. It's not a question of whether there was or not, if we believe that Chris Smith is relaying what he was told accurately (someone in a supervisory position should say something about this whole mess, it seems to me).

If you're any kind of an official at all, you know that IWs happen. Chances are they've happened to all of us (or, more properly, we've all done it - they're not things that happen to us, they're things we do).

Also if you're any kind of official at all, your heart goes out to someone who blows an IW in a critical situation like this, or who kicks a crucial call because we've all been there (except for one or two supermen on this board who work 125 games a season and never make a bad call).

So we can all emphathize. Holy cow, man, I feel for you and I know that nobody on Earth feels worse about it than you do.

But IF you did it, you gotta own up to it. We can put an arm around your shoulder and say "You'll be a better official for this" and "Your brothers are here with you, because right now you sure as hell don't have any other friends here," but if you're not going to own up to it, that's just wrong. And covering it up is just wrong, if that's what's going on. A conspiracy doesn't help anybody but the official who blew the whistle. And while that hurts like hell, you can get past it.

I don't know how you could get past not admitting you did it or how you could get past covering it up. IF that's what happened here, and that's strictly deducing what might have happened. As mentioned, we don't appear to know the whole story.

EDIT: Yes, it is entirely possible that the reporter got it wrong. We don't know. My point is - keep the damn whistle out of your mouth, especially on kicks. And IF you do blow an IW, own up to it.

[bisonlj]

Was the ball still loose when there was an IW? If yes, there should have been a re-kick. No options for R. If they ruled the IW took place after R gained possession, they have the choice to take the ball where it was declared dead or re-kick. If they ran the next play from the 50, are they saying the squib kick was picked up at the 50? Where was it kicked from?

[ajmc]

A couple of years ago, I would have been completely shocked if anyone on an official's forum immediately took the word of a newspaper report, over what sounds like a common sense answer to an extremely loaded question. Sadly, I'm not surprised today, so many are so quick to presume the very worst about the officials in this instance.

Granted, this sounds like a really, really bad IW incident, but what Referee, worth his salt, would throw a crew member under the bus by identifying him to an irate, justifyably or not, coach on the spot? The fact that the Referee chose not to point out who was the particular official who actually sounded the IW shouldn't suggest, at least to other officials, that the crew was unsure that a whistle was inadvertently blown.

For those of you have yet to experience an irate coach not listening to what he's been told and then screwing up the retelling of what he should have heard to match what he concluded before anyone told him anything, you shouldn't have to wait very long for the next opportunity.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by ajmc

what Referee, worth his salt, would throw a crew member under the bus by identifying him to an irate, justifyably or not, coach on the spot?

I think that's what we're all aghast about.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. Doesn't mean it did.

The fact that the Referee chose not to point out who was the particular official who actually sounded the IW shouldn't suggest, at least to other officials, that the crew was unsure that a whistle was inadvertently blown.

If there was no IW, they'd have had to let the touchdown stand, though, wouldn't they?

Agreed, we don't know the whole circumstance, and likely never will.

I'd like to believe the best about my brothers in stripes. But I don't know what to think about this. And if I can't trust the Sacramento Bee, I don't know what I can trust.

[wwcfoa43]

I would like to gather a room full of coaches and ask them two questions:

1. Did you know coaches that football is played by fallible humans and that it is possible that you could lose the biggest game of your career due to an error by one your human players such as them dropping a ball?

The heads would nod and wonder why I aksed such a stupid question.

2. Did you know coaches that football is officiating by fallible humans and that it is possible that you could lose the biggest game of your career due to an error by one of the human officials such as them blowing their whistle accidentally?

Then shock would set in as the coaches expressed disbelief, anger and starting to imagine the lawsuit that they would have to bring (of course in Canada they would not imagine the lawsuit because here if you spill coffee on yourself you don't get any money...)

It is interesting that coaches can understand the answer to the first question but not the second even though the answers are identical and for the same reason!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by wwcfoa43

I would like to gather a room full of coaches and ask them two questions:

1. Did you know coaches that football is played by fallible humans and that it is possible that you could lose the biggest game of your career due to an error by one your human players such as them dropping a ball?

The heads would nod and wonder why I aksed such a stupid question.

2. Did you know coaches that football is officiating by fallible humans and that it is possible that you could lose the biggest game of your career due to an error by one of the human officials such as them blowing their whistle accidentally?

Then shock would set in as the coaches expressed disbelief, anger and starting to imagine the lawsuit that they would have to bring (of course in Canada they would not imagine the lawsuit because here if you spill coffee on yourself you don't get any money...)

It is interesting that coaches can understand the answer to the first question but not the second even though the answers are identical and for the same reason!

I don't buy this so much: too many disanalogies, at least for HS football.

1. Only the officials are adults.
2. Only the officials have had years of training.
3. Only the officials get paid (well, security too).
4. Only the officials are officiating.

By that last one I mean that the players are actually playing the game, and if they make mistakes that's part of the game. When officials screw up, that's a disruption of the game.

[wwcfoa43]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I don't buy this so much: too many disanalogies, at least for HS football.

1. Only the officials are adults.
2. Only the officials have had years of training.
3. Only the officials get paid (well, security too).
4. Only the officials are officiating.

By that last one I mean that the players are actually playing the game, and if they make mistakes that's part of the game. When officials screw up, that's a disruption of the game.

Oh my mistake (insert sarcasm):

1. Adults don't make mistakes. (!)
2. All officials have years of training at officiating. (What about the officials who are new!)
3. Getting paid means you don't make mistakes. (I wonder what's wrong with the people I work with at my day job then...)
4. Not even sure what #4 implies.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I don't buy this so much: too many disanalogies, at least for HS football.

1. Only the officials are adults.
2. Only the officials have had years of training.
3. Only the officials get paid (well, security too).
4. Only the officials are officiating.

By that last one I mean that the players are actually playing the game, and if they make mistakes that's part of the game. When officials screw up, that's a disruption of the game.

I understand what wwcfoa43 is saying but I agree there is a difference between players and coaches. First, we don't have an opponent that can cause us to make errors. Second, our mistakes are mostly mental while players mistakes can be both mental and physical. Even if our mistakes could be deemed physical (looking in the wrong place, being in the wrong position, blowing an IW), they are caused my mental errors.