Ravens/Steelers game

[pmarz1]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Beautiful when non-officials tell the officials what the rules mean.

this is why officials and officiating in general gets criticized as it does. Officials like yourself think you are the only people on the planet with reading comprehension skills. Still waiting for anyone to post something that resembles a fact that leading with your helmet, regardless of whether the player recieving the hit is defenseless or not, does not constitute an infraction.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by pmarz1

Many who post here got very defensive with their comments,some feeling I was a Ravens fan/sore loser. I have no connection with them or the Steelers. If you all are truely impartial, then answer the questions that way. You are one of the few that responded as one would hope an official would. .

Perhaps the tone of responses was adversely influenced by the way the initial few questions were asked and some inflamatory rhetoric added to a totally subjective assessment of the NFL game officials abilities and performance.

As some have tried to point out, the amount of time, training, review and almost constant scrutiny NFL game officials devote to the pursuit of excellence is staggering, and considering the speed and talents of the players they monitor, their production and accuracy is outstanding.

However, despite the significant effort, dedication and pursuit of excellence they are not, and never will attain perfection. You should understand that in addition to the written rules code, that are somewhat different for multiple levels of football, there are reams and binders of official interpretations and approved rulings, clinics and years of intense discussion and debate that further clarify the intent, purpose and details of each rule to assist field officials in better understanding the basic intent and purpose of each rule.

Every official who has reached the level of the NFL has already completed extremely successful careers at each of the High School and, likely, multiple levels of the collegiate game. All that experience, training, study, review and constant critiquing, still does not guarantee automatic perfection, but it does bring this small band of professionals as close to that goal as has been achieved.

However, honest questions do deserve honest answers that are devoid of excessive defensiveness, athough defensive excesses sometimes slip through due to the right provocation. Perfection in the art of responding to questions, is also an elusive objective albeit worthy of pursuit.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by pmarz1

this is why officials and officiating in general gets criticized as it does. Officials like yourself think you are the only people on the planet with reading comprehension skills. Still waiting for anyone to post something that resembles a fact that leading with your helmet, regardless of whether the player recieving the hit is defenseless or not, does not constitute an infraction.

I never questioned your reading skills. Listening skills are a whole other matter, but that's not the issue. The problem you have is understanding that there's a lot more to officiating a sport than reading the rule book. It takes many years to understand the meaning of the rules and how they're applied in game situations. It takes years of training and film work to understand the mechanics of the game to know where you're supposed to be and what you're supposed to be looking at.


The first thing I was told after passing my certification test was, "Now that you know the rules we'll take you out on the field and teach you how to be an official."

There are some officials who can recite the rule book, chapter and verse. Some of them are the absolute worst officials you'll ever see on a field. There's a whole lot more to officiating the game than knowing what the rules say.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by pmarz1

this is why officials and officiating in general gets criticized as it does. Officials like yourself think you are the only people on the planet with reading comprehension skills. Still waiting for anyone to post something that resembles a fact that leading with your helmet, regardless of whether the player recieving the hit is defenseless or not, does not constitute an infraction.

Officials being criticized have nothing to do with this site or the comments on here. The average fan of public has no idea this place exists. Usually the criticism comes from people like yourself that cannot understand how someone that does this for a living or a great deal of time know more about the game from a rules standpoint than you do. Also I am sure there is much more to the philosophy of how things are called than in the rules you referenced. Usually rules like this that involve personal fouls are listed in other areas along with definitions of those acts. But you know more than everyone, so I guess you have those references too?

Peace

[PSU213]

Here is what I don't comprehend about this 'discussion'...

Someone comes on this website (a website for officials to discuss issues, not for fans to complain about the outcome of a game), and they ask a question about a particular call in the game. There are given a fair, unbiased response. It is not the answer they want, so they call us clueless, rip the NFL officials, and refused to listen to anything constrctive any of us have to say.

The truth is: (1) no matter how much they complain about a call or we discuss it, criticize it (if necessary), etc.--the call does not change. I know it is hard to believe, but what we say on here on Monday, will not affect a call made Sunday evening. (2) We have no control over NFL officiating. NFL officials make some bad calls and a lot more good ones. Even if the officials on the field were to make bad calls on 50% of the plays, that does not give us (or any of the fans) control over the NFL when they make decisions about their officials. It might make fans feel better to argue with officials on this board, but it does not have any influence on this board. (3) Fans who want to keep up a silly argument about a play at the end of the game yesterday (and, yes, as a safety issue it is a valid debate--on a fan site) can go somewhere else to do it.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by pmarz1

( g) using any part of a player’s helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/“hairline” parts)
or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily; although such
violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent,
game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those
players who are in virtually defenseless postures (e.g., a player in the act of or just after
throwing a pass, a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass, a runner already in the
grasp of a tackler, a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air, or a player
on the ground at the end of a play). All players in virtually defenseless postures are protected
by the same prohibitions against use of the helmet and facemask that are described
in the roughing-the-passer rules (see Article 11, subsection 3 below of this
Rule 12, Section 2);

The irony is that the parts of the body contacted by an opponent's helmet in a manner like this are rarely injured seriously thereby. Injuries delivered by head hits are more commonly of the fluke kind, like head-on-knee. It's the player delivering the hit via the head who is in the far greater danger, because of what that can do to that player's own neck.

Robert

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by zm1283

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxkrgIpxa34
(Looks almost exactly like the McGahee hit. Clark's shoulder hit Welker first, but he was penalized for this hit. I thought if the shoulder hit first it isn't a penalty?)

You have to look not only at what the player hits with, but also at what the player hits. This was shoulder-to-chin and deliberately so.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by pmarz1

First of all, I think in my earlier post to daggo, I referenced the link with the entire rulebook. You are correct about the other subsections, etc. but that particular section dealing with unnecessary roughness(Section 8) subsection g. had the subtitle of "Impermissible Use of Helmet and Facemask". This subsection seems to deal with all players as it initially states, then goes on to state how officials may pay particular attention to defenseless players. Regarding the remainder of your post, if you read my initial post, I was called into question as to the existance of such a rule. Many who post here got very defensive with their comments,some feeling I was a Ravens fan/sore loser. I have no connection with them or the Steelers. If you all are truely impartial, then answer the questions that way. You are one of the few that responded as one would hope an official would. I understand we as fans have the opportunity to see so much more after the fact, things that when witnessed in real time may be hard to detect. Unfortunately, the league doesnt allow the officials to consult a replay to determine whether or not a penalty is in order, and in this case, a change of possession, which most likely had no effect on the outcome.

From what I recall, the NFL does not publish the rule book (at least not yet). The first link you provided was someone's attempt to summarize the rules. It appears pretty thorough but it's definitely not the rules as they are published. The other link does look like an actual rule book from the NFL but as you stated it is 2006. I have no idea if this rule has changed since then.

You were called out because your initial note indicated two penalties preceeded by the numbers 13 and 14. These appeared to come from somewhere so the official asked you where they came from. I now see they came from the summary site and not from the actual rule book. They are high level discriptions used a guide to help someone identify key penalties and their yardage enforcement.

What everyone is trying to tell you as nicely as possible is you don't have the knowledge to apply the rules you found in an actual game. What you are doing seems to be happening more lately than I remember and I think you are receiving the brunt of that frustration.

I think it has been pretty clearly established:

• Just making contact with your helmet doesn't warrant a personal foul for unnecessary roughness.
• Having your helmet be the first thing to contact the runner doesn't necessarily make it a personal foul.
• The rule you quoted (and let's just assume it's still valid today) says "using any part of a player’s helmet or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily". There are probably specific definitions somewhere (I couldn't find them) for the words butt, spear and ram that play into this. They define these terms at the HS level.
• The last 2 words are "violelently" and "unnecessarily". These allow the official to apply judgement if they feel the contact was minor.
• This rule also implies the player was "using" the helmet which implies it was a tool in making tackle. Some have argued on here that they felt he did use his helmet this way and others have argued he didn't. I believe both arguments are valid but that's where the judgement comes into play.

The NFL guys have seen video after video after video of plays like this and have a pretty good feel for what they should and should not call a PF. Sometimes it just has to come down to what they see in real time and applying that judgement. If 10 NFL officials see this play on video and 7 think it was a foul and 3 do not, that does not mean it was a bad call. Could this play cause the competition committee to make it more strict that any contact with the helmet is a foul...you never know.

One of your quotes was "Please don't try and defend the officiating in this league. It's borderline criminal." If you had any idea how crazy that statement was, you would realize why many people on this site started to treat you as a "fanboy". You do not have the ability to correctly evaluate the quality of the officials just like I don't have the ability to correctly evaluate the performance of MLB umpires.

If you have the opportunity, I suggest you attend part of a local HS officials clinic or an association meeting to get a glimpse of the types of things officials discuss. You will be amazed. Then when you consider the types of discussions and training the guys at the NFL level have been given, you'll realize these guys are right almost all the time. There is nothing criminal about that.

Good luck now. Here ends the lesson.

[chymechowder]

I'm a sixth-year Massachusetts highschool football official. And I'm new to the forum, which I really enjoy reading. I will say, however, that at times the majority's tone can come across as a bit defensive and dismissive. this is understandable to a point, especially when non-officials discuss the rules or lambast questionable rulings. but here's a hypothetical I'd like to ask:

Say the Clark hit WAS flagged as unnecessary roughness. Also, suppose it happened on the ravens' previous possession, and after the 15 yards the ravens went on to kick a game-winning field goal.

Now lets say someone came on the forum and bemoaned the "awful" call.

Would people deride him as a "steelers fanboy" who doesn't know the rules? Would people look at the same clip and say that McGahee's head clearly snaps back as a result of helmet to helmet contact?

I guess my point is, sometimes we officials can be a little quick to automatically dismiss someone's point, simply b/c the questioner is not an official.

As for the play itself, when seeing the replay, I thought clark led with the helmet. But I also realize that the play--like so many other plays in real-time--happened so fast that it wouldn't have been a "blown call" either way, whether it was flagged or not.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

I'm a sixth-year Massachusetts highschool football official. And I'm new to the forum, which I really enjoy reading. I will say, however, that at times the majority's tone can come across as a bit defensive and dismissive. this is understandable to a point, especially when non-officials discuss the rules or lambast questionable rulings. but here's a hypothetical I'd like to ask:

Say the Clark hit WAS flagged as unnecessary roughness. Also, suppose it happened on the ravens' previous possession, and after the 15 yards the ravens went on to kick a game-winning field goal.

Now lets say someone came on the forum and bemoaned the "awful" call.

Would people deride him as a "steelers fanboy" who doesn't know the rules? Would people look at the same clip and say that McGahee's head clearly snaps back as a result of helmet to helmet contact?

I guess my point is, sometimes we officials can be a little quick to automatically dismiss someone's point, simply b/c the questioner is not an official.

As for the play itself, when seeing the replay, I thought clark led with the helmet. But I also realize that the play--like so many other plays in real-time--happened so fast that it wouldn't have been a "blown call" either way, whether it was flagged or not.

I think there are two points you are missing here.

There are not a lot of people saying that the call was right. Many of us have been involved in plays like this and we had a hard time determining if there was helmet contact or not. The responses are about as much about the difficulty of the call as it is whether the call was right.

And finally the next leap that a call like this makes NFL officials less competent or less talented is silly. For one the person trying to quote the rule did not even quote the rule properly. And he did not understand what he was posting. You cannot make a claim that something only applies to a defensive player and then miss the word (you quoted) that says "any player" as apart of the rule. If you do not know that, how can you know what should be called or not? Basically this was probably one of the most difficult things to rule on at fast speed as any play during the season. It is possible the officials got the call wrong, but to make the leap they are terrible when you do not know their success rate on calls or how they are evaluated are big points that were commented on.

I know this was not one of the points, but I think it needs to be said. Often during this time of year we have people that come from no where to "discuss" a play or two in a game that seems controversial. Then when they ask the question and people give them an answer, they get mad is if we do not know what we are talking about. Even though they have never officiated or know the basics that they are complaining about. It must be noted that even the media has suggested this play was totally legal (not a good source by the way), but when pressed on the OPer's knowledge, they have little to add when it comes to their experience. The same thing happens during Final Four time on the Basketball Board or during the playoffs or World Series on the Baseball Board. Then we will never see them again after they complained about this situation. Give it a month and we will never see these people again.

Peace

[JasonTX]

What I haven't seen mentioned is the numerous memos and meetings that the NFL officials receive and attend in regards to the rules. You see, you first have a printed rulebook. When it comes to officiating and everyone that has ever officiated knows that there is only so much you can actually put into words and oftentimes a rule gets printed but its not really what was intended when the rule comes out. So, the NFL issues their memos and has meetings with the officials to discuss these rules. I can assure you that there have been numerous memos and meetings when it comes to helmet to helmet contact hits. The NFL officials have all the guidance they need to properly make the calls the way the NFL wants it done and no ammount of wording would give any outsider a true idea on the rule. Yeah, you got the book, but do you have the notes from the meetings or memos that the NFL sends to their officials. Highly unlikely. I trust that the officials working that game new exactly how the rule is supposed to be officiated. They are human and aren't perfect so its also entirely possible that they missed the call. That doesn't mean the end of the world and is no reason for anyone to get their panties in a wad. Life goes on.

[PSU213]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

I'm a sixth-year Massachusetts highschool football official. And I'm new to the forum, which I really enjoy reading. I will say, however, that at times the majority's tone can come across as a bit defensive and dismissive. this is understandable to a point, especially when non-officials discuss the rules or lambast questionable rulings. but here's a hypothetical I'd like to ask:

Say the Clark hit WAS flagged as unnecessary roughness. Also, suppose it happened on the ravens' previous possession, and after the 15 yards the ravens went on to kick a game-winning field goal.

Now lets say someone came on the forum and bemoaned the "awful" call.

Would people deride him as a "steelers fanboy" who doesn't know the rules? Would people look at the same clip and say that McGahee's head clearly snaps back as a result of helmet to helmet contact?

I guess my point is, sometimes we officials can be a little quick to automatically dismiss someone's point, simply b/c the questioner is not an official.

As for the play itself, when seeing the replay, I thought clark led with the helmet. But I also realize that the play--like so many other plays in real-time--happened so fast that it wouldn't have been a "blown call" either way, whether it was flagged or not.

I don't necessarily disagree with the main point of your post--that we are less likely to accept the view of someone who is not an official. However, I think you are missing a key point there. The OP went on to say (paraphrasing here): this was a terrible call, how could the officials miss such a obvious call, and (within a few posts) this person went on to say that NFL officials are clearly the worst in sports. I think this person would have been treated a lot differently if he was not so quick to dismiss this as a terrible call made by the worst officials in sports. In addition, when his view was questioned, he became way too defensive, continued to name-call, and ignored everything constructive being said to him.

So, in short, yes, non-officials may be taken less 'seriously' on this forum. However, I have never seen an instance where a non-official is dismissed when he/she has asked a serious, un-biased question. It seems (to me anyway, for what that is worth) that they are only derided when they come here with sour grapes.

[chymechowder]

JRut and PSU, I completely agree that it's the height of knuckleheadedness for anyone, especially a non-official, to take a bang-bang play/ruling and offer it as proof of the officials' incompetence...when someone might have an otherwise fair question, it hurts their overall argument when the conversation degenerates into claims like that.

I have a question on a ruling in this game:

When the Ravens successfully challenged the ruling of a Steeler completed pass down by the goal-line.

after review Carollo said the receiver failed to maintain possession while going to the ground. this surprised me. I've only got the NCAA rules (Massachusetts highschool) to go on, but my understanding is that this applies to plays when a receiver LEAVES HIS FEET to make a catch. when he subsequently comes to the ground (either all on his own or being hit/pushed while airborne), he must maintain possession throughout the process.

but in the steelers/ravens game, it looked as thought the WR leaned, made the catch, took two steps, GOT HIT ON THE LEG by ravens DB, THEN fell, arm outstretched. where the ball was jostled upon contact with the ground.

what do others think? does the NFL have a different rule about "going to the ground"? because unless I missed something, it looked like a catch, two steps, a tackle, then down by contact.

(ALSO: Major kudos to the wingman who correctly spotted ball mere inches from the goal line! in real time--and even in some replays--it looked like the ball was on the line.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

I have a question on a ruling in this game:

When the Ravens successfully challenged the ruling of a Steeler completed pass down by the goal-line.

after review Carollo said the receiver failed to maintain possession while going to the ground. this surprised me. I've only got the NCAA rules (Massachusetts highschool) to go on, but my understanding is that this applies to plays when a receiver LEAVES HIS FEET to make a catch. when he subsequently comes to the ground (either all on his own or being hit/pushed while airborne), he must maintain possession throughout the process.

but in the steelers/ravens game, it looked as thought the WR leaned, made the catch, took two steps, GOT HIT ON THE LEG by ravens DB, THEN fell, arm outstretched. where the ball was jostled upon contact with the ground.

what do others think? does the NFL have a different rule about "going to the ground"? because unless I missed something, it looked like a catch, two steps, a tackle, then down by contact.

First off all I must state that I did not see the play. But the common interpretation at the NFL and NCAA levels are that a receiver attempting to catch the ball must maintain control through the ground. In other words if the ball is not controlled after hitting the ground, then it is not a catch. That is the interpretation from both the NFL and NCAA. And frankly at the high school level is a common practice where I live to require the same thing.

Originally Posted by chymechowder

(ALSO: Major kudos to the wingman who correctly spotted ball mere inches from the goal line! in real time--and even in some replays--it looked like the ball was on the line.)

Did not see this play either, but I will take your word for it.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First off all I must state that I did not see the play. But the common interpretation at the NFL and NCAA levels are that a receiver attempting to catch the ball must maintain control through the ground. In other words if the ball is not controlled after hitting the ground, then it is not a catch. That is the interpretation from both the NFL and NCAA. And frankly at the high school level is a common practice where I live to require the same thing.

I believe you are correct in your understanding of making a catch while the defender is in contact with the receiver. In this case, I recall he was not in contact with the receiver. chymechowder described it as I recall so I didn't think the "control through the ground" would apply in this case. On another forum someone pointed out he thought the contact was pretty immediate with the catch so then I guess it would apply. I thought it also had to be an airborne receiver but I've been told that is not a factor in this type of play in the NFL.