Can an official besides the WH eject players/coaches if he sees fit?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Brandon Kincer

Agreed.

One thing that many younger officials lack is the ability to not take things personally.

When our crew is working a game, ultimately I am the one called over to the sideline if a coach asks for a conference. Ultimately I get the phone call from the commissioner or the state if there's something that requires clarification. If there's a problem, I write the report.

During the game, I have my job to do. Mainly, it involves protecting the quarterback and administering and reporting penalties and maintaining a good pace of play. But in the end, if I have to step in and "play boss" I will and I expect the crew to understand that it's for the good of the game and the good of the crew, not simply to stroke my ego.

It's different in different areas of the country, BTW. In some areas people are just assigned to games and to the positions they work and that's it. But even in those places, a newer official is not going to make a good name for himself by taking on an experienced guy, especially if that experienced guy is well-respected within the organization. You still don't know what you don't know (trust me on this) and your first few years are best spent being cooperative and with both ears open.

[KWH]

I work with a different group of officials each week as there are no "crews" in our association. As such, my ejection policy may differ slightly from the procedures in the book, and, if that is the case, so be it!
My ejection policy is straightforward and simple. If am official throws a flag for a foul which he believes requires an ejection, he reports the foul to the referee. Once I have been notified the foul warrents an ejection, I will breifly gather the entire crew to discuss the situation. Why?
1) It gives the official who threw the flag the opportunity to perhaps "reconsider" the ejection by possibly gaining additional information from other members of the crew who may or may not have seen the infraction.
2) It brings the entire crew up to speed on the situation and gives everyone a chance to speak up.
3) Not one crew member can honestly tell the commisioner the next day that he was either unaware of the ejection or that he saw the play and did not feel it warranted an ejection!

Then, if we (the jury) agree the situation warrents an ejection, the calling official and the white hat shall (together) report the infraction and the player number to the offending players head coach. The opposite wing shall report the offending player number and the penalty to the other head coach.

This policy works and, it works well.

Nuff said!

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by KWH

I work with a different group of officials each week as there are no "crews" in our association. As such, my ejection policy may differ slightly from the procedures in the book, and, if that is the case, so be it!
My ejection policy is straightforward and simple. If am official throws a flag for a foul which he believes requires an ejection, he reports the foul to the referee. Once I have been notified the foul warrents an ejection, I will breifly gather the entire crew to discuss the situation. Why?
1) It gives the official who threw the flag the opportunity to perhaps "reconsider" the ejection by possibly gaining additional information from other members of the crew who may or may not have seen the infraction.
2) It brings the entire crew up to speed on the situation and gives everyone a chance to speak up.
3) Not one crew member can honestly tell the commisioner the next day that he was either unaware of the ejection or that he saw the play and did not feel it warranted an ejection!

Then, if we (the jury) agree the situation warrents an ejection, the calling official and the white hat shall (together) report the infraction and the player number to the offending players head coach. The opposite wing shall report the offending player number and the penalty to the other head coach.

This policy works and, it works well.

Nuff said!

Not a bad policy at all. Sounds like you are thorough and have it well thought out.

[ajmc]

I don't have a problem with the Referee reviewing a disqualifying incident with the calling official to give that official an opportunity to rehash and possibly rethink his decision. I think it also reasonable that the Referee should be given the facts involved and an opportunity to counsel the official regarding the appropriatness of the call.

That being said, this process does not lend itself to a committee environment and there is no prescedent for forming a jury, or taking a vote, especially when some of the voters have not been participants in the incident.

Of the 3 reasons stated; #1, giving the calling official an opportunity to review his decision and consider, or reconsider, the penalty he has called for, seems like a prudent idea.

#2, "the entire crew" is not entitled to voice an opinion on how to handle an incident they were not directly exposed to or involved in. Each official is authorized to render such decisions and suggesting than an individual official is incapable of making such a determination individually, undermines the authority of all officials working that contest.

#3, presuming that some, "commissioner" would question the other officials on the game regarding an incident they were not directly involved in is....unusual, and if is actually the process, suggests that commissioner is unsure of the abilities of the officials he/she supervised to competently perform their duties.

Decisions to disqualify either a player, or coach, is not a routine or frequent occurrence nor is it a decision any competent official takes lightly. However every official is authorized, as well as responsible, for making such decisions individually as part of their job description.

Watering down the authority to make such a decision, or distributing the responsibility for making such a decision, by relegating the decision to a committee format attacks the credibility of every official working that contest, or in that league.

Consulting with each other and communicating about appropriate remedies fitting specific situations can be a helpful and productive idea, unless or until that assistance is taken too far. Forming a committee and voting before enforcing such an inportant decision is way over the line and will likely be far more detrimental than beneficial. Of course local customs often dictate local policies, but adding such a unique procedure as a general idea, seems excessive and prohibitive.

[ajmc]

I don't have a problem with the Referee reviewing a disqualifying incident with the calling official to give that official an opportunity to rehash and possibly rethink his decision. I think it also reasonable that the Referee should be given the facts involved and an opportunity to counsel the official regarding the appropriatness of the call.

That being said, this process does not lend itself to a committee environment and there is no prescedent for forming a jury, or taking a vote, especially when some of the voters have not been participants in the incident.

Of the 3 reasons stated; #1, giving the calling official an opportunity to review his decision and consider, or reconsider, the penalty he has called for, seems like a prudent idea.

#2, "the entire crew" is not entitled to voice an opinion on how to handle an incident they were not directly exposed to or involved in. Each official is authorized to render such decisions and suggesting than an individual official is incapable of making such a determination individually, undermines the authority of all officials working that contest.

#3, presuming that some, "commissioner" would question the other officials on the game regarding an incident they were not directly involved in is....unusual, and if is actually the process, suggests that commissioner is unsure of the abilities of the officials he/she supervised to competently perform their duties.

Decisions to disqualify either a player, or coach, is not a routine or frequent occurrence nor is it a decision any competent official takes lightly. However every official is authorized, as well as responsible, for making such decisions individually as part of their job description.

Watering down the authority to make such a decision, or distributing the responsibility for making such a decision, by relegating the decision to a committee format attacks the credibility of every official working that contest, or in that league.

Consulting with each other and communicating about appropriate remedies fitting specific situations can be a helpful and productive idea, unless or until that assistance is taken too far. Forming a committee and voting before enforcing such an inportant decision is way over the line and will likely be far more detrimental than beneficial. This may work on a very limited scale, but seems like a dangerous precedence to fool around with.

[Brandon Kincer]

I think AJMC has a point. Every official (Not just the white hat) has the authority to eject a player. Should that decision be made it is that official's responsibility to collect all the facts before moving to eject. While the white hat is certainly authorized to question the call and provide opportunities for reconsideration it is not within his power to simply overrule the call or ejection unless the calling official agrees to it.

[KWH]

For the record I did not ever state, nor did I ever suggest, we took a vote!
Restated, for clarification, I have never taken a vote regarding an ejection, nor have I ever "simply overruled" an official regarding an ejection.
1) In my humble opinion, an ejection should NEVER be taken lightly.
2) If an official feels an act that he flagged warrents an ejection, then the result will be an ejection unless another official(s) can provide the "calling official" with information they may be useful to the "calling official" to assist him in finalizing HIS decision. This process is commonly referred to as- "taking him off the call." For this reason, I bring the entire crew together. For further clarification, if an official were to state "I didn't see it," then such official is no longer part of the discussion as they have no useful information to relay to the "calling official," however, the "I didn't see it official" is still part of the crew and it is imparative that he stay in the huddle so that we (the crew) can break the huddle all on the same page.
Why you say?
3) Because, in our state all ejections require a player (or coach) to sit out the next game at the same level! Therefore, all ejections may be appealed. Since our commissioner is part of the review board, he reviews the situation and is part of the decision making process (in conjuction with the state office (who of course reviews the coaches side of the story)) which decides if the appeal will prevail or the ejection stands. Because this IS the process, I have found that is to be extremley important that all members of the crew are aware of the act which warrented the ejection! Why? Simply because the process requires all members of the crew WILL be interviewed regarding the ejection.
And, Yes, we have had situations where one official has reported to the commisioner "Yea Bob, I saw it but I didn't think it warrented an ejection!"
My policy has worked quite well (100%) in preventing that statement from ever being presented to the commissioner! I can say this as in two of the three times I have implemented it (over the last 11 years) the result was no ejection.

Additionally, how our state handles ejection appeals is out of my hands. However, I strongly feel it IS my job as a white hat to get the crew on the same page and to make sure any available information is provided to the "calling official" prior to announcing an ejection has occured.

Finally, in my humble opinion, I believe a "reasonable person" would assert, that for an "unreasonable person" to continually lamblast actual on-field football officials with his usual rhetoric of nefarious comments prior to garnering all the facts surrounding a topic, to be way over the line, foolhardy, and a bit askew!

[ajmc]

Forgive me KWH for reading what YOU wrote, and presuming YOU meant what YOU wrote.

"Then, if we (the jury) agree the situation warrents an ejection, the calling official and the white hat shall (together) report the infraction and the player number to the offending players head coach", are YOUR words, not mine. Forgive me if juries act differently where you live, but usually when juries reach an agreement, it's right after they vote.

YOU indicated, "Once I have been notified the foul warrents an ejection, I will breifly gather the entire crew to discuss the situation." , as YOU further state so, "Not one crew member can honestly tell the commisioner the next day that he was either unaware of the ejection or that he saw the play and did not feel it warranted an ejection!."

Then YOU declare, "This policy works and, it works well. Nuff said! " , which sounds like a blanket endorsement of a routine process.

You neglected to mention my (actual) final observation, "This may work on a very limited scale, but seems like a dangerous precedence to fool around with. "

Now, you're all bent out of shape because I didn't give enough consideration to a lot of "facts surrounding a topic"you forgot to mention . I reread what I wrote and didn't see any lambasting of anyone, which was not my intention or design, although I thought the idea (as you originally presented) was dangerous.

I'm not entirely sure what the, "usual rhetoric of nefarious comments" means, but I didn't notice any.

Do you think, just perhaps, YOUR original posting didn't convey YOUR thoughts exactly, only as YOU intended? Because what you've added doesn't seem all that different from what I began my post about, " I don't have a problem with the Referee reviewing a disqualifying incident with the calling official to give that official an opportunity to rehash and possibly rethink his decision. I think it also reasonable that the Referee should be given the facts involved and an opportunity to counsel the official regarding the appropriatness of the call."

If you pick hard enough on even the smallest pimple, you can draw blood.

[KWH]

Has anybody actually worked with this AJMC (aka ALinupstateNY) bozo?
Can anyone actually confirm that he actually is a football official?

PS to Jaybird;
Thank you for the compliment. It is always nice to see professionals also post on this board. While I guess some bozo's find amusment in reading into posts for the sole purpose of picking it apart, some are able to read it, comprehend it, and move on.

Nuff said

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

Nuff said

Well, KWH, it looks like you chose the road to denial and insult, instead of simple acknowledgment and correction, to get you away from misstatement and stubborn overreaction. Unfortunately, but predictably, that only led you to frustration, total ineptitude and flailing about before brininging you all the way to your final destination of pathetic.

I guess you actually did say, "Nuff".

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Well, KWH, it looks like you chose the road to denial and insult, instead of simple acknowledgment and correction, to get you away from misstatement and stubborn overreaction. Unfortunately, but predictably, that only led you to frustration, total ineptitude and flailing about before brininging you all the way to your final destination of pathetic.

I guess you actually did say, "Nuff".

I understood exactly what KWH was saying and his clarification supported my original interpretation of his post. I agree his insult is out of line but I think most people on this board are annoyed by your posts. You are guilty of being too wordy and your thoughts often tend to be contrary to what most officials around the country think.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I understood exactly what KWH was saying and his clarification supported my original interpretation of his post. I agree his insult is out of line but I think most people on this board are annoyed by your posts. You are guilty of being too wordy and your thoughts often tend to be contrary to what most officials around the country think.

Thanks for the tip, now that I know who speaks for "most people on this board" it will be a lot easier to know who to check with first to get my thoughts in the proper alignment. Have I been wrong in thinking the purpose of this board was to evaluate and consider all perspectives, rather than just knuckle under to the loudest viewpoints or annoy those who seem otherwise unable to explain or defend their positions.

I didn't realize there were individuals available who know what, "most officials around the country think". Should I presume that knowledge extends to just about everything?

I thought explaining my comments as much as possible, initially, might help minimize the need for those who insist on highlighting every minute ommission or obscure possible exception, but I guess some just prefer brevity above substance and detail, which helps explain some of the positions taken by some of the more absolutely rigid posters.

Forgive me, but I seem usually to be more impressed and persuaded, by people who are comfortable expalining their positions factually and logically rather than by bluster and volume. I guess it's just easier for me to accept an explanation when the person giving it seems to know what he's talking about. Sometimes habits, that have always worked well, are just hard to break.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Thanks for the tip, now that I know who speaks for "most people on this board" it will be a lot easier to know who to check with first to get my thoughts in the proper alignment. Have I been wrong in thinking the purpose of this board was to evaluate and consider all perspectives, rather than just knuckle under to the loudest viewpoints or annoy those who seem otherwise unable to explain or defend their positions.

I didn't realize there were individuals available who know what, "most officials around the country think". Should I presume that knowledge extends to just about everything?

I thought explaining my comments as much as possible, initially, might help minimize the need for those who insist on highlighting every minute ommission or obscure possible exception, but I guess some just prefer brevity above substance and detail, which helps explain some of the positions taken by some of the more absolutely rigid posters.

Forgive me, but I seem usually to be more impressed and persuaded, by people who are comfortable expalining their positions factually and logically rather than by bluster and volume. I guess it's just easier for me to accept an explanation when the person giving it seems to know what he's talking about. Sometimes habits, that have always worked well, are just hard to break.

Using a lot of words doesn't equate to knowing a lot. In fact, I'm usually most impressed by people who can say a lot in as few words as possible (I don't have that gift).

I'm basing my comments on the fact that every time you post something, several people on this board point out the fact that your opinion is either overly wordy and/or differs from what they have been taught in their area. These opinions come from all over the country. You might notice you don't get a lot of "I agree with ajmc" comments on this board.

[Brandon Kincer]

PEOPLE!!!
You guys need to really cut this insult stuff out. You gentlemen are suppose to be professionals! By replying to insults you only make yourselves look childish and immature. As I said before, if you want to argue please PM eachother because the stuff your argueing about has absolutely nothing to do with the original post.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Using a lot of words doesn't equate to knowing a lot. In fact, I'm usually most impressed by people who can say a lot in as few words as possible (I don't have that gift).

I'm basing my comments on the fact that every time you post something, several people on this board point out the fact that your opinion is either overly wordy and/or differs from what they have been taught in their area. These opinions come from all over the country. You might notice you don't get a lot of "I agree with ajmc" comments on this board.

I've never argued, "Using a lot of words doesn't equate to knowing a lot" any more than I'd argue brevity is more important than substance. I've listened to, and responded to many, different perspectives as clearly and as completely as possible. The fact that "several people", often the same people, offer different opinions doesn't mean either position is somehow golden. I've also stated that reality suggests we are all governed, to some degree, to local policies, traditions and standards.

I'm not seeking, nor do I have any great need for a lot of, "I agree with ajmc" comments from anyone, and presume that anyone who has a different perspective, and wants to bother to share their perspective, would be (should be) comfortable in doing so. Has this board's objective changed from discussing issues to make us all better at what we do, to being popular and doing everything the same, whether it's right or not.

If I offer a perspective and anyone can persuade me of either a better way, or something materially wrong with my perspective I will give serious consideration to adjusting, and have done so with great results. I'm sorry but, "Because that's the way we do it", "Our supervisor said so" or any other suggestion based only on some level of, "because" usually doesn't motivate me to change anything.

If someone can show me where, or how, I'm wrong, I'm only too happy to adjust because it helps me avoid unnecessary mistakes. If you have a problem with something I've suggested, please let me know, but to be helpful tell me where you think I've gone wrong. I may agree with you, I may not. If you ask me a question, I'll do my best to give you the best and most complete answer I can. If you want to throw rocks, understand sometimes I choose to throw rocks back.

Ours is a practice of chasing perfection, knowing full well we'll NEVER catch it and the more we learn usually points out how much more we have to learn. Sorry about the number of words it may take me to make a point, but for those of you obsessed with word count, you get to choose whether to simply ignore whatever I offer, or focus on what I'm trying to say. Whichever you choose is fine with me.