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

[parepat]

Two things:

1. If I'm the referee, I always give another official time to back out of an ejection. I will go over the call and ask him. "Do you still want to eject him?" The decision is always his. About half the time an official will change his mind (obviously there are situations that don't have much wiggle room-ie fighting). Sometimes in the heat of the moment we pull the trigger a little quickly and it is good to take a second to reflect.

2. I think the role of the referee is being mischaracterized. On any crew I have worked with, the referee is collectively "in charge". Maybe not officially, but as a practical matter, someone should have the last word. Thus, when a dispute arises, it is almost always the referee who ultimately will decide. That has been my experience.

[Brandon Kincer]

Originally Posted by parepat

Two things:

1. If I'm the referee, I always give another official time to back out of an ejection. I will go over the call and ask him. "Do you still want to eject him?" The decision is always his. About half the time an official will change his mind (obviously there are situations that don't have much wiggle room-ie fighting). Sometimes in the heat of the moment we pull the trigger a little quickly and it is good to take a second to reflect.

2. I think the role of the referee is being mischaracterized. On any crew I have worked with, the referee is collectively "in charge". Maybe not officially, but as a practical matter, someone should have the last word. Thus, when a dispute arises, it is almost always the referee who ultimately will decide. That has been my experience.

This is what I ultimatly feel the White Hat's job is. He questions your call so that you may speak to other officials about what they saw and helps gather info you may not know. If it is determined you are wrong he is to tell you why it is wrong so that you don't make the same mistake again. However, He shouldalways leave it up to the calling official as to wether the call is upheld or waived off. Wtih that being said, He is also the dispute breaker. They guy who has the final say so should a disagreement arise.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Brandon Kincer

He shouldalways leave it up to the calling official as to wether the call is upheld or waived off. Wtih that being said, He is also the dispute breaker. They guy who has the final say so should a disagreement arise.

Brandon, I can't tell if you're trying to split a hair beyond it's splitting capacity, but if you're still having trouble with the words, read the following rules carefully;

NF: 1.1.4 "The game is administered by game officials whose title and duties are are stated in the official's manual".

NF: 1.1.6 "The referee has authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, on any situation not covered in the rules. The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game.(Not the specificity of specifically identifying the "Referee" as the final decision maker)

If a referee's observation and conclusions about a situation are different than another official calling a particular situation, the rereree is within his right to tactfully and discreetly seek details supporting the call. In the vast majority of instances, information from the calling official, about his observations, will provide the detail necessary to support his reaction.

In those rare instances when that may not be the case, or when a rule is misunderstood and the referee believes has been misapllied, the referee should be able to educate the calling official of the error of his decision, which should then persuade the calling official to alter his ruling.

In the unusual circumstance where disagreement persists, the referee would likely seek input from the other game officials to try and back up either position, but the final decision, and responsibility for making it, belong to the referee.

It should be highly unusual, however, to reach the point of requiring a non consensus decision.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Brandon Kincer

He shouldalways leave it up to the calling official as to wether the call is upheld or waived off. Wtih that being said, He is also the dispute breaker. They guy who has the final say so should a disagreement arise.

Brandon, I can't tell if youre trying to split a hait beyond it's splitting capacity, but if you're still having trouble with the words, read the following rules;

NF: 1.1.4 "The game is administered by game officials whose title and duties are are stated in the official's manual".

NF: 1.1.6 "The referee has authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, on any situation not covered in the rules. The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game.

If a referee's observation and conclusions about a situation are different than another official calling a particular situation, the fereree is within his right to tactfully, discreetly seek details supporting the call. In the vast majority od instances, information from the calling official about his observations will provide the detail necessary to support his reaction.

In those rare instances when that may not be the case, or when a rule is misunderstood and the referee believes has been misapllied, the referee should be able to persuade the calling official of the error of his decision, which should motivate the calling official to change his ruling.

In the unusual circumstance where disagreement persists, the referee would likely secure input from the other game officials to try and back up either position, but the final decision, and responsibility, are the referee's to make.

It should be highly unusual, however, to reach the point of requiring a non consensus decision.

[Brandon Kincer]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Brandon, I can't tell if youre trying to split a hait beyond it's splitting capacity, but if you're still having trouble with the words, read the following rules;

NF: 1.1.4 "The game is administered by game officials whose title and duties are are stated in the official's manual".

NF: 1.1.6 "The referee has authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, on any situation not covered in the rules. The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game.

If a referee's observation and conclusions about a situation are different than another official calling a particular situation, the fereree is within his right to tactfully, discreetly seek details supporting the call. In the vast majority od instances, information from the calling official about his observations will provide the detail necessary to support his reaction.

In those rare instances when that may not be the case, or when a rule is misunderstood and the referee believes has been misapllied, the referee should be able to persuade the calling official of the error of his decision, which should motivate the calling official to change his ruling.

In the unusual circumstance where disagreement persists, the referee would likely secure input from the other game officials to try and back up either position, but the final decision, and responsibility, are the referee's to make.

It should be highly unusual, however, to reach the point of requiring a non consensus decision.

Agreed.

[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.