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

[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.

[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.