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

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 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.

I wouldn't make such a blanket statement. In many places, I would say, that the ejection does need to meet with the (implicit at least) approval of the white hat, regardless of what the books actually say.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I wouldn't make such a blanket statement. In many places, I would say, that the ejection does need to meet with the (implicit at least) approval of the white hat, regardless of what the books actually say.

I guess I just don't understand this viewpoint. As an official, it's my job to make judgements on plays as to their legality, and to call fouls if I feel the action was illegal. Part of that is the decision on whether an action calls for an ejection. I don't mind, and always appreciate, any member of my crew to question my call with "what did you see" or "are you sure" type questions if they think I may have made a mistake. However, the final decision on my calls is always mine. For that matter, if a WH had an ejection, we would question him just as he would properly question us. Questioning and discussing is always fine; overruling is never acceptable.

The rule book specifically gives the authority to eject to the covering official. Any decision by a WH to try and usurp this authority is a big mistake. In my opinion, it's a sign of serious problems on a crew.

[KWH]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I wouldn't make such a blanket statement. In many places, I would say, that the ejection does need to meet with the (implicit at least) approval of the white hat, regardless of what the books actually say.

I have to agree with RichMSN
Some of you appear to assume a blanket authority has been granted to every black hat working any game at any level to issue an ejection. For an example of this thinking please see the survey at the beginning of this thread.
This line of thinking is incorrect! There ARE situations where a white hat would step in and correct and official who has (or is attempting to) disqualify a player.
For example consider this:
A player has been given three penalties for failure to wear a mouthpiece and on the third flag the covering (black hat) officials decides the player is ejected for not following his direction. This ejection has no rule book support and would be not be allowed by the White Hat.
There are many similar examples.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by KWH

I have to agree with RichMSN
Some of you appear to assume a blanket authority has been granted to every black hat working any game at any level to issue an ejection. For an example of this thinking please see the survey at the beginning of this thread.
This line of thinking is incorrect! There ARE situations where a white hat would step in and correct and official who has (or is attempting to) disqualify a player.
For example consider this:
A player has been given three penalties for failure to wear a mouthpiece and on the third flag the covering (black hat) officials decides the player is ejected for not following his direction. This ejection has no rule book support and would be not be allowed by the White Hat.
There are many similar examples.

I don't think we disagree as much as it might seem like. As crew members, we don't let others make mistakes if we can help it. If you were the Umpire on this crew and the WH wanted to eject the kid for three failure to wear equipment penalties, you'd step in and correct the WH and tell him that the ejection has no rule book support. Same thing if he wanted to penalize the coach for a personal foul for cursing instead of an USC. You would correct the other official no matter what color hat he was wearing. If the WH had an ejection, I would hope you would question him about it and make sure he's doing the right thing.

Granted the WH has the final word in that he's the one that steps out and gives the signal. He is the spokesman for the crew, and if he gives the PF signal for cursing, there isn't much you can do. But if I properly DQ a player for what I judge to be a flagerant foul, and a WH refused to enforce the penalty per the rules, he is quilty of a serious error and is overstepping his authority. As the covering official that decision is mine and mine alone.

[KWH]

Very well said JimD, I agree with you completely!

I am reluctant however, to partake in the survey as it does not really have a "common sense approach" option!

[Reffing Rev.]

My only problem with KWH's approach is that there are no eyes on the players. If something has just happened that may or may not warrant an ejection there are likely rising tensions, and an increased possibility of further possible ejections.

How or where do you hold your conference to keep everything under control.

This is the reason you'll never see 7 officials in a conversation at the highest levels, because someone has to be watching the players.

When I need to confer with my crew one official is left on observe mode, usually either the opposite wing or the BJ. After the first crew conference I will then check in with the observing official to make sure he had nothing to add to that conference and so he knows what is going on.

I had a situation (I was R) where a quick pass over the middle ended with a "head shot" and a fight errupted in the space between the U and BJ. The other 4 officials broke up the fight and conferenced for what seemed like 5 minutes, while I observed the players. I have to tell you it was tempting to get in there and get the details, but those were the 4 guys who had the action. When they broke their huddle U and BJ brought me the results. No problems. 3 ejections on the field and one guy off the sideline who left the team box.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

I don't think we disagree as much as it might seem like. As crew members, we don't let others make mistakes if we can help it. If you were the Umpire on this crew and the WH wanted to eject the kid for three failure to wear equipment penalties, you'd step in and correct the WH and tell him that the ejection has no rule book support. Same thing if he wanted to penalize the coach for a personal foul for cursing instead of an USC. You would correct the other official no matter what color hat he was wearing. If the WH had an ejection, I would hope you would question him about it and make sure he's doing the right thing.

Granted the WH has the final word in that he's the one that steps out and gives the signal. He is the spokesman for the crew, and if he gives the PF signal for cursing, there isn't much you can do. But if I properly DQ a player for what I judge to be a flagerant foul, and a WH refused to enforce the penalty per the rules, he is quilty of a serious error and is overstepping his authority. As the covering official that decision is mine and mine alone.

I don't disagree with either of you. But a newbie poster seems to have his shorts in a knot over something -- like a WH stepping on him and hurting his feelings, perhaps -- and the one thing the WH *usually* has on a crew is experience.

If an official on my crew sees a spear and tells me that "he's got to go" then I step out and report it and we both go to the sidelines. But if something is marginal and two officials have coverage and one wants to eject and the other doesn't -- both officials have made a decision, perhaps conflicting. The "eject" decision doesn't carry any more weight to me than the "don't eject" decision. That's where the WH comes in -- to get input from both and try to come to a consensus and if not, to make a decision.

I value my crew and I trust their judgment. And I've tried talking myself into a wing position from time to time but nobody on the crew wants the WH.

I'd like the OP to come back after working as a crew chief for about 10-15 years and see if his perspective has changed at all.

[Brandon Kincer]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't disagree with either of you. But a newbie poster seems to have his shorts in a knot over something -- like a WH stepping on him and hurting his feelings, perhaps -- and the one thing the WH *usually* has on a crew is experience.

If an official on my crew sees a spear and tells me that "he's got to go" then I step out and report it and we both go to the sidelines. But if something is marginal and two officials have coverage and one wants to eject and the other doesn't -- both officials have made a decision, perhaps conflicting. The "eject" decision doesn't carry any more weight to me than the "don't eject" decision. That's where the WH comes in -- to get input from both and try to come to a consensus and if not, to make a decision.

I value my crew and I trust their judgment. And I've tried talking myself into a wing position from time to time but nobody on the crew wants the WH.

I'd like the OP to come back after working as a crew chief for about 10-15 years and see if his perspective has changed at all.

I am certainly not afraid of getting my feelings hurt so don't downsize me just because im starting out on the high school level. I have been corrected and learned from it. Its pretty obvious that there are mixed feelings on this issue. If I make a call and judge that it was flagrant I will discuss this with the Referee. Im not going to throw someone out of a game just to make myself feel important. I just want to be as professional as I can be when im working a game. I see people that come to work a game that are texting on their cell phones between plays, shirt untucked, using a wash rag that they have spray painted yellow to use as a penalty flag, etc. and it drives me nuts! Another thing that seems to me to be not professional is not enforcing a penalty just because there are :10 left in the game and the WH is the one choosing not to enforce it. Im sorry if you disagree but Im a strong supporter of the term "rules are rules" and we are being assigned to and paid for that game to enforce those rules. If your not going to enforce a penalty just because you want to leave a little bit earlier then why are you out there to begin with? If you don't want to be there then don't come. Aside from that, its no question that expierence is a key factor in officiating but its also overrated. Just because an official you refer to as a "newbie" calls a foul that is grounds for disqualification and he wants to enforce that call doesn't mean he is automatically wrong in doing so. Feel free as a WH to discuss it with him and tell him why he shouldn't DQ a player or coach and why he should but DO NOT overrule his call just because he is starting out. Let him make the discision.