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

Please help me out on this. Ive been a referee for two years now and plan to get certified this season.

Yes-if it meets the parameters for an ejection in the rules.

I guess what im asking in short is: If I see a foul that is cause for ejection and I am NOT the White Hat, What are the proper channels I would have to go through to eject that player or coach?

You go to the referee after the play is over and tell the WH that you have such and such a foul and that #82 is ejected for (fill in the reason).

The WH will give the signals. You and the WH should then go over to the team's head coach and you should tell the HC that #82 has been ejected and explain to him why.

Unless you're a really new official, the WH shouldn't question your ejection. If you're a rookie and you ejected him for saying "Oh, darn", the the WH might suggest you rethink it, but it's your call all the way. The WH does not get a vote on it, not can he overrule your call.

Wtih that Being said, Can a White hat over rule any penalty that you call or is he there for the sole purpose of settling disputes among the officials?

A WH can't overrule another official. Now we all (no matter what position we're working) will talk to another crew member if we think he's wrong, and we should never let the crew make a mistake.

A WH should always respect your flag. If he doesn't, you might as well stay home. The only way he should overrule you is if you're wrong (you called it illegal motion and it was clearly and illegal shift, or you penalized the player for a PF for cussing instead of USC, etc. The penalty still stands, he just gets to correct the call.)

Just so that you veteran guys know I am new at this and will become certified this upcoming season. Im trying to learn the ins and outs of football officiating.

My next question is what is the difference between an official wearing a White hat and an official wearing a Black hat. Obviously the Referee wears the White hat but what authority does he have that the other officials do not?

The referee's only specific authority over and above the other officials involve:
Weather delays (with the game admin & coaches)
Forfeiting the game
Problems not specified in the rule book (this will never happen in a career)

You might think of the WH as being the spokesman for the crew. He takes the lead in many of the game duties - meeting with the coaches before the game, handling the coin toss, signalling penalties, signalling ready for play, etc. He would also back up the calling official if a meeting with the coach is necessary for an ejection or a rule explaination.

Since most eyes are on the WH, it's important that he look sharp and have great mechanics and signals. He should practice in signals front of a mirror and review tapes. If the WH looks sharp, the crew will look good.

Off the field, you may or may not be the leader or crew chief on your crew. It's common that the WH take the lead as far as setting up rules study sessions and other things like that, but it could be done by anyone.

Other than than, the WH has no more authority than any other official on the field. He is just one of the crew with his own specific area and players to watch.

and this is according to the NFHS standards right?

Perhaps it's just semantics, but as the WH I'm the one who ejects the player. As with any other foul call, you report what you have seen and I determine the appropriate enforcement. That is the job of the WH. It may be your call that causes the ejection, but the WH is the one who completes it.

Now then, different areas have different ideas on how the process works and I strongly suggest you look into what your association or what your crew chief wants done. Around here you will report to me what you saw. No matter how many years you have in, you will get questioned about it because an ejection is REALLY BIG and as a WH I want to confirm you are absolutely sure you saw what you saw. And we'll take our time about it because we don't want heat of the moment judgements to be made. This is the time to really think things thru. And once we decide that the ******* is gone, I go over to tell the coach the bad news and you come along as just in case he wants to hear from the covering official what you saw. And that's where our little talk thru helps you because you've had time to go over it and get it straight before someone who really is not going to be very happy with you wants and deserves some answers.

The referee is the lead official of the crew. If you go to the NFHS Officials Manual the duties of each official as to the pregame responsibilities are described. The white hat designates to everyone the person in charge as opposed to the black hat. In most cases a white hat will not overrule another official. On the field responsibilities are not as strictly defined.

I can only speak for myself as a referee but every official on my crew has the same standing as myself when it comes to what you see and call on the field. Of course, that requires you as an official learn the proper mechanics and rule application. There will be times when you may see something different than another official and if you feel strongly about your call discuss with the other official regardless of the hat being worn or the number of years that official has been working. However, at no time openly and/or loudly dispute another official on the field.

in the manual it also states the procedure for calling a disqualifying foul is as follows (Not word for word but basically):

The calling official shall notify the player/coach that he is ejected
The official shall make it clear that it is for the rest of the game
and then report to the White Hat and other officials the number and foul


Im not as expeirenced as most but I do agree with what Jim D said. If an official says he saw what he saw, throws the flag, and makes the call then he has done his job. I think having someone come behind you and overrule a call that you made (whether it be an ejection or a simple 5 yard penalty) makes the crew look some what like they do not know what they are doing.

For Example: Last year I was the line judge for a junior rec league football game. After the snap the runner was tackled about 10-15 yards beyond the LOS. I threw a flag and instantly another official came up to the white hat before I got to him to discuss what i was calling and was saying "That was a legal hit, There was no block in the back" The white hat waived it off but little did he know I was not calling a block in the back. I was calling illegal helmet contact due to the player lowering his head and making contact with the runner. (I guess its also known as spearing)

I told my coordinator about what had happened and he agreed that no official's call should ever be waived off unless he himself decides to do so after discussing with the other officials the rule in which he is enforcing.

Similar experience happened to me about 8 years ago. I had about 7 years under my belt then but had moved to a new region. My first scrimmage with my new group, a LB grabs the TE coming off the line and holds him. I flag it and the WH starts yelling "that's not pass interference" at me. After the play was over, I calmly told him "I know, I've got Holding on the defense".

Sometimes if you are a young and/or inexperienced official, veterans will try to overcompensate for you. Its not usually done intentionally.

Keep working hard, get in the rules and mechanics books. Work every game you can, order some of the supplemental guides out there. Talk plays over with your crewmates at meetings and after the games.

Show your crew that you are proactive and you will gain their trust.

Well you have to be careful about this subject. If I throw a flag then I have no problem with another offcial coming to me and asking what I saw. A key point is that it is done out of earshot of players/coaches. I work NCAA so passes have to be catchable for DPI. I flag a DPI and my fellow official comes to me and asks "Did you see the ball?" That makes me think about whether the pass was catchable. I'm more concerned about getting the call right than whether I look good. We are a crew out there - not just 4, 5, 6 or 7 individuals.

Equally I have no problem asking a question. Last year I worked a game as White Hat. The runner ran toward the sideline, ahead of him a block was made by a pulling guard #67, looked like a good side block. The Line Judge threw in a flag. After the play, he reported that he had a Block in the back by #67. I asked "Are you sure? I saw that block too and it looked like it was Ok and in the side." The Line Judge (who has as many years of experience as me) said "You know what? You're right, it was in the side. Wave it off."

I'm not sure I understand this example you gave - "little did he know?" You went up to the white hat to report what you had right?
I have a strict rule on my crew. You throw a flag, you talk to the White Hat. The only exception is that if there are two flags, the guys are allowed to talk to each other first to make sure that have the same foul, then one of them comes to me to report it. So on my crew your situation could not have happened. If you have a flag, you come talk to me and tell me what you have got.

All the Referee does is run the administrative parts of the game. I cannot think of anything they run other than this part. When I was the Referee once that game starts, I had to be good at my part of the field or my responsibilities; I never took my job as the leader or being in charge. I took my job as apart of the crew and I was not the crew chief off the field either.

Peace

In saying "Little did he know" I ment he didn't even ask what my call was due to the fact he had another official come up and say he saw a legal hit. Correct me if im wrong but I do not feel that it was his place to say that my call was inaccurate. I would have preferred he come up to me and simply ask me what I saw. Besides, The play was on my side of the field and he was all the way accross the field. In the officials manual it says that since the play was on my side of the field he should have been looking for blocks in the back by players closest to him. Again correct me if im wrong.

My main concern is getting the call right as well which is why I completely agree with discussing the call with other officials on the field but I also agree that it should ultimately be up to the calling official as to whether the call stands or not. After all he is the one that saw the play and obviously saw something wrong with it. No doubt, communication is key.

Futhur more I also agree with reporting the foul to the White Hat. He's the one that has to give the signal and deal the with the coaches. However, I do not feel he has the authority to waive off a call that you feel solid on because he didn't see it to. The thing to remember is there are 3,4,5,6 other individuals out there to insure that nothing is missed. For example, The referee might not see something that the LJ can and did see.

White hats and Official coordinators are encouraged to reply since there are mixed feelings on this

Instead of standing around feeling sorry for yourself you should have reported the flag to the R. If someone has a comment or issue about your flag they should talk to you first, and this isn't a practice that should be frowned upon.

Example - You may be watching the ball carrier as he stumbles on the grass and falls to the ground. An instant later a defender hits him while he's still down. You throw a flag for a late hit. What you didn't see was a teammate of the runner block the defender into the downed runner. An official with a wider view of the action should be expected to bring this information to the conversation.

Concerning the R overruling other officials' calls - The R can't and shouldn't be seeing everything. Each official has specific areas of responsibility on the field. As an R you have to trust the judgment of the others on the crew.

"Last year I was the line judge for a junior rec league football game. After the snap the runner was tackled about 10-15 yards beyond the LOS. I threw a flag and instantly another official came up to the white hat before I got to him to discuss what i was calling and was saying "That was a legal hit, There was no block in the back" The white hat waived it off but little did he know I was not calling a block in the back. I was calling illegal helmet contact due to the player lowering his head and making contact with the runner. (I guess its also known as spearing)"


What I'm curious to know is what was their reaction when you jogged over and reported, "I've got spearing for illegal helmet contact by #__ at my flag, enforced 15 yards from the end of the run, here is the signal, 1st down for team A, clock on the ready."

I would really liked to have seen their faces when you reported that. You did report that didn't you?

I agree with you it wasn't that other guys place to say your call was inaccurate. He should have come to you first (like in my examples) and talked to you.
I rarely work NFHS mechanics, but you are indeed correct that on such a play he had cleanup responsibilities and should have 90% of his focus on players behind the Referee and Umpire and 10% on mirroring a progress spot once the play is dead.

If I have a flag, then I'll toot my whistle to let the White Hat know I've got a flag and I'll go to him to talk about it. If I also have the progress spot, then he comes to me. If he does not (like in your example) then I'll drop a beanbag on the progress spot and go get in his face and tell him what I've got. A flag buys you into a conversation with the White Hat.


I agree that at the end of the day it is down to the calling official, but he should first listen to input from a colleague. That colleague won't give such input lightly - in my 24 years of officiating, I bet I've had an average of one, maybe two such instances per year.

The point I was trying to make is that, in my experience, not enough emphasis is put on crew teamwork and communication when officials are initially trained and they can therefore tend to act like a group of individuals. For much of the time they will do fine, but there will likely be one or two calls a game when they need to act as a crew. It doesn't have to be penalty related either. It may be an poorly thrown pass that a receiver has to dive back to catch. Did he get his fingers under the ball? The kids body can easily block out your view of it. An official who thinks "individual" will feel compelled to make an instant call and a signal and will guess. An official who thinks "crew" will take the time to make eye contact with the opposite wing or the Umpire and get help. It takes a half second in real time but feels like a month inside your head.

First off I want to thank everyone who has replied to this thread. I think its obviously a heated topic. With that being said........

Yes. I did report that and the reaction by the referee was simply that there was a little over a minute left to go in the game and "It wasn't a big deal". As for the other official he knew that he was instantly in the wrong. Im not one to down someone but he never has been a gentleman I liked working with. I didn't mention this before but neither of these officials were certified. The white hat was certified in VHSL basketball. Not football.

I didn't just "stand around and feel sorry for myself". However I was questioning if what the white hat did was ethical. As I said, I will be recieving my first patch this year as a certified high school league official and im bringing things that I expierenced in rec to you guys so you can help answer some questions I have.

Brandon, forgive me if I'm reading more into your delivery than you intend, but you seem to be more interested in condemnation of two other officials, rather than answering your question. From your original posting on, it seems you are well aware of the correct answer and simply want to vent.

As is true with everything, there are some Referees who are better at their job than others, some officials who exceed their authority and a lot of us who simply make mistakes. The more you pick at this scab, the more it seems there might be another side to this story relating to how you behaved, which hasn't been discussed.

It's not the role of any official to overrule or change any other official's call, however it's the responsibility of every official to try and help avoid a teammate from making a correctable mistake.

Not absolutely always, but usually, the Referee is an experienced official and is responsible for the overall management of the game. He's not your adversary, or your boss rather someone, likely with more experience, who is simply trying to avoid unnecessary problems, although Referees can make mistakes too.

If he, with or without agreement from another official, simply blew off your call, that was handled poorly and should not have happened. As many have pointed out, questioning another officials call can be either absolutely correct or horribly wrong, depending on how, where and when it's done.

There are things you control, and things you don't. Steps you can take include; working on your reporting fouls to the Referee, insuring you are crystal clear about what your foul call is, when it happened and who was involved. That report should be made directly, and as privately as possible, to the Referee. If he has a question, don't be offended, just answer it. If another official disagrees with your assessment of a particular action, resolve the issue with that official BEFORE involving the Referee, again directly and as privately as possible. (Keep in mind, someone who actually saw something trumps someone who thought they saw something else).

If the decision is that you were wrong, it's not an attack, not a big deal unless someone died. It's a mistake, we all make them EVERY game and we should try and learn from it and avoid repeating it. We simply correct what went wrong, even better if the correction is made before something was done wrong, and "play on".

As suggested above, we are the 3rd team on the field, and the only thing you can be assured of is our entire team will absolutely be the first target for blame, should ANYTHING go wrong, or not exactly how others might expect things to go. Over time we all have to learn when to accept criticism, how and when to ignore it and how to put a stop to it, when necessary. The only people you can really count on for support, on that field or in that stadium, are the other guys wearing stripes, so we have to work together.

We've all had somewhat similar experiences along the line - a WH who decides not to enforce a late call or maybe runs the clock when he shouldn't just to get out of there early. There isn't much you can do when the ring master is off on his own agenda. You called the foul and properly reported it. If, like in this case, he decides not to enforce it, it's his decision/problem. You did your job, but he didn't do his. You can't get in a wrestling match over the ball and mark if off yourself, and you can't get into a shouting match in the middle of the field. I'd tell him I disagree, go back to my sideline and vow never to work with him again. If a coach asks for an explaination, direct him to the WH.

I did overturn an ejection a few seasons ago. We were in the middle of a scrum and my partner and I saw the same activity and he said we needed to eject a player. I disagreed. Again, a case of two officials that disagree on the same play. And on that one, I won (at the time, I thought the game was better served with no ejection and I didn't think the offense really warranted a flagrant USC foul). When the WH has identical coverage with another official and disagrees with the other official, the WH is going to prevail -- right or wrong. It's happened once for me in many years this way. And I will also say I have considerably more experience in most cases compared with the members on my crew. I am not asking questions or guiding people's decisions in order to live my own power trip, it's just me doing my job. If the official can't explain a call or decision to me, how will he go back to his sideline and talk with a coach?

Where I live, I recruit people to my crew and I also deal with establishing and maintaining our schedule with commissioners and athletic directors. Let me say this: I may have no specific authority during a game to stop someone from ejecting a player or coach or calling any penalty, but I also have no requirement to keep an official who makes poor choices in this area on my crew, either. I've fired 2 crew members in the past 5 years (neither, actually, for on-field performance, not directly), so depending on how your area works, getting in a pissing match with the referee may not be a wise idea if you want to work on that crew or any crew.

ajmc,
Thanks for repling to my post. I see your point in getting off topic a bit on this thread however like I said, I am new at this and I have been offered a job with the VHSL (My High School Level State Association). I have one year under my belt and I do appreciate the advice you are giving me because I do feel this will benefit me in the long run. Please don't take me wrong though. I am not trying to "pick at a scab". Im just trying to find out the best thing to do in a situation such as this. Again Thank you for your advice.

Thanks for the advice. I have never had a REAL problem with this but should it arise I think this is exactly what ill do.

Very true. This why I posted this thread and am asking questions. I do not want to go about this the wrong way. In my state, the officials are scheduled and assigned to their positions for each individual game. Basically im just trying to figure out what exactly a white hat means. My real question is why don't all of the officials wear black hats? The WH is not necessarly the guy who can fire us. He is more or less just a more expeirenced guy assigned to that position for that game. When you say that you fire someone for making poor choices, do you mean enforcing a penalty that they feel solid on or just flat out not listening to what the other crew members have to say and basically calling the game themselves?

It depends on the area. In my area, I work with the same four guys every Friday night. We work the same position every week. On this crew I am the WH and the crew chief.

I'll give you an example of what I mean by poor choices. I expect the wings to handle the sidelines and to enforce decorum strictly and consistently. One of the wings hasn't done a great job of this and he's been on the wing on my crew for 2 years now. In effect, it gives the impression that the visiting team is being homered cause the L has no problem giving sideline warnings and enforcing the rules and this is always the visiting team. If the wing doesn't do better this year in this area, I'll get a new wing for the following season and tell him his services are no longer needed on my crew. And I plan on laying this out at the preseason crew meeting we'll have in July or so.

There are some absolutes for me. Clean uniform. Showing up on time. Not getting out of games excessively or with too little notice (as I have to find a sub). The rest? It's a feeling thing. Notice I haven't said anything about calls being made. If I'm doing my job, it's rare that I see the activity that someone else has flagged. We get film, but that doesn't always help.

Again, it's different in many areas. When I lived in TN, we worked with different people every week and we pretty much worked a position and were assigned games through the association.

We have this guy that works with me in rec and he comes to his game looking like a thug. Hat crooked, shirt untucked, etc. You'd have a field day with this guy lol. That is also a pet peeve of mine. If your going to play the role you need to look the role.

I will say to the coach, "Number 42 has disqualified himself." That puts the onus on the player and coach. Usually, the coach will direct his questions/frustrations toward the player, not the officials.

A poll has been added to this thread please vote accordingly

Had a similar experience last fall. A receiver was in motion in the backfield, and just a moment before the snap, turned up field, and was in the neutral zone just as the ball was snapped. (Pretty fast, but I caught it because it was on my end of the line) I blew the play dead, flagged it, and reported it as a false start. My white hat looked at me and said you don't have a false start, you have an illegal motion, and you let the play go. I said he was in the neutral zone when the ball was snapped. White hat went to the other wing, who could only confirm the forward motion, but not the neutral zone infraction. White hat looked at me again and said, that's illegal motion.

At halftime, we discussed this, and white hat was going off about me blowing the play dead. I was the only one in the room who insisted it had to be blown dead because the receiver was in the neutral zone at the snap, and his motion caused him to be there. So being the "least experienced" official, I "kowtowed" to the crew and said it would never happen again, but I expected them to do the explaining when a coach complains we got the call wrong. They said a coach won't complain. Lo and behold, we had it happen in the second half, and coach went ballastic because our enforcement changed. I explained to him that it wasn't a false start, but illegal motion and I made the mistake in the first half (but I felt like s**t saying that because I know I was right). He had a conference with the white hat, who said the same thing. Coach then asked me (after white hat went back to his position) what the crew threatened me with during halftime. I calmly said "nothing".

In retrospect, if I would have said encroachment instead of false start, I wonder if this whole scenario would have played out or not. But the point of the matter is, you see the play, you flag it, and then report it to the white hat. If there's any question, you will have a discussion, but ultimately the white hat shouldn't overrule you because YOU saw the part of the play you flagged.

Everyone makes a choice, Brandon, do they start out on the right foot, or the wrong one. There are always two ways to learn, watch someone doing it right, and emulate him or watch someone doing it wrong, and vow to do the opposite.

When you're new at something, criticizing others who may be doing something you perceive as wrong, even though you may be 100% accurate, is usually not a great way to endear yourself with your peers.

On a good day, even the very best of us should appreciate and accept constructive criticism, or be willing to explain what you might perceive as something questionable. Reality dictates that the newer you are, the more subtle and diplomatic your question or criticism might need to be to be considered constructive.

It's often better to simply decide, rather than speculate or criticize, to just consider the action (behavior, appearance, demeanor) and decide for myself to either emulate it or to avoid ever repeating it.

As you gain experience, hopefully you'll come to understand we get better at a lot of things on a week to week basis, but other things, or habits, take longer to work through and that very often we respond to a certain play, somewhat differently than usual, because of the unique circumstances of that particular play, which might be a good adjustment, or sometimes not.

The person you'll get the most benefit out of critiquing, even to the nit-picking level, is yourself, because you'll recognize a lot more mistakes you make than anybody else will and you should understand better what you may have done wrong.

A tip I was given in 1985 when I started officiating was to keep a logbook of every game I worked. For my first few years, I would write down what I did good and what I messed up (as well as basic stuff like the date, the teams, the score, the rest of the crew and who worked where). It helped me identify trends in my officiating so I knew what my weak areas were and I could work on them to try and improve.

Even today, I still keep a log of the date, teams, score, the rest of the crew and who worked where. But that's more to do with the memory not being what it was, as it drives me nuts trying to recall whether I'd worked with some guy before or not.

My local officials association have adopted that idea for our formal rookie training program. A rookie has a logbook and must get it filled in for his first 10 games by the crew - they say what he did good, what he needs to work on and the White Hat signs it off. We strongly encourage our newer guys to continue by keeping their own logbook themselves after those first 10 games.

And make sure you don't leave it in a piece of furniture the ex-wife is taking with her. I had one, couldn't find it, realized it was in a hutch that my ex took with her when she moved out. I asked her for it to be returned, she claimed she didn't have it. It showed up over a year and a half later in court, as an attempt to discredit me as an inefficient person as a whole (child custody was a factor). My attorney objected to it's relevance. The judge allowed it, but only after I made the comment that I don't appreciate being shown up in front of a fellow official (the judge is a high school soccer official), for which I got a stern talking to from the judge. :mad:

I try to keep a mental note of what went wrong and what was right. Usually but not always, if a white hat questions my call ill ask him to decribe to me what exactly the call im calling is. After he describes it to me ill confirm that that is indeed what I saw. if it is what I saw. (Ex. I call a false start, The white hat questions me and I ask him what exactly is a false start to be sure. He'll reply its when a offensive player gives any sign that the play has started before the ball is actually hiked and ill say I saw #82 jump the first time the snapper said "hike") and it usually ends there but sometimes ill have a white hat waive off a call because he himself did not see it. I guess it depends on who your working with. Either way im always appreciative of any constructive criticism I get. It might sting a little while its being delivered but after the game im always willing to go up and shake the man's hand that gave it to me.

I strongly suggest you know what your foul is and are absolutely sure of it before throwing your flag. And if I ask what you saw and when you saw it, you better have the answers or you had no business throwing the flag. Questioning the WH about a call YOU have while reporting it to him is not going to give the impression you probably want to make. You want to ask me during a time out, before the game, or after the game, no problem. I'm not trying to be a tyrant, but you have to understand if you come to me to report a foul and start asking me questions on what qualifies for that foul, I'm thinking you are not really sure at all about what you saw and I'm going to suggest we pick that flag up.

99.9% of the time i am 100% sure of the call when I throw the flag. If the white hat questions my call I do not have a problem explaining it to him. If I throw a flag and I think its questionable I will tell the white hat "Here's what I saw....." I don't claim to be perfect but like I said.....I have no problem being corrected.

Brandon, don't overcomplicate the issues.

First, forget the rec game. As you said, neither official was certified. There's a different standard when working with certified HS officials.

Second, the referee is in charge of the crew and the game. He wears a white hat so as to distinguish him from the other officials. Not sure what else you're looking for.

Third, in most areas, the referee has a say on who works on his crew. Therefore, yes, he can usually have a crew member replaced if he wants too.

Finally, referees usually have years of experience. They are going to make better decisions than you will. As this point in your career, you learning what to call. But even more importantly, you have not even begun to learn what NOT to call. This is where you will need to listen to the more experienced officials.

The veterans will listen to you but it's much more important that you are the one who listens.

I agree. I really do want to succeed in being a football official. I talk to certified officials on the phone at games and even work with them indivdually to be the very best I can be. One official even has it set up to where i get in his HS games free and stand near the field so that I can watch and learn. Im doing the very best I can and asking the questions that I feel I need to ask.

Heh, heh - and that's why God gave us one mouth and two ears, so we listen twice as much as we speak. :)

If you are already in contact with some of your local registered officials, then that is a good start. Pick their brains all you can, ask them why things were done as they were on games of theirs that you watch. They won't mind. Attend all the meetings of your local officials group. Show them that you are keen to learn. Hopefully one or two of them will become your mentor and take some time to help you along.

One final point. Officials tend to go through 3 stages.

Stage 1: the game is a blur. Apart from the obvious things (False Starts, etc), they don't see any fouls either live ball stuff or dead ball stuff after the play. They either move too much when they should stand and let the play happen, or they are static when they should be moving.

Stage 2: they recognise live action fouls. They flag everything because they see everything. The live action game has slowed down for them and now they see the fouls they've read about in the Rules and BANG! out comes the flag every time. They still miss some dead ball stuff though, they tend to be too keen on getting the ball in to the Umpire instead of watching players.

Stage 3: they've learn to relax even more. They think about whether the foul they saw affected the play, they won't flag stuff that doesn't (eg a hold away from the point of attack), but they may have a quiet word with the kid so he knows it was seen. Anything player safety related, they'll flag wherever it happens on the field and they catch all the dead ball stuff because they know to watch the players for that extra couple of seconds.

A good official recognises what stage he is at and works hard to get to the next stage. It also takes patience, it won't happen overnight.

Honestly guys everyone who replied to this topic I really appreciate it. Like I said this is something I want to grow in and you guys are giving me extremely good advice. Thanks again.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My ejection policy
 

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!

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.

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.

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.

AJMC/ALinupstateNY - Excuse me, but once is not enough? Now we get re-runs?
 

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! :rolleyes:

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.

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

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 :cool:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well jaybird, anytime you feel up to actually proving anyone wrong about anything....go for it.

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.

I agree with RichMSN
 

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.

Agree with JimD
 

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!

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.

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. :D

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.

Brandon,
I think you really need to get on a crew before you start forming opinions about and telling crew-experienced officials how crew dynamics work. Rec ball really doesn't count for much in this area.
Also, be real careful about that "rules are rules" mind set. Learn that there can be a great difference between the written rule and the spirit of the rule(s). Operating with a black and white mind set in what can often be a variety of greys can and will get you into a lot of trouble.

Not telling anyone how anything works I'm just stating my opinion my friend

And showing a great deal of inexperience while doing so, too.

well I apologize then. Ill keep my opinions to myself and just ask my questions.

My 2 cents
 

Brandon-
I think you are missing their point. You have come on this forum and ask alot of questions and that is a great way to learn. But you should also welcome critisism! So you just made two comment that need to be addressed:

1) "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."
Depending on the score and the flow of the game unless these are safety related fouls I would say in a vast amount of situations it may be best to pass on these and let the game end.

2) "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. "
Brandon, when I started officiating football 31 years ago I was as gung-ho as you. I read that rule book and I became a "Rule Book Charlie!" I looked for fouls and by god I found them! I called everything that moved and I was justified in doing so because it was in the book, AND, in fact, I could show you where it is in the book! Sometimes those old, slow, crew members (who should of retired years ago) would laugh or roll their eyes :rolleyes: when I would throw a flag. Crap, these guys sure missed alot. I remember games where I had 20 or more flags and these old farts had maybe 1 or 2 or NONE! I could never understand why our assigner would constantly stick me with these clowns every saturday. In fact we would talk about these old farts in our 1st and 2nd year classes and about how many fouls they missed. When we compared our notes it was just amazing how much these old guys would miss.

Then one day one of those old farts (name of Les) sat me down, told me pretty much to shut up and just listen.
He said alot of things but three things are still stuck in my head today:

1) Anytime you LOOK for fouls you will likely miss the big one that happens right in front of you.
2) You can live by the rule book, AND you can die by the rule book!
3) Let the game/level of competition/score dictate what needs to be called and what doesn't need to be called. And, If it doesn't need to be called, pass on it, but let the player know you saw it.

A few years later, Les added number 4
4) If after a game, the winning coach says "you did a great job", or the losing coach says "you guys were terrible" throw them out like yesterdays paper. If, however after the game, the losing coach lets you know you did a good job, pat yourself on the back.
(Les never told me what to think if the winning coach said "you guys were terrible", I figured that one out on my own!)

Today, I am quite proud to say I have become one of those old farts! And Brandon, you don't know what I would give to work one more game with Les. but, alas, the good lord took him to a higher level game just a little bit ahead of the rest of us.
(I have conviced myself however that sky-box seats are included in the package.)

Keep asking questions, it is the only way to learn. But perhaps consider the answer a little longer before you "Cut them to the quick"! :cool:

Best wishes

Similar sittuation has happened to me just in my first year of rec. A guy named Dan worked a few games with me and he was a certified official. He tought me everything from where to be on the field to how to toss the ball to the umpire. The first game I worked with him I blew an inadvertant whistle and he told me to keep my whistle out of my mouth unles the play was on my side of the field. I thought he was a jerk but I was determined to learn so I started asking him questions and the more I got to know him the more I learned. Although a better outcome than that of yours I will be able to work more games with him. I call him every now and then to ask him questions. Im not offended by critisism at all. Believe me I love to learn the easy or hard way just as long as im learning you'll never hear me say a word.

Bad advice. Only bad things can happen if you keep the whistle in your mouth during a live ball.

I think what he really ment is don't even tempt to blow it if the play wasn't on my side. I always have my whistle in my mouth before the play even begins.

Brandon,

what waltjp is saying & what I think you are not getting is it doesn't matter which side of the field the play is on, there is no reason to have your whistle in your mouth unless you intend to blow it right then.

For what it's worth, Brandon, there really isn't any need to instantaneously blow a whistle, anywhere. As others have suggested, the only time a whistle kills a play is when it's inadvertent. Action kills a play and the whistle simply announces that the action has taken place.

When a player false starts or encroaches on the NZ, even so close to the snap that the play goes off, the movement or encroachment is what kills the action, so even if the play starts, the ball is dead and a slightly delayed whistle just tells everyone, who may have started, to stop.

Players are responsible to stop, when the action kills a play whether or not the whistle sounds. Coaches who instruct players to, "hit someone until you hear a whistle", are simply WRONG, and way behind the times.

The one absolute about whistles; no matter how hard you suck on one, you can't get the tweet back.

When does a whistle correctly kill a live ball play under NFHS rules?
 

Remember Brandon, their only two times in NFHS football when a whistle correctly kills a live ball play in progress:
1) During a 1-point try attempt, when it becomes apparent the drop kick or place kick will not score.
2) During a 2-point try attempt, when B secures possession.

If a whistle is sounded during any other live ball action and "Lucy, there's some splainin' to do!" :rolleyes:

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Absolutely. In fact, I do not believe that the Referee has the authority to overrule this call, either.

It should be noted, however, that the R, or the CC, should be in a position to provide input where needed - so if a first year official ejects someone, the R or CC should be forthcoming to gather info to make sure that such a penalty should in fact be exercised.

No, not even in either of those cases. The facts that produce the dead ball precede the whistle.

Excellant Point
 

Robert,
Not gonna splitt hairs with you. But, while technically you are correct, typically speaking, a whistle is required to shut down the action. This requirement does not occur in any other situation other than the two I listed.

Required? No more so than declaring a runner down a split second before he fumbles.

We have to be careful we don't explain ourselves into an unexpected problem. Every whistle we blow is AFTER we've seen or judged some sort of action to have already occurred.

Life (as it applies to football), and especially rules, are intended to be clear as in "black or white, "on or off".

I dont want to seem like a jerk to you guys. Im excited to learn. I just dont want a guy that is expierenced who I COULD be learning from just tryin to make me into an example of his authority. Im out there to make judgement calls to the best of my ability and thats what I want to do. On a better note: I would like to announce to the people that have replied to my posts on this board and are honestly tryin to help me out that I have passed my state exam for football and will be recieveing my patch sometime soon. I can now call myself a certified official for football and I am very proud to be behind a state patch this year!

Congrats Brandon. I hope you can find someone to be a good mentor and you can learn a lot of good stuff from them. Welcome to the world of the patched official.

Congratulations!

The thing to remember is this:

Officials are not special. As a group, we exhibit the exact same group dynamics and spread of competency as any other group. You will run into some bad officials, who make bad decisions for the wrong reasons. You will run into some great officials who really "get it" and understand how to do their job.

And you will run into the vast majority of officials who fall somewhere in between.

The trick isn't in making sure you are "right", as opposed to the boneheads you sometimes will run into. In fact, the best thing you can do about them is to forget them to the extent that it causes you *any* distress. It isn't worth getting worked up over them - their only value is as an object lesson about what not to do. And what you ought not to do is almost never really about some particular mechanic or even particular issue - it is about attitude and ego.

The real trick, the useful skill, is identifying those few exceptional officials, then stealing from them outrageously so you can become one of them. And the thing you will notice about them, once you figure out how to identify them, is that what sets them apart more often than not is their attitude and their ability to be self-critical.

JMO, of course. Best of luck in your continuing career.

Some encouraging advice. I will take that to heart. Thank you both.

I may be excited over a little bit of nothing but I am also a proud NASO member although its taking them forever to get my stuff to me such as my membership card and my athletic VIP card.

Heh, heh. Imagine what it is like to be in Europe then. Actually in the last few years they have improved, but Ref Mag used to take 2-3 months to get here. Actually wasn't too much of an issue since our season and our Rules changes take place 6 months after the US.

Congrats on getting your patch. Also congrats on joining NASO. I was a member (one of their few European members) for many years. I still subscribe to REFEREE mag, but no longer bother with the NASO membership - I only really had it to cover me insurance wise on trips to the US when I worked occasional high school and small college games.
Some folks on these boards are not so crazy about Ref Mag, but I feel you will learn a lot from reading it - not just the football related stuff but the general officiating philosophy. I read it cover to cover even though (as a Brit) I'm clueless about half of what I read in the baseball and basketball sections. I guess you guys would be if they had a cricket section! Just because someone is writing about another sport, doesn't mean I can't pick up philosophy tips from them.

My second or third year, I had a similar situation in a JV game, and it didn't faze me that the R asked a bit. I had a sweep coming to my side, and the pulling guard blasted the linebacker who was in position to make the play. Unfortunately for the offense, he got him in the back right between the numbers. That block opened the hole that the RB went through for a TD. After the play, I reported the BIB to the R. Knowing that I was still relatively new, he aked me "did the block you're calling affect the play?" I told him, "Matt, that block opened the hole, and is the why he was able to score." He signaled it, marked it off, and on we went. We talked about it at half time, and he told me that he wasn't questioning what I saw at all - he just wanted to be sure that what I was calling was "there", and not an off-ball foul that didn't affect the play. I've worked with him a few times since then, and he hasn't asked any more questions like that.

Especially as a newer official, I appreciated that he was looking to make me a better official. I'm hoping to transition to WH over the next few seasons, at least for JV games, and - for the first and second year guys - will probably try to use the flags as a "teaching moment" for the rookies as well.

While I don't mind being questioned, I would be concerned with a WH who would want to waive off a block in the back because it didn't affect the play. BIB, clips, chop blocks, facemasks, are all saftey related fouls and should be enforced all the time. Holding is different because it's not a saftey issue, but BIB cetainly is, which is why it's illegal. That WH needs to go back to school.

Actually, I agree wholeheartedly with that, Jim. A foul involving player safety is something that I'm always going to call, and I would certainly (now) expect a WH to have no hesitation with that no matter where it is on the field - and stand up to him if he tried to talk me into waving it off. My second year, though, I was still learning my way through things, and was still trying to get my feet under me, and I wasn't going to question a "vet" like him.

Frankly, I don't see a garden variety BIB this way at all. It' had better be at the point of attack or warrant a PF before it's called on my crew.

Rich, I think I know what you mean in that you wouldn't call a bump in the back away from the play because it 1) was not dangerous and 2) it did not affect the play. However, for the newer officials it's important to emphasis that the reason a BIB is illegal is because it's a saftey issue. A block from the front or side is allowed because a player can see it coming and brace for it, while a BIB is unexpected and more likely to lead to injury. A good official will not use the advantage/disadvantage philosphies on BIB, clips and other calls where the saftey of a player is involved.

You're not disagreeing. Rich said that in order to be called properly, BIB must be:

a. at the point of attack OR
b. a PF

For (a) we look at advantage/disadvantage. For (b) we call the foul because of safety, even if the block is well away from the play. Why give the appearance that you're correcting Rich, when he got it exactly right?

I made my comments because Rich was not very precise on what he meant by a "garden variety BIB".

While I'm sure Rich and other experienced officials know what to call, there are a lot of newer officials who read these posts and we need to be careful that we present things properly. BIB is always a foul by rule - if it's minor contact away from the play, we may not flag it since it would be neither a dangerous play nor would it give a team an advantage. If it's a solid hit (not necessarily a PF in that it's was an excessive hit), it should still be called regardless of the position on the field.

And I observe the reverse phenomenon among newer officials: unfamiliar with traditions of enforcement, they flag a little push in the back because they learned that it's a rule-book foul. And those little pushes are much more common than the ones that raise safety concerns -- everybody knows to flag those.