Touchdown Signals

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by SNG10

So, if the knee was down, but no one(on the crew) had the ball at the time, and the U has it in, we'll have to go with the td, correct ?

Yes, if I understand your question correctly. Once any official sees the ball in the endzone, it is a touchdown.

In the play we discussed with the pile up, if the umpire had seen the ball in A's possession in the endzone the play is dead and it's a TD. He will let the wings know what he has and then they would normally signal TD. He checks with the wings first though to make sure they didn't have a knee down at the 1, for example. In this case, there is no need to dig through the pile because anything that happened after A had possession in the endzone is just a struggle for a dead ball.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Well, Al, I think you have your answer right there in front of you. Seems you're the one who is once again mistaken and is now in full backpedal mode.

So what exactly are you suggesting Walt? When more than one official sees an action should he signal, even though the other official has signaled, or are you suggesting he should not "mirror" the call.

It seems you want to split hairs about words so fine, they tend to lose any relevant meaning. You ask a loaded question to try and sound like a guru, that provides no guidance or insight. If the covering official makes a call, that you also saw, and agree with, are you suggesting you not signal for fear of possibly being wrong?

That's not why your out there. If you see something you should respond to it. If an official differs with another official's call, rather than signal the opposite, going to the other official and discussing the call to try and detrmine who had the better view and agreeing on a call before signalling is a better approach.

It's not about being mistaken, Walt, or backpedaling, or changing your mind. It's far better to consider modifying or adjusting a position based on what's discussed here, than insist on doing something that can otherwise be done better. Doesn't mean you have to change, but there's no harm in considering a different approach.

Once you accept the reality and face the inevitable fact that you don't already know everything, it's a lot easier to focus on learning what you need to know to get better.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Maybe dumb is assuming that "one size fits all" about anything related to football.

I agree, standard mechanics are a real PITA and inhibit my sense of style and flair.

Hey walt, what do you think about using a "punch out" mechanic when the quarterback gets sacked? I'm debating between a hammer and point for my sideline warning mechanic.

[Admiral]

I suppose I should have been more descriptive with my question. It isn't about mirroring, although it is a good discussion. Last season, I had a goal line play. Team A runs up the gut into a pile. U had the ball in, I thought it was in, but was looking at the blocking - not the ball position. BJ was on end line, and couldn't see the action. I checked both wings - HL was crashing in with a spot, LJ straddling the goal line. HL did not have a clear view of the ball once the runner hit the line, but saw his knee touch. LJ had his view completely obstructed. U relayed he had the ball in before the knee touched, but neither wing would signal. In a situation like this, is it acceptable for U to signal? It turns out that A fumbled into the end zone on the next play and B recovered.

[Mike L]

The U should be relaying to the HL he had the ball in before the knee touch. The HL, realizing he did have the knee down but had no idea where the ball was when it happened, should accept the U's call, go up with TD and thank the U for being there for him to help with the call. (Unless of course the HL feels where the knee down happened makes it impossible for the ball to be in since you really don't say at what yd line he had the knee).
The U going up with the signal just looks like cr@p.
The LJ should not be straddling the goal line unless he has it in.

[Welpe]

No, I do not think an Umpire signaling is appropriate in this situation. A quick conference might've sorted that one out though.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I agree, standard mechanics are a real PITA and inhibit my sense of style and flair.

Talk about mirroring, does one dopey observation always have to trigger another. Has there been any suggestion that "standard mechanics" should be ignored, or that style and flair are in vogue? I don't think so. It seems the standard mechanics supports, "Only official(s) who actually see Touchdown should give TD signal." (Note: the (s) suggests multiple officials who see)

It does seem however, that some seem adamant that, "one size fits all", must apply, at least as long as it's their particular size, or perception. It would be a lot more valuable if you have a differing perspective and would care to explain it, rather than just aimlessly throw rocks.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by Admiral

I suppose I should have been more descriptive with my question. It isn't about mirroring, although it is a good discussion. Last season, I had a goal line play. Team A runs up the gut into a pile. U had the ball in, I thought it was in, but was looking at the blocking - not the ball position. BJ was on end line, and couldn't see the action. I checked both wings - HL was crashing in with a spot, LJ straddling the goal line. HL did not have a clear view of the ball once the runner hit the line, but saw his knee touch. LJ had his view completely obstructed. U relayed he had the ball in before the knee touched, but neither wing would signal. In a situation like this, is it acceptable for U to signal? It turns out that A fumbled into the end zone on the next play and B recovered.

I would say "no" because this play was the HL's call. He had the knee down. The U offered his opinion that the ball was in before the knee was down, but obviously the HL didn't agree. He has to make the call and he did - no TD, down at the 1 or wherever.

You describe it as "neither wing would signal", but that's just a backhanded way of saying the HL ruled he was down at the 1. He made a decision and it was his to make so the U should not try and overrule him.

I had this play once as an U. I swear the guy fumbled at the one, but the wing ruled TD so that's what it was. B recovered in the endzone on that play too, but the wing had the proper position so you have to trust his judgment.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by SNG10

So, if the knee was down, but no one(on the crew) had the ball at the time, and the U has it in, we'll have to go with the td, correct ?

How can you say the knee was down if no one saw it down?

If either wing does not have it down and they can't see the ball or knee and the U has it in the EZ, then we have a TD. But the U will not raise his hands. He will communicate to the wings that it is in and they make the decision to signal a TD. He should NEVER raise his hands for the TD signal. He will communicate verbally, either in a conference with the wings or in the procedure I've described below.

Our crew will use this procedure: If the U sees the ball in the EZ he says after the ball is dead, "I've got the ball." He will NOT grab his whistle or use any visible signal that the coaches or pressbox can see. Upon hearing him say that, the wings will either signal TD or be marking a spot. Therefore, there will be no contradictory signal that can get the crew in trouble. The last thing we want is for a coach to see him grab his whistle and a wing marking a spot that is short of the GL. If he doesn't say that, then he saw that the ball wasn't in or he didn't see it at all.

[waltjp]

Al, my interpretation of 'mirroring signals' applies to an official giving the same signal as another, regardless of whether he saw the play or not. If anyone disagrees I'm sure they'll correct me.

Now you're off on a tangent about 'one size fits all' officiating and 'standard mechanics'. To be honest, I don't have the slightest clue of what your point is.

To review - official should not mirror signals. (See definition above)

If your responsibilities call for you to cover the goal line and you see the ball is in, signal as such.

There are occasions when 2 officials will share this responsibility. In that case they should make eye contact and signal accordingly. This is not mirroring.

No other officials should signal. First, it's not their responsibility. Second, if they're watching something they shouldn't be watching they're in danger of missing something they should be watching.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Admiral

I suppose I should have been more descriptive with my question. It isn't about mirroring, although it is a good discussion. Last season, I had a goal line play. Team A runs up the gut into a pile. U had the ball in, I thought it was in, but was looking at the blocking - not the ball position. BJ was on end line, and couldn't see the action. I checked both wings - HL was crashing in with a spot, LJ straddling the goal line. HL did not have a clear view of the ball once the runner hit the line, but saw his knee touch. LJ had his view completely obstructed. U relayed he had the ball in before the knee touched, but neither wing would signal. In a situation like this, is it acceptable for U to signal? It turns out that A fumbled into the end zone on the next play and B recovered.

I'd like to see the wings and U all get to the ball and discuss what they saw. If the ball is in the end zone and nobody saw the runner down before crossing the GL it's a TD.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Has there been any suggestion that "standard mechanics" should be ignored, or that style and flair are in vogue?

No, it is a personal POE for me this year.

I'm really thinking the point mechanic is the way to go.

[ajmc]

This discussion highlites how absolutely critical it is to hold a good pre-game meeting. It only takes a few minutes to address on-field communications and review crew signals to each other, so everyone is on the same page when the game starts.

Especially if you're working with different people each game, but even when it's the same crew, never assume verify and review what signals you'll be using with each other, and you will save a pound of grief on the field.

[SNG10]

Originally Posted by Forksref

How can you say the knee was down if no one saw it down?

If either wing does not have it down and they can't see the ball or knee and the U has it in the EZ, then we have a TD. But the U will not raise his hands. He will communicate to the wings that it is in and they make the decision to signal a TD. He should NEVER raise his hands for the TD signal. He will communicate verbally, either in a conference with the wings or in the procedure I've described below.

Our crew will use this procedure: If the U sees the ball in the EZ he says after the ball is dead, "I've got the ball." He will NOT grab his whistle or use any visible signal that the coaches or pressbox can see. Upon hearing him say that, the wings will either signal TD or be marking a spot. Therefore, there will be no contradictory signal that can get the crew in trouble. The last thing we want is for a coach to see him grab his whistle and a wing marking a spot that is short of the GL. If he doesn't say that, then he saw that the ball wasn't in or he didn't see it at all.

You saw the knee down but not the position of the ball at the time(poorly worded on my part).

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Talk about mirroring, does one dopey observation always have to trigger another. Has there been any suggestion that "standard mechanics" should be ignored, or that style and flair are in vogue? I don't think so. It seems the standard mechanics supports, "Only official(s) who actually see Touchdown should give TD signal." (Note: the (s) suggests multiple officials who see)

It does seem however, that some seem adamant that, "one size fits all", must apply, at least as long as it's their particular size, or perception. It would be a lot more valuable if you have a differing perspective and would care to explain it, rather than just aimlessly throw rocks.

Don't be so quick to get your panties in a wad, Alf. Self-examination may be the order of the day when it comes to determining dopey observations and rock throwing.

Not every post is designed as an attack. Some are an attempt at sarcastic humor while others are simply a different point of view or interpretation. These responses are sometimes set off by one's continuous arguments on a certain position in spite of written evidence to the contrary.

Mirroring would simply mean, copying another officials signal and should not happen. Signals by two officials, after communication, in an area of joint jurisdiction would not only be required, but necessary. Sometimes, if more than one official is signaling, one of them is not watching his area.