Touchdown Signals

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

A Dumbo.

Perhaps the term "mirroring" is the problem, or at least how and when it might be used.

Is it mirroring when a LJ, on one end of the goal line sees a player, in possession of the ball, clearly cross over the goal line, on the other sideline, and sees the HL, in position to rule on whether he crossed the goal line inside the sideline signal TD, to signal TD, so all the players on his side of the field know the play has ended?

Does a BJ, at the center of the endline, who observes a player complete a catch inside the endline near a sideline, after checking with the HL who's ruling on the sideline aspects of the catch, repeat the HL's TD signal?

Is signalling something you have personally seen, although it may be instantly following another official's signal, mirroring?

The NFHS Officials manual cautions;
"A. Only official(s) who actually see Touchdown should give TD signal.
B. Officials not observing TD do not mirror signal.

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

[SNG10]

How does everyone treat the old "pileup" when looking for the score? If you don't see it, just wait until the pile is cleaned up ?

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by SNG10

How does everyone treat the old "pileup" when looking for the score? If you don't see it, just wait until the pile is cleaned up ?

Pretty much. You have to find the ball before you can signal. Coaches, players and spectators will understand the delay. Sometimes the umpire can tell you that A had possession of the ball in the endzone before the pile up so you can call a TD based on that. Otherwise, keep digging until the ball is located and see what that gives you.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by SNG10

How does everyone treat the old "pileup" when looking for the score? If you don't see it, just wait until the pile is cleaned up ?

Someone has to be digging. When the ball is found, it's location will determine if it is a score or not. We can't rule on how it got there. Also, we are going away from "secret" signals by the umpire. In reality, they are not so secret. We will be going to a verbal signal from the umpire. Remember that the signal from the umpire only means he has the ball over the line. The knee of the runner could have touched down before the line.

[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 ?

[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.

[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.

[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).

[Admiral]

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.

This is exactly what happened. The U was certain the ball was in the EZ before the knee touched. The HL could not see the ball cross the goal line because his view was obstructed. When the HL crashed in, the U told him he had the ball in the EZ. HL continued to hold his spot, and called him down.

Originally Posted by Forksref

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.

Our crew uses this same procedure.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Admiral

This is exactly what happened. The U was certain the ball was in the EZ before the knee touched. The HL could not see the ball cross the goal line because his view was obstructed. When the HL crashed in, the U told him he had the ball in the EZ. HL continued to hold his spot, and called him down.

It's absolutely your HL's call to accept the U's "advise" or not. I just don't understand why he wouldn't if he had no idea where the ball was and the U apparently did. This is not a "who should signal" problem. It appears instead to be an inability to accept help when needed problem by your HL.

[KWH]

AJMC, aka Alf, aka ALupstateNY,

Before you begin your hollowed routine of lenghty and nefarious attacks against actual on-field officials, perhaps you should consider what some on this board are suggesting, which, quite frankly is, YOU need to look in the mirror!

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

AJMC, aka Alf, aka ALupstateNY,

Before you begin your hollowed routine of lenghty and nefarious attacks against actual on-field officials, perhaps you should consider what some on this board are suggesting, which, quite frankly is, YOU need to look in the mirror!

Excuse me, KWH, but what, "lenghty and nefarious attacks against actual on-field officials" are you referring to. Is it against your "code" or otherwise prohibited to offer a different perspective to rigid dictates by an annointed few who believe thay see all things so much clearer than everyone else?

Regarding this discussion, you don't mind focusing on this discussion, a question was raised regarding "mirroring" in a situation which could be understood as multiple officials signalling a TD, which over the years I've noticed is fairly common and consistent, at least at the locations and levels I've worked.

I am in total agreement that "mirroring" a penalty flag, a bean bag or any other signal where you have no idea why the original flag or bag was thrown is a really bad practice and can cause a lot of trouble. But the idea that multiple officials signalling what they have actually seen is wrong, is as bad an idea as "mirroring".

Once again, the terms "never" and "always" only serve to throw mud on the subject. Do you have a problem with my referencing the NFHS Official's Manual, that suggests, basically, if you see it, call it when you don't see it, don't.

Of course we all should understand, when another official calls something the ooposite of what we intend to call, it's better to withhold your signal, go to the other official, review and discuss what each of you have seen and agree on which signal should be correct.

I don't know if it's a universal practice, but what I've been taught about the TD signal, is when you see a TD scored you signal, whether on not someone else has signalled (which you may or may not be aware of). If you believe a TD was not scored (a knee on the 2 yd line) you signal NOTHING. You run to the other official and tell him what you SAW. God wiling, he will join you in reporting the correct call to the Referee.

If you didn't see the score or don't know what happened, get with your crew mates and find out, before even thinking about any signal (which at that point is unnecessary).

Sometimes coaches get confused and upset with changed, delayed or incorrect signals. A good Referee will choose to deal with that and clear things up. A concise, factual explanation will satisfy most coaches, those that are not satisfied will have to learn to deal with disappointment.

If you've got a better way KWH, I'm all ears, if you have something relevant or of some value to offer. I speak with the face in my mirror often, and find he's really hard to BS. Have you taken any time to chat with the face in your mirror?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The NFHS Officials manual cautions;
"A. Only official(s) who actually see Touchdown should give TD signal.
B. Officials not observing TD do not mirror signal.

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.

[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.