Touchdown Signals
 

In goal to go situations, what positions are permitted to signal a touchdown?

I don't like the work "permitted". Any official is permitted to signal. However, on our crew if the ball is snapped from the 10 yard line in, the wings will have the primary responsibility for the goal line and the back judge will have the end line. Any farther out and the BJ has the goal line (Some crews us the 15 as a cut off). Any of those 3 officials will signal touchdown. The U & R don't rule on the TD.

It's better if only the closest covering official signals. Don't mirror the other persons call. There is no need for three guys to throw up their hands.

Certainly any official who sees a touchdown scored should signal, and there is nothing wrong with mirroring a TD signal by an off official unless that other official believes a TD was NOT scored.

Perhaps it's different in other areas (where everyone apparently could be standing there with their arms in the air) but around here it depends on the action involved.
If the BJ is on the goal line, he and the wing who boxes the run in will signal. If the BJ is on the end line, the wings signal a run in. Usually both wings but if the run is near the sideline/pylon, just that side wing will signal.
On a pass into the endzone near the endline, the BJ and the wing that is boxing in the catch will signal.
The U never signals and on a pile-up in the middle is expected to communicate to the incoming wing if he has it in. It's then up to the wing to decide if he had the runner down first or to signal in.
The R will only confirm the signal to the press box or on those hated situations where a turnover goes all the way (it's happened more than I like to remember), I've got the goal line all the way.

I'd be a bit more selective. For example, if the runner sweeps right and crosses the goal line near the sideline in front of the HL, there really isn't any need for the LJ or even the BJ to signal TD. It's the HL's call so leave it at that. If a pass if complete in the end zone on that side, the BJ and the HL would probably both signal, but again there would be no need for the LJ to mirror the signal from the other side of the field. If it's up the gut either the HL or LJ or both would signal, but we don't need one from the BJ.

[QUOTE=Jim D.;606268]I'd be a bit more selective. /QUOTE]

From the 2008/2009 NFHS Football Officials Manual, "Four Officials -Goal Line Play"

IV. All Officials
A. Only official(s) who actually see TD should give TD
signal.
B. Officials not observing TD do not mirror signal.
C. Count your respective team.

I'll stand corrected on the mirroring, (For an official who has not seen the score) but I can't see any harm, unless it's an official who is going to dispute the TD call, in which case he would not mirror the call.

Covering official signals TD.

You mirror his signal.

Covering official is wrong.

What's that make you?

Walt has it nailed. NO mirroring of TD signals.

Also, we do not "mirror" beanbags. ONLY the official who has seen the fumble drops the bag, for the same reason. What IF it was an incomplete pass? Is Mr. Hochuli in the room?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Where should the LJ be on a short play close to the goal line if not at the pylon straddling the GL?
Our local mechanics has both LM and LJ have responsibility for the GL if the ball is inside the 10, and release directly to the GL if the ball is snapped inside the 5.

I have a mirror suggestion!
 

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! :eek:

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.

Our crew uses this same procedure.

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?

From the 5 and in (or from wherever your assoc wants it), the LJ should move to the goal line at the snap. Once the play is dead, staying on the goal line as he comes in gives the impression he has the ball in. If coming in with no idea where the ball is, he should be slightly in the field. He can then rule down before in with no complaints or can simply step into the "straddle" spot and signal TD. It's a perception thing. Watch any of the upper level guys and you'll see they never come in on the goal line unless it's to signal TD. The OP'er said his LJ was straddling the line after the play with no idea where the ball was. He shouldn't be there.

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.

Thanks for that tip, Mike.

That is our mechanic, too. They should be about 3 yds back from the pylon if the ball is coming their way. The main thing is get to the goal line. You can always work your way back but the goal line is the most important line on the field and someone must be there whenever it is threatened and this includes reverse GL plays because the R won't have the angle on possible safeties.

Some crews will have the wings take the GL when the ball is snapped inside the 15, but that may also change depending on the game situation, too.

I see know what Mike was saying from his clarification, and I agree - just didn't understand him in the original post.

A very good point Mike.
:D

Another tip is to move the goal line sign (the orange pyramid marker) back farther away as you check the field before the game. They often put them too close to the pylon and you can trip over them as you're trying to get a good postion for a play at the pylon. Make sure you have plenty of room to work - you're not going to look too sharp if, as you're backing into position you tumble over one of those and end up making the call while seated.

Jim makes a good point in moving off the GL to sell your short call. I just added that point to our wing breakout session in our clinic this August.

As for making a call on your butt, it reminds of when I was doing a game as WH on a wet field. There was an interception and I had to get to the GL. On my last stride to the GL my foot slipped and I ended up making the TD signal from my knees. All in all, I thought I had pretty good form and I was expecting the FED to add that signal as an alternative signal the next year. :D

I haven't read all the posts, but my take on the original question is this. On a running play starting inside about the 12 yard line, either wing who actually sees a player in possession of the ball cross the GL should signal. IMO, you do not mirror, you only signal if you see it.

The B can signal in these situations IMO.
1. If it is a running play from around the 13-20 and the runner is past the LOS and the B can easily get to the GL before the runner he can signal.
2. On a pass play where the ball is caught in the EZ, depending where the B is.

The U can signal in these situations.
NEVER!!!!

Absolutely! I make sure the 10...10 markers are a min of 12 feet back, we don't often have the 12 ft limit lines marked on our fields here in the UK. I'll have the G markers even further back. Any stats people, photographers etc, I'll be sure to brief them to stay outside the pyramids, especially at the GL.

As for the tough GL call, I feel it is all about proper communication, particularly eye contact.
The 1st eye contact is wing to wing. A wing can have one of three things -
(1) a TD
(2) a spot short of the GL that he is selling
(3) he has nothing and so is wearing what I call the Forrest Gump expression and should be jogging in toward the pile (on the field side of the GL as mentioned earlier).

The next eye contact is Umpire to wings.
If the Umpire sees (1) or (2), he has nothing to do. If he sees both wings with a Forrest face, that triggers him into action. If he saw the ball over the line, he communicates to the wings (some favour a subtle signal, some do it verbally - whatever you favour in your association). If he has no clue if the ball was over the line, then his action is to start digging!

The final one is Referee to Umpire. If the Refereee sees the Umpire start digging in the pile, that triggers him to get close enough to the pile so that he can help unpile 'em and the Umpire can tell him the result of the play. The last thing you want is an Umpire on his knees giving a TD signal, the Referee can give that on his behalf.

The Umpire's Not so subtle Signal...
 

I've been trying to find the photo but it is lost.

2006 season, District game, home team needs a win to secure a spot in the state tourney, visiting team is 95% guaranteed at least a wild card on points. I was filling in as LJ on home team sideline with a crew I had never worked with before. Me and HL and BJ were all spot on, our U and R were from Mars I think.

Anyway Great game. Tie game - 7 to play in 4th quarter 3rd and goal inside the 5 for home team. FB dive over right guard. FB ends up 3 yards deep in the end zone. Both HL and I are crashing in with the spot...knee down ball clearly at the 1. U AND R are signalling TD.

So we put the ball 4th and goal at the 1 they kick the FG and on the insuing kickoff give up a TD return and loose the game.

This was a town not far from my work, so I was in the gas station Monday and picked up a newspaper: Front Page photo shows the FB standing in the end zone with the ball and the U and R signalling touchdown and on the very edge you can see me mid-stride at the 1 right hand in the air, left hand pointing at the ground. Caption reads something like: "Although the officials signalled touchdown they shorted 'Bob Smith' on his touchdown run, Eagles settled for FG and ended up loosing, thus being denied their state playoff bid"

I now tell my U that if he has both hands in the air, I'm cutting one of them off.

This video was discussed previously but i think it is relevent to this discussion. I'll give you some background later on. Where did this crew go wrong?



YouTube - Mathews vs. Reserve 2pt. controversy

Where is the 5th official ? If he's there, I'm not seeing him at all during the play. Assuming this is Vienna Mathews, it should be a 5 man crew.

Also, #3 sure looks like he's not on the los.

To begin with, it's hard to believe with the way the o-line moved the d-line back they couldn't see the runner get the ball in.
Where's the HL? I never see him come in to the picture. It's his and the LJ's call.
The LJ looks kinda lost, but he does hold his spot.
The U comes into the discussion and you would think he could have given some sort of help info if he had been looking at the POA. Instead he seems intent on mirroring the spot the LJ is holding and then discussing something with the LJ.
Why the BJ came in so close I have no idea. If he had stayed back at the endline where he belongs, he might have seen 21 get up off the pile and stand in the EZ holding the ball up. With that help they could've at least gone with the "we don't have him clearly down but we do have him somehow in the EZ with the ball so it has to be in" call.
The R is just kinda there and doesn't seem to want to join in on the discussion with the U and the LJ. Instead he just waits for the U to come out and give him something to signal. How about instead trying to get some resolution that at least makes it look like the crew knows what it's doing?
Both coaches spotted down around the party, all things considered, a minor problem.

Some background.

This was a 2 point try play for the home team in which the visitors held a 1 point advantage. The L never came into frame. He was not holding a spot or otherwise participating in the aftermath. The LJ later told me that he did not have a spot and that when you see him leaning in, he is telling the Umpire that "I didn't see it". Why he is hold a "phantom spot" was a mystery to him. The backjudge never says a word throughout the fiasco. He did not tell any of his fellow officials that the ball ended up in the endzone. In fact during the video the BJ is actually in front of the ball carrier when he gets up. As far as the referee, he told me that as time went on he felt he had to make a call. In my opinion, this video is a perfect example of how not to deal with a chaotic situation. All could have been avoided if the officials got together and sorted out this mess.

I agree with everything Mike said. This crew went wrong somewhere else too. If this is a try why is the clock running, and how did time run out on an untimed down?:confused:

That was a cluster@#%$...

Where is the R? He needs to be in there getting HIS crew together and asking pertinent, relevant questions to each of crew members so they can come to some sort of consensus and sell a call. He left them hung out to dry by standing in the backfield twiddling his thumbs while they all looked at each other.

The LJ had nothing else to do but hold the spot he had until his partners came in and saved his behind. He didn't see it and was at the mercy of his partners and not a single one came in to help him out (one way or the other). If I were him I'd never take the field with this crew again.