Video on new website.

[ref1986]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

actually, I can't see that the Fed runner is not exempt. not from your quote of the Fed rules anyway.

you gave the definiton of hurdling (which is, practically speaking, identical to the ncaa's). but you didn't quote the Fed rule against hurdling.

my point being that the ncaa definition makes no mention of the exemption either. we don't get the exemption until 9-1-2-i:

There shall be no hurdling (Exception: The ball carrier may hurdle an opponent.).

Any chance there actually is a Fed exception? No disrespect or second-guessing intended! I mention this only b/c I've worked games with Mass. officials who flagged the ballcarrier for hurdling. When we got together, they were aware of the definition, but not of the exception.

Nope, no exception in Fed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

actually, I can't see that the Fed runner is not exempt. not from your quote of the Fed rules anyway.

you gave the definiton of hurdling (which is, practically speaking, identical to the ncaa's). but you didn't quote the Fed rule against hurdling.

my point being that the ncaa definition makes no mention of the exemption either. we don't get the exemption until 9-1-2-i:

There shall be no hurdling (Exception: The ball carrier may hurdle an opponent.).

Any chance there actually is a Fed exception? No disrespect or second-guessing intended! I mention this only b/c I've worked games with Mass. officials who flagged the ballcarrier for hurdling. When we got together, they were aware of the definition, but not of the exception.

There is no exception to a rule unless stated clearly. You just showed the NCAA and their language and they clearly give an exception to the runner. You just cannot hurdle by rule and that is all you need to know. And at least in the casebook there are plays (or there once were) that made it clear there were no exceptions to this rule. It is like the numbering exception. There is an exception to the numbering rules if a team is in a certain formation. The same logic applies here with this or any other rule.

Peace

[parepat]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

actually, I can't see that the Fed runner is not exempt. not from your quote of the Fed rules anyway.

you gave the definiton of hurdling (which is, practically speaking, identical to the ncaa's). but you didn't quote the Fed rule against hurdling.

my point being that the ncaa definition makes no mention of the exemption either. we don't get the exemption until 9-1-2-i:

There shall be no hurdling (Exception: The ball carrier may hurdle an opponent.).

Any chance there actually is a Fed exception? No disrespect or second-guessing intended! I mention this only b/c I've worked games with Mass. officials who flagged the ballcarrier for hurdling. When we got together, they were aware of the definition, but not of the exception.

Great point Chowder! I did a very brief review of my 2005 rule book that I keep at work. I thought the PROHIBITION against hurdling (as opposed to the definition in 2-21 would be in rule 9. I couldn't find it. In addition, the penalty summary does not list hurdling as a foul. Lastly thee is no reference to hurdling in my casebook (2002 version that I keep at work).

Besides my obvious need to update my reference material, is it possible that the prohibition doesn't exist?

I doubt it. Someone find it. Gotta go, my Commadore 64 is overheating.

[parepat]

Never mind. Found it.

9-4-3 (Illegal Personal Contact) No player or non-player shalld) hurdle an opponent.

No exceptions for the runner.

[Welpe]

Thanks parepat, you saved me from having to dig my rule book out of one of the boxes it is packed in. Getting ready to move is quite the adventure.

[jaybird]

Jeff, great site.

My first impression is that the Referee likes to not only talk but dominate the conversations. He talked too much on "Officially Speaking", he dominated the pre-game conference and on the field he was dictatorial with the crew. He needs to be reminded that he is part of a crew and that it takes teamwork to be successful.

Pre-game: Dominated too much by the Referee. This should be a time when there is crew involvement with each official responsible for various topics of discussion. There appeared to be a couple of mechanics questions that were not satisfactorily covered to completion.

Hurdling: Absolutely! This was a direct violation of the NFHS rule as written. The Referee way overstepped his bounds of authority with his asinine remarks and by showing a complete lack of trust in one of his crewmates. At the point of the hurdle, why would he even be watching the ball carrier to know whether it was a justified call or not?

The reference to "pioneer calls" is ludicrous. His on-the-field admonishment is akin to an egotistical prison guard talking "down" to a juvenile delinquent. He seems to have a need to display power and authority.

[JRutledge]

I will let it be known that the WH does comment on the video in his webcast this week. You guys clearly struck a nerve with the issue on these boards. He spent the first several minutes talking about the "hurdling" play and commented on some of the reaction that guys here and on the NF site clearly stated.

Peace

[BigModdy]

I was interested that in the pre-game he mentions that on fouls to take time, get together and make the correct call. During the play in question, he comes flying in, overrules the call and that is the end of the discussion. The yelling after the conference ("WE ARE NOT CALLING THAT!!!!) was unnecessary to say the least.....

[TXMike]

How did he/you manage to get audio of the on-field stuff? Is that coming from the video camera that recorded the video? Was that deliberate? If so, it is a bit "NFL filmish" isn't it? Hopefully, like most folks who see and hear themselves on video, the R learned from this.

[Warrenkicker]

In his webcast he does some work to basically justify not calling the hurdle to some extent as well as talk about the tone and volume of his voice by saying he wasn't yelling or even talking loud enough for the players to hear. However the bad part I take from this is how he phrased his displeasure of the call. He said, "We're not call that." As opposed to, "That was not a hurdle." There is a mile between those two. One says that even if there was a foul we are not going to call it while the other says that the action did not meet the requirements of the definition.

His comments about the state interpreiter said that another play showed a worse action that should not have been called a hurdle. Well what I saw was a player jump with his knees leading the way and a lineman move over toward him. The "hurdler" tried to jump between players and not over a player. The interpreiter says that the lineman is not vertical enough to call this. I would say what matters is the position of the hurdlee when the "hurdler" commits to his act and not if the hurdlee is straight enough with jumped. I still say that the original play was a hurdle and the example play was not.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by TXMike

How did he/you manage to get audio of the on-field stuff? Is that coming from the video camera that recorded the video? Was that deliberate? If so, it is a bit "NFL filmish" isn't it? Hopefully, like most folks who see and hear themselves on video, the R learned from this.

We knew someone that is apart of a movie production company (or something like that) and is also an official, and the WH paid for two individuals to tape and run the audio during the game. I do not know exactly what it cost them, but he wanted to use this as a training video or examples of how officials communicate with each other. So all the stuff you are hearing on the tape was not apart of a public broadcast. It was used for the WH to show examples of the crew interacting along with some game tape.

Peace

[BuckeyeRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We knew someone that is apart of a movie production company (or something like that) and is also an official, and the WH paid for two individuals to tape and run the audio during the game. I do not know exactly what it cost them, but he wanted to use this as a training video or examples of how officials communicate with each other. So all the stuff you are hearing on the tape was not apart of a public broadcast. It was used for the WH to show examples of the crew interacting along with some game tape.

Peace

Looks like he did not get a very good video to train with. I don't see any communication or discussion going on, just dictating by the referee. As a wing, I make the call I see. I will discuss it with my crew if there is some disagreement and then I should decide whether to pick up the flag. If my Referee on my crew acted like this Referee did, he would be looking for a new wing. To just blatantly say we are not going to call a foul that is clearly a foul is unacceptable. He did not even get any input from the other officials and made his mind up before he even got together with the rest of the crew.

[RadioBlue]

Jeff:

Cool site! I appreciate seeing the workings of other crews.

As for the hurdling call, I can see both sides of the argument. In the strictest interpretation of the rule, it's a foul. But, let's keep in mind why the rule is in place. I've been taught the rule is there as a protection for the runner. If he attempts to hurdle a defender who has feet on the ground and in position to stand as the runner hurdles, the runner is in grave danger of being flipped over and landing on his head.

In this video, the runner, IMO, has no chance of being up-ended. I can see why your WH wanted to pick up the flag. That being said, I'm not a big fan of how he handled it. He really gave it to you pretty hard. Right out of the box, he's calling you out. Not cool.

However, I don't get the feeling the WH is questioning the interpretation. I believe he is afraid of the call. That's an unacceptable reason for not enforcing the rule.

[Canned Heat]

Close, but I would've probably held the flag there on the hurdling. On the catch or no catch video, I say No Catch. As grainy as the video is, it looks nearly impossible that the player had any kind of posession in that time frame. Still, hard to comment without putting yourself there.

As far as the WH goes...there would've been a good bit of discussion about onfield comments and crew interaction after what I saw there. Calling out one of your own in a gametime situation is a monster no-no with any crew I've ever worked with in my years since I started in '92. Not only is that humiliating to the BJ or Ump or whoever that was, it makes the whole crew look bad. Now the players even take a second look at that official due to the WH's comments. Sounds like he gave a rather rude answer back to a coach or player that asked if it was hurdling.

Not to mention that call could've gone either way as far as hurdling goes based on NFHS guidelines.