Video on new website.
 

First of all I would like to introduce you guys to a website where my crew is featured. The person that runs the website was my Referee last year and works closely with our state in training and mechanics.

I would like you guys to review the pre-game material and comment on what you think. For newer officials this was a pre-game from a 3rd Round IHSA Playoff game we did last season in 2008. And for the record we had just found out we were going to work a State Final game as well, this is what some of the conversation was about.


Official Speaking

Also as you look at the front of the page there is a hurdling call that was made that we picked up. I want opinions as to if this was considered a good call or not (based on the rules or philosophy). We did not all agree on this call but I do not think it was based on the right rules application either. I will let you know later what I think, but we have not agreed on the overall rules that apply.

Peace

Technically, I suppose you could call this because it does appear the tackler still may have a foot/feet on the ground. I don't think you want to call it though. The action involved isn't what I think the rules are trying to prevent. The tackler is on his way down, the runner is really just jumping up to get away from the low tackle and he's not really jumping over a player.
I think I heard someone in the "discussion" say "can't be, it was the runner" or something to that effect, which really has no bearing on the call at all. I think the white hat could've been a lot more diplomatic in the way he treated the calling official and handled the discussion. From his tone and the way he "discussed" it, he could've easily been mistaken for a coach shouting out "that's a bull$hit call".

Not the most "suave" WH I've ever heard. His final "we're not gonna call that" was unnecessary and insulting. What is said in the crew huddle is one thing but hollering out like that afterward is demeaning.

As far as the call goes, I would say it isn't a foul. The defenders left knee appears to be in contact with the ground which eliminates the portion of the rule.

Also I don't think his foremost foot (right) actually went over the defender, looking at the replay angle and stopping the frame.

As for the pre-game, pretty nice-the video quality is good.

I think all officials should be seated. It just appears that one is more attentive when they aren't moving around. I know there is nervous energy before a game, especially the playoffs.

The "what-if" FG mechanic change was belabored a bit too long. Not sure if changing a game mechanic less than 30 minutes before a playoff game is something that a crew would really want to do. Your LJ expressed his reservations, which he should.

The videos are helpful, although we have different coaches conference and coin toss mechanics here.

Neat being in your pregame. I thought the WH could have been better in each situation. In the pregame I felt he wasn't assertive enough. On the hurdling call I felt that he overstepped his bounds.

Pregame. In the 1st 11 minutes you covered three things. 80 % of it focused on the rare instance where a field goal in excess of 20 yards is attempted to win the game. Get a feeling what the crew wants to do. Clearly restate the change and move on. He himhawed around for 8 minutes. This is a state semi final. I m sure there is more to talk about.

Hurdling. This was a close call. But, it was your call. The referee really should not have been focusing on the runner. I would have gotten together, which your crew did nicely and let everyone have their say. I would have given you the room to pick up the flag. In the end, however, it is your call. I think the WH overstepped his role. If this is a common occurance, the crew will ultimately turn on him. Effectively, he is telling yolu that he does not trust your judgment; and, that he will step in to save you from yourself. He also paroted your umpire who does not know the rules.

Interesting...

As a baseball umpire, I couldn't imagine acting the way the WH did, but of course each sport is different.

The thing that struck me most was the WH after the crew huddle was broke, saying "Absolutely not". Seemed to me like he was backing the bus over the calling official for all to hear. Would love to hear a football guy's take on this part of it. Did the WH openly disparage the calling official?

I think I need to clarify a couple of things.

We had not talked about this issue or come to a conclusion all year even though there were come opinions I had shared about the approved mechanic. And considering this was a playoff game between some pretty big rivals that changed the nature of the conversation. For two years together (all 5 of us) and the year before this was kind of a sore subject with me as a Back Judge. I personally do not like this mechanic, but it almost never gets implemented because most kickers are not trying a kick that long. We talked about it a lot because this would go against the IHSA Mechanic philosophy and 3 of the officials in the room are IHSA Football Clinicians. I think that is why there was a debate and somewhat more discussion that probably needed to be. We have talked about this in passing, but not to a conclusion. And the wind that day was a factor so it is possible that might have been attempted. But I do agree that we could have come to a conclusion earlier and moved on, but I understand why the conversation took so long too.

Also understand we have been together for some time and we talk in detail a lot of things throughout the season. We do not cover a lot of things that other crews might because we have already come to conclusions on many things and did not need to have further conversations on those matters. Also this conversation was clearly after we were dressed and ready to go. We had had some preliminary conversations before the taping. I had not seen all of this video until today.

Finally I want to address the conversation about the State Final assignment. I am a firm believer in being honest with the situation you are faced with. We were selected and there were many people that knew this before this game. We had to keep doing what got us there and not just say we got a big assignment and we did not have to still work games up to a certain standard. This was a common conversation or theme all year long because we knew we were likely to go to the State Finals based on previous years and who and how crews were assigned. We just wanted to make sure we had 3 more very well officiated games and this was just apart of that. We really were not a crew that had to nickel and dime over mechanics because those in my opinion were very good and were seen as very good. Even when we worked the State Final game, we had a lot of educated observers that thought we did very good things. And so far we did not make the “tape” by not applying prescribed mechanics. This is a conversation to keep our eyes on the prize. And this was just an example of a pre-game, I am sure other crews would talk about different things based on what their state wants. For example sidelines are a big deal in our state and this is why it was talked about to some extent because we have been threatened by our administrator if we did not apply the rules on the sideline properly, it would hurt assignments. I am sure there are places this is not a big deal, but here it is.


I will comment on this later. I want more opinions before I say a word.

Peace

I agree this was a hurdle. Some may be technically correct in saying that his knee was on the ground when the runner went over the tackler but the intent of the runner was to hurdle the tackler no matter his position. We have been shown the principle of a block below the waist is illegal even if the blockee gets his hands on the blocker first because the blocker committed to going low and the actions of the blockee shouldn't make the blocker's actions legal. In this situation I believe we should use the same reasoning. If a runner was going toward the LOS and there was a pile of linemen there and he hurdled them I believe this is legal per the rule. Out in the open field the runner should not be attempting to jump over another player in this manner.

But saying that I do know of Rs in my area that have said, "I'm not going to be the first one to call that." during a game which is the same thing as "pioneer" call. That was for helping the runner but if you won't call one you might not call the other. I have seen on TV highlights a blatant hurdle right over a defender and he was only bent at the waist and nothing was called.

As for the quarterfinal game, did you actually check any cleats for length in pregame? R made a statement about defusing the situation about the cleat length with what could have turned out to be a lie. Him saying that and possibly not following through could be as bad and just wiping off a personal foul that really wasn't his to overrule.

There was a game earlier in the year where a team admitted to wearing illegal cleats after the game was over (not our game). It was the front page of a media paper story. Some mom's went out and bought longer cleats than the rules allowed and no one mentioned it during the game and was only discovered after the fact. So this is what he was referring to and many crews talked about how we were not going looking for this issue. In other words, a coach would have to make it an issue and we are not checking every player to determine if the cleats used were a centimeter longer than rules allowed.

Peace

The WH seemed to imply that "Yes, your call of hurdling was correct, but we're not going to call that because it will be a very unpopular call and I think it's a stupid rule. Best to waive it off and avoid the confrontation."

Jeff, I only watched the Hurdling clip and I believe you nailed it.

"You're (ore we're) not calling that" is something that might get one of our guys before the board or ethics committee. Perhaps it happens on established crews where guys know each other well and we never hear about it, but I would never, ever, say anywhere close to that.

What is the Fed rule here, btw? What I saw was legal in the NCAA rules.

Aggie, in Fed, hurdling is defined as:

As you can see, in Fed, the runner is not exempt from hurdling.

Yep, legal in NCAA.

What is a "pioneer call"?

You know: "don't be a pioneer." Akin to "don't be a plumber." ;)

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.

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

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.

Never mind. Found it.

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

No exceptions for the runner.

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. :rolleyes:

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

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.....

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.

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.

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.

Riding the fence
 

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.

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.