DPI blown call ?

[jstafan]

thanks for the replys everybody. as for " Based on normal positions, if the guy on the chains asked the line judge a question, was it after the game or did he scream across the field at him?" it was the ref to his side and apparently it was right after play. and for "If a legitimate game official said DPI did not include an automatic first down, he is either incompetent, they are using a different set of rules than NFHS or there was a misunderstanding." I think after talking to everyone they just blew that call because nobody seems to understand why they would have inforced a dpi the way they did. They also go by NFHS rules. Or as Robert Goodman suggests that maybe another call was called ie dead ball foul or usc call and the other refs misunderstood. But on that play I can only say that me or nobody else seen anything other than a dpi (behind the neutural zone) which should not have resulted in a foul at all. but i will also agree that i didnt have the advantage that the refs did ( as being right on top of the play) even if all that was true again like good ol rob pointed out if the offense accepted the pently why did the down change? thanks again all.

[bossman72]

not only did they didn't award the auto 1st, they lost a down. it went from 3rd to 4th! If anything they should have replayed 3rd down.

[Robert Goodman]

Letting my imagination run free, I can pretty easily cook up a scenario to match the enforcement I wrote of above. A pass ended incomplete behind the neutral zone, and just after the ball fell dead a player of B, in a way that was judged gratuitous, slammed into the receiver who'd missed the ball. Referee assesses an unnecessary roughness penalty after the ball became dead, i.e. after it was already 4th down. The choice being obvious, he sees no need to present the option of declining it, and just tacks on 15 yards -- but then he forgets which 15 yard penalty he's given, and signals for unsportsmanlike conduct instead of a personal foul. Because of a muscle pull, he holds his arms at an angle out in front of him instead of straight to the sides while giving this signal.

The line judge, having seen the aftermath of the foul but not its development, because his att'n was elsewhere, sees the referee's signal and thinks it's for pass interference, which is fine with him because the LJ doesn't realize the hit was late rather than early, and because the LJ had gone downfield and lost track of where the neutral zone was. So the LJ tells you it was an interference call. By the time he realizes otherwise, he has other things to do than to tell you what happened.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Letting my imagination run free, I can pretty easily cook up a scenario to match the enforcement I wrote of above. A pass ended incomplete behind the neutral zone, and just after the ball fell dead a player of B, in a way that was judged gratuitous, slammed into the receiver who'd missed the ball. Referee assesses an unnecessary roughness penalty after the ball became dead, i.e. after it was already 4th down. The choice being obvious, he sees no need to present the option of declining it, and just tacks on 15 yards -- but then he forgets which 15 yard penalty he's given, and signals for unsportsmanlike conduct instead of a personal foul. Because of a muscle pull, he holds his arms at an angle out in front of him instead of straight to the sides while giving this signal.

The line judge, having seen the aftermath of the foul but not its development, because his att'n was elsewhere, sees the referee's signal and thinks it's for pass interference, which is fine with him because the LJ doesn't realize the hit was late rather than early, and because the LJ had gone downfield and lost track of where the neutral zone was. So the LJ tells you it was an interference call. By the time he realizes otherwise, he has other things to do than to tell you what happened.

Boy, that would have to be a nasty muscle pull in the arm.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Letting my imagination run free, I can pretty easily cook up a scenario to match the enforcement I wrote of above. A pass ended incomplete behind the neutral zone, and just after the ball fell dead a player of B, in a way that was judged gratuitous, slammed into the receiver who'd missed the ball. Referee assesses an unnecessary roughness penalty after the ball became dead, i.e. after it was already 4th down. The choice being obvious, he sees no need to present the option of declining it, and just tacks on 15 yards -- but then he forgets which 15 yard penalty he's given, and signals for unsportsmanlike conduct instead of a personal foul. Because of a muscle pull, he holds his arms at an angle out in front of him instead of straight to the sides while giving this signal.

The line judge, having seen the aftermath of the foul but not its development, because his att'n was elsewhere, sees the referee's signal and thinks it's for pass interference, which is fine with him because the LJ doesn't realize the hit was late rather than early, and because the LJ had gone downfield and lost track of where the neutral zone was. So the LJ tells you it was an interference call. By the time he realizes otherwise, he has other things to do than to tell you what happened.

A very creative and possible explanation for how the penalty was enforced. It doesn't change the fact the HL told a member of the chain crew that DPI is not an automatic first down. If nothing else that official needs some training.

[mbyron]

I think that we have no idea what's going on in this situation. All the actual information presented so far has been at least 3rd hand, as interpreted by a couple non-officials, based on a peewee crew's behavior.

There's about one legitimate thing we can say: the penalty for DPI, if accepted, is 15 yards from the previous spot plus an automatic 1st down. Beyond that, who knows what happened in somebody's peewee game? Quibbling about who said what, who needs training, who made what signal, or who's a bad official -- it's all silly speculation without the officials here to explain what happened. JMHO.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think that we have no idea what's going on in this situation. All the actual information presented so far has been at least 3rd hand, as interpreted by a couple non-officials, based on a peewee crew's behavior.

There's about one legitimate thing we can say: the penalty for DPI, if accepted, is 15 yards from the previous spot plus an automatic 1st down. Beyond that, who knows what happened in somebody's peewee game? Quibbling about who said what, who needs training, who made what signal, or who's a bad official -- it's all silly speculation without the officials here to explain what happened. JMHO.

Totally agree. It's suprising, and somewhat sad, that so many who are concerned about being haphazardly thrown under the nearest bus by people who have little idea what they are talking about, seem so quick to push brother officials under so fast based on the flimsiest allegation.