I often wonder why some people insist on trying to translate what other people say into what they assume they meant to say. Was there any suggestion of anyone rejecting anything, much less on a whim?

All I was trying to suggest is that EVERY bang-bang call that's EVER happened, is by it's very nature a call that can go either way. Instead of reacting like a bitter fan, and assuming the worst possibility, I would prefer to give my brother official the benefit of the doubt and assume he was assigned to this "championship" game on the basis of some sort of merit, and made a tough call, instantly, which is why he was there.

As for his positioning, what is wrong with being inside the goal line, looking right down the sideline at the play that happened right in front of him? His vision doesn't seem blocked and he was a lot closer to the action than either of us where he obviously made a judgment that the defensive contact was, "in such a way that he is (was) prevented from returning to the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball.", which completes his catch and would produce a TD.

It's perfectly alright to agree, or disagree, with his judgment because whatever we might think this play doesn't matter. As a learning tool, It's appropriate to point out and consider that different rules, and case book instructions are involved and should be considered in these type situations, but this particular call is over and part of irrevocable history.

Indiana uses a coach's vote system only for assigning crews to playoff games. There's not much merit involved here. This crew has worked 4 state championship games over a 20-year period.

I am not going to comment as to if he got the call right or wrong. He can answer what he based his decision on. Obivously there is an illegal man downfield on the play. I do have a question about being a "lineman" 2-32-9 talks about being a lineman. 2-32-14 talks about a snapper. In this case would we have illegal formation too? Being turned sideways with the shoulders perpindicular to the line of scrimmage? Just a thought.

On the play, again no comment as to catch or not. Mechanics of the official. It has been said that he was watching the ball. I agree that he was. If he is watching the ball what did he miss? Another thing I noticed. Watch his leg flip. Seems that he was using some body english to help the catch. The catch might have caught him by surprise based on that motion and he rewarded the player for it. Just my observation.

What would I have done on this play? Well there was another official near the box in the film, tag him and let him make the call! Okay, I am kidding. Distance would have been his friend. Stay at the pilon, pivot with the players watching them. After seeing all of that, make the ruling. Hope and pray that you have a back judge who is watching his keys too. Come together by glance and decide.

I saw that little twitch of his left leg and wondered what that was all about.

Agree with staying at the pylon, it would give a better view. How about a quick glance to see the ball coming in your direction, then, concentrate on the players in the area.

Don't know if the BJ would be any help because he would have to hustle to the sideline. This is an example where six-man would be helpful.

So your statement "The question is not answered by NF 7-5-2, or the related case book plays." doesn't constitute a rejection of the applicability of that rule and casebook examples to the situation at hand? Really?

Then why not just say that instead of what you did say which is something completely different? And why is it if we see a video that pretty clearly shows a blown call we must be reacting like some "bitter fan" when we point out what was screwed up? Isn't that the entire point to reviewing film or does that only count when one reviews one's own film?

It put him too close to the play. He's 3 maybe 4 yards away. If he was still at the goal line where he belongs, he'd have a much better view of the entire action.

His body is facing toward the field and he has his head turned almost 90 deg to see the reception of the ball/action of the defender and then pivots awkwardly to see what happens after it goes OOB and then pivots awkwardly back to signal TD rather than keeping his view on the action to ensure the receiver secured the ball all the way to the ground. He should have been at the goal line and had his body turned toward the endline so he's looking straight ahead right down the sideline which would allow him to view the entire action with a minimum of head/eye movement.

His vision is bad for the play because of his body positioning and moving during the critical part of the play.

You're right, the call is over. Doesn't mean it was the right call.

#53 was in the backfield and it appears there was only 4 players numbered 50-79 on the line.

Was #80 straddling the ball because if he was that is a violation of 7-1-1, feet must be behind the neutral zone and no part of his person, other than hand(s) on the ball, may be the foremost point of the ball. Also, since #80 was turned toward the sideline there was not 7 men on the line.

Then #80 was covered.

Holy cow! How many fouls on one play.

Jaybrid, yeah, I edited my post after taking my own advice and pausing and staring at the video a several times. #53 was not the snapper...

Fed has a force out rule?

NCAA interp: incomplete.

Yes it does but according to the case book clarification it would not apply in this case because the contact pushed the receiver in the direction he was already going. In this particular play it should have also been ruled an incomplete pass.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Touchdown.

As a fellow Hoosier official, I want the focus to be on the body that put this crew in the position to work this contest....which according to the IHSAA's measure is the best crew in the state of Indiana. This is determined by the AD's vote (it's up to the AD to seek the advice of the head coach...which I know for a fact doesn't always happen). The AD's get an electronic ballot with the names of every crew in the state. They can choose to vote for whom ever they wish (rating 1-5). The vote total is tabulate and the crews ranked, based on the average score. My crew has recieved a number of votes over the past few season from places I've never even been to int he state, let alone worked a contest there. The IHSAA keeps this method becasue of it's relative ease of operation. They have no incentive, nor any desire, to imrpove the system.

Ohio's system is worse than that. Each official is voted on seperately and "crews" are created for playoff games. That is never a good thing.

Sloth,

I worked in Indiana for 8 years before moving to Georgia. As a former crew chief, I didn't like the system in Indiana for assigning playoff games any more than anyone else. This crew is out of the Lafayette area and I have worked lower lever games with each crew member in the past. I found each of them to be knowledgeable and professional. You are focusing on the way the IHSAA places and assigns officials for the playoffs. I would rather note that crews are allowed to work 6 members during the regular season if schools will pay for the extra person or will split the contract fee. The IHSAA will not allow crews to work more than 5 during the playoffs. No questions asked. After having ran 6 person for the past 2 years in Georgia, I am a fan of 6 over 5. 6 is not perfect but 2 sets of eyes on this play would have been more definative.

Mike L, I'm truly sorry my attempt to raise a separate point regarding the matter of "force out", failed to meet your presentation requirements, and if my choice of words didn't meet your expectations, I'll try to do better. I was merely trying to suggest the matter, of whether or not there was a catch, seems more related to the definition of NF: 2-4-1, than advice, albeit valid and helpful, related to an illegal forward pass NF: 7-5.

Apparently my limited experience doesn't provide me with the eagle eye details you so easily observe, regarding body language, exact and specific positioning on the field (within a step or two), how many degrees his head was turned at any specific moment or the exact state of his vision, as determined by, "his body positioning and moving during the critical part of the play".

I was trying to suggest that his ruling was "right" simply because he made it based on what he observed on that field at that moment. A judgment that will apparently stand. Whether that judgment was correct and can withstand your microscopic dissection is an entirely different matter, that accurate or not, will have absolutely no bearing on anything relevant.

Reviewing the play from an instructional perspective has merit as it demonstrates avoidable difficulty added by positioning both prior to and during the actual decision process, but picking at it, to the level of a gnat's eyelash, to simply prove someone was wrong, seems more like a wasted pursuit of ego than an instructional effort.

No way this is a touchdown
 

There is no way the receiver comes down in the end zone as his momentum was carrying him out of bounds. I saw the play in person as well as on the replay board. This was a unbelievable bad call.