State Championship Call

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ajmc

That might very well pose a conundrum, because for most of us, the more experience you gain, the better you appreciate and understand that you aren't as smart and all knowing as you think you might be, while you're in the early stages of gaining the experience necessary to really know what you're talking about.

Alf, do you get paid by the comma?

[JugglingReferee]

If you pause the video with 7 seconds left, you can see first contact, and at this point, the distance from the foot that would have hit inbounds to the sideline is the same (or greater than!) as the distance that same foot hit the ground beyond the sideline in goal.

Simple physics tells us that because there was an external force applied to the airborne path of the receiver, that his foot most definitely would have had a chance (or definitely would have) to hit inbounds.

Good call by the official. This call reminds me of (FJ#80) Gary Gautreaux's call in the SuperBowl. If only this official faced the players to ensure that the receiver maintained contact with the opponent and the ground... it would have been a SuperBowl call.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

If you pause the video with 7 seconds left, you can see first contact, and at this point, the distance from the foot that would have hit inbounds to the sideline is the same (or greater than!) as the distance that same foot hit the ground beyond the sideline in goal.

Simple physics tells us that because there was an external force applied to the airborne path of the receiver, that his foot most definitely would have had a chance (or definitely would have) to hit inbounds.

Good call by the official. This call reminds me of (FJ#80) Gary Gautreaux's call in the SuperBowl. If only this official faced the players to ensure that the receiver maintained contact with the opponent and the ground... it would have been a SuperBowl call.

Are you simply ignoring or missing the fact that if the receiver is already moving in that direction it *doesn't matter* if the receiver would've gotten a foot down? A force out only applies when the direction of the receiver is changed. This is clearly explained in a post above and comes directly from the NFHS case book. What is called in Canada is not really relevant to whether this call is good in Canada or in the NFL.

It's simply an awful call brought about by poor positioning and ball hawking.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Good call by the official. This call reminds me of (FJ#80) Gary Gautreaux's call in the SuperBowl. If only this official faced the players to ensure that the receiver maintained contact with the opponent and the ground... it would have been a SuperBowl call.

Not since the NFL rule change requiring 2 feet inbounds, no matter whether the receiver is pushed out.

[whitehat]

Actually, the complete or incomplete should have been a mute point: There was at least one ineligable obviously downfield (he was on a pass route in the EZ as we all have seen) that the same official missed. As a wing in 5 man crew we have got to see who is covered and who is eligible...Offense should have been replaying the down 5 yards back after encforcement.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Are you simply ignoring or missing the fact that if the receiver is already moving in that direction it *doesn't matter* if the receiver would've gotten a foot down? A force out only applies when the direction of the receiver is changed. This is clearly explained in a post above and comes directly from the NFHS case book. What is called in Canada is not really relevant to whether this call is good in Canada or in the NFL.

It's simply an awful call brought about by poor positioning and ball hawking.

Admittedly, I haven't had a chance to read all posts since I was in the Dominican while reading them, and my net time was limited.

Changed must be a term meaning "significantly changed". I hardly doubt that the angle between pre- and post- contact is 0 degrees.

If that is the rule, then so be it. It's a bad rule.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by whitehat

Actually, the complete or incomplete should have been a mute point:

It was mute: he didn't say a word.

Perhaps you mean 'moot point'?

[bigjohn]

isn't this forum always on "Mute"?

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Unfortunately, so many places including here on Long Island utilize the popularity system of rating similar to Indiana largely for two reasons; 1) it is simple, and 2) the educators who own the system lack forethought and drive to change.

How many students would be happy if their teachers gave them grades not upon their effort and performance but upon what they thought of the student. Well, why should officials accept ratings based upon popularity rather than effort and performance?

When these systems are improved to give honest, true and objective feedback to officials from unbiased third parties what we see in Indiana and other places will continue.

Ed...a better analogy I use is allowing the students to rate their teachers and having those ratings determine their pay. You might be an excellent teacher and done everything to help a student succeed but if they failed to do their part an earned an "F", the student could still give the teacher a bad rating with no explanation or justification. To expand the analogy on our current system, students that have never taken your class could give you a rating (good or bad) because they heard you were a good or bad teacher or their dad went to HS with the you. The principal would take the scores with blind faith and apply pay raises based on it without any of their own observations. How many teachers would sign up for that?!?

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It was mute: he didn't say a word.

Perhaps you mean 'moot point'?

ah yes, my fingers on a keyboard never can catch up to my mind...which isn't saying a whole lot ..yes, "moot" it is

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Alf, do you get paid by the comma?

Apparently not nearly as much as you must get paid for noticing the inconsequential.

[parepat]

I think the bigger picture is that the force out rule in high school is terrible and needs to be eliminated. It should be the burden of the receiver to catch the ball within the field of play. The NFL and NCAA have recognized this fact and changed their rules. If the "best of the best" aren't expected to split this hair, why are we? Maybe this play will help push the NFHS in that direction.

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by parepat

I think the bigger picture is that the force out rule in high school is terrible and needs to be eliminated. It should be the burden of the receiver to catch the ball within the field of play. The NFL and NCAA have recognized this fact and changed their rules. If the "best of the best" aren't expected to split this hair, why are we? Maybe this play will help push the NFHS in that direction.

well said...

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by jaybird

That's really a shame because if you possessed those attributes, you could become a football game official. Perhaps with experience you might be able to acquire these qualities you so desperately seek.

I'm still trying to read his post. Anybody got a dictionary?

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by parepat

I think the bigger picture is that the force out rule in high school is terrible and needs to be eliminated. It should be the burden of the receiver to catch the ball within the field of play. The NFL and NCAA have recognized this fact and changed their rules. If the "best of the best" aren't expected to split this hair, why are we? Maybe this play will help push the NFHS in that direction.

One theory I heard is instant replay is causing rules like that to go away at the NCAA or NFL level. Since they can't make it reviewable, it's easier to get rid of it. Think about how many rules have been adjusted (or at least philosophies changed) because of instant replay. Things like fumbles (when exactly does a player lose control) and catches (maintaining control to the ground or making a football move) are great examples.

It wouldn't surprise me if this play did cause the force out rule to change. The NFHS office is less than a mile from where this play took place and I'm sure there are coaches submitting rules change requests. The losing team is an affluent suburb of Indy and it's possible there were NFHS and NCAA staffers with kids on the team.