State Championship Call

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Theisey

It wasn't the snapper who went downfield... it was the player to his right who did. That player was covered in this odd formation.

Yes it was the snapper who went down field. He was standing with his shoulders parallel to the sideline and snapped it sideways a la flag football days.

The only explanation one can offer is the official thought the receiver would come down in-bounds without the contact.

Originally Posted by Theisey

While I tend to agree in principle, its my understanding that when any such contact is in the direction a receiver is already moving and subsequently landing OOB is the result.. the pass is incomplete. That's how I would have ruled on this one.

The case book very clearly states this is to be an intepretation of the force-out rule. If the contact is in the direction the receiver is already moving, the receiver has to complete the catch with at least one foot in bounds. That was obviously not the case.

[bigjohn]

Looks to me like the receiver is going toward the end line, not the sideline and then the contact makes him go OOB. Look at the end zone shot at the end of the clip.
He would have easily landed in bounds had he not been hit.
The case play you are quoting has to do with a play where the WR is barely inbounds and going out to get a ball, this ball was in bounds no doubt and the receiver was knocked OOB.

[asdf]

If he was going towards the endline he would have missed the ball by 5 yards.

Go back the the other board.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by asdf

If he was going towards the endline he would have missed the ball by 5 yards. Go back the the other board.

"Opinions are like a--holes, everyone has one and it's a little different that anyone else". The question is not answered by NF 7-5-2, or the related case book plays. NF: 2-4-1 defines, "A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds or being contacted by an opponent in such a way that he is prevented from returning to the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball."

That is purely a judgment call, that was made by an assigned official who was in perfect position to render a judgment. The comments, which were pure whining, by the losing coach didn't do him personally, or his school any good. From the opposite sideline, his version is obviously worthless and whatever he might have been told by a spectator (Administrator or not) is totally immaterial.

I would presume the covering official was fully aware of case book 7-5-2k's recommendations but did not opine they were a factor. The difference between his opinion, and subsequent judgment, and the opinions of everyone else, is that his opinion counts.

[bigjohn]

I agree with that too.

4.3.3 SITUATION B: A has third down and seven yards to gain at B’s 30. A1
leaps near the sideline to catch a pass near B’s 30-yard line. A1 is driven out of
bounds backwards by B2 while making the catch and lands outside the sideline
at B’s 32. RULING: The covering official must make the following decisions: Did
B2’s actions cause A1 to land out of bounds? If the official determines that B2
caused A1 to land out of bounds, then the official must determine forward
progress in the field of play and should not stop the clock. If however, the clock
is stopped, it should start on the ready because forward progress was stopped in
the field of play. If A1 would have landed out of bounds of his own accord, it is
an incomplete pass and the clock should be stopped.


COMMENT: When any
receiver is close to the sideline and is contacted by an opponent, the covering
official must make a decision about where he would have landed without the contact.
(4-3-2)

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by ajmc

"Opinions are like a--holes, everyone has one and it's a little different that anyone else". The question is not answered by NF 7-5-2, or the related case book plays. NF: 2-4-1 defines, "A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds or being contacted by an opponent in such a way that he is prevented from returning to the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball."

That is purely a judgment call, that was made by an assigned official who was in perfect position to render a judgment. The comments, which were pure whining, by the losing coach didn't do him personally, or his school any good. From the opposite sideline, his version is obviously worthless and whatever he might have been told by a spectator (Administrator or not) is totally immaterial.

I would presume the covering official was fully aware of case book 7-5-2k's recommendations but did not opine they were a factor. The difference between his opinion, and subsequent judgment, and the opinions of everyone else, is that his opinion counts.

Spoken like a politician with a law degree.

Quit trying to convince yourself and others that you possess an enormous amount of intelligence, because it isn't working. The OP asked two questions and like someone running for office, you avoided them both.

Did the official make the right call? Do you notice anything else on the play?

You did go out on a limb and made this statement, which is not accurate for at least three reasons.

..official who was in perfect position..

Now, rather than prepare a rebuttal or an attack, pretend you are a football game official by answering the OP questions and study the manual to see why this official's improper mechanics caused him to not be in perfect position.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

"Opinions are like a--holes, everyone has one and it's a little different that anyone else"....
I would presume the covering official was fully aware of case book 7-5-2k's recommendations but did not opine they were a factor. The difference between his opinion, and subsequent judgment, and the opinions of everyone else, is that his opinion counts.

Well Alf, opinions are what spectator have, officials use judgment; therefore, the statement you used which is my signature BTW ***-backwards, "it's your opinion and my judgment and since my judgment counts (and your opinion doesn't), that's the call."

As for the official's mechanics they are questionable, and mechanics are what put the Rule Book in motion, of course, no one expects you to agree with anyone else.

[Berkut]

So what is it about his mechanics that caused the error, if in fact this was an error?

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Berkut

So what is it about his mechanics that caused the error, if in fact this was an error?

Take a look at the official's cap and you will see the bill follow the ball. The official should be focusing more on the players in his area. Remember PIs occur before the ball arrives and if you are watching the ball you will miss it. In this case to properly officiate the official needs to observe the direction of both the receiver and the defender much like observing for a PI. The argument being made is the receiver was moving toward the sideline and the interpretation would not allow the catch and subsequent TD.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The question is not answered by NF 7-5-2, or the related case book plays.

Really? So when a particular situation requires the use of multiple rules and their attendent interps, it's ok to simply reject any you don't feel like applying? Is that what you are trying to say here? Or are you trying to imply the quote out of the case book "the added force in the general direction the player was moving is not considered a factor affecting his spot of landing" is not applicable to this play?

That is purely a judgment call, that was made by an assigned official who was in perfect position to render a judgment.

I agree with the judgement call aspect, but to say this official is in perfect position....well you're a much easier grader than any evaluator I've ever had.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Really? So when a particular situation requires the use of multiple rules and their attendent interps, it's ok to simply reject any you don't feel like applying? Is that what you are trying to say here? Or are you trying to imply the quote out of the case book "the added force in the general direction the player was moving is not considered a factor affecting his spot of landing" is not applicable to this play?
I agree with the judgement call aspect, but to say this official is in perfect position....well you're a much easier grader than any evaluator I've ever had.

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.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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?

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?

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.

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?

As for his positioning, what is wrong with being inside the goal line

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.

looking right down the sideline at the play that happened right in front of him?

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 doesn't seem blocked and he was a lot closer to the action than either of us

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

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.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I would presume the covering official was fully aware of case book 7-5-2k's recommendations but did not opine they were a factor. The difference between his opinion, and subsequent judgment, and the opinions of everyone else, is that his opinion counts.

We really do not know the answer to this unless someone talks to that person directly. Now I do not like the ruling, but if that is what he based it on then there is not much we can say. I would suggest that the rule changed and only apply this issue to forward progress and being carried out of the EZ. But this provision of the rule is hard to decide and should make the judgment easier. And we would not be discussing this as what the official might have decided.

Peace

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Yes it was the snapper who went down field. He was standing with his shoulders parallel to the sideline and snapped it sideways a la flag football days.

A lot of things went bad on this play from an officiating standpoint. A good learning tool for all of us. I am wondering were the BJ was and why no help was given by him...

Bison...i just edited this post, initiallyit looked like #53 snapped it...Wow, i went back and looked about 9 times and you are correct, #53 is not the snapper, but the guy to his right snapped it and was facing sideways...