State Championship Call

[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.

[sloth]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

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.

[bigjohn]

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.

[Jmuvol]

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.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by sloth

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.

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.

[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?!?

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

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

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.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

Pathetic is the only word that comes to mind in response to this.