State Championship Call

[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.