State Championship Call
 

We all want to advance to the state championship and make the right call at the right time. Watch the play in the link below. Team A has a 4th and goal with 9 seconds left down by 8. Did the official make the right call? Do you notice anything else on the play?

Warren Central Quaterbck Derek Hart connected with Maurice McGee on Fouth Down Conversion, but McGee Appeared to be out of bounds - IndySports

Team A converted the 2 point conversion and sent the game into overtime where they won 42-36 in the second overtime.

Ineligble receiver downfield
 

It also looks like the snapper is covered and then goes downfield on a pass pattern. I am not all that clear on the numbering exceptions but since he is covered that would be a 5 yard penalty and a negation of the touchdown that should nothave been called in the first place.

Correct, the snapper is covered, illegal man downfield.

It's moot but the official must have ruled that he was forced out and would have come down in bounds had it not been for the contact. With the benefit of replay I disagree but that's a tough call on the spot. Prob should err on the side of no catch though.

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.

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

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.

anyone also have a problem with the snapper facing the sideline rather than the opponent's goal line as required?

Yes Mike, that would be an issue as well.

He was there and made the call and I hate to second guess him, but....

Since the receiver was headed out, I would be reluctant to make this call unless he was clearly carried out. I'm not sure he would have come down inbounds without contact.

He had two players out of bounds and turned away from them to give a TD signal. There is no need to face the center of the field while signalling TD. He should have been facing the receiver and defender.

If he was going to rule that he was forced out, here is where a suplimental signal would really help sell the call. Give a push signal and then a TD. At least people would know what he thought. This just looks like he missed the feet coming down out of bounds.

They paint the out of bounds a different color to give us perspective. I like sideline plays on turf when you can see the mark the foot makes when the player comes down. Too bad they did not have 6 or 7 officials on this play.

As much as I hate to second guess as well, after watching the film it looks like the H was watching ball only (as best I can tell). He followed the catch all the way through, but probably didn't know where the feet were until it didn't matter any longer.

As was taught to me very early in my officiating career, the game is called "football" for a reason, i.e., foot first, then ball. If the feet are out, the subsequent catch/no catch is of no significance.

I also concur with the other posters that the covering official needs to stay with the action all the way through and not turn back toward the field of play.

I know it's already been said, but right or wrong on this particular official's part, this is a learning experience for us all. All of us have had a call at some point that we would like to have back. All we can do from it is move on, learn, and hope that it can be used to teach others as well.

The player that caught the pass jumped from much further in the EZ than he landed outside of the EZ. Keeping in mind that he was contacted with non-trivial force, it is surprising to me that he landed only as much past the sideline in goal as he did.

I think he would have definitely landed inbounds, and therefore a touchdown. If the rule/AR is that the official can use his judgement on a force out, I think this official made the gutsy and correct call of a touchdown.

As for the legality of the snap and snapper's action, that is a different story, none of which I could comment on.

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.

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.

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.

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

Go back the the other board.

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...

You like telling people where to go?


He was not going toward the sideline when he possessed the ball, he was knocked oob.

7.5.2k does apply it is (b) not (c) that fits!

A pass from A1 is thrown near the intersection of the sideline
and the goal line. A2, running toward the goal line, leaps and possesses the
pass at the 3-yard line and is forcibly:

(b) contacted
from the side by B1 and A2 first contacts the ground out of bounds opposite the
3-yard line;


RULING: Completed pass
in both (a) and (b).

John,
the casebook play you cite contains the following in explanation.
"the added force in the general direction the player was moving is not considered a factor affecting his spot of landing".
You are attempting to use an example where the receivers general direction was changed (pushed back) which does not apply to the OP.

If there was no defender there do you think he would have caught this ball inbounds?

I do.

Correct interpretation of the force-out rule.

While I sit in a very comfortable chair watching the video several times and the official had to make the call in real-time.

However, the official does take a good wide position on the sideline and immediately moves to the goal line on the snap and as the ball arrives he straddles the sideline while watching the ball.

You have to ask, why is he watching the ball (note the bill of the cap) and not observing the opponents in his area. If a PI occurred he would not see it. At the time the receiver touches the ball he first observes contact and probably was unable to properly observe the receiver's ability or inability to come down in-bounds, and, properly apply the force-out rule.

You have to wonder how many times this official has seen this situation.

Picasa Web Albums - john - Drop Box

This is where he caught the ball!

It doesn't matter in this case. The receiver's direction in this play is clearly towards the sideline. Since the defender's push is in the same direction, the casebook directs the officials to ignore the push and only focus on whether or not the receiver actually comes down in bounds.

"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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/__gPjX7skmTs/Sx...s640/catch.jpg




http://lh3.ggpht.com/__gPjX7skmTs/Sx...s512/catch.jpg

Looks to me like he was coming down in bounds. Where were you sitting and who were you rooting for?

:)

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

still pictures rarely count for much when the movement of the players is critical to the play.

What Mike said...plus, it DOES NOT MATTER if he would have come down inbounds or not! His momentum was carrying him towards the sideline and that is the same direction that the defender pushed him. The defender didn't change his direction while airborne.

P.S. The bold and red type face is not intended to yell, only emphasize that very important point.

I say his momentum was toward the back of the endzone and the db changed his direction. So 7.5.2k does not fit. Look again, he starts his jump and is going backwards, db hits him FROM THE SIDE and knocks him OOB. When his arms ar up waiting for the ball he is going backwards, pass almost falls short. He catches it in his belly.


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)


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.

Agree with some on here that it doesn't matter based on the momentum of the receiver being the same direction as the push from the defender. They look like they are both leaping in the same direction to me. It doesn't appear that the defender pushs a different direction from his own momentum.

But I saw it live, replays on the jumbotron, and on here - I'm with Big John as far as what happens without the contact. I think without the contact he comes down in bounds.

The defender didn't push him really hard, but it totally knocked him off balance and his legs move suddenly to try and find the ground. Good NFL and college receivers learn to ignore the unnatural feeling of losing your balance and dot those feet/foot in bounds anyway and just pay the price by eating the turf sometimes - but this receiver doesn't have that kind of experience to do that.

Are you Serious, Clark?:eek:

lol Big John, you get the reference I see. :) Have a great day

If you say so but I reserve the right to question your vision. :)

you seriously think if he doesn't get hit from the side that he does get a foot down in bounds?

Talk about vision problems! It is plain to see the ball is caught in bounds and he is coming down in bounds when he is contacted by the defender. PLAIN AS DAY!

Oh I have no doubt that if he doesn't get hit, he comes down in bounds. But that is completely irrelevant as the airborne receiver's momentum is towards the sideline and that is the direction he was pushed.

And just to show how much of a judgment call this is, I have no doubt he would have come down out of bounds anyway without contact. The contact was not that significant. I also agree it's irrelevant for the reason you mention but I did not remember that part of the rule when I was at the game. If I had been that official making the call I would have only applied the judgment of whether he would have landed in or out. At the time I thought out and disagreed with his call but understood it as a judgment call he had to make.

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.

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.

Alf, do you get paid by the comma?
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

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.

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

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.

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. ;)

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

Perhaps you mean 'moot point'?

isn't this forum always on "Mute":)?

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?!?

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:D

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

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...

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

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.

Wow. As they say, all politics is local!