It is not being a robot, it is applying the rules consistently. Simply calling something common sense doesn't make it so. It is not common sense to intentionally rule on the same exact action differently between instances, which is what you are advocating. It is not common sense to insist that the defense must risk penalty to have penalties called correctly on the offense.

It's not about "must only do what the book says" - it's about fairness and objectivity.

I bet you do this frequently without so much as a 2nd thought. For instance, the surrounding circumstances could be such as to change intentional grounding into no call for the exact same throw and disposition of the other players. Same for USC, where an action might be interpreted as friendly or mean-spirited, depending. You could have the exact same collision under different circumstances be pass interference on one player, the same on his opponent, or a nothing.

On first pass reading this, I'm hearing, "You might rule differently on two identical plays if they are not identical..." !!! But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask for a specific example of what you really mean.

I'll give you an example. B45 gives A32 a small push after the ball is dead. A32 stumbles but doesn't fall down. There is nothing excessive or vicious about the contact.

Two different contexts:
(a) It's the first play of the game
(b) It's been a very chippy game and B45 is the primary instigator on several plays. You've already talked to him twice and have asked him stop contacting opponents after the ball is dead.

Same exact plays. Different context.

Same exact plays, - if there is nothing excessive or vicious about the contact, I don't care about the context, I've got nothing. If the problem escalates into something excessive/vicious, I've got a flag EVERY time.

Same way with the OL flinching. If he moves, I've got a flag EVERY time. The reaction of the defense, fans, coaches, other officials, clock operator, Santa Claus, etc., never figures into it.

It's 54-0. Final kneel down :eek: play of the game.

A62 flinches prior to the snap. Nobody moves (after all it's the last kneel down of the game... this baby is over....)
are you are going to flag A62 for a false start?

If you are, then you are true to your word....leaving people wondering "who in tarnation taught this guy to officiate?"

If you are not, then you are not true to your word and actually agree with many on here who say "not every time".

Again, what people think of me has never been a motivation for what I do. If the OL false starts and the game is 100-0, I'm throwing my flag.

Solid :rolleyes:

Naw, you're right. If it's that bad, I'm keeping my flag in my pocket. But still, Mike has a point - There are some fouls you just can't pick and choose. You have to admit come game time, if ole 78 flinches you're not gonna let that go - that's a fla thag every time (except on the last play of a blowout :) )
Same way with the dead ball push - if it's not excessive or viscious, you're not gonna throw a flag on that ever - maybe a word - "Quit that", but no flag. If it gets escessive or viscious, you're not worried about how many times you've warned him, you've got a flag every time. Right or Wrong?

I liked Okie Dokie better.;)

Reading through the rule book a minute ago and came across this gem in the 2009 edition of NFHS:

The major problem in dealing with false starts is the inconsistency in administration.
Whether or not a false start has occurred, or not, is not predicated upon whether the
defender encroaches or not, or by the down and/or distance.

How about 7-1-7b

Hut-Hut-HutHutt!



b. Any act is clearly intended to cause B to encroach.


I have heard many officials say that snap count falls under this but I say, snap count is not an ACT. It is verbiage, now if the team runs a play that is just snap counts and no snap, that ACT was clearly designed to draw B into the NZ.

Of course the snap count is an act. The rule should prohibit acts whose ONLY purpose is to cause B to encroach. Since a snap count is part of the sequence leading to a snap, and since teams are legally permitted to vary their snap count, this kind of deception is not a violation of the rules.

As a parent, I get what you're saying. Stop bugging your sister. Stop bugging your sister!!!! Then, at the slightest bugging of the sister, you're grounded.

As officials, we are not parents. If this non-excessive non-vicious contact is not a foul, it's not a foul. It may draw a warning, but it's not a foul the first time, the 3rd time, or the 10th time. If he's not fouling, why are you flagging this after a warning. Surely your warning isn't "Don't do that again". It should be something less specific like, "Cut it out" or "Watch it". It's not like the first 9 times were 1/10 of a foul each, so the 10th is a foul.

If the contact IS a foul, it's a foul on the first play and a foul on the last play.

You've heard this from very poor officials. This is legal in ALL levels.