Illegal motion or shift?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

How about this situation?

Team A lineman has a slight twitch before the ball is snapped but it by itself is not something you are gonig to flag. You might talk to him and remind him he is to remain set but if you flagged that everytime you saw it, you'd have flags all night. Good judgment does come into play in several situations during a game.

Now let's say you determine that exact same twitch is what caused a B player to encroach. Would you penalize B for encroachment or would you penalize A for a false start?

Passing on the first situation and penalizing A on the second is damn good officiating in my opinion.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by asdf

Passing on the first situation and penalizing A on the second is damn good officiating in my opinion.

I rest my case.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I rest my case.

Stick to softball.

You are the perfect robot for that sport...

"Must do only what the book says"....

"Must not use my god given common sense to help make a judgement"....

"Must keep my body stiff and rigid while on the field"....

i hope you really don't officiate this way. Your games must take over three hours to complete.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by asdf

Stick to softball.

You are the perfect robot for that sport...

"Must do only what the book says"....

"Must not use my god given common sense to help make a judgement"....

"Must keep my body stiff and rigid while on the field"....

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

It is not common sense to intentionally rule on the same exact action differently between instances,

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.