Fake FG Question
 

I retired from football officiating in 2004 and saw a play last weekend that piqued my curiosity. My son's team was playing in NY(Section V AA) in a championship game and with 4 seconds left attempted a fake FG. The holder caught the snap with his knee on the ground and flipped the ball over his shoulder to the kicker who rolled right. The holder then ran to the left and kicker threw back across the field to him for a game winning TD. Is this play legal? Someone asked if for the holder to be eligible to receive the pass his knee needed to be off the ground when he received the snap. It's been six years since I officiated and I honestly don't remember. Here is a link to the play if you want to watch the video. Forward the highlights to the 2:45 mark to skip to the play. Any officials who help out, I appreciate it.

http://rochesterhomepage.net/fulltex...215296&watch=1

I think both codes agree: the exception for the holder's knee is good as long as he's holding or simulating the hold and he may run or pass or otherwise advance the ball. He can get up or stay down and pass, but once he does that, we go off exception for everyone, including him. His knee having once been down or his status as a holder means nothing in terms of eligibility to catch a forward pass. Since he's a back, only a number would make him ineligible.

NFHS rules require the holder to bring the knee off the ground before handing, passing, or kicking the football. Once the ball is flipped by the holder with the knee on the ground, the play should be blown dead as the exception is not met and therefore the (now) runner is down. 4-2-2a EXCEPTIONS.

I had this happen in a varsity game last season and the coach mentioned the play in the pregame meeting and I gave him the proper ruling and the player flipped it anyway. When I looked over at the coach, he had his hands over his eyes and he told the wing he *told* the kid to raise his knee before passing (backward) the football.

Under NF rules the holder can have his knee on the ground when he receives the snap but must rise off the ground the hand off or pass the ball. It appeared that his knee was on the ground therefore the ball is dead.
4-2-2a exception 1
4.2.2 SITUATION A

Case Book 4.2.2 SITUATION A: K1 has one knee on the ground to hold for an apparent field-goal attempt. K2 is in position to kick. K1 catches the snap and: (a) places the ball which is kicked by K2; or (b) rises and either runs or passes; or (c) without rising, flips the ball to K2 who attempts to run.

RULING: Legal in (a) and (b). In (c), the ball becomes dead immediately when K1 tosses it to K2 while K1 has his knee on the ground. (4-2-2a Exception)

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

The holder with his knee on the ground and possession of the ball is an exception to the ball being dead if done for the purposes of holding for a FGA. For the flip over the shoulder to be legal, the knee must come off of the ground.

Additionally, since the holder is not an ineligible receiver, he most certainly receive a forward pass.

The position of the holder's knee when he receives the snap has no bearing on his eligibility.

Had that happen in a JV game this year...we did not know about it prior to the snap. When I killed it (knee on ground...flipped backwards over the shoulder to kicker), the coaching staff, and of course, some members of the crowd who mysteriously always know the rules better than the officials, started barking about the play being blown dead. Head coach's argument was that he saw it on TV the week before.....I kid you not. This is also the same school that had their QB throw the ball into the team box, twice, to avoid a sack....you know, because the kid was out of the tackle box. Gotta love it.

And,
 

If you hear the common refrain: "is that a new rule?"

Explain, with a smile on your face, that you know a "really old guy" that was a holder in high school 43 YEARS AGO and the rule was identical then to what it is now.

T

He's gotta be the same coach who wants an automatic first down on a personal foul.

Funny, because I'm 42...which isn't OLD, but a good portion of these rules haven't changed since I was playing.

I do get the: "when did they put that rule in?" question quite often. Like when the HC tells you his team is legally equipped and you see 3 kids with all white or all clear mouthguards....which happens at least once a month up here.

Thanks for all the responses. I asked the question wrong but got the right answer. Because his knee was down it should have been blown dead when he threw it. That leads me to the question. From a timing standpoint would the next play have the clock start on the ready or the snap? There were only 4 seconds left but it was 1st down so I'm wondering if they would have been able to get a FG off on the next play.

This would be a running play, so the clock would not stop unless it was 4th down and the series ended. For your play, the clock would surely expire.

I thought it would be ruled an incomplete pass. Why would it be considered a running play but blown dead then start on the ready?

The runner is down because his knee is on the ground and he has lost his exception. The play is blown dead, but the clock is not stopped.

Last year week 8 pregame coach asked if this play was legal, and I explained that the holder had to rise to pitch or pass and he said that makes it 4 and 4. 4 WH had told them that season it was legal. (What really bothers me is that 2 of th em I know are working tonight and my season ended after 1st round.)

I wouldn't lose any sleep over that. You don't know how the play was described to anyone else, or what exact answer was given. For example: "is it legal for a holder to pitch or pass?" The WH's might have said "Yes, provided he rises first," and "No, unless he rises first."

And all the coach heard was "Yes, blah blah blah," and "No, blah blah blah."

http://studyprof.com/blog/wp-content...ar-243x300.jpg

I'm guessing the coaches asked the right question and the white hats showed that they never open the case book, myself.

And my answer would have been, "Yes it's legal. There is no foul for having your knee on the ground. The down is just over."

Good point. Might confuse a coach, though. :D

It amazes me how many crews in this area go out and work on Friday nights with a very poor understanding of rules, case plays, and especially penalty enforcement.

I talked to a coach prior to a playoff game last week (I was the WH). He works college basketball and *gets* officiating. We have a common officiating friend/colleague (who posts here) and he told me of 3 or 4 enforcements this season that simply befuddled him. As an assistant coach, he wasn't able to convince the head coach to take a time out for a conference and, like he said, if the WH enforced the penalty wrong in the first place, who's to say he would be convinced by the head coach anyway?

Since the main factor in playoff assigning is "coach rating" here, some of those crews will be working deep into the playoffs. I saw on the highlights last week a crew that had a wing position himself on the numbers when the ball was snapped on the opposite hashmark. In the same set of highlights, I saw another crew where a wing didn't go straight to the goal line with a ball snapped at the 4 and ended up signaling a TD from the 2 yard line.

Last season we worked a first round playoff game where the visiting team (from another area) came out on offense and only had 4 players with numbers 50-79 in the game. Flag. Next play: Another flag. Then I got the linesman to get the coach to take a timeout so we could get this fixed before the game became a farce. All season the crews working their games ignored the numbering rules or just didn't know them or pay attention to them.

In other words, nothing surprises me anymore.

But I'm trying to make things better. I've been the football meeting coordinator of my association for the past two years and I've shown a lot of video and tried to get people talking and learning. But we're a state where association membership is only "recommended" and has no relation to assigning or playoff eligibility. So most of the people that are there are ones that already do things right or really want to. When in Rome....

It's a shame we don't work and live closer together....I've echoed these sentiments for years. As we discussed, there's crews I know well that let a QB off the hook in HS for grounding the ball OOB because he's out of the tackle box. Astounding is putting it lightly...and they can't figure out why they never get a playoff assignment, or deeper than Level 1 anyway.

Unless there were players split out towards his side, what is wrong with a wing official moving in off the sideline when the formation is on the opposite side of the field?

I don't know what size crew you are accustomed to, but in a 4 man crew being able to remain out on the sideline, for all types of formations, doesn't work all that well. The same is true for 5 man crews. Obviously, that official is responsible to understand his limitations and ability to retreat, should the play come his way, or reverse towards him, but when a team is running inside consistently and the ball is snapped on the opposite hash mark, you need the off side official "in the game" retaher than parked on a distant sideline.

This is an old mechanic and not the current thinking for most of the officials across the country. There are some known exceptions, mostly in the SE regions influenced by the SEC.

I've worked for 10 years on the sideline even if the ball is snapped at the opposite hash and have no problems seeing what I'm supposed to see. In 4 or 5 man mechanics there are at least 3 other guys who are close enough to deal with anything immediately in that area once the play is dead. Being on the field can only get you in trouble if the play comes your way. It also helps to keep the sideline clear if you are already there.

I don't know, "most of the officials across the country" well enough to ask, and I believe even the SEC uses 7 officials, and has for some time. Most formations today seem to utilize wider placements which require the wing officials to position themselves wider, closer to the sideline, but when the formation allows, positioning off the sideline, in as far as the numbers, shouldn't present any problems for good officials retreating when necessary and their presence closer to the action can be helpful in stabalizing the contest from an off the ball and dead ball officiating perspective.

Being off the sideline can also be helpful in ignoring the mindless chatter that, at times, eminates from the sideline. Of course, it all depends on the actual game you're working, and the level the game is being played at. At some levels of youth football camping on a sideline takes the wing official virtually out of the game.

Everything.
It's not the approved nor ideal starting place for a LOS official (aka a sideline official).

Be it 4, 5, 6 or 7, the only officials who's allowable and acceptable starting positions are on the field are the Referee, Umpire and Back Judge.
Alf, "in the game" refers to a metal state not a physical position.

The place for all wing officials to start is off the field. If you are still advocating working on the field *this long* after this mechanic has been abandoned by officials that know what the hell they're doing, then there's really no point in having a discussion.

My eyes work just as well from the restricted area as the do from the numbers. From the restricted area, I can actually officiate without having to get the hell out of the way every other play.

Well,

I try to get a video of our games for training and evaluation purposes, and the school from week 8 last season sent me a copy of their game film, which had both week 7 and week 8 on it.

The week 7 white hat allowed the play in question on the video, holder with knee on the ground and having never raised it flipped the ball to the kicker who through a pass into the end zone. 2 point conversion scored and counted.

I recognized the whitehat because he worked a state semifinal I went to last year, and I remembered it because he spent the entire game on the right-hand side of a left-handed quarterback. But hes one of the "good old boys"

(I'm not saying me or my crew deserve a state semifinal, but there are a lot of excellent officials who don't work past the 1st round of playoffs because good old boys don't need a rulebook, casebook, or manual. And they wonder why we have difficulty recruiting and retaining newer officials.)

We had a fake FG somewhere around Week 8 and from my vantagepoint, it was a no-brainer that the holder got up before flipping it to the kicker.

On tape, though, it was a whole lot closer than I thought. Yes, the knee was off the ground, but maybe by a few inches. I think what made it seem less close is that the holder was on his way up to flip and then lead the blocking. At the time, nothing tripped my trigger that it was close to being a dead ball -- even though I *always* look for it, since I've had it happen to me a few times before.

Sometimes you just get lucky, I guess.

I realize that things may be done differently in different parts of the country and am a firm believer in "Whatever works best for you". I agree, at the Varsity level considering the type formations regularly employed in today's game, positioning "off the field" is clearly the prominent, and appropriate, positioning.

However, it is NOT etched in stone and ALL officials, "that know what the hell they're doing" are usually cognizant and willing to adjust to the game, and within that game, to the situation they are confronted with, at least in my experience. If you haven't learned "one size NEVER fits ALL", you eventually will.

I suspect, a number of officials work at multiple levels and multiple ages and sometimes what makes perfect sense when dealing with world class athletes at the Varsity level just doesn't make all that much sense when it's applied at the Pee Wee level, which is where many officials learn their trade.

"Too" close is always dangerous, but moving in,an appropriate distance, in a 4 or 5 man configuration, in the right circumstance can be a BIG help for overall crew coverage and performance. However, "Whatever works best for you" adjusted to match the level you're working at, should prevail.

You replied to a post about a varsity playoff game where Rich commented about the officials positioning themselves on the field. He wasn't talking about a pee-wee game. Those situations usually only have 2 or 3 officials so I agree it can be necessary for a wing official to pinch a little to help with action after the ball is dead.

I beileve any time you are working with 4 officials or more and at the HS level and above, start on the sidelines and stay there until the play is over if you are a wing official. It's also a good habit to get into if you are starting out working lower levels. Otherwise you could develop bad habits as you move up.

If adhering to your belief, every time, works for you, you are likely better off adhering to what you believe is correct. However, it may be just a tad beyond the reach of your headlights to suggest, or imply, that anyone who might disagree somewhat with your belief is "wrong".

That's fine. I think I'll stick with what I have been taught by excellent high school officials and those working college and NFL. You stick with what you were taught 20+ years ago.

Word count: 50
Comma count: 6

Kind of what I was thinking -- How to Learn Officiating by Watching ESPN Classic....

No need to get snarky. If you bother to learn to broaden your perspective, you might make it to 20+ years. No matter how much you think you know, or how good you think you might be, neither rarely equates to what you actually need to learn, or how good you actually are.

It's not OUR belief ... it's the beliefs of the folks that write the manual, and those that train us and evaluate us. This is not a "do what works for you" area. Additionally, I fail to see ANY benefit to working on the field in a 4 (or more) man system. The distance gained is immaterial - your angle is far more important. I'm not understanding why you seem to think that because YOU believe it, it's accepted. It's not.

(3 man - or 2 - is a completely different animal... without an umpire wings HAVE to pinch in, or R is in for a very very long day.)

Even with three man mechanics, I don't pinch in until the play is over. Too much is lost by being on the field in my opinion.

bison, you are obviously shooting moonbeams beyond your headlights, which you may, or, may, not, realize but clearly whatever works best for you, is how you should go, if you know, how to do so,maybe, you'll understand that, once you get enough, experience to become, a clock, operator.


Edit: needed a few more ,,,,,,,,,,

Honestly, it depends on a lot of things. If I'm doing 8th or 9th grade with 3, I'm staying on the sideline. Saturday with 2nd graders? Absolutely. Also - if I have 2 games that day, sideline it is. 6? I'm going to cheat in more likely - not just for me but for my crew who is likely also working 6.

Perhaps what you have trouble understanding, is that whether or not you accept a concept, or not, is totally immaterial. If you feel more effective camped out on a sideline for EVERY situation, knock yourself out, but angle has nothing to do with anything, unless you're incapable of responding to what your confronted with.

Not to stir the pot any, but Nebraska School Activities Association tells us that when ball is on opposite hash wings should be on the numbers.

So maybe when in Rome one should do as the Romans do.

An exception that proves a rule. Likely a state run by a 40 year official who doesn't think that change is a good thing. I saw the same thing in LA in basketball where until recently they insisted on having the center official opposite the table (and I have no idea if this has changed).

I worked 2 games 3-man this season, neither by choice. Told the wings to stay off the field as usual and that I would run up and spot the football between plays -- if the play was in the side zone, that wing could choose to pinch in and spot the ball if they chose. I ran more, but it's better (IMO) than lining up R-L-U and better than having the wings compromise their field coverage just to get a football spotted.

This may come as a shock to you Rich, but somehow officiating football actually survived (some might even say "thrived") before you came along. Your attitude, related to 40 year officials, might have a tad more credibility if you waited to see if you actually lasted that long first.

I've got 24 years in this racket. The difference between me and other 24 year officials is that I'm willing to embrace change that's put in place to make us better. When I started as a wing official, we worked well onto the field and tried to stay with or ahead of the play. We worried so much about getting the spot of the ball we missed a ton of stuff around the ball carrier. It's so much easier for us now to work (1) off the field and (2) slightly behind the play (and rely on cross-field mechanics rather than staying even with the football) that it's a wonder people didn't think of it before.

Good officials evolve. Those that don't or won't evolve should get out of the way. They *certainly* shouldn't be setting policy with respect to mechanics and then tell other people that's the only right way to work.

(I managed to write 2 full paragraphs and only used one comma. I'll try harder next time.)

I don't think there's anything remotely indicated by what I've tried to suggest that comes anyway near telling anyone, "that's the only right way to work.[/B], although I do get exactly that impression from your tone.

Officials in other areas often have tendencies to "evolve" as they decide is best for them to evolve, sometimes for good, sometimes not. Sometimes people with 20+ years evlove at a different pace than others, which sometimes is good, sometimes not.

By the way, what do commas have to to do with football?

Word count: 89
Comma count: 7

To be direct (you don't seem to pick up subtlety very well), you have a tendency to write with an unusually high number of commas. Many of them are not needed. If any officials are grammar teachers you provide many examples of incorrect punctuation for them to use in their classes. Not that it has anything to do with your ability to officiate.

Sister Mary Alice told me that in the 4th grade. Thanks for the update. (apparently sublety is not one of your strong suits either.)

What about sentence fragment examples?

Also, does he provide examples if no officials are grammar teachers?

+1

Ditto.

I think you should seriously rethink that statement.

Although it has nothing really to do with officiating, your sentence structure is appalling. If you can't write well you will give the impression of not really knowing what it is you are talking about.

Apparently simply ignoring you isn't quite conveying the suggestion that I'm doing my level best to try and ignore you. Not that I agree with, or accept your analysis, but what is it that suggests to you that your ridiculous comments and apparent obsession with my grammer, or your perception of a lack thereof, has anything to do with ANYTHING that matters?

Have you ever considered finding a hobby, or volunteering somewhere?

Obviously you are not ignoring me or your best is grossly insufficient. And to which analysis are you referring? The one where I state you should rethink your statement that angle on the play does not matter or that your sentence structure is appalling?
Poor sentance structure and an inability to accurately convey your message on a written internet opinion board is analogous to showing up to a game with an ill fitting, dirty uniform and forgetting some equipment. No-one is going to believe you have the slightest idea what you are doing or what you are talking about.
Also, just to set the record straight, I believe this is the first or maybe the second time I've ever commented on your extremely sub-par writing ability. Perhaps in your world that qualifies as "obsession", of course you've shown time and again you live in quite a different world than the rest of us.

I'm trying my best to ignore you, success is not guaranteed. Some challenges are more persistent than others and require more effort. Since the notion that moving in a few steps when a formation is on the other side of the field, somehow creates an "angle" problem for a wing official is really just silly, I must have been referencing your analysis of "sentence structure" whch simply doesn't matter.

My referene to "obsession" mght be directed at your often repeated attempts to try and make youself sound smart by focusing on insignificant trivia, which rarely matters nor relates, in any meaningful way, to whatever is being discussed which few likely care about. Whatever floats your boat, fills your sails, makes you feel happy or you think makes you sound smart.

What amazes me is that you would actually think that your impression of someone's "sentence structure" was a relevant or appropriate issue to inject in a discussion related to officiating mechanics. I might suggest, that to be effective, analogies need to make some degree of sense and relate somehow.

Now, I've answered your questions, might you answer one for me. Just how long are you prepared to continue beating a horse long past death, that has absolutely nothing to do with the original subject at hand? Could there possibly be a relevant point you are so feebly trying to make? Sorry, that's two questions.

Thanks for your advice on helping me communicate better, but somehow I've managed to muddle along OK to this point, although I continue to hold out hope that God's not yet finished with me.

Sure, no problem at all.

I'm willing to continue beating a horse as long as I'm think there's even the faintest possibility the horse may eventually see the errors of his ways. Perhaps it's because I'm a romantic optimist or have some hope for the betterment of my fellow officials no matter how obstinately they hold to their error filled opinion. In your case, that hope is quickly fading. But I can always pursue the dream that the nonsensical ravings of your lunatic mind will not infect those newer officials that stumble upon your rants if they also have the chance to see my counterpoints.

My relevant point remains, your statement that "but angle has nothing to do with anything" is ridiculously wrong. It does not matter how you attempt to hide it by either your tortured writing or logic.

I'm always willing to be educated, Mike, perhaps you could explain how moving forward a maximum of 18', (the distance from the sidline to the numbers) when the ball might be moved a maximum of 53' 4" farther away (the distance between the near and far hash marks) presents an "angle" problem. If I follow your superior logic, are you recommending that when a ball is snapped from the near hash mark, the best position, so as to avoid angle problems, would be 18' beyond the sideline ?

First, the location of the ball on the opposite sideline is irrelevant to you because you have no responsibility for the ball when that happens. You are responsible for backside action and the wider you are the wider your view of this action. That is a very good thing. Second, your angle may not be any different on this particular play but I don't think that's the point of Mike's comments. For an official to ever use the words "angle has nothing to do with anything" shows you are missing a very important aspect of officiating mechanics. We have officials in different positions largely because of angles. Keys are based largely on angles. Angles are a very important aspect of officiating.

For ANYBODY to take something completely out of context and try and apply it to an entirely different topic is....disingenuous. In the conversation it was included, "angle" is clearly not an issue. In many other aspects of officiating, of course, angle can be very important.

For an official to try and twist someone's words around to suggest something they were not intended to, or reasonably relate to, suggests you might be missing a very important aspect of officiating, which is addressing a question honestly.

If you have a pimple bothering you, do us both a favor and simply pop the pimple rather than just keep on picking at it.

Seriously....this is a referee board, not a grammar or anger-management board. Chill out fellas!

What about the fake field goal?

I can think of no other word for this ... that statement is ASININE. You've almost convinced me that you've never been on the field now.

What an interesting argument. Change what I say, and then call it silly. Many call that a straw-man argument. I was saying that angle is more important than distance, and creeping out onto the field to get more distance really isn't helping you at all.

Start off the field, period. Whether you are working 3, 4, 5 or 7.

Yeah, I don't see the point of not doing so.

I try not to take games with 3 officials anymore, but one game we had a guy not show up, so we did it with 3. I worked WH and had the other two guys work wing and I spotted the football. I decided I'd rather have to work a bit harder than have the wings feel they needed to pinch in unnecessarily to spot the ball and get in the way. Besides, it got me a little more exercise, which is always a good thing.

Mike, I didn't change anything you said. I can understand "upon further review" you might want to. If you believe "angle" is more important than distance, and creeping out onto the field to get more distance really isn't helping you at all", that's fine, but doesn't therefore make it universal, or accurate for all and every situation.

The "straw man" in this argument is the notion of "angle". Despite it's importance in many other aspects of what we do, it's simply not a significant factor in what we were originally discussing. I tried to be very clear that I agreed with starting out on a sideline is absolutely the basic position for a wing official on a Varsity level game, but that adjusting that positioning for specific formations and specific situations is absolutely NOT the WRONG thing to do. If that's your preference, fine, knock yourself out, but castigating others for differing with your assessment places you out beyond the reach of your own headlights.

As for camping on the sideline at the Youth Football level, while judgment and judicious application is always paramount, camping on a sideline at these levels is an effective way to take yourself completely out of the game.

As for 3 man configurations; I'm embarrassed to admit we still work 3 man at sub-varsity levels, and have so for over 40 years. We have tried every variation and repositioning possible, from the standard R-U-L to the recommended goal line formations of R-L-LJ throuout the game, and after all these years of application and testing variations have concluded (beyond the shadow of a doubt) 3 man mechanics is simply inadequate and long obsolete for today's game. You just can't draw a diamond with only 3 dots. Either a flank is exposed or the middle winds up being ignored, and trying to split the Umpire between both usually only produces half a$$ed coverage for both the middle and a sideline. (We've been using 4-man configuration at the Youth Football levels for over a decade).

Who's talking about camping out there? There's nothing that prevents an official from coming in when marking a spot or anytime else it's necessary.

*Starting* at the numbers is what we're talking about -- it's just putting yourself closer for no good reason. I can see a hold by my key (tackle) from the sideline just as well as I can from 15 feet closer.

And that pretty much sums up the situation. There is no great advantage gained by a flank official starting the play out in the field but there are a number of potential disadvantages. So why do it?
I can't even fathom how someone could possibly think being correctly at the sideline somehow takes yourself completely out of the game. Almost as bad as stating angle has nothing to do with anything.

You think that's bad? All of the subvarsity around here is either 3-man or 2-man (yes, there are some smaller schools that will only pay for two officials for a JV game).

It's especially funny to me when coaches come up to me and say something like "My nose tackle is getting held on every play". To which I respnd "Coach, if you want the officials to see and call that, you need to have AT LEAST 3 of us".

Apparently, I'm just not being clear enough. If you want to start every play, at every level, in every situation exactly on the sideline, that's what you should do and good luck with it. What you "fathom" about what someone else could possibly think might be correct is likely relevant ONLY to you.

Do us both a favor and drop the "angle" thing, it really has nothing significant to do with what this discussion started about. You can keep trying to change the context to better fit your position but "angle", in the context of the original discussion, remains a non-factor.

A great number of mechanics originally institued at the games higher levels have a very positive benefit and enhance performance when applied at lower levels. However, not all have the same impact or make as significant a difference. With a 4-man crew, when the game is being played around the left hashmark, clinging to the right sideline, for all practical purposes, tends to greatly reduce that officials contribution to the overall crew effort and capability.

I feel for you, having worked 2-man assignments, in the distant past, I understand the effect is little more than herding cats. With 3-man, moving around only serves to create different coverage gaps. After decades of listening to whining about what was missed on, or near, the open sideline, we tried shifting to the recommended "goal line configuration of R-L-LJ, which helps cover the sideline but creates a coverage gap in the middle.

It didn't reduce the whining, just changed it's focus.

Angle is quite significant because by starting on the sideline, the official is giving himself a wider angle to view more of the play. As a backside wing with only 3 or 4 officials this is especially important because you are responsible for more of the playing field.

I guess it is possible to split a gnat's eyelash, if you really want to.

Actually, you've been very clear. The problem is you are clearly wrong about a great many things. You are the one who stated angle does not matter. You are the one who stated sticking to the sideline is an effective way to take yourself out of the game.

Oh I see, it's suddenly changed from taking oneself out of the game to a mere greatly reducing your contribution. Unfortunately for you it remains utter nonsense. There is nothing that is going to happen during a play that I can't see just as well from the sideline as I can from the numbers. But being at the numbers certainly opens up the possibility of getting right in the middle of live ball action. Why take that unnecessary chance?

Ugh. There I go thinking I can teach the pig to sing.

Sorry, Mike, when you're not trying to talk through your other end, you don't need to fudge with memory. I'm not changing anything. You may have been preoccupied counting commas, or some other silliness, and missed what I stated, so I'll copy it again for you, in full context.

"The "straw man" in this argument is the notion of "angle". Despite it's importance in many other aspects of what we do, it's simply not a significant factor in what we were originally discussing. I tried to be very clear that I agreed with starting out on a sideline is absolutely the basic position for a wing official on a Varsity level game, but that adjusting that positioning for specific formations and specific situations is absolutely NOT the WRONG thing to do. If that's your preference, fine, knock yourself out, but castigating others for differing with your assessment places you out beyond the reach of your own headlights.

As for camping on the sideline at the Youth Football level, while judgment and judicious application is always paramount, camping on a sideline at these levels is an effective way to take yourself completely out of the game." When you try and re-spin things to mean what they were never intended to suggest, you just make yourself look like a dishonest fool.

PS to Mr. Welpe; I've been waiting for a couple of years now for you to mention anything worth learning. All I've noted are your periodic attempts at being a smart-a$$, and even there you're not very creative.

Always must have the last word I see. I've attempted serious discussions numerous times, including my previous post in this thread however your refusal to engage on an intellectual level and instead dismiss those that disagree with you as dopey are duly noted.

I realize it has probably been several years since you last worked a real football game (no being a clock operator does not count), so perhaps it is time for you to quit trying to continue the charade that you actually know what you are talking about?

I must have missed those "attempted serious discussions on an intellectual level". I have no authority to dismiss anything as being "dopey', but I've learned to recognize dopey fairly well.

What?!?!? Alf is only a clock operator?!?! No wonder he doesn't understand what we are talking about most of the time. He might be a good clock operator but I've been amazed about his lack of understanding of rules and mechanics, at least compared to other officials. That makes a lot more sense now. I won't be as harsh on him.

Oddly, it was your own snarky reply to Welpe that prompted his 'teaching a pig to sing' comment.

As a relatively new wing, you got to get out on the numbers. How else are you going to toss your flag in front of the other wing on a foul? :p

Only kidding, as I said I am fairly new to the wing position but the benefits of being on the sideline at the snap far out-weigh getting out to the numbers.

It sounds like we all agree except for ajmc.

I just want to be sure I understand you MJ, are you speaking of your experience at the Varsity level, your experience at the sub-Varsity level or your experience at various levels under what might be Pop Warner or "Youth" football? Just wondering if what can be a significant difference in the skill levels and physical capabilities at those levels enter into your benefit analysis.

Does you'r advice relate to all formations, or do you consider exceptions specifically for situations where the ball is snapped from the far hash, and the formation is tight? Does the proximity of the goal line enter into your conclusion? Does the tone and temper of the game up to that point impact your decision as to how close you want to be to the formation you're actually looking at?

It's always interesting to get input from "relatively new wings" about all encompasing mechanics. As you gain more experience you may learn that adapting to what you are actually confronted with offers benefit over a "one size fits all" approach. Then again, maybe you'll be one of those "relatively new officials" who already knows everything and you won't need to keep learning things.

This comment is so hilariously ironic, I wanted to make sure it stood out on its own.

You might try reading all that was written so you'd get a more complete understanding of what was said. Perhaps if you actually read the words, rather than just count them along with the commas, your analysis would be of actual value.

Nope, I don't claim to know it all and never will.