Backing your officials....

[APG]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Glasnost, sure, but it's mainly a PR effort to have a reputable expert explaining how the officials are getting it right in the vast majority of cases.

I think that the NFL policy (but not the rule) regarding helmet-to-helmet contact is in flux right now. Officials will get dinged because a supervisor thinks a flag should have been thrown or not. Right now judgments about what is a foul strike me as somewhat arbitrary and ad hoc.

The policy is evolving and will settle down in due course. Used to be the same for holding. :shrug:

You're right in saying that all this is mainly PR. It's the same reason the NBA has a similar type show reviewing calls from past games on their network and why they have a video rulebook online. I don't know how effective it all is because you still hear the same usual comments from the same suspects regardless.

I agree that with due time, things will settle and these calls will become more consistent. As is, the rule does read that if in doubt, to go ahead and throw the flag.

Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.

I was a bit surprised that the flag didn't come out on this play. Especially after hearing Mike Pierra recently a Fox Sports Radio show where he commented that officials aren't dinged for erring on the side of caution.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

You're right in saying that all this is mainly PR. I don't know how effective it all is because you still hear the same usual comments from the same suspects regardless.

Clarification and explanation, for the most part are helpful and constructive, but the unfortunate reality is that many of those "same suspects" have absolutely no interest in either clarity or explanation, they whine because they like to whine and enjoy the attention they receive by whining.

Satisfying these types is an endless effort to get nowhere. It's like explaining a rule clearly and precisely so that the inquirer understands why the call was made the way it was made, and then responds, "Well....it's a stupid rule".

[APG]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Clarification and explanation, for the most part are helpful and constructive, but the unfortunate reality is that many of those "same suspects" have absolutely no interest in either clarity or explanation, they whine because they like to whine and enjoy the attention they receive by whining.

Satisfying these types is an endless effort to get nowhere. It's like explaining a rule clearly and precisely so that the inquirer understands why the call was made the way it was made, and then responds, "Well....it's a stupid rule".

So good you had to say it twice...

You're definitely right. On your point about presenting a rule, I recently did that for a local sports radio show where they were discussion the "misapplication" of college football rule. Now I'm not a football official (rather basketball), but I do have the PDF file for the rules and interpretations. I sent an e-mail with the exact rule and interpretation which was exactly like the play in question. The response I get from the host? "Well that rule is stupid!"

I will say, I do enjoy the professional leagues being more open and allowing more access to rules/interpretations/etc even if it's only for PR reasons. My only wish would be to have the NFL rule book and casebook free online as a PDF like the NBA, MLB, and NHL do rather then have to pay for my copy of the book.

[BktBallRef]

Bottom line, it's real easy to make those calls when you get to see it in slo-mo from several different angles.

It's much more difficult to make the call on the field and risk penalizing a team for what could be a legal hit. I think determining whether such a hit is legal or illegal is the toughest call officials have to make right now.

[Canned Heat]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I think determining whether such a hit is legal or illegal is the toughest call officials have to make right now.

At the NFL level.....I could not agree more.

[chymechowder]

I'm not sure this play should be flagged. McClain didn't go high. He didn't launch himself up at Miller's head.

Instead, he's running at Miller to break up the pass and/or make a hit, and he's coming in waist level. But Miller trips and falls. What's a defender to do if the area he was about to legally hit is all of a sudden occupied by an opponent's head?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that players should be given the benefit of the doubt on malicious hits. And what happened to Miller is unfortunate, to be sure.

But sometimes receivers duck or fall and their head gets in the way. And a would-be legal (if tough) hit becomes dangerous.

[Texas Aggie]

I don't know the NFL rule specifically, but under NCAA rules, to the extent it even IS a foul, it would be purely for defenseless player and not for any upper body language -- leading, crown of the helmet, etc. I'm not 100% sure this is a foul, though in slo-mo it looks like one. Since I didn't see it full speed, I can't say whether I would have thrown a flag or that one should even have been thrown.

You can't assume automatically this was a foul. I seriously doubt the defender will be fined.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

You're right in saying that all this is mainly PR. I don't know how effective it all is because you still hear the same usual comments from the same suspects regardless.

Clarification and explanation, for the most part are helpful and constructive, but the unfortunate reality is that many of those "same suspects" have absolutely no interest in either clarity or explanation, they whine because they like to whine and enjoy the attention they receive by whining.

Satisfying these types is an endless effort to get nowhere. It's like explaining a rule clearly and precisely so that the inquirer understands why the call was made the way it was made, and then responds, "Well....it's a stupid rule".