I was taught that nothing good happens in those pile ups when the runner is not moving forward. There will be a fumble, fight etc. Shut it down.

Question, if the ball had been stripped while being pushed back would you have allowed it.

I wouldn't and I'd bet these guys wouldn't have either. I think this wing gave up his spot and was then screwed. Defensible call, but not a good one in my opinion.

I'd need to ask because the wing official is giving no indication of what he has. He's wandered off the progress spot and he's not giving a safety signal well after the player is down. And if he's looking for help from me on a spot with this play, we have some serious problems.

As for the whistle, I still can't understand why, if you have progress stopped you would not blow the whistle. What does that accomplish other than open you up to a lot of problems? Problems like this play, problems like the ball suddenly coming out of there and a scramble for it, problems like the ball carrier getting hammered by a bunch of players because you have failed to do your job of indicating the play is over. Yeah, there are plays that are "over" with or without a whistle, but I can't see how you can possibly say that on a play that involves YOUR judgement whether it's over or not. It's YOUR judgement. So how are players supposed to know by YOUR judgement the play is over if you fail to indicate that? It could easily go either way as has been indicated on this play and the opinions here. It has nothing to do with whistles in the mouth or so-called quick whistles. It has everything to do with doing one of our primary jobs. There is a very lamentable trend within the officiating community of this "my whistle does not end the play, the play does" being used for not doing one of our jobs that manages the game. We ARE expected to have whistles at the end of plays. We should have whistles at the end of plays. Some plays, it cant' be done because we don't know if that runner in the middle of the pile still has the ball. But that doesn't mean on plays where we clearly must make a ruling, and can see the status of the ball, we get to be lazy and try to pass off our responsibilities.

Well I would rule if the defender has his arms wrapped around him and has driven him back 4 yds, he was pretty well held.

Awesome Post Mike!

I do not know what you guys do or what your crew does, but where I work we do not confer on things like this if one official has made a ruling. Not with a safety or not with a TD. If someone has a spot they go with that spot. We do not have to confer to make a decision. Just because some guy on the other end of the field has an opinion does not mean he should be involved in much of anything. If this was a TD situation, and the ball is run to the side of one of the wings I do not know much conversation that would be had if the wing ruled a TD or not. But hey, I am sure some people have to confer about everything.

Peace

If one wing is marking a spot on the field and the other one is signaling safety, you're not going to confer?

Using JRut's logic, if an official across the field thought he saw a runner down and blows his whistle with the runner at the 2 but the closer official clearly saw he wasn't down and scored a TD, there is no reason for the IW official to come in with his IW because the covering official had the TD call.

The other official should only join the conversation if he's asked or he has "knowledge" (a term I've picked up from a D1 BJ). In my example above and in the video, the "knowledge" the LJ would bring is "I may have killed the play before it was over". I haven't been able to watch the video to see the timing of the LJ signal with the end of the play but it's possible the LJ felt his signal was not prior to the ruling by the H so there was no possible inadvertent signal. Only if he was absolutely certain he wanted to try to talk the H off the safety call should he run in.

And if the H obviously has no clue what happened? (At least that's how he looked to me.)

If you would stop trying to tell me what to do maybe you would understand. The whistle has nothing to do with why or what I will rule. If I do not see leather (which could have been the case here) I am not blowing the whistle at all until I find leather or rule that the player securely has the ball. I will not blow the whistle until then. I have had 2 IW in 15 years and both of them for when I tried to "stop everything" and one time a player did not have a ball secure on a fumble and the other a player was fighting for yards. The only time the whistle comes in play when players and coaches want to claim they should not be flagged for something because the whistle was blown in their opinion. And at the end of the day your claim has nothing to do with this play. If the officials had his forward progress ruled in the field of play then that is what would have happened, their whistle I am sure would not have been blown anyway where that place was ruled. And I know the whistle is not in my hand or mouth during plays. So when I blow it might vary as I have to grab it before I can put air in that little device. Also you need to look at the football fundamentals; the whistle is a tool not a deciding factor to make decisions.

Peace

I love people that add stuff to the play that clearly did not happen and then want to debate that was not a factor.

Here is my logic, if that was a factor then that opposite wing did not feel it was enough to mention. And at that level that play could have been reviewed without a challenge. If there was such a problem with that play as you state there must be, then they certainly let that go and I fully expected at the time to have the play reviewed as it was a close I think many here are doing a lot of assumptions based on something they think happen rather than what actually did happen on the play and start talking about what should have happened. But then again that is what people do here, take a simple situation and turn it into something that does not relate to the level or the people that are commenting on it.

Peace

Jeff, you're the one who said it wouldn't matter if the other wing had a spot in the field of play when the question was asked.

Is this play reviewable? I'm fairly sure forward progress is not reviewable in the NFL but I have no clue about the NCAA.

Forward progress has been reviewable in the NFL for year, it happens quite often on very close spots where there is a possible first down. And anytime they rule on a TD or not, that is a forward progress spot. It is also reviewable at the college level as well for the same reasons. Both have taken place a couple of times this year, but college does not need a challenge.

And when I said it would not matter, I mean that if the official has made a ruling I find it very hard to believe that a wing where the play is going away from is going to be considered heavily in such a play. And did it matter? Obviously it did not in this very situation. ;)

Peace

I know that the spot is reviewable, but you're saying whether or not a player's forward progress was stopped is now reviewable in the NFL? For example, a coach could challenge when a RB fumbles that his forward progress had been stopped and actually win that challenge?

And likewise they could have reviewed this play and potentially ruled on review that his forward progress was stopped at the 2 and spotted the ball there?

I'd say he should figure into it more than the R, but that's where he went for help. On the other hand, maybe he just forgot where they were going for drinks afterward and wanted reminding.

The forward progress SPOT is reviewable. Whether forward progress is stopped is not. Enormous difference.

Whew, I was worried I'd missed something big.