Sugar Bowl Safety

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Coach Jinx

how about when the opposite wing has forward pregress at the 2? You see the L in the place almost out to the hash saying he had forward progress at the 2. I wonder how that went in the locker room. L is sprinting in with arm up before player gets tackled in the EZ.

The calling official was the one at the top of the screen. The ball was facing him and he would have been the best person to make the call. So what the other official was doing is really not relevant for many purposes.

Peace

[Coach Jinx]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The calling official was the one at the top of the screen. The ball was facing him and he would have been the best person to make the call. So what the other official was doing is really not relevant for many purposes.

Peace

well unlike the R, both wings have forward progress & if you have one sprinting in with forward progress it at the worst looks bad if u move it back or to a safety


your quick to say this or that but it is relevant if one wing has it, just because he was closer doesnt mean he was right

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The calling official was the one at the top of the screen. The ball was facing him and he would have been the best person to make the call. So what the other official was doing is really not relevant for many purposes.

Peace

It is very relevant if he was signalling the ball dead because of forward progress prior to the runner getting tackled. If that's the case, it's at least an inadvertent signal. He ruled forward progress based on his signal so he should have at least been a part of the conversation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Coach Jinx

well unlike the R, both wings have forward progress & if you have one sprinting in with forward progress it at the worst looks bad if u move it back or to a safety


your quick to say this or that but it is relevant if one wing has it, just because he was closer doesnt mean he was right

Originally Posted by bisonlj

It is very relevant if he was signalling the ball dead because of forward progress prior to the runner getting tackled. If that's the case, it's at least an inadvertent signal. He ruled forward progress based on his signal so he should have at least been a part of the conversation.

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

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

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

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

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

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Coach Jinx

how about when the opposite wing has forward pregress at the 2? You see the L in the place almost out to the hash saying he had forward progress at the 2. I wonder how that went in the locker room. L is sprinting in with arm up before player gets tackled in the EZ.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The calling official was the one at the top of the screen. The ball was facing him and he would have been the best person to make the call. So what the other official was doing is really not relevant for many purposes.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.