Proper spot and down?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I coach. Probably the problem here is that we have in mind different standards for the control of the ball required for player possession.

Based on the rest of your post, you are right. We (meaning all officials vs you) have a different standard. If you coach, you should be more aware of this, as your description is WAY off. Laying on a ball is NOT possession. Trapping a ball is NOT possession. Stuck between an elbow and a knee is NOT possession.

Think of the word Possess. Think of the word Control. That should get you a lot closer than what you describe. Or, if you prefer, think of it this way... Can the player currently do something on purpose with the ball in a controlled way. Yes - probably possession. No - definitely not. Grey area? Probably not.

Hands holding the ball is a decent indicator too.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Based on the rest of your post, you are right. We (meaning all officials vs you) have a different standard. If you coach, you should be more aware of this, as your description is WAY off. Laying on a ball is NOT possession.

That's why we coach them not to fall on the ball, but to slide next to it while tucking it in. But if I were officiating, I'd never want to have to draw the line on how much control a player whose body is on top of and in contact with the ball has. When play continues in that situation, it hardly ever leads to a clear-cut resolution of who first controlled it. It usually winds up between bodies, often with a struggle continuing for some time.

In bounds, the ball is not dead until a player in possession of it is down. With a pile-up occurring, you will not see when that condition obtains. It will almost always occur well before you know it, because you can't see who controls the ball. So the players are wrestling for control of a ball that should be dead but isn't. You could whistle on the assumption that someone must have possession of it, but then how is your presumption any better than mine as laid out above?

Trapping a ball is NOT possession. Stuck between an elbow and a knee is NOT possession.

Where does it say that in the rules? It just says "held or controlled"; it doesn't say how.

Hands holding the ball is a decent indicator too.

Sufficient but not necessary.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Where does it say that in the rules? It just says "held or controlled"; it doesn't say how.

How about this, show us where what you claim is sufficient? I have never read what you suggests applies to the ball being in possession. There has to be and interpretation, a video play or something that suggests sitting on the ball is possession. Your argument rings hollow.

Peace

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But if I were officiating, I'd never want to have to draw the line on how much control a player whose body is on top of and in contact with the ball has.

You know, that's kind of why they pay us and make us wear funny shirts.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But if I were officiating, I'd never want to have to draw the line on how much control a player whose body is on top of and in contact with the ball has. When play continues in that situation, it hardly ever leads to a clear-cut resolution of who first controlled it. It usually winds up between bodies, often with a struggle continuing for some time.

Well ... to be honest, if you were officiating, you would have had some modicum of training. This would likely disabuse you of this sillyness.

You could whistle on the assumption that someone must have possession of it, but then how is your presumption any better than mine as laid out above?

Ditto.

Where does it say that in the rules? It just says "held or controlled"; it doesn't say how.

I was trying to help you, not get into a thesaurus discussion. You don't want the help, that's fine by me - just don't try to put on the stripes.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Where does it say that in the rules? It just says "held or controlled"; it doesn't say how.

We rule on many things that aren't specified in the rules, but just to humor you here's a definition or two...

Hold -- to have or maintain in the grasp.
Control -- to keep within limits

Notice that nowhere does the word momentarily enter into the definition.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

You could whistle on the assumption that someone must have possession of it, but then how is your presumption any better than mine as laid out above?

Saw a Big 10 official do that on a fumble into the end zone at Wisconsin a couple years ago. The pile ensued and he stopped the clock to find the ball. What he didn't know (nor did any of the players on the pile) was the ball had come out the other side and was loose when the whistle blew. They had to treat it as an IW and Wisconsin took the ball at the spot of the fumble.

[MD Longhorn]

MOST of us believe in ... No ball, no whistle. Robert's assertion might be what he sees in his area ... but not mine.

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Saw a Big 10 official do that on a fumble into the end zone at Wisconsin a couple years ago. The pile ensued and he stopped the clock to find the ball. What he didn't know (nor did any of the players on the pile) was the ball had come out the other side and was loose when the whistle blew. They had to treat it as an IW and Wisconsin took the ball at the spot of the fumble.

I remember that play. Felt so bad for the guy.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How about this, show us where what you claim is sufficient? I have never read what you suggests applies to the ball being in possession.

I've never seen anything saying hands are necessary either. I don't even coach hands for a player taking a handoff; we want it pinned under their elbow and surrounding limb bits, although we have them use the hand of the opposite arm momentarily to guide it in. The muscle chain holding onto the ball at the bottom of the arm and top of the forearm is shorter than the one that leads to the hands. Try using your hands to wrestle somebody for the ball when it's tucked in there; you have a much better shot at dislodging it with your elbow, which is why I coach use of the elbow or shoulder to pry the ball loose.

Do you guys actually get videos showing the ball in contact with different parts of the body and captioned this is possession, this is not?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

MOST of us believe in ... No ball, no whistle. Robert's assertion might be what he sees in his area ... but not mine.

Then if you don't whistle because you can't see the ball, what authority do you have to get the players off the ball? Does the ball stay live until the players get tired of laying in a heap surrounding it and go home?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Then if you don't whistle because you can't see the ball, what authority do you have to get the players off the ball? Does the ball stay live until the players get tired of laying in a heap surrounding it and go home?

I suppose you're being sarcastic, but I'll answer anyway.

The play kills the play. The whistle doesn't kill the play (unless it does!). The play is dead when the play is dead - even if my whistle doesn't go off. NO, most good officials (around here) will not blow the whistle when they go in to clean up a pile.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I suppose you're being sarcastic, but I'll answer anyway.

The play kills the play. The whistle doesn't kill the play (unless it does!). The play is dead when the play is dead - even if my whistle doesn't go off. NO, most good officials (around here) will not blow the whistle when they go in to clean up a pile.

But if you don't know the ball is dead -- because you can't see it -- what authority do you have to clean up the pile?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I've never seen anything saying hands are necessary either. I don't even coach hands for a player taking a handoff; we want it pinned under their elbow and surrounding limb bits, although we have them use the hand of the opposite arm momentarily to guide it in. The muscle chain holding onto the ball at the bottom of the arm and top of the forearm is shorter than the one that leads to the hands. Try using your hands to wrestle somebody for the ball when it's tucked in there; you have a much better shot at dislodging it with your elbow, which is why I coach use of the elbow or shoulder to pry the ball loose.

Well you need to demostrate some control with something else other than the ground if you want to show you are in possession. Now if that is not what you think, so be it. But every reasonable person is not making such a claim that you are and no video at any levle have ever said that simply laying on the ball was possession. Again it is clear you do not officiate because that is not going to have a competent official rule possession and then blow the whistle. I guess that is just something you will have to get over, because no one teaches this and I have never heard such a silly thing suggested until reading your post.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Do you guys actually get videos showing the ball in contact with different parts of the body and captioned this is possession, this is not?

You better be doing more than pinning the ball on the ground to show possession and I have never seen a single video with what you suggest. I have seen passes caught or secured with other parts of the body, but that does not involve the ground and if it did in every case I can think of possession was not interpreted by simply laying on the football.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But if you don't know the ball is dead -- because you can't see it -- what authority do you have to clean up the pile?

Are you familiar with rules fundamentals?

Peace