Proper spot and down?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Hard for me to imagine how a player could "fall on the ball" and yet the whistle be inadvertent. Either the description is faulty, or there was some strange judgment that the player lying on the ball, even if it subsequently "squirted out", was not in possession of it. Did one of the other officials have a better angle that enabled him to see the ball was merely deflected off the side of the player rather than trapped between the player's body and the ground?

You're kidding, right? I'd say that MOST of the IW's I've seen were blown by an official who thought they saw the play end, when everyone else saw the ball loose.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You're kidding, right? I'd say that MOST of the IW's I've seen were blown by an official who thought they saw the play end, when everyone else saw the ball loose.

Of course they are. But then there'd have to be something wrong with the description we were given of someone's having fallen on the ball, and then its having squirted out. Maybe what he meant was that, due to parallax, one official thought he saw the player fall on the ball, but actually fall between him and the ball.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Of course they are. But then there'd have to be something wrong with the description we were given of someone's having fallen on the ball, and then its having squirted out. Maybe what he meant was that, due to parallax, one official thought he saw the player fall on the ball, but actually fall between him and the ball.

You've never seen a player fall ON a football and it squirts out the other side?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Of course they are. But then there'd have to be something wrong with the description we were given of someone's having fallen on the ball, and then its having squirted out. Maybe what he meant was that, due to parallax, one official thought he saw the player fall on the ball, but actually fall between him and the ball.

The more you talk, the more I suspect you've never been on the field or possibly even watched a game on TV. Seems to me that when a player dives on a football - MOST of the time, it squirts somewhere. Especially if that ball was still moving. This has nothing to do with parallax - it has to do with a player landing on a ball and one official assuming he recovered it, when in fact he did not. REALLY a rather common occurrence. Good officials, however, will not blow that whistle unless they see ball AND possession, and not assume.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The more you talk, the more I suspect you've never been on the field or possibly even watched a game on TV. Seems to me that when a player dives on a football - MOST of the time, it squirts somewhere. Especially if that ball was still moving.

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

If I saw a player actually fall on a ball that was on the ground, unless the player wound up with some strange part of the body like his back or his legs on top of it, I'd consider that moment of trapping of the ball between body and ground possession. I don't think it does any good for the game to encourage opposing players to pile on top in the hope that the add'l pressure will cause the ball to squirt out, or to try to fish under a player's body for the ball. If you do, then it becomes completely arbitrary as to when you kill the ball and try to determine who got control of it first. A ball sandwich -- ground, ball, frame of player -- is a bright line you can rule on, instead of the muddy line you'll probably get if you allow play to continue. Sure, you could get lucky and have it pop right into some player's hands, but the great majority of the time you'll wind up with a pileup and take a guess.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

If I saw a player actually fall on a ball that was on the ground, unless the player wound up with some strange part of the body like his back or his legs on top of it, I'd consider that moment of trapping of the ball between body and ground possession.

That's not consistent with the definition and interpretation of "possession".

The ball must be held or controlled.

I've seen players trap a fumble only to knock it loose from themselves with nobody else around them.

[Forksref]

I haven't had an IW since I started dropping the whistle from my mouth at the snap (about 5 years ago). Now, as a white hat, I don't even start with it in my mouth. It's a hard habit to break and we still have a few guys in our association who resist dropping it at the snap. I was mentoring a rookie on Saturday and I got him to start dropping it. Yea!

[JRutledge]

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.

And if we called possession and the ball popped out, you would be livid that did not give the ball to your team.

If I saw a player actually fall on a ball that was on the ground, unless the player wound up with some strange part of the body like his back or his legs on top of it, I'd consider that moment of trapping of the ball between body and ground possession. I don't think it does any good for the game to encourage opposing players to pile on top in the hope that the add'l pressure will cause the ball to squirt out, or to try to fish under a player's body for the ball. [/QUOTE]

Well then they need to find another sport, because that is what happens in football. Maybe wrestling would be better as you do get thrown and have another person jump on top of you. Or better yet maybe volleyball would be better as you can avoid all personal contact with another person. That is why they have pads on to protect them.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

If you do, then it becomes completely arbitrary as to when you kill the ball and try to determine who got control of it first. A ball sandwich -- ground, ball, frame of player -- is a bright line you can rule on, instead of the muddy line you'll probably get if you allow play to continue. Sure, you could get lucky and have it pop right into some player's hands, but the great majority of the time you'll wind up with a pileup and take a guess.

Yeah, I can tell you do not officiating.

Peace

[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.