Proper spot and down?

[MD Longhorn]

Robert ... you seem to be wanting to say the current way we deal with these situations is wrong, but you offer no converse way to deal with them. I've lost your point, if there was one. Can you clarify what you are really getting at here. Just seems like pointless disagreement for the sake of disagreement at this point.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Robert ... you seem to be wanting to say the current way we deal with these situations is wrong, but you offer no converse way to deal with them. I've lost your point, if there was one. Can you clarify what you are really getting at here. Just seems like pointless disagreement for the sake of disagreement at this point.

I have a couple of points. One of them is that control of the ball does not require hands on it, and I gave a practical example from my coaching that shows a player pinning the ball to his body with proximal parts of the upper limb has better control of it than does another player trying to use hands to take it away.

The other is that although a ball's being momentarily sandwiched between the front of a player's frame and the ground may not even satisfy the idea of control of it, calling it in possession at that point will give you a clearer possession ruling than you will almost always get by allowing play to continue and having bodies pile up around and hide it. It may not be what the rule literally demands, but it will save you from situations where your eventual ruling will be more arbitrary and no more justified. It would be hypocritic to argue otherwise.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I have a couple of points. One of them is that control of the ball does not require hands on it, and I gave a practical example from my coaching that shows a player pinning the ball to his body with proximal parts of the upper limb has better control of it than does another player trying to use hands to take it away.

The other is that although a ball's being momentarily sandwiched between the front of a player's frame and the ground may not even satisfy the idea of control of it, calling it in possession at that point will give you a clearer possession ruling than you will almost always get by allowing play to continue and having bodies pile up around and hide it. It may not be what the rule literally demands, but it will save you from situations where your eventual ruling will be more arbitrary and no more justified. It would be hypocritic to argue otherwise.

I get where you are coming from as a coach, but as an official that is absurd. If we rule possession like that coaches will go crazy if we rule possession and someone else has the ball. And most times no one just holds the ball by simply laying on it. So any attempt to fall on the ball the ball will squirt out or clearly not be stable. And if you truly have possession you will end up with it after the pile takes place or it will be clear well before then.

With all that being said this is clearly your issue not one of any rules committee or any interpretation.

Peace

[oncelost77]

How many times on an on-side kick, fumble, etc... have you seen someone that you thought clearly had the ball but when the "digger" clears everyone out, he doesn't? I can say that I have seen this a lot, at all levels, and that is why we don't give it to the guy who looks like he has it. I teach my players to wrap it up on the bottom of a pile and hold on for dear life. If someone takes it from them under the pile, then they didn't really have it or they are just too weak and don't deserve it.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by oncelost77

How many times on an on-side kick, fumble, etc... have you seen someone that you thought clearly had the ball but when the "digger" clears everyone out, he doesn't? I can say that I have seen this a lot, at all levels, and that is why we don't give it to the guy who looks like he has it. I teach my players to wrap it up on the bottom of a pile and hold on for dear life. If someone takes it from them under the pile, then they didn't really have it or they are just too weak and don't deserve it.

Absolutely and that's just part of the game. That's why we bother to dig the ball out.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Absolutely and that's just part of the game. That's why we bother to dig the ball out.

So you're saying continuing action after the ball is dead is just part of the game. I don't see why you think bending the rules that way is better than bending them my way.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So you're saying continuing action after the ball is dead is just part of the game. I don't see why you think bending the rules that way is better than bending them my way.

I have no idea what you're actually advocating, all I know is that it is perfectly possible when there's a pile that the ball can change hands several times and the officials may not be able to see it. In that case, the ball goes to who had it last. That's just football, hold on to the ball! Officials aren't clairvoyant, we can't tell when little Jimmy at the bottom of 15 players has the ball because well...there are 15 players in the way.

Why are we even discussing this?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by oncelost77

How many times on an on-side kick, fumble, etc... have you seen someone that you thought clearly had the ball but when the "digger" clears everyone out, he doesn't?

Happens all the time, but how do you know he didn't lose the ball after it was dead?

I can say that I have seen this a lot, at all levels, and that is why we don't give it to the guy who looks like he has it. I teach my players to wrap it up on the bottom of a pile and hold on for dear life. If someone takes it from them under the pile, then they didn't really have it or they are just too weak and don't deserve it.

Then what you're saying is to keep grabbing for the ball while officials are trying to sort it out.

[oncelost77]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Happens all the time, but how do you know he didn't lose the ball after it was dead?

Then what you're saying is to keep grabbing for the ball while officials are trying to sort it out.

When it doubt, it is a fumble. So, if I'm not positive that someone has it, I won't signal until I dig the pile. Yes, keep fighting for the ball if you can but don't pile on. If we have a 6-man scum, I pick them off one at a time. If I reach in and feel/see that you don't have it, I say, " you're out #25." I keep going until I know. I've never thrown a flag for two guys on bottom of the pile still going for it. But when I say you are off, then you are off. If you don't clear off, that is where the USC comes in. I'm a coach and a referee. So, I got two dogs in this fight and I want them both to win.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I have a couple of points. One of them is that control of the ball does not require hands on it, and I gave a practical example from my coaching that shows a player pinning the ball to his body with proximal parts of the upper limb has better control of it than does another player trying to use hands to take it away.

The other is that although a ball's being momentarily sandwiched between the front of a player's frame and the ground may not even satisfy the idea of control of it, calling it in possession at that point will give you a clearer possession ruling than you will almost always get by allowing play to continue and having bodies pile up around and hide it. It may not be what the rule literally demands, but it will save you from situations where your eventual ruling will be more arbitrary and no more justified. It would be hypocritic to argue otherwise.

Ah. OK. So noted. Was hoping there'd be something concrete in there. I somehow managed to not tune out after "control of the ball does not require hands on it". Mmmuuurrhhh, what? Incorrect. Moving on.

I guess you're talking more about what you wish would be true (which is ok, as long as you acknowledge that this is what you're talking about) rather than the way it's actually called.