Proper spot and down?

[Rich]

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?

Seriously? We have all the authority we need out there.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Seriously? We have all the authority we need out there.

You don't see a player in possession of the ball, so you can't rule that a runner is down. So what right do you have to interfere with play of a live ball?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

You don't see a player in possession of the ball, so you can't rule that a runner is down. So what right do you have to interfere with play of a live ball?

Yes, let's just let them kill each other while we try to determine if the ball is down. Please be sure to tell the NCAA and NFL officials that they are not doing it properly either.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

You don't see a player in possession of the ball, so you can't rule that a runner is down. So what right do you have to interfere with play of a live ball?

Look at NFHS Fundamental III-1. The whistle seldom kills the ball -- it is already dead by rule.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Look at NFHS Fundamental III-1. The whistle seldom kills the ball -- it is already dead by rule.

So you're just guessing that somebody has possession of it, because you can't see it and it's somewhere in a pile of bodies. Explain why that reason for treating the ball as dead is any better than mine.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So you're just guessing that somebody has possession of it, because you can't see it and it's somewhere in a pile of bodies. Explain why that reason for treating the ball as dead is any better than mine.

Because it is. When's the last time you dug a ball out of a pile?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Because it is. When's the last time you dug a ball out of a pile?

Wednesday, but what's that got to do with anything?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Wednesday, but what's that got to do with anything?

Was this at practice?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Was this at practice?

Yes.

[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.

[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.

[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.