Would you rule USC on B??

[bigjohn]

SITUATION 9:
On fourth and one from B's 21-yard line, all A players are set, as defensive end B1 is in a two-point stance across from offensive tackle A5 along their respective lines of scrimmage. While the quarterback is calling signals, B1 (a) claps his hands, (b) stomps his foot, or (c) shifts to a wider position on the line and immediately returns to his original position.
RULING: In (a) and (b), if in the official's judgment the action by B1 was for the purpose of disconcerting or hindering A, it is an unsportsmanlike conduct foul. In this case, the official should sound his whistle before the snap. In (c), the movement is legal. (9-5-1d)


This is from the 2007 NFHS Rules Interpretations Powerpoint
This is still a valid interpretation isn't it?

Why would an official judge that the defender was doing anything other than trying to make A false start in a or b? I have asked officials why they won't call this and they say, hey man that is just football!

[mbyron]

If I judge that B is ONLY trying to make A false start, I will warn and then flag.

I worked with a guy a couple weeks ago in a game where B called out "shift!" shortly before the snap and shifted their D-linemen to a different gap. This guy wanted me to tell the coach that if their call caused a false start he would flag them for USC. I disagreed with that, since B is allowed to audible and conduct normal defensive maneuvers.

[CT1]

The correct answer is: "Coach, in my judgment, he wasn't disconcerting."

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

SITUATION 9:
On fourth and one from B's 21-yard line, all A players are set, as defensive end B1 is in a two-point stance across from offensive tackle A5 along their respective lines of scrimmage. While the quarterback is calling signals, B1 (a) claps his hands, (b) stomps his foot, or (c) shifts to a wider position on the line and immediately returns to his original position.

CANADIAN RULING:

If in (a), A's cadence is difficult to hear, we just tell them to knock it off; problem solved. (b) and (c) are legal.

[bigjohn]

No where in this rule does it say warn first time then flag!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

No where in this rule does it say warn first time then flag!

You asked why officials won't call it. You got the answer (there's a difference between the literal reading of the rule and the way it's applied).

Accept it, or work to get it changed in your local area.

[bigjohn]

Of course most officials don't call this rule by the book either!


SECTION 8 NONCONTACT UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT BY NONPLAYERS
ART. 1 . . . No coach, substitute, athletic trainer or other team attendant shall
act in an unsportsmanlike manner once the game officials assume authority for
the contest. Examples are, but not limited to:
a. Using profanity, insulting or vulgar language or gestures.
NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed
to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the
basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.
b. Attempting to influence a decision by a game official.
c. Disrespectfully addressing a game official.
d. Indicating objections to a game official’s decision.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

c. Disrespectfully addressing a game official.
d. Indicating objections to a game official’s decision.

In our association, we have a lot of baseball umps. They tend to take the route of "personal" attacks. The "That's a crappy call" gets a pass, but "You're a crappy official" gets 'em 15. (I'm not a baseball ump, so I'm not sure what the threshold is, but we've discussed it.)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Suudy

In our association, we have a lot of baseball umps. They tend to take the route of "personal" attacks. The "That's a crappy call" gets a pass, but "You're a crappy official" gets 'em 15. (I'm not a baseball ump, so I'm not sure what the threshold is, but we've discussed it.)

"YOU" followed by almost anything other than "are the best official I've seen all year."

[jTheUmp]

"all year"? Pshaw, I'll accept nothing less then "in my entire life"

[bigjohn]

I mean, come on! Anyone ever called this?

d. Indicating objections to a game official’s decision.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

No where in this rule does it say warn first time then flag!

And we do not officiating in the rulebook, we officiate actual players. This is not something that is always identifiable easily and players on defense can make "calls." So if we penalized every time we "thought" this took place, we would be wrong a lot of the time. This is why people warn to make teams aware that we might be onto them, and penalize when it continues or is a little more obvious. If you do not like it, then invent a machine that tells us what someone is thinking when they do something and then we can be accurate if you are a good inventor to figure out when this action takes place.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

I mean, come on! Anyone ever called this?

d. Indicating objections to a game official’s decision.

Yes. It is not that common.

Peace

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

I mean, come on! Anyone ever called this?

d. Indicating objections to a game official’s decision.

The only case I can think of are excessive and pointless bickering. We have one school (a private school) that has a well funded football program. They have 5 coaches and several trainers. Before the "3 in the box" change, they always assigned one guy to ride the wing up and down the field chipping away at everything. The "Hey! He's offsides!" or "Come on ref, you gotta call holding on that one..." or "Why'd you spot the ball there?!?" When it got annoying, we flagged him. The rest of the game he was much more subdued. I never saw it in any of my games, but he's been tossed several times. It got to the point that we decided to start flagging the HC instead to fix the problem.

Well, the "3 in the box" pretty much killed that tactic. With only 3 coaches, losing one would probably be too much for them. Since then, they've been far less annoying, and no longer have the assigned rider.

[Welpe]

No I wouldn't rule USC on this here because it's not USC.