How else do you conceive the "pile" the original poster said was referenced by the official? How could players possibly be said to be part of a pile without being in contact?

In Ohio it doesn't get called when it is blatantly the back running up and pushing the QB forward on a short yardage play. Most guys coach the backs to do that knowing it won't get called.
I know no one is going to call it if there is a scrum of any kind.

Rogers Redding's latest NCAA Bulletin addresses this issue:

In trying to gain yardage, ball carrier A44 is slowed by defensive players attempting to make the tackle. Back A22 (a) puts his hands on the buttocks of A44 and pushes him forward; (b) pushes the pile of teammates who begin to surround A44; (c) grabs the arm of A44 and tries to pull him forward for more yardage.
RULING: (a) and (c) Foul for assisting the runner. 5-yard penalty with three-and-one enforcement. (b) Legal play. It is not clear that A22 is directly assisting A44. (9-3-2-b)

Well I think we have established that Redding guide means nothing for NFHS.
:rolleyes:


http://forum.officiating.com/footbal...al-snap-4.html

Absent a specific FED case play, I'd say the philosophy given by Dr. Redding's ruling would work well for those calling NFHS games.

Rolleyes means sarcasms! did you click on the link?

The quote I supplied is NOT from the Reddings Guide. It's from a in-season series of interpretations given by Dr. Redding for NCAA officials.

Hands on buttocks can always be a foul!

There seem to be 2 issues in the original post, and I'm not sure they're being addressed: pulling, and the pile. Pushing a pile may be legal depending on the details, and pulling another player is sometimes legal too. But I don't see why it's even hard to understand that by "pulling the pile", the official was referring to some illegal use of hands -- in either blocking an opponent, pulling the runner, or interlocked interference -- and it's also clear that for a pile to have been the object, one of those must've occurred. The mere fact that the official didn't specify which, and indeed may not have been able to see which violation it was, doesn't mean it was a bogus call (penalty notwithstanding). When you see someone reach into an opaque cookie jar, even if you can't tell which type of cookie was grabbed, do you have a problem with concluding that a cookie was the object of grasping?

If this is how you officiate, by inferring something happened but not actually seeing it, you are doing a disservice to officiating. We can only call a penalty that we see with out own eyes. How about a receiver and defender running down field, they are close, but you cannot see that the defender is holding his arm down because you are blocked from the view by his body. You see the receiver does not put up both hands to catch the ball, and he's yelling about it after the play. You know something must have happened (like you know in your example that the cookie was grasped but you did not see it) do you throw a flag? If you cannot see the action that you are going to penalize, you should never throw the flag because you never have see the illegal activity.

I'll solve the riddle for you -- he doesn't officiate at all.

This whole conversation has been entertaining in a "how many angles can dance on the head of a pin" kind of way.

None of us actually saw it! Someone came here and asked about a penalty given in a game for "pulling the pile", and asked how that could be. What else can any of post on but inferences? The official apparently didn't specify which type of illegal use of hands it was, but I think we can all infer it was some type. Does it really matter, when all possibilities are covered?