Not NFHS!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

My response already indicated that I wasn't ready to put the blame on the calling official. It might have been his assignor. It might have been his state association. The blame belongs to someone, though. It was a horrible call.

No, it was the exact correct call. If you choose to say it's a horrible rule, feel free. Calling this a horrible call implies you're blaming the official.

As a state finals back judge, would you have thrown the flag? As a college official, would you have thrown the flag?

Hell yes, in both cases (I officiate in Texas where this rule is the same). Why? Because I like my job and I don't tend to make ruling against my SPECIFIC instructions just because I don't like a rule.

To answer your question from a previous post, YES - this specific act is included in both the literature and the training films. This IS what they want stopped. What's more --- teams know it. If the kid didn't know it, that's on his coach. If the kid did know it, and couldn't keep himself from doing it, or chose to do it anyway - that's on him.

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

No, it was the exact correct call. If you choose to say it's a horrible rule, feel free. Calling this a horrible call implies you're blaming the official.

Hell yes, in both cases (I officiate in Texas where this rule is the same). Why? Because I like my job and I don't tend to make ruling against my SPECIFIC instructions just because I don't like a rule.

Please point me in the direction of video/documentation supporting this call. Interestingly enough, the MIAA seems to go out of its way to imply the call was a mistake.



MIAA statement on Cathedral-Blue Hills Super Bowl
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 | Home - BostonHerald.com | High School Football
STATEMENT REGARDING DIVISION 1V-A FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

Franklin, MA Dec. 6, 2011 - - In response to inquiries regarding an unsportsmanlike penalty called in the Division IV-A football game the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) issued the following statement:

The official involved reported he had determined a violation of NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations of Rule 9, Section 2 covering Unsportsmanlike Conduct Section A. He called the violation and assessed the penalty.

There is no provision in MIAA rules (or rules for any other sport at any other level) to overturn an officials’ call after a game has been concluded. Once the final whistle is sounded the game is over. (Reference – MIAA Handbook Rule #17, Page 24) The Cathedral coach chose not to challenge the call when it was made.

At the start of the season the MIAA and football officials took comprehensive measures to ensure that everyone understood this rule. In fact, the officials at this game reminded the captains and coaches that there would be zero tolerance for any unsportsmanlike actions. Likewise, this message was communicated in the pre-playoff game administrative meeting, as well as the MIAA”s Super Bowl Breakfast with coaches and captains.

Anyone may parse the language of rules and apply them as they see fit. Contest officials must familiarize themselves with the rules, both the letter and the sprit, and bring their judgment to bear in calling the game. Per the Points of Emphasis in the NCAA Rulebook: “When an official imposes a penalty or makes a decision he is simply doing his duty as he sees it. He is on the field to uphold the integrity of the game of football, and his decisions are final and conclusive and should be accepted by players and coaches.”

MIAA Philosophy reflects that high school students who participate in educational athletics learn many things from that experience including lessons that we believe will be helpful as they go forward in life. While we hope and wish they would all be from positive experiences sometimes that is not the case.

Losing a game, having an official’s call go against you, even occasionally having an officials’ mistake go against you or your team are all part of sports. Athletic officials try hard to do the best job possible but they are human. Athletes must learn to put these things behind them and move forward. During their lifetime they will experience similar situations where they feel “wronged” by a superior or authority figure and they must learn to deal with that situation.

Finally, we would hope that in people’s reaction to this situation they would consider the students and coaches at Blue Hills Regional Vocational Technical School who feel their properly won championship is being tarnished and discredited.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

Interestingly enough, the MIAA seems to go out of its way to imply the call was a mistake.

Imply?

It's either a mistake or it isn't. There's nothing in this release that says it was a mistake.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Imply?

It's either a mistake or it isn't. There's nothing in this release that says it was a mistake.

He is correct--there definitely is an implication.

"The Cathedral coach chose not to challenge the call when it was made."

"[H]aving an official’s call go against you, even occasionally having an officials’ mistake go against you or your team are all part of sports. Athletic officials try hard to do the best job possible but they are human."

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Imply?

It's either a mistake or it isn't. There's nothing in this release that says it was a mistake.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

Please point me in the direction of video/documentation supporting this call. Interestingly enough, the MIAA seems to go out of its way to imply the call was a mistake.

Sounds like the opposite to me. They mention several times that the teams were made to understand this rule and that they were reminded multiple times. In fact... this letter would be one of those items I'd point you to to support the call.

Otherwise, I welcome you to come to an NCAA clinic or a HS clinic in Texas or Mass - you'll get plenty of video documenting the support of this call.

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Sounds like the opposite to me. They mention several times that the teams were made to understand this rule and that they were reminded multiple times. In fact... this letter would be one of those items I'd point you to to support the call.

If you honestly think that was a statement of support, we have nothing left to talk about...

[chymechowder]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

No, it was the exact correct call. If you choose to say it's a horrible rule, feel free. Calling this a horrible call implies you're blaming the official.

Hell yes, in both cases (I officiate in Texas where this rule is the same). Why? Because I like my job and I don't tend to make ruling against my SPECIFIC instructions just because I don't like a rule.

To answer your question from a previous post, YES - this specific act is included in both the literature and the training films. This IS what they want stopped. What's more --- teams know it. If the kid didn't know it, that's on his coach. If the kid did know it, and couldn't keep himself from doing it, or chose to do it anyway - that's on him.

if you have some ncaa literature that mentions this SPECIFIC ACT, I would love to see it.

not being a smart-a$$. I just have never seen it. I've seen other literature that describes other acts. and i've seen literature that urges officials NOT to flag small acts.

please post the memo I've missed and i'll gladly admit to being wrong.

[chymechowder]

since we're talking posting literature, here's an excerpt from Rule 9 on unsportsmanlike conduct:

Specifically prohibited acts and conduct include:
1. No player, substitute, coach or other person subject to the rules shall
use abusive, threatening or obscene language or gestures, or engage in
such acts that provoke ill will or are demeaning to an opponent, to game
officials or to the image of the game, including but not limited to:
(a) Pointing the finger(s), hand(s), arm(s) or ball at an opponent, or
imitating the slashing of the throat.
(b) Taunting, baiting or ridiculing an opponent verbally.
(c) Inciting an opponent or spectators in any other way, such as
simulating the firing of a weapon or placing a hand by the ear to
request recognition.
(d) Any delayed, excessive, prolonged or choreographed act by which
a player (or players) attempts to focus attention upon himself (or
themselves).
(e) An unopposed ball carrier obviously altering stride as he approaches
the opponent’s goal line or diving into the end zone.
(f) Removal of a player’s helmet before he is in the team area
(Exceptions: Team, media or injury timeouts; equipment adjustment;
through play; between periods; and during a measurement for a first
down).
(g) Punching one’s own chest or crossing one’s arms in front of the chest
while standing over a prone player.
(h) Going into the stands to interact with spectators, or bowing at the
waist after a good play.


and here's a memo that came from the NCAA rulebook editor:

•Remember that the game is one of high emotion, played by gifted teenagers who are affirmed by playing a game at which they are exceptionally talented.
•Do not be overly technical in applying this rule.
•Do allow for brief spontaneous emotional reactions at the end of a play.
•Beyond the brief, spontaneous bursts of energy, officials should flag those acts that are clearly prolonged, self-congratulatory, and that make a mockery of the game.

A list of specifically prohibited acts is in (a) thru (h) on FR-122,123; this list is intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive. We can all agree that when these acts are clearly intended to taunt or demean, they should not be allowed—not only because they are written in the book, but because they offend our sense of how the game should be played. We now have enough experience with this rule to know what “feels” right and wrong. Note that most if not all of these actions fall outside the category of brief, spontaneous outbursts. Rather, they present themselves as taunting, self-glorification, demeaning to opponents, or showing disrespect to the opponents and the game.

When such a situation arises, officials should wait a count, take a deep breath, and assess what they feel about what they have seen.

If it feels OK, let it go.

If it feels wrong, flag it.


lastly, here's an exerpt from an NCAA memo from this past august:

Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Taunting
9. Second and five at the A-45, early in the second quarter. Ball carrier A33 breaks out into the open and has a clear path to the goal line. At the B-2 he suddenly makes a sharp left turn and trots along the B-2 as the Team B players begin to catch up to him. He then carries the ball into the end zone. A33 next runs to the stands and begins to exchange “high-fives” with the fans.
RULING: A33 is charged with two fouls for unsportsmanlike conduct, one live-ball and the other dead-ball. Both penalties are enforced and A33 is ejected from the game. First and 10 for Team A at the B-32. (9-2-1-a)

[zm1283]

I understand the crackdown on taunting. I get it why they are wanting to address it. I just don't see how you could judge this particular play as taunting in any way. If he had turned around and pointed at the defensive player as he was running, fine. If he high-stepped, fine. I just don't see how this is anywhere close to anything like that.

This would be like a baseball umpire ejecting a head coach the first time he opens his mouth about ball/strike call in a game. Balls and strikes are off limits by rule, but do you eject the first time a coach says something? Of course not. It seems that good judgment was sorely lacking here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I understand the crackdown on taunting. I get it why they are wanting to address it. I just don't see how you could judge this particular play as taunting in any way. If he had turned around and pointed at the defensive player as he was running, fine. If he high-stepped, fine. I just don't see how this is anywhere close to anything like that.

This would be like a baseball umpire ejecting a head coach the first time he opens his mouth about ball/strike call in a game. Balls and strikes are off limits by rule, but do you eject the first time a coach says something? Of course not. It seems that good judgment was sorely lacking here.

Baseball has nothing to do with this call. Football made a rule to remedy a problem that was unique to their sport. We do not have penalties in baseball that add strikes or balls to an offended team for unsportsmanlike conduct like you do in other sports with either yardage or awarding an opportunity to score like in basketball. The NCAA was specific about this. If any rules body wanted to change a rule in baseball and award runs or award bases based on an unsportsmanlike act, then this would be a good comparison. But that being said umpires in baseball eject coaches and players for all kinds of things that are not stated in the rules, like drawing a line in the sand with a bat. And umpires debate all the time what they can or cannot handle from coaches and players. Mostly those debates are about personal standards, not clear rules or guidelines. This rule has many example of what was over the limit and this was one of them. It is unfortunate, but it is the case.

Peace

[HLin NC]

If I choose not to follow my assigner, I will no longer be assigned.
Kind of hard to officiate when you aren't officiating.

Maybe your state allows independently booked crews but some of us are basically working for a cartel.

[bigjohn]

Bravo, Chymechowder!

You old copy and paster LOL!

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by zm1283

This would be like a baseball umpire ejecting a head coach the first time he opens his mouth about ball/strike call in a game. Balls and strikes are off limits by rule, but do you eject the first time a coach says something? Of course not. It seems that good judgment was sorely lacking here.

That is not how baseball works. There is nothing in the rule book which says that "balls and strikes are off limits". How it actually works is they are not allowed to leave their position to argue ball/strike after being warned. So your example of ejecting someone the first time they say something doesn't work. Even if he leaves his position to argue he still must be warned to stop before he is ejected.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by zm1283

This would be like a baseball umpire ejecting a head coach the first time he opens his mouth about ball/strike call in a game.

In what way? There is no specific rule telling the umpire to do that. No video shown 15 times at the first clinic of the year telling them to do that.

Balls and strikes are off limits by rule

What rule? You insist on documentation on the OP, but then invent rules and then create analogies about them... there is no such rule.

but do you eject the first time a coach says something? Of course not. It seems that good judgment was sorely lacking here.

No, you don't... because you're not told to, in any book or clinic. You DO, however, eject them if they come back out after you tell them to cool it.