It's about time...

[Rich]

I'd been hearing people saying they don't blow their whistles (on purpose) after plays in such a way that conveys pride in that fact. I've never understood that. Appears the CFO doesn't understand it, either:

WHISTLE: DEAD-BALL USAGE

There has been a disturbing trend in recent years in which officials fail to blow the whistle when the ball has become dead by rule. In some cases, officials have been instructed to officiate in this manner in an effort to eliminate the possibility of an inadvertent whistle.

While this is a noble goal, it has the detrimental effect that players away from the ball may legitimately may be unaware the play is over and may commit a personal foul solely due to the negligence of the official to administer the end of the play properly.

Rule 4-1-3 explicitly requires an official to blow his whistle when the ball becomes dead in his or her area of responsibility. In application, we interpret this to mean, "When an official sees the ball dead, the official must blow the whistle." Certainly there are a small number of plays in a game in which no official can see the ball dead. In those rare cases, there will be no whistle and our coaches must understand that situation. Justifiably, they do not understand when the ball carrier is tackled in front of an official, the official simply raises his hand, and a teammate of the runner is then flagged for a late knockdown.

Starting with the 2013 season, officials are directed that the covering official must blow the whistle when that official sees the ball dead. We firmly believe this will have the beneficial effect of reducing action after the play that often results in dead-ball personal fouls and engender ill will between opponents. We do not believe this will lead to more inadvertent whistles, as the following fundamental principle remains: “If you do not see the ball dead, do not blow the whistle."

[JRutledge]

I do not believe anyone has purposely tried to not blow the whistle if they see a play had been killed. But when you are looking for the ball and cannot found, I would think there would not be a whistle just for whistle sake. And that is what your voice is for as well. When I do not have coverage on a play, I use my voice to players around me. And even when you blow the whistle, that does not automatically stop players. Sometimes you still have to use your voice. To me this is much to do about nothing and does not address the real world on many levels.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not believe anyone has purposely tried to not blow the whistle if they see a play had been killed. But when you are looking for the ball and cannot found, I would think there would not be a whistle just for whistle sake. And that is what your voice is for as well. When I do not have coverage on a play, I use my voice to players around me. And even when you blow the whistle, that does not automatically stop players. Sometimes you still have to use your voice. To me this is much to do about nothing and does not address the real world on many levels.

Peace

You haven't worked with the guys who refuse to blow the whistle only because "there doesn't need to be one". I have. I get (and so does the memo) that you may not see the ball. But if you do and you're the covering official, there's *no reason* not to blow the whistle.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not believe anyone has purposely tried to not blow the whistle if they see a play had been killed.
Peace

I've worked with such a crew. I get not wanting several echo whistles all over the field... but this crew LOVED IT when a play ended without a whistle. I thought it was bizarre, and uncomfortable to work with.

[Texas Aggie]

I say slow, but not no, whistles. Plus, I only want the wings and occasionally the umpire, blowing and no echos without a good reason -- and on those, your voice usually works better anyway.

I've seen a fight start during a play where I didn't know where the ball was. You can not have an instinct to blow the whistle; you must know ALL the facts. So I would much rather no whistle occurred on a play than a whistle by someone who didn't know all the facts -- even if it didn't end up killing a live play.

[JasonTX]

It makes you wonder how a baseball umpire can get by without the use of a whistle. We use our voice to call time, out, safe, foul. In agreement with Rut, use of the voice will get you out of more trouble than a whistle.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

It makes you wonder how a baseball umpire can get by without the use of a whistle. We use our voice to call time, out, safe, foul. In agreement with Rut, use of the voice will get you out of more trouble than a whistle.

I work both sports at the HS/college levels and I find the comparison between baseball and football, in this context, to be completely absurd.

If you think the voice is more effective than a whistle, why do we have whistles in the first place?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Rich

You haven't worked with the guys who refuse to blow the whistle only because "there doesn't need to be one". I have. I get (and so does the memo) that you may not see the ball. But if you do and you're the covering official, there's *no reason* not to blow the whistle.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I've worked with such a crew. I get not wanting several echo whistles all over the field... but this crew LOVED IT when a play ended without a whistle. I thought it was bizarre, and uncomfortable to work with.

Agreed. I've worked with these types of guys as well. It must definitely is a real issue.