Punt question

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

eace

There is no situation that even suggests in any interpretation what you are saying. You are taking it further than even the rules or interpretation allows.

Forgive me, I thought this was a hypothetical question leading to a discussion, I never got a copy of the memo appointing you Grand Pupa in charge of deciding, "how far the rules, or interpretations, are allowed to go. If you have reasoning beyond, "Because you said so", please share it, I'd like to consider it.

A Referee would rarely if ever be judging any first touching or any of these kinds of plays. So not sure where the Referee is going to be making any decision as it relates to this rule.

I never intended to suggest the Referee would be asked about his version of what actually happened, likely being far removed from the downfield action, but some Referees expect to be kept abreast of exceptional calls in the event there might be questions, and might even provide useful advice.

The Referee cannot also overrule anyone's judgment.

Strange, I don't recall reading anywhere that the Referee was prevented from reviewing judgment calls. Although it's certainly not an every day matter, I thought the second sentence of 1-1-6, "The Referee's decisions are final in ALL MATTERS pertaining to the game", actually meant "ALL MATTERS", and a quality Referee might be able to add some valuable input to the discussion that would persuade the covering official to rethink the original call.

not some situation in which you are trying to define something that is already defined.

I thought the fact that this particular scenario is NOT defined, is what raises it as a question, intended to open a iscussion.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

There is no situation that even suggests in any interpretation what you are saying. You are taking it further than even the rules or interpretation allows.

Forgive me, I thought this was a hypothetical question leading to a discussion, I never got a copy of the memo appointing you Grand Pupa in charge of deciding, "how far the rules, or interpretations, are allowed to go. If you have reasoning beyond, "Because you said so", please share it, I'd like to consider it.

You can do what you want, but you are alone in this interpretation here. And I have never heard a single person at any level suggest what you are suggesting. And I am a person that has for years been a back judge or deep wing and never heard anyone suggest the rule applies the way you are doing here. I would think at some point someone other than you would make this argument, but they have not.

Originally Posted by ajmc

A Referee would rarely if ever be judging any first touching or any of these kinds of plays. So not sure where the Referee is going to be making any decision as it relates to this rule.

I never intended to suggest the Referee would be asked about his version of what actually happened, likely being far removed from the downfield action, but some Referees expect to be kept abreast of exceptional calls in the event there might be questions, and might even provide useful advice.

Just stating the ruling would long be made before they got involved. This would be a tape review issue or a discussion in the locker room, but not where this rule would likely be involked.

Originally Posted by ajmc

The Referee cannot also overrule anyone's judgment.

Strange, I don't recall reading anywhere that the Referee was prevented from reviewing judgment calls. Although it's certainly not an every day matter, I thought the second sentence of 1-1-6, "The Referee's decisions are final in ALL MATTERS pertaining to the game", actually meant "ALL MATTERS", and a quality Referee might be able to add some valuable input to the discussion that would persuade the covering official to rethink the original call.

But this is a judgment call, just based on your explaination of "your" interpretation. You never explained how far we take a touch to subsequent touches (which there is no rules support for). So wouldn't this situation be based on judgment? Not sure where the actual rule would come into play even with the definition that is stated. I would think you would have to rule when a touch is "forced" or not forced.

Originally Posted by ajmc

not some situation in which you are trying to define something that is already defined.

I thought the fact that this particular scenario is NOT defined, is what raises it as a question, intended to open a iscussion.

I do not think this is as unclear as you stated. You just are looking for specifics for a hypothtical that the rule was not intended for IMO. And it appears no one else but you are having this issue. And I did discuss this with others to see if I was crazy or missing something and have yet anyone to suggest your interpretation applies to the actual rule or intent of the rule.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You can do what you want, but you are alone in this interpretation here. And I have never heard a single person at any level suggest what you are suggesting.

You never explained how far we take a touch to subsequent touches (which there is no rules support for). So wouldn't this situation be based on judgment? Not sure where the actual rule would come into play even with the definition that is stated. I

I do not think this is as unclear as you stated. You just are looking for specifics for a hypothtical that the rule was not intended for IMO. And it appears no one else but you are having this issue. Peace

This was a "sample question" about something I don't know that ever has happened, anywhere and certainly never to me. Why then, would you be surprised, "never heard a single person at any level suggest what you are suggesting", it's likely it never happened anywhere to anyone.

Yes, I am looking for specifics, regarding the logic and intent of the written rule, we all can refer to, but agree doesn't extend to, relate to or explain, this situation.

Why should I care that, "no one else but you are having this issue"? I don't have an issue, I'm suggesting a consideration for a previously unasked/unanswered question. If you disagree with my suggestion, fine, I've got no argument with that, but if you're trying to persuade me, you need to provide a little more than, "because I said so".

I know it's not stated in the rule, I know the verbiage used only applies to that initial forced contact, but does it make sense that a secondary contact, which as described, sounds as entirely the responsibility of K as the initial forced contact, should be ignored? If so, why?

Does the fact that, it sounds, like the 2nd contact by R, was caused ENTIRELY by K, extend the logic of the rule that R is not, nor should be, held responsible for an action caused ENTIRELY by K, which is exactly the logic applied to relieving R of the responsibility of the initial contact.

If you don't think that logic extends, OK, but why. It seems to me it's reasonable that it should, but as I've stated I would have to see exactly what happened to be absolutely sure that R2 had absolutely nothing to do with him touching, or being touched by, the deflected ball.

If R2 was standing close to the collision by K1 and R1 which caused the ball to be deflected into R2, as opposed to being some distance away, the opportunity, or lack thereof, to avoid touching the ball would be a factor.

How far away? I don't know, it first needs to be established if that matters. Should it?

If you don't want to bother questioning the logic and purpose behind this rule, fine, don't bother with it and go with the language that exists.

This is not a "look up the answer" situation, because an answer doesn't exist, and there is no official right or wrong. It seems a lot more like an opportunity to discuss the intent and purpose of the rule and see where that discussion might lead.

[JRutledge]

ajmc,

Do whatever your local association, crew or area allows.

If you are looking for answers, you have been given them by many here. If you do not want to accept them and think there is something more, then use that logic that works for you. No one here is really likely to work with you or have much to say over what games you get or do not get. Same applies to me if I have an interpretation or philosophy.

Do what you see fit. Not much reason to keep debating what is clearly there in my mind. If it is not in your mind, then do what you need to do. I just think that is not the intent of the rule and will not rule accordingly.

Peace

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

ajmc,

Do whatever your local association, crew or area allows.

No one here is really likely to work with you or have much to say over what games you get or do not get.

Standard Rut answer.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

Standard Rut answer.

Yes it is. That is what everyone should do and not necessarily listen to anyone here if they choose not to agree with them.

Last time I checked no one here hires others on this board as a general statement. So do what works in your local area as those are the people that will praise you or admonish you for your choices.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

ajmc,

Do whatever your local association, crew or area allows.

If you are looking for answers, you have been given them by many here. If you do not want to accept them and think there is something more, then use that logic that works for you. No one here is really likely to work with you or have much to say over what games you get or do not get. Same applies to me if I have an interpretation or philosophy.

Do what you see fit. Not much reason to keep debating what is clearly there in my mind. If it is not in your mind, then do what you need to do. I just think that is not the intent of the rule and will not rule accordingly.

Peace

Keep in mind you are debating with a clock operator. He doesn't have to make this call on the field.

I don't believe there is any rule support to say touching by an R player is ignored because another R player was blocked into the ball by an opponent. The exception only applies to the guy blocked into the ball. That seems pretty clear to me. Plus the sound philosophy I've heard is the block of the R player into the ball had better be a signficant block where he completely loses control of his body. That makes even that call a very unlikely one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Keep in mind you are debating with a clock operator. He doesn't have to make this call on the field.

Well if that is the case, it shows how little I pay attention on this site. I was under the impression he was an official. Sounds like another guy trying to debate a rule they are not experienced in actually ajudicating on a regular basis. This statement is duly noted.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I don't believe there is any rule support to say touching by an R player is ignored because another R player was blocked into the ball by an opponent. The exception only applies to the guy blocked into the ball. That seems pretty clear to me.

I agree with you on that one. The side the other guy is taken that this is an "uncovered" area of the rules could be argued about any specific play situation. Like, the rules don't say anything about someone's faking a pass, resulting in an opponent's making illegal use of hands, so the silence about such a case is an excuse to rule it as...?

Plus the sound philosophy I've heard is the block of the R player into the ball had better be a signficant block where he completely loses control of his body. That makes even that call a very unlikely one.

That far I wouldn't take it. I'd go for any situation in which contact with the opponent causes the player of R to move (not to fail to move) in a way that leads to contact occurring between him and the ball that wouldn't've occurred at all otherwise. So if R1 is blocking K1 and the ball bounces backwards and hits R1 in the back, don't ignore the touching unless K1 caused R1 to move into the ball's path rather than just keeping him from moving out of its path. Otherwise players of R could block players of K near the ball with complete impunity while trying to keep them from downing the ball.

[ajmc]

[QUOTE=bisonlj;900292]Keep in mind you are debating with a clock operator. He doesn't have to make this call on the field.

One of the dangers of writing, or speaking, words without filtering them through a rational thought process is that you make yourself sound like a petty fool, pathetically deparate to make yourself sound important.

I have no way of knowing how games at different levels are serviced where you work Mr. bisonlj, nor am I all that interested, but I was, thankfully taught to know better than mouth off about something I know nothing about. The 40+ years I've had the pleasure of spending on football fields, at multiple levels, before moving to the press box, has given me some insight, a lot of continuing interest and the knowledge that, as much as I may have thought I learned, it's likely a lot less than I can yet understand.

Being resigned to enjoy the back side of the mountain, I can tell you that accepting the status of "has been", despite all it's limitations, is far more enjoyable than being a "never was", which is where a lot of people who find it necessary to try and blow smoke up their pants, trying to sound important by denegrating others, more often than not, usually wind up.

[bisonlj]

[QUOTE=ajmc;900448]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Keep in mind you are debating with a clock operator. He doesn't have to make this call on the field.

One of the dangers of writing, or speaking, words without filtering them through a rational thought process is that you make yourself sound like a petty fool, pathetically deparate to make yourself sound important.

I have no way of knowing how games at different levels are serviced where you work Mr. bisonlj, nor am I all that interested, but I was, thankfully taught to know better than mouth off about something I know nothing about. The 40+ years I've had the pleasure of spending on football fields, at multiple levels, before moving to the press box, has given me some insight, a lot of continuing interest and the knowledge that, as much as I may have thought I learned, it's likely a lot less than I can yet understand.

Being resigned to enjoy the back side of the mountain, I can tell you that accepting the status of "has been", despite all it's limitations, is far more enjoyable than being a "never was", which is where a lot of people who find it necessary to try and blow smoke up their pants, trying to sound important by denegrating others, more often than not, usually wind up.

Point taken. I succumbed to the idiocy that is the anonymous world of the internet. I am sorry. But will you please do me one favor? Will you please learn how to properly use a comma? I know we don't always have perfect grammar, spelling or punctuation but I have a hard time taking you seriously when all I can see is commas.