IHC on offense?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Absolutely. Hopefully in 3-man, ref is trailing and catches this.

Those of us who will work 3-man.

Even our youth ball is 4 here. I've haven't worked 3-man in years.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Those of us who will work 3-man.

Even our youth ball is 4 here. I've haven't worked 3-man in years.

Heck then 2 man would blow your mind.

Well I have worked 3 man and not sure why this would not have been called. And the game at that level is so slow it should have jumped out at you from the Referee position for sure.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Heck then 2 man would blow your mind.

Well I have worked 3 man and not sure why this would not have been called. And the game at that level is so slow it should have jumped out at you from the Referee position for sure.

Peace

It's an easy foul for the R. I find it sad that the wings couldn't keep up with kids that young, though.

[OKREF]

The first penalty is when the right guard is in his three point stance, comes out of it and then returns. Not saying I would call it at this level.

[bigjohn]

Any initiation of contact with the helmet is illegal; therefore, there must be a focus on
enforcing the existing rules. This year, the committee is taking the step to emphasize all
types of illegal helmet contact:

[MD Longhorn]

John, if you're trying to insist that the contact in the video is a foul, you're wrong. Yes, it's an emphasis... but what you see in this video is not a foul.

[asdf]

Clearly, the blow was delivered with the shoulder pad.

Too bad the R on the crew decided to dress like the was working an AAU basketball game.

[bigjohn]

I disagree but clearly officials don't want to call it. QB dropped his head and so did defender. blow it dead, make a statement, offsetting penalties, Whatever. Don't let that go.

The INITIAL CONTACT was with the helmet!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Any initiation of contact with the helmet is illegal; therefore, there must be a focus on
enforcing the existing rules. This year, the committee is taking the step to emphasize all
types of illegal helmet contact:

This was a stiff arm and no it is not illegal to stiff arm someone in the head. And you will not find any such statement by the NF or the NCAA. He did not punch the defender, he used his arm to ward off a tackle. Nothing about the rules or POE has changed that fact.

Peace

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's an easy foul for the R. I find it sad that the wings couldn't keep up with kids that young, though.

I don't know if it was as much can't as won't. He was trailing fine for a while and then started mailing it in.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I don't know if it was as much can't as won't. He was trailing fine for a while and then started mailing it in.

Many wing officials accept the challenge to cross the goal line WITH the runner, no matter how long the run. However, in a 3 or 4 man configuration there's often nobody following the wing official watching what's going on behind the runner.

On a long run, the Referee and Umpire can be delayed by action around the original scrimmage line, so once the runner appears in the clear, the wing official slows down to observe the trailing action, but often that area 15 yards, or more behind the runner and a long way from the original scrimmage line is likely an expanding "no man's land" to some extent, in 3 or 4 man coverage.

The solution, of course, is adding a 4th, 5th or 6th man, which is a game management decision.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Many wing officials accept the challenge to cross the goal line WITH the runner, no matter how long the run. However, in a 3 or 4 man configuration there's often nobody following the wing official watching what's going on behind the runner.

On a long run, the Referee and Umpire can be delayed by action around the original scrimmage line, so once the runner appears in the clear, the wing official slows down to observe the trailing action, but often that area 15 yards, or more behind the runner and a long way from the original scrimmage line is likely an expanding "no man's land" to some extent, in 3 or 4 man coverage.

The solution, of course, is adding a 4th, 5th or 6th man, which is a game management decision.

I disagree, quite a bit actually. The linesman running with the runner needs to be there with or ahead of the runner. (Signalling a TD while running looks absurd), and should be looking at the trailing action from in FRONT (i.e. with the runner). The opposite linesman can and should trail the action to pick up what you're calling no-man's land. I do agree that R could be far behind the play, especially if there's no U, as he should not pass players to pick up the trail of the play --- he could just as easily miss transgressions behind him were he to do so.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I disagree, quite a bit actually. The linesman running with the runner needs to be there with or ahead of the runner. (Signalling a TD while running looks absurd), and should be looking at the trailing action from in FRONT (i.e. with the runner). The opposite linesman can and should trail the action to pick up what you're calling no-man's land. I do agree that R could be far behind the play, especially if there's no U, as he should not pass players to pick up the trail of the play --- he could just as easily miss transgressions behind him were he to do so.

In a 3-man or 4-man crew, I agree. There's nobody on the goal line. The wing has to try to get there.

In 5-man, I'd rather the wing trail the runner unless the pylon's threatened. The BJ has the goal line.

In 6-man and 7-man, there's a deep wing on the pylon already.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I disagree, quite a bit actually. The linesman running with the runner needs to be there with or ahead of the runner. (Signalling a TD while running looks absurd), and should be looking at the trailing action from in FRONT (i.e. with the runner). The opposite linesman can and should trail the action to pick up what you're calling no-man's land. I do agree that R could be far behind the play, especially if there's no U, as he should not pass players to pick up the trail of the play --- he could just as easily miss transgressions behind him were he to do so.

I agree with the R hanging back. I won't pass opposing players if I'm the R. If there's just one player from one team, I'll pass him, but remember that he's there.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I don't know if it was as much can't as won't. He was trailing fine for a while and then started mailing it in.

Speaking from a practical standpoint:

Many youth leagues play multiple games back-to-back using the same 3 officials for all games. If we're working a three-game set in hot weather, and a player breaks for an obvious TD, I don't have a problem with my wings "saving steps".

Would I *prefer* that he lead the runner? Sure. But I don't have a hissy fit if he's a little ways behind as long as he can officiate what he needs to.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

Speaking from a practical standpoint:

Many youth leagues play multiple games back-to-back using the same 3 officials for all games. If we're working a three-game set in hot weather, and a player breaks for an obvious TD, I don't have a problem with my wings "saving steps".

Would I *prefer* that he lead the runner? Sure. But I don't have a hissy fit if he's a little ways behind as long as he can officiate what he needs to.

I would not want anyone leading the runner in any situation like that or any set of mechanics as a short wing. You are going to get in the middle of the play if you are leading the runner and be more in survival mode then officiating mode.

But you are certainly right about doing multiple games.

Peace