The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Who thinks these two are IG?? (https://forum.officiating.com/football/96194-who-thinks-these-two-ig.html)

bigjohn Mon Sep 30, 2013 05:56am
Who thinks these two are IG??
 
Peyton Page - Highlight Videos, Schedule & Roster - Hudl


not my game

JRutledge Mon Sep 30, 2013 06:59am
Well if these are games under high school rules, the first one yes the second one no. Seeing the free kick go into the end zone tells me either there is a different rule in this state or that they are playing under NCAA rules. If that is the case then the first one is not IG.

Peace

Adam Mon Sep 30, 2013 08:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 906429)
Well if these are games under high school rules, the first one yes the second one no. Seeing the free kick go into the end zone tells me either there is a different rule in this state or that they are playing under NCAA rules. If that is the case then the first one is not IG.

Peace
Does anyone know if Arkansas high schools play with NCAA rules? If not, that's a pretty big field position issue on that free kick return.

bigjohn Mon Sep 30, 2013 08:08am
Arkansas? The team if from LA and the team they played was Memphis?

http://www.coachhuey.com/thread/6130...crollTo=611362

MD Longhorn Mon Sep 30, 2013 08:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn (Post 906435)
Arkansas? The team if from LA and the team they played was Memphis?

Oops, there was an error! | CoachHuey.com
How were we to know this (and how were we to assume Memphis meant Memphis Tennessee - there are a number of Memphises in this country.

In any case - based on this camera angle alone, I probably have yes on both for high school rules, although I can't see enough of the field to be sure on the 2nd one. No for NCAA rules on the first.

Adam Mon Sep 30, 2013 08:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn (Post 906435)
Arkansas? The team if from LA and the team they played was Memphis?
Sorry, West Memphis is in Arkansas. The game was played at the University of Arkansas at Monticello. You'll have to pardon my assumption that this game was played in Arkansas, and unless there's something in that article we can't access, then I'll stick with that assumption. Not that any of that really matters. I wasn't aware that LA, AR, or TN, played by NCAA rules, so my question still applies.

RadioBlue Mon Sep 30, 2013 08:59am
If this is a game played under NF rules (although I have my doubts after seeing the kickoff), then I have IG in both plays. I agree the second play we don't see enough of the field to know for sure. However, after analyzing the video, I'm pretty sure I'd have a flag. The pass lands right on the 35 yard-line. There is no A player to the right edge of the frame which is the 44 YL. The first time you see any A player as the camera pans downfield are a pair of receivers who are moving back toward the LOS at the 47 YL. When that ball landed at the 35, one could assume they were near the 50. No receivers with 15 yards of the ball? I think that's a flag.

JRutledge Mon Sep 30, 2013 09:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 906434)
Does anyone know if Arkansas high schools play with NCAA rules? If not, that's a pretty big field position issue on that free kick return.
I don't think they do, but then again I only know what I have read here about states that play under NCAA rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 906442)
Sorry, West Memphis is in Arkansas. The game was played at the University of Arkansas at Monticello. You'll have to pardon my assumption that this game was played in Arkansas, and unless there's something in that article we can't access, then I'll stick with that assumption. Not that any of that really matters. I wasn't aware that LA, AR, or TN, played by NCAA rules, so my question still applies.
I am also aware of West Memphis as my father was from Memphis and driving there you pass West Memphis, Arkansas. One of the reasons I was not sure this was in Tennessee.

Peace

maven Mon Sep 30, 2013 09:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 906434)
Does anyone know if Arkansas high schools play with NCAA rules? If not, that's a pretty big field position issue on that free kick return.
No, they use NFHS rules.

Football

Both passes are IG under NFHS.

asdf Mon Sep 30, 2013 09:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 906429)
Well if these are games under high school rules, the first one yes the second one no.
Peace
I'm curious, what do you see in the second play that under high school rules makes this pass legal?

I've got two easy IG calls here under the HS code.

JRutledge Mon Sep 30, 2013 09:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioBlue (Post 906444)
If this is a game played under NF rules (although I have my doubts after seeing the kickoff), then I have IG in both plays. I agree the second play we don't see enough of the field to know for sure. However, after analyzing the video, I'm pretty sure I'd have a flag. The pass lands right on the 35 yard-line. There is no A player to the right edge of the frame which is the 44 YL. The first time you see any A player as the camera pans downfield are a pair of receivers who are moving back toward the LOS at the 47 YL. When that ball landed at the 35, one could assume they were near the 50. No receivers with 15 yards of the ball? I think that's a flag.
Under NF rules, we are to consider the ability of the QB. He was throwing to to something, but he did not appear to have the ability to get it there on the run. That looks a lot more like he was trying to get it to someone. He did not throw it out of bounds like the previous throw. I would do my best to likely talk my Referee out of this call or give information to say that a receiver is in the area.

Peace

Welpe Mon Sep 30, 2013 09:15am
I'd have IG on the second one under NCAA. There's no receiver even remotely in the area.

I think the kickoff was just botched, either the WH had a brain fart or didn't know the rule.

JRutledge Mon Sep 30, 2013 09:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdf (Post 906449)
I'm curious, what do you see in the second play that under high school rules makes this pass legal?

I've got two easy IG calls here under the HS code.
That is why they call it judgment right?

Part of the rule is the ability of the QB. It has nothing to do with someone being in the area, it has to do with what he is trying to do. He is clearly to me trying to complete a pass, but his ability is lacking and he is running. I see these kinds of throws all the time in high school. If he was truly dumping the ball, he would have been more causal with the throw. Receivers appear to go too far and not come back to the ball and he tries to throw to a receiver that clearly comes back into the picture. I am giving him every benefit of the doubt in those situations.

Peace

asdf Mon Sep 30, 2013 09:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 906453)
That is why they call it judgment right?

Part of the rule is the ability of the QB. It has nothing to do with someone being in the area, it has to do with what he is trying to do. He is clearly to me trying to complete a pass, but his ability is lacking and he is running. I see these kinds of throws all the time in high school. If he was truly dumping the ball, he would have been more causal with the throw. Receivers appear to go too far and not come back to the ball and he tries to throw to a receiver that clearly comes back into the picture. I am giving him every benefit of the doubt in those situations.

Peace
Ok.... I don't agree based on the prior throw, but that's the beauty of what we do... Different viewpoints, different judgments...

CT1 Mon Sep 30, 2013 09:38am
2 IGs to me. In #2, the QB is under pressure & appears to try to save yardage.

maven Mon Sep 30, 2013 09:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 906453)
Part of the rule is the ability of the QB. It has nothing to do with someone being in the area, it has to do with what he is trying to do.
'Ability' is not in the rule, it's a "factor to consider" mentioned in a case play.

Quote:
7.5.2 SITUATION C:

Quarterback A1 drops back to pass and while under a good defensive rush, he throws the ball forward:

(a) at the feet of two onrushing defensive linemen; or
(b) 15 yards behind A3 who has run a deep post pattern; or
(c) 5 to 10 feet over the head of eligible A3 who lined up near a sideline.

RULING: Illegal forward pass in (a). In (b) and (c), the referee will have to judge whether the pass was intentionally thrown incomplete or whether A1 was simply unable to throw the ball close to A3.

COMMENT: Some factors to look for in making an intentional-grounding decision are absence of eligible offensive receivers in the area and the "dumping" to avoid loss of distance. The ability and skill of the passer and the pressure of the defense are also factors to consider. (7-5-2d)
There are 2 mistakes here:
(1) we should not use "ability" as the primary criterion of IG. The main question, as stated in the COMMENT, is the absence of eligibles and whether the QB is dumping the ball. By those measures, the play in question is IG.
(2) The "ability" question concerns the QB's capacity to play through contact or make a throw while scrambling. In the play in question, ability doesn't enter the matter: there is no contact, and he's clearly dumping the ball. I say "clearly" because the ball goes right where he throws it.

Sure, some of this is judgment. But there's good judgment and bad judgment, and the concepts in play in the rule do not warrant just any call in these cases. IMO, these plays are not borderline.

bigjohn Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:15am
Pretty sure only Texas and Mass play under NCAA rules.
You are right though it was played in AR. The guy that posted it is from LA.

Sorry I should have just said, in NFHS rule set.

bisonlj Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdf (Post 906454)
Ok.... I don't agree based on the prior throw, but that's the beauty of what we do... Different viewpoints, different judgments...
I'm pretty liberal in allowing QBs flexibility on dumping the ball in HS. I agree with JRut on this one. I could reasonably say he was trying to get it to those receivers downfield but didn't have the arm to do it. If he was truly grounding it he could have thrown it OOB like he did on the first one or more quickly into the ground. There was plenty of room to truly dump it.

But you are definitely supported by rule to call this IG and should not get downgraded for doing it if evaluated. If I'm your supervisor though I say let this go.

JRutledge Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by maven (Post 906459)
'Ability' is not in the rule, it's a "factor to consider" mentioned in a case play.
It is apart of the rule because the interpretations says it is to be considered. Maybe that is semantics, but that is how it is officiated before making this call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maven (Post 906459)
There are 2 mistakes here:
(1) we should not use "ability" as the primary criterion of IG. The main question, as stated in the COMMENT, is the absence of eligibles and whether the QB is dumping the ball. By those measures, the play in question is IG.
(2) The "ability" question concerns the QB's capacity to play through contact or make a throw while scrambling. In the play in question, ability doesn't enter the matter: there is no contact, and he's clearly dumping the ball. I say "clearly" because the ball goes right where he throws it.

Sure, some of this is judgment. But there's good judgment and bad judgment, and the concepts in play in the rule do not warrant just any call in these cases. IMO, these plays are not borderline.
I have a problem with what you are saying philosophically. For one you say that something is not apart of the rule, but you quote the exact thing I am referencing and how the rule will be adjudicated. If a coach asks me about why I did not make an IG call, I would reference what you just said which the casebook are the rules too. They are just interpretations of those rules and give detailed examples of how the rule will be applied.

I am sorry the ability does matter in this second play because making a throw on the run is not easy and high school players often cannot do that very well. There are D1 big time QBs that cannot make those throws very well. I am not going to penalize a QB or thrower because they cannot throw and accurate pass down the field on the run. I see those kinds of passes like in this video all the time and often they are nearly intercepted.

Peace

OKREF Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:20pm
IG on both plays.

MD Longhorn Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by maven (Post 906459)
There are 2 mistakes here:
(1) we should not use "ability" as the primary criterion of IG.
There's no PRIMARY criterion, and ability comes into play as much as anything else.

The key is -- reading the mind of QB, what was he TRYING to do. Was he trying to avoid the loss of yardage from the pending sack? Or was he trying to complete a pass. As Jeff said, inability to do what you're trying to do doesn't make it grounding. INTENT makes it grounding.

I believe I'd have IG on the 2nd play, but I can't see all of the receivers and what they were doing --- if it appeared to me, from behind the QB, that he was TRYING to throw to someone, and simply failed, I would not have IG.

Rich Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 906463)
It is apart of the rule because the interpretations says it is to be considered. Maybe that is semantics, but that is how it is officiated before making this call.



I have a problem with what you are saying philosophically. For one you say that something is not apart of the rule, but you quote the exact thing I am referencing and how the rule will be adjudicated. If a coach asks me about why I did not make an IG call, I would reference what you just said which the casebook are the rules too. They are just interpretations of those rules and give detailed examples of how the rule will be applied.

I am sorry the ability does matter in this second play because making a throw on the run is not easy and high school players often cannot do that very well. There are D1 big time QBs that cannot make those throws very well. I am not going to penalize a QB or thrower because they cannot throw and accurate pass down the field on the run. I see those kinds of passes like in this video all the time and often they are nearly intercepted.

Peace
There's a reason he's throwing on the run -- the pressure he's under.

Part of the decision making process is understanding that the ball may not get to a receiver -- but it's expected to get *near* a receiver.

First play is obviously IG.

Personally, I think in the second play a receiver is near enough where I wouldn't mark down either call if I was evaluating the crew.

JRutledge Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 906483)
There's a reason he's throwing on the run -- the pressure he's under.
Of course. But players are under pressure often and still throw the ball to a receiver. It is not impossible to do so and some times those are planned to make a throw on the run or while moving.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 906483)
Part of the decision making process is understanding that the ball may not get to a receiver -- but it's expected to get *near* a receiver.
And "near" is going to be subjective. I just do not expect a HS QB to be Tom Brady or Peyton Manning on their throws either. And it looked like the second pass was a duck that could not fly.

Peace

rockyroad Mon Sep 30, 2013 01:28pm
In the first play, the QB is rolling to his left and has to throw across his body yet still manages to throw the ball about 30 yards downfireld and another 10 yards out of bounds. In the second, rolling to his right and only throws the ball about 14 yards. Not sure how you factor "ability" into not calling IG on the second when he has clearly demonstrated the ability to throw the ball down the field.

MD Longhorn Mon Sep 30, 2013 04:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 906487)
In the first play, the QB is rolling to his left and has to throw across his body yet still manages to throw the ball about 30 yards downfireld and another 10 yards out of bounds. In the second, rolling to his right and only throws the ball about 14 yards. Not sure how you factor "ability" into not calling IG on the second when he has clearly demonstrated the ability to throw the ball down the field.
You don't think the 10-yards out of bounds part adds some credibility to the idea that this kid is not incredibly accurate on the run?

OKREF Mon Sep 30, 2013 05:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 906499)
You don't think the 10-yards out of bounds part adds some credibility to the idea that this kid is not incredibly accurate on the run?
He hit his mark. Looks to me that his intention was to throw it 10 yds out of bounds.

After watching the clip again, I could be sold on the second one that he was trying to throw to the receivers, even if they are 10 plus yds away from where the throw landed.

Robert Goodman Mon Sep 30, 2013 09:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn (Post 906460)
Pretty sure only Texas and Mass play under NCAA rules.
This is referring to the state associations. It's always possible a school is not a member; mine wasn't, for instance.

JRutledge Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 906510)
He hit his mark. Looks to me that his intention was to throw it 10 yds out of bounds.

After watching the clip again, I could be sold on the second one that he was trying to throw to the receivers, even if they are 10 plus yds away from where the throw landed.
Ten yards away is not the far off if you ask me. And if it is short that is not unusual for a HS QB. Even if he was dumping the throw, he made it look good enough for me. The rules do not say how close you have to be, but to me based off of experience, if a QB gets it that close, I am not going to nitpick his intent. I thought the throw was at least in the direction of a receiver and that is mostly good enough for me.

Peace

rockyroad Tue Oct 01, 2013 04:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 906499)
You don't think the 10-yards out of bounds part adds some credibility to the idea that this kid is not incredibly accurate on the run?
Seems like pretty much everyone is saying that the first is IG - that he purposefully threw it out there. To then turn around and say that the second isn't IG because the kid can't throw (doesn't have the ability) just doesn't make sense to me. Shrug...

JRutledge Tue Oct 01, 2013 04:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 906568)
Seems like pretty much everyone is saying that the first is IG - that he purposefully threw it out there. To then turn around and say that the second isn't IG because the kid can't throw (doesn't have the ability) just doesn't make sense to me. Shrug...
The first throw was in the sidelines with almost no strength on the throw and no one to throw to. He did not throw the ball a long way and he was not trying to be accurate. The second throw was in the field of play and in the direction of a receiver which is obvious or one would not have come back into the picture. Now was he dumping the throw? Maybe, but if it was not flagged before, why not do the same thing again?

And there is enough doubt on the second throw that people here are not saying this is an obvious IG call on the second throw. So much so that they said if they were evaluating they would not even say anything either way. That is telling to me when on a play like this if there is doubt, it is not a foul.

Peace

Welpe Tue Oct 01, 2013 08:41pm
FWIW, I think the second is an obvious grounding. Just my own opinion. :)

johnnyg08 Wed Oct 02, 2013 03:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn (Post 906422)
This must be a different rule set. Kicks can't be run out of the end zone in FED

MD Longhorn Wed Oct 02, 2013 04:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 906651)
This must be a different rule set. Kicks can't be run out of the end zone in FED
Welcome to the thread...

JRutledge Wed Oct 02, 2013 06:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 906652)
Welcome to the thread...
That sounded like John Adam's response to a fan about officiating. ;)

Peace

johnnyg08 Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 906652)
Welcome to the thread...
Good to be here


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:23pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1