The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #196 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 11:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
What was disproved? You have little understanding of the rule and that is obvious. So what was disproved by the video? That Gronk never made an attempt back to the ball? Because that is the biggest part of this situation if you ask me.

Peace
If we were to change this up a little bit, and the receiver was not too deep on the pass, but instead the defender just locked him up and drove him sideways and the ball was intercepted by a player standing exactly where he was standing, I think everyone here would have pass interference (with the exception of you?). But your argument here would be exactly as applicable. That's a problem for this line of reasoning.
I'm fine with the reasoning because of the interception, he never could have caught this ball anyway, but the argument that he was not interfered with at all because he didn't fight back seems incredibly specious. Am I missing something about what you're positing?
  #197 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 11:59am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
If we were to change this up a little bit, and the receiver was not too deep on the pass, but instead the defender just locked him up and drove him sideways and the ball was intercepted by a player standing exactly where he was standing, I think everyone here would have pass interference (with the exception of you?).
I have had several people agree with me about what Gronk was not doing, so do not be so sure I am alone on this one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
But your argument here would be exactly as applicable. That's a problem for this line of reasoning.
I'm fine with the reasoning because of the interception, he never could have caught this ball anyway, but the argument that he was not interfered with at all because he didn't fight back seems incredibly specious. Am I missing something about what you're positing?
Well then you need to work more college ball or watch the NCAA videos. Because the level of contact and how it affected the play is often talked about. And at least for who I worked with it is not unusual to have a play be reviewed and it suggested that the call was "Too technical" from the supervisors on things like these. And if the action does not fit the specific categories, you will get dinged or downgraded for not following the philosophy. And that is why this discussion is often differnet with guys who primarily work HS and those that work college are often different on these matters.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #198 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:38pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
What does that have to do with anything?
The fact that holding philosophies often go against the written rule. As do the philosophies of many rules in many sports. This isn't unique.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
  #199 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:47pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
What does that have to do with anything?
It's obvious what I meant to anyone who doesn't have tunnel vision on the subject.

Everything we do is guided not only by the written rule, but also by philosophy. You can't be a top official unless you understand and are comfortable with both.
  #200 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 01:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
The interference that matters happens as the intercepting player approaches Gronk. It's the shove to the shoulder that off-balances Gronk. The wrap-up is entirely immaterial, the damage was already done.
That might explain why you're seeing this play so much differently than everyone else. This shoulder tap is not even remotely interference. You might notice that Gronk actually does almost exactly the same thing an instant before. The interference begins when Gronk's progress is impeded.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
  #201 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 01:20pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
It's obvious what I meant to anyone who doesn't have tunnel vision on the subject.

Everything we do is guided not only by the written rule, but also by philosophy. You can't be a top official unless you understand and are comfortable with both.
The rule is fine the way it's written. No need for a separate "philosophy" that only makes it easier to get the call wrong.

Nobody's answered the question of what happens if you have one defender tackle the receiver away from the ball while another defender steps into the void and intercepts it. According to your philosophy, that would be a no call.
  #202 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 01:44pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
...Nobody's answered the question ...
You haven't answered this one:

"So what should the officials have done differently based on the information they had at the time?"
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
  #203 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 01:47pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
The rule is fine the way it's written. No need for a separate "philosophy" that only makes it easier to get the call wrong.

Nobody's answered the question of what happens if you have one defender tackle the receiver away from the ball while another defender steps into the void and intercepts it. According to your philosophy, that would be a no call.
Not his philosophy, it's the one apparently used by the NFL and college in training. The same as if the defender tackles the receiver while the ball sails twenty yards out of bounds.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
  #204 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 01:58pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Not his philosophy, it's the one apparently used by the NFL and college in training. The same as if the defender tackles the receiver while the ball sails twenty yards out of bounds.
So are you saying that philosophy applies to the scenario I stated?
  #205 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 02:01pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
You haven't answered this one:

"So what should the officials have done differently based on the information they had at the time?"
Based on the explanation they gave of their call, they made the "right" call based on what they "knew."

Even if you feel they got this call right, they got lucky.
  #206 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 02:10pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
So are you saying that philosophy applies to the scenario I stated?
Uh, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
(snip) The same as if the defender tackles the receiver while the ball sails twenty yards out of bounds.
If I'm picturing it the way you are.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
  #207 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 02:11pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
Based on the explanation they gave of their call, they made the "right" call based on what they "knew."

Even if you feel they got this call right, they got lucky.
To say they got lucky implies they didn't know the rule.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
  #208 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 02:20pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
The rule is fine the way it's written. No need for a separate "philosophy" that only makes it easier to get the call wrong.
A crew chief I know is fond of saying "Well, that's life in the big city."

Philosophies have been around for years and are here to stay. They are a good thing because they lead to consistent enforcement of rules and help to standardize criteria on judgment calls.

Officials are trained at all levels in camps and clinics that there are six categories of defensive pass interference and if a particular play does not fall into one of these categories, you should not flag it. No where in the NCAA or NFHS rules will you find reference to these categories but they have been developed as a best practice through practical experience. The adherence to these categories helps ensure a more uniform enforcement of DPI and helps to take some of the subjectivity out of the call.

This is just one example, there are many other parts of the game where philosophies are applied and to good effect in my opinion.

The one unfortunate aspect of officiating philosophies is that they are not always well understood by the ignorant, which leads them to think that a play is officiated incorrectly when it was not.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
  #209 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 02:23pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Uh, yes.



If I'm picturing it the way you are.
So just as I thought... The policy is idiotic and nonsensical if it applies to the situation I stated.
  #210 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 26, 2013, 02:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
I have had several people agree with me about what Gronk was not doing, so do not be so sure I am alone on this one.
Maybe you are not alone but I haven't caught anybody who seems to agree that what Gronk did after the contact is relevant. To be clear in my example play, you do not have interference solely because the receiver did nothing to show he was trying to stay in place?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Well then you need to work more college ball or watch the NCAA videos. Because the level of contact and how it affected the play is often talked about. And at least for who I worked with it is not unusual to have a play be reviewed and it suggested that the call was "Too technical" from the supervisors on things like these. And if the action does not fit the specific categories, you will get dinged or downgraded for not following the philosophy. And that is why this discussion is often differnet with guys who primarily work HS and those that work college are often different on these matters.
Peace
Full disclosure, I'm not a football umpire, I'm an interloper from another board here at the forum. But I've been interloping for several years.

I don't have a problem with the idea that we need to see how the contact impacted the play. What I have a problem with is the contention that a receiver having been hit and as a result of being hit(*) not having a play has to still try and drive his defender back to get a flag from you. I'm not 100% sure that is even what you're saying, but insofar as it is, it doesn't feel right.

(*) That's not this play.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Only in England ukumpire Softball 21 Thu Jun 28, 2007 03:41pm
Visiting Boston from England ukumpire Softball 1 Fri Mar 09, 2007 09:37pm
New England at Jacksonville Mark Dexter Football 11 Fri Jan 05, 2007 02:45pm
Camps in the New England Jay R Basketball 11 Sun Apr 02, 2006 07:12pm
England & Ireland ukumpire Softball 0 Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:12pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1