Carolina vs New England last play

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by hbk314

...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?"

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

So are you saying that philosophy applies to the scenario I stated?

Uh, yes.

Originally Posted by Adam

(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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

So just as I thought... The policy is idiotic and nonsensical if it applies to the situation I stated.

How? The rule is clear: it can't be DPI if the ball is not catchable.

The philosophy spells out that uncatchable includes a situation where the ball is intercepted before it even gets to the point of the interference. I'm not sure how this is nonsensicle.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.