Comments on the 2014 football rules changes

[HLin NC]

Being RIGHT ON TOP of the play doesn't mean you don't/can't miss something.
A player was down and
out of bounds when B player hit him and it was avoidable.

I've got another from same field, different game where the LJ flags a hold to spring the runner but then misses the spearing on the runner after he's down. He was right on top of it too.

[JRutledge]

It does not look "obvious" to say one way or another. I even think he hits the player on shoulder or part of the back. So that is why the location of the official would matter. Maybe they clearly saw the contact. We are looking at angles across the field and not down the sideline. That is why being on top of the play would matter. But that does not mean there was a miss by the official. I just have nothing to say they were wrong at this time.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Being RIGHT ON TOP of the play doesn't mean you don't/can't miss something.
A player was down and
out of bounds when B player hit him and it was avoidable.

I've got another from same field, different game where the LJ flags a hold to spring the runner but then misses the spearing on the runner after he's down. He was right on top of it too.

As technology continues to improve, perhaps by the time we get to having an 8th official assigned to HS games, that new position will be an official hovering above the field of play, with the capability to slow the view of all the action down, but until then we're going to have to suffer with just 5, 6 or maybe 7 people watching 22 players, in the best position possible.

Earlier on, the question was raised, "How do you judge intent?", and I would submit, as difficult as that may be, it's a lot more likely to discern at ground level, relatively close to the play, than it is from up high looking down on the action. "Intent" will always be a judgment call, and always depend on knowledge, experience common sense and the courage to act on what those factors provide.

[HLin NC]

All that is well and good but unfortunately for us as officials, our observers/trainers/evaluators are almost always in the stands or press box so that is the view you get. The review committee on which I serve has no other options but to review film. We are too small a group to not be calling on Friday night and we have one retired ACC official working as our observer.

Bringing us back around to topic-the dive by the defender into the runner, would that be a possible example of NF "targeting"?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

All that is well and good but unfortunately for us as officials, our observers/trainers/evaluators are almost always in the stands or press box so that is the view you get. The review committee on which I serve has no other options but to review film. We are too small a group to not be calling on Friday night and we have one retired ACC official working as our observer.

Bringing us back around to topic-the dive by the defender into the runner, would that be a possible example of NF "targeting"?

But when you evaluate tape (or when I have had games evaluated), evaluators usually do not make conclusions unless they have evidence. And then when you do not have definitive evidence, you default to the position of the official. Now you can ask the official what they saw and show then what they might have missed, but usually judgment is hard to conclude with angles like this. Yes, it could have been targeting, but I see nothing conclusive. I see an official standing there that likely saw the contact and did not draw anything from it. He could be wrong and you can always talk about why he did not see it one way or another, but I cannot come on this site and say he was totally in the wrong or missed something without some input. Talking to the officials (what evaluators often do) you see if they remember the play and see their judgment.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Bringing us back around to topic-the dive by the defender into the runner, would that be a possible example of NF "targeting"?

And if it was targeting, would it not have been unnecessary roughness under the previous rules?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

And if it was targeting, would it not have been unnecessary roughness under the previous rules?

Once again, only if that same field official (who obviously didn't judge the contact to be the result of targeting) believed the contact to be "unnecessary", avoidable and/or excessive.