Jameis Winston

[chapmaja]

My take, as a non-football official but a football fan is this should have been a penalty, but it was caused by the positioning of the official as much as by Winston. This is a positioning problem because it does not allow the offense to get set up like they should be allowed to set up.

If I understand the rules correctly, the offense is prevented from snapping the ball until the defense has made their substitutions. There is nothing in the rules that prevent the offense from being able to get set up for the play. The actions of the official by nature of his positioning impact the play of the offense, so I understand Winston trying to move him out of the way. My problem with Winston's actions aren't the first contact, it is when he pushed him over into the left guard. That to me was unsportsmanlike conduct.

I suspect the officials would be a little scared to throw a flag in that situation because of the ramifications of such a penalty on something that is truly a borderline call.

My understanding of the rule is that if you rule the action to be unsportsmanlike conduct for contacting an official, the ejection is required, no if's and's or butt's. There is no grey area. In this case there should have been grey area allowed. I think 15 yards, but not an ejection.


For the record: I am as much of a Winston hater as their is. I think he is a punk kid who thinks he can do whatever he wants when he wants, and there are no consequences to his actions. I think his coach looks like a complete moron for defending the indefensible as well.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

My understanding of the rule is that if you rule the action to be unsportsmanlike conduct for contacting an official, the ejection is required, no if's and's or butt's.

There is a lesser option, though, but it's a bit of a stretch: 3-4-2b.8, "Action clearly designed to delay the officials from making the ball ready for play." That'd be a delay of game foul, just a 5 yarder, but you'd have to say it's clearly deliberate & for that purpose.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

There is a lesser option, though, but it's a bit of a stretch: 3-4-2b.8, "Action clearly designed to delay the officials from making the ball ready for play." That'd be a delay of game foul, just a 5 yarder, but you'd have to say it's clearly deliberate & for that purpose.

How can you justify that when his obvious intent was the exact opposite?

[hbk314]

By rule, is it possible to flag him without ejecting? Or is the penalty for contact with an official 15 yards and an ejection by rule?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

By rule, is it possible to flag him without ejecting? Or is the penalty for contact with an official 15 yards and an ejection by rule?

Every single penalty that does not involve targeting and fighting can result in just a 15 yard penalty.

Peace

[bisonlj]

The rule about contacting an official specifically includes disqualification. If you are going to call this you have to disqualify unless you are going to stretch some other rule that doesn't apply.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Matt

How can you justify that when his obvious intent was the exact opposite?

I see what you're saying: It's like the player's going, here, I'll help you get out of the way, rather than the player's getting in the official's way. Maybe there's no way to make 3-4-2 fit. But did 9-2-4 contemplate such a situation? It's written so black & white, with no nuances, that it makes me wonder how an official could discretionarily ignore the forceful & deliberate contact in such a situation.