RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Classics => Topic started by: TXMike on January 22, 2011, 12:36:29 PM
-
http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22BRJPGXDFY
-
I only said no to the "helmets coming off" question.
-
I only said no to the "helmets coming off" question.
Adopting that change in some fashion would not surprise me. I also believe the Federation is looking at the same issue.
-
I also did not support the Instant Replay change, the contact below the knee on a QB change, and the interlocked blocking change, the consecutive time outs change, and the helmet coming off change.
-
I only said no to the "helmets coming off" question.
I voted for them to have to sit out a play just like the blood rule. Maybe they will wear the correct size...........................
-
I voted for them to have to sit out a play just like the blood rule. Maybe they will wear the correct size...........................
..................and pull the chin strap tight!
-
..................and pull the chin strap tight!
Crikey, that drives me nuts in hockey.
-
I thought for sure there would be some sort of proposal for a ten-second runoff concept, based on what we saw in the Music City Bowl.
-
I'm sure they will talk about changes other than what was listed in the survey. I guess I am interested in what they do about the Umpire's position. I know that is not a rule change and it may not be resolved until late summer but that "could" be the biggest change this year.
-
I guess I am interested in what they do about the Umpire's position. I know that is not a rule change and it may not be resolved until late summer but that "could" be the biggest change this year.
I have noticed in the NFL playoff games that's it's very clear that the offensive linemen clearly know where the U is. If the U being in team A's backfield becomes the standard NCAA 7-man mechanic I'm thinking that the 3 deep officials will require some revised keys for running plays. IMO in the NFL some of the team A holding is getting pretty flagrant on the interior line play without the U in the middle. It's really obvious with the HD camera angle looking from the angle that the U would "normally" be. Interesting how quickly many NFL O-linemen have adopted different "blocking" techniques based on where the U is located at the snap.
-
...IMO in the NFL some of the team A holding is getting pretty flagrant on the interior line play without the U in the middle. It's really obvious with the HD camera angle looking from the angle that the U would "normally" be. Interesting how quickly many NFL O-linemen have adopted different "blocking" techniques based on where the U is located at the snap.
Why am I not surprised? You know the old saying... for every action, there is a reaction.
-
I have noticed in the NFL playoff games that's it's very clear that the offensive linemen clearly know where the U is. If the U being in team A's backfield becomes the standard NCAA 7-man mechanic I'm thinking that the 3 deep officials will require some revised keys for running plays. IMO in the NFL some of the team A holding is getting pretty flagrant on the interior line play without the U in the middle. It's really obvious with the HD camera angle looking from the angle that the U would "normally" be. Interesting how quickly many NFL O-linemen have adopted different "blocking" techniques based on where the U is located at the snap.
Why am I not surprised? You know the old saying... for every action, there is a reaction.
It would be a great theory, if it were true. But it's not. There were 67 MORE holding calls in the 2010 NFL season than there was a year ago, a 10.4% INCREASE. In fact, it was the most holding calls made in the past 4 seasons (I didn't go back further than that, because it takes me about 30 minutes per year to pull this info).
Offenisive Holding calls by year in the NFL Regular Season
2007: 602
2008: 588
2009: 645
2010: 712
Just FYI: The Steelers are BY FAR the most penalized team for holding (121 in 4 years), leading the league for 2 straight years. Over the past 4 years, the Colts have held (or been caught) the least, with 55, less than half of the Steelers total.
When the NFL first tried moving the U to the backfield, I thought linemen would get caught far less. But I have talked with a number of the NFL umpires, and to a man, they feel they can see holding BETTER from their new spot. Most holding calls come when the lineman gets his hands outside the frame (a hooking type of hold when the lineman has been beaten), and that is easier to see from behind the offense. Sure, the inside the frame stuff may get called less, but that's the stuff that doesn't get called in the NFL anyway.
-
When the NFL first tried moving the U to the backfield, I thought linemen would get caught far less. But I have talked with a number of the NFL umpires, and to a man, they feel they can see holding BETTER from their new spot. Most holding calls come when the lineman gets his hands outside the frame (a hooking type of hold when the lineman has been beaten), and that is easier to see from behind the offense. Sure, the inside the frame stuff may get called less, but that's the stuff that doesn't get called in the NFL anyway.
I attended a clinic a few years ago and there was an NFL Umpire going over some of the stats regarding holding calls. The majority, at that time showed that the Referee postion made the most calls vs. the umpire. He said pretty much the same as what you said regarding it being easier to see from Team A's side.
-
Formerly I was an Umpire, and now am a Referee. One of the first things I noticed was that I could see holding better in the R position than in the U position (when I am looking at blocking), I'm not at all surprised to find that there were more holding calls this year with the U in the offensive backfield.
-
Surely just looking at the number of holding calls tells an incomplete story? IMO we also need to know how many holding calls the NFL supervisors think were missed. It's not nearly as good gaining a number of correct calls (assuming they were graded correct) on the swings if you then immediately lose them on the roundabouts.
-
Consecutive Team Timeouts
The NCAA rules allow a team to be granted consecutive timeouts. Some concern has been raised about the practice of teams being granted back-to-back timeouts to "ice" an opposing kicker who is about to attempt a field goal.
What's the basis for the "concern"? Is icing perceived to be unethical?
-
Consecutive Team Timeouts
The NCAA rules allow a team to be granted consecutive timeouts. Some concern has been raised about the practice of teams being granted back-to-back timeouts to "ice" an opposing kicker who is about to attempt a field goal.
What's the basis for the "concern"? Is icing perceived to be unethical?
And where is the data that it works ????
-
And where is the data that it works ????
I can't remember which kicker it was that said it, but he stated that he didn't mind the timeout at all because it gave him more time to prepare to kick it.
-
Consecutive Team Timeouts
The NCAA rules allow a team to be granted consecutive timeouts. Some concern has been raised about the practice of teams being granted back-to-back timeouts to "ice" an opposing kicker who is about to attempt a field goal.
What's the basis for the "concern"? Is icing perceived to be unethical?
I believe the basis is that it happens late in the 2nd and 4th when all of the media stops are finished. It is extending a game that's already been paid for. Remove the extra time out and you can move on to the next game.
-
I believe the basis is that it happens late in the 2nd and 4th when all of the media stops are finished. It is extending a game that's already been paid for. Remove the extra time out and you can move on to the next game.
That's been my speculation.
Nothing to do with playing the game. The concern is that consecutive TOs reduce TV's efficiency.
-
I attended a clinic a few years ago and there was an NFL Umpire going over some of the stats regarding holding calls. The majority, at that time showed that the Referee postion made the most calls vs. the umpire. He said pretty much the same as what you said regarding it being easier to see from Team A's side.
Well does the Competition Committee get in the act and say we don't like all of the holding calls, lets move the U back so he cannot see as well?
-
I believe the basis is that it happens late in the 2nd and 4th when all of the media stops are finished. It is extending a game that's already been paid for. Remove the extra time out and you can move on to the next game.
Ah, so it's another BCS rule. ;)
-
Offensive Holding calls by year in the NFL Regular Season
2007: 602
2008: 588
2009: 645
2010: 712
I believe (guessing a bit) from what I've seen that the majority of the "new holding" calls came on pass plays and my comment was more directed at running plays, especially those between the tackles where the action tends to be (especially at the linebacker level w/3-4 defenses). Is there any way to "split" the data to calls on pass plays vs calls on running plays?
-
I believe (guessing a bit) from what I've seen that the majority of the "new holding" calls came on pass plays and my comment was more directed at running plays, especially those between the tackles where the action tends to be (especially at the linebacker level w/3-4 defenses). Is there any to "split" the data to calls on pass plays vs calls on running plays?
No, not in what's available to me. Someone at the NFL might be able to write some code to read the raw database, but I only have access to the team by team summaries, which list the number and type of each penalty called, and whether it was accepted or declined.
I can also check every individual player and what penalties were called on each, but they aren't sortable. I would have to check each team to see who got caught the most. If I had to guess, I'd go with Jonathan Scott of the Steelers, caught 7 times (one was declined - Roethlisberger's 3rd down pass was incomplete on the play).
-
Ah, so it's another BCS rule. ;)
Well, FBS, perhaps. The non-BCS conferences suffer the same TV time issues as do the BCS. And there are a good number of FCS games on TV as well, although they don't have replay (yet), until they get to the playoffs.
-
How about this for a rule change:
Kick catch interference
During a legal scrimmage kick, when a player of Team B is in position to catch the kick beyond the neutral zone, no player of Team A shall interfere with the B player's sight of of the ball, and shall not contact the B player, or contact the ball with hand or arm (while the ball is in flight) until after the B player has completed the catch, or until the B player's muff of the kick has touched the ground or another player of Team B. When in question, the catch was not completed before the contact by A.
What does this do?
It dramatically reduces our judgment on KCI, because,if the receiver isn't touched and makes the catch - no foul. If he muffs it, neither he nor the ball can be contacted by A until the ball touches the ground or a teammate. A players can get as close as they want, they can yell, and they can try to distract him, as long as they don't block his vision to the ball. Fair trades, I think. They can't mess with him until AFTER he has completed the catch - they will have to slow down their timing on trying to tackle him. The receiver would have the knowledge that he must be given the opportunity to complete the catch before he can be contacted. Contacting him AS he completes the catch would be KCI, even if he hangs on to the ball. Would make for far less judgment on our part. The only real judgment left is whether his vision was blocked or not. That would have to be a really overt act - like waving of hands or arms right in his face.
What do y'all think?
-
This has always fascinated me. Why it is that the general mindset is somehow the game is improved each year by changing the rules.... Like politics, I'm sure that will never end - but looking at the reality of the game you'd think that at some point we'd 'get it right' and only have to make minor adjustments to keep up with the evolution of the game. I hope we're getting closer to that with 2-year cycles.
Also, we listen to the trainers advice so that safety is maintained -- ok, it is a collision sport, a voluntary collision sport, but why if we're listening to them did this happen? Although the rule was originally passed as a player-safety measure, the athletics trainers who advise the rule committee say that this action is no more dangerous than most normal football plays.
-
This has always fascinated me. Why it is that the general mindset is somehow the game is improved each year by changing the rules.... Like politics, I'm sure that will never end - but looking at the reality of the game you'd think that at some point we'd 'get it right' and only have to make minor adjustments to keep up with the evolution of the game. I hope we're getting closer to that with 2-year cycles.
What's the rules committee going to do if they're not tinkering? The devil makes work for idle hands...
-
if the receiver isn't touched and makes the catch - no foul
Or make it hard to see the ball...
no player of Team A ..., and shall not contact the B player
If the A player is standing still waiting and the B player runs through A to get to the ball, is A making contact with B? I would say B made contact with A.
contact the ball with hand or arm (while the ball is in flight)
Any part of the body. If the ball hits A in the back of the head for instance.
I think the label Kick Catch Interference is misleading. I guess your definition is working towards just that - interfering in the catch of the kick, but should the label not be Interference with the Opportunity to Catch a Kick? Your definition does not address when B can not get TO the ball because A is in the way. If they go around a player and are therefore not in the correct position, but do not contact the player. If they go through the player to get to position to catch the kick.
Also, I think there is still a lot of judgement as to whether he was contacted after he completed the catch, or as he was completing it.
Just my thoughts.
-
James,
My proposal would give B more protection from contact, but the trade off is that the receiver will have be good enough to ignore the 'presence' of an opponent. If the A player gets bonked on the head, back, abdomen or legs by the untouched kicked ball, then we've got illegal touching, anyway, so no big deal. Chances are, if he is so close to the receiver as to get bonked by the ball, he will probably contact him, drawing the KCI flag. We use the catch criteria to establish when the receiver can be contatced, i.e., the receiver has to do something with the ball after he catches it before he can be contacted. If we don't have a catch, and we have contact , its a KCI foul. If we have a catch, then we can't have a KCI foul. If the receiver has to go through a defender to get to the ball, then he gets the KCI foul. That'll make the defenders keep their distance. If the receiver chooses to run around the defender, he gets nothing.
Much simpler, and more fair to both teams. IMHO.
-
Also, we listen to the trainers advice so that safety is maintained -- ok, it is a collision sport, a voluntary collision sport, but why if we're listening to them did this happen? Although the rule was originally passed as a player-safety measure, the athletics trainers who advise the rule committee say that this action is no more dangerous than most normal football plays.
Agree.
When the prohibition for leaping when into effect in 2004, trainers advised the Rules Committee that players running forward and jumping high generated a lot stored energy. This potential energy was converted to a high concentration of force when the leaper landed. If the leaper landed on an opponent - often times defenseless against a falling object - the large force would be dissipated upon the opponent. Trainers went on to testify that this practice was unsafe for both the leapee as well as the leaper. And the NCAA PROP (safety watchdog) committee endorsed the change. Then, the following year, both committees thought that leaping was so unhealthy, they went on make it illegal for the leaper land on a teammate.
One has to wonder about the committees' advisers. Is the proposed change due to a new batch of athletic trainers or different thinking?
-
Whatever happen to using good judgement to determine a foul?
-
Whatever happen to using good judgement to determine a foul?
Nothing. But what happened to the concept of letting the players determine the play of the game, and not having officials interjected into the game any more than absolutely necessary? Reducing the amount of judgment required by officials means the players are making that much more determination as to who wins or loses. Not afraid of making judgments, when there is no way to play the game without that judgment. But, in the case of KCI, a lot of the judgment can be removed. And, if it can be removed, it should.
Similarly, we don't need more rules regarding helmets. There are more than enough rules to keep players as safe as current technology will allow, if they want to be safe. Loose helmets is a choice they are making, and trainers/coaches are allowing. If that's what they want, let 'em go. Lose a helmet and get your head busted - tough. A properly fitted helmet with securely fastened 4-point chin strap ain't coming off by simple contact, or even by all but the most extreme pulling action. As with the other uniform and equipment issues, let the teams and administrators fix that problem - leave us out of it. Let us focus on game play issues - holding, PI, clipping, etc.
Alas, it seems to be all part of the epidemic of irresponsibility sweeping the world. Everybody wants someone else to make them behave. Then they bitch when they are called on the carpet.
-
Whatever happen to using good judgement to determine a foul?
I agree, there is more than enough emphasis on consistency of interpretations to provide consistent application for judgment calls, that have always been (and hopefully will continue to be) part of the game. Trying to write binding requirements covering the smallest details of variables into the rules serves only to increase confusion and will accomplish absolutely nothing towards reducing differences of opinion.
There is one part of this game that will never change, officials are required to be impartial, and coaches by their very nature will always be partial. Long ago it was decided that twain shall never meet and officials were given the authority to render their best judgment in making calls interpreting the rules. Coaches, players, announcers, administrators and spectators are free to make their own conclusions, but the reality is they just don't matter.
-
........... But, in the case of KCI, a lot of the judgment can be removed. And, if it can be removed, it should. ..........
Why don't we try a halo rule? That should work well. >:D
The idea that the judgment part of KCI can be eliminated has been tried multiple times - and none of them worked very well. I can't see any way that the judgment part of officiating will ever go away.
-
Why don't we try a halo rule? That should work well. >:D
The idea that the judgment part of KCI can be eliminated has been tried multiple times - and none of them worked very well. I can't see any way that the judgment part of officiating will ever go away.
You don't get it. With my suggestion, if he catches the ball and there hasn't been any contact, then no foul. Judgment gone. Not the case right now.
-
You don't get it. With my suggestion, if he catches the ball and there hasn't been any contact, then no foul. Judgment gone. Not the case right now.
But what about the judgment required to determine if he's made a "football move" yet? Or did he run into the defender who was in contact with a blocker? Or did the defender clearly make the receiver change his path to the ball but there was no actual contact? Or .... (put in your own list here). Would the "new rules" be different after a fair catch signal? IMO just too many variables to come even close to making a rule change here that would be truly deterministic and not require a significant amount of individual judgment on a kick play.
-
But what about the judgment required to determine if he's made a "football move" yet? Or did he run into the defender who was in contact with a blocker? Or did the defender clearly make the receiver change his path to the ball but there was no actual contact? Or .... (put in your own list here). Would the "new rules" be different after a fair catch signal? IMO just too many variables to come even close to making a rule change here that would be truly deterministic and not require a significant amount of individual judgment on a kick play.
It would reduce, not eliminate, judgment. The biggest arguments have always come when a flyer buzzes or crowds a receiver, but he manages to catch it anyway, or he muffs it without contact, and we get the flag down for KCI. And those account for the VAST majority of KCI calls. With this proposal, that judgment goes away - no contact, no foul. Then, judgment is when there is contact, and the question is, "Was the contact before or after the catch was completed?" IMHO, significantly easier, and leaving much more of the game to the players. The other judgment would be if he obscured the receiver's view of the ball, and I would make that be placing or waving of hands or arms CLEARLY in the line of sight to the ball, or a MUCH larger opponent positioning his head so close to the receiver's face that you can see his shadow across the receiver's eyes. In both cases, if the opponent is that close, the chances are he is going to get hit by the ball - illegal touching, so no big deal. And, if the receiver knows that the responsibility for contact rests SOLELY with the opponent, the receiver (in position make the catch - a judgment we already have to make) knows he is free to run through the opponent, perhaps 'drawing' a KCI foul. Now THERE is incentive for opponents to give the receiver his room to make the catch.
Judgment isn't eliminated, but it is reduced tremendously.
-
With this proposal, that judgment goes away - no contact, no foul.
IMO that sentence alone makes it a non-starter. We'd have intimidation specialists the opening week of the season.
-
IMO that sentence alone makes it a non-starter. We'd have intimidation specialists the opening week of the season.
And what's so bad about that? The receivers a) get better and ignore the intimidation, or b) run through the defender and draw a contact KCI foul. Our lives become easier and the players take more control of their own destinies. Win-Win.