RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Patrick E. on September 06, 2016, 05:33:00 PM
-
I am told this actually happened this weekend .......
A's ball on B's 30.
QB drops back to pass and the entire A sideline yells "SCREEN". B players bite up as a reaction and A2 goes by the last B defender to catch a pass in the end zone.
My interpretation - This is an unsportsmanlike foul on the A head coach as it was obviously choreographed. Enforcement would be similar to a player wagging his finger at an opponent as he run's for a TD. 15 yards enforced from the succeeding spot or kickoff.
Thoughts?
-
I've got nothing. B should be able to identify which sideline is yelling at them.
-
I've got nothing. B should be able to identify which sideline is yelling at them.
I thought of that too, and they should be able to read the play themselves. I guess I'm bothered by the obvious choreography of it. Is this something we really want to tolerate in HS football?
-
I thought of that too, and they should be able to read the play themselves. I guess I'm bothered by the obvious choreography of it. Is this something we really want to tolerate in HS football?
I definitely agree it is cheap, and unsportsmanlike in the general sense, but probably not something that we would want or need the rules to intervene in.
-
I don't know which rule this violates. Without a specific rule being violated, I've got nothing.
-
FWIW - I also consulted the 2016 NFHS Redding Guide (page 114).
-
I definitely agree it is cheap, and unsportsmanlike in the general sense, but probably not something that we would want or need the rules to intervene in.
Agreed.
-
FWIW - I also consulted the 2016 NFHS Redding Guide (page 114).
And it said...?
-
This falls under the realm of Unsportsmanlike Acts or even the Unfair Act rule. If it has an impact on the play use your judgement and how much the act "hinders" play.
-
I've got a no-call on this one.
Do I think it's cheesy? Yep.
Do I think it rises to the level of unsportsmanlike? Nope.
-
Not even close to a foul.
If your defense reacts to the OFFENSE yelling "Screen", your team has MUCH bigger problems. A USC call isn't going to help you.
-
IMHO, I would save 9-10-1 (the unfair act rule) for something more swashbuckling. We had such a critter in Maine this past weekend ,for those of you with computer search skills it was in the Bangor vs Edward Little game....
(1) Bangor threw a pass 30+ yards downfield and in front of the Edward little sidelines;
(2) a fellow in a gorilla suit came running on the field and bumped the intended receiver;
(3) pass sailed incomplete over the head of the gorilla and intended receiver;
(4) Bangor had a six man line and was flagged at the snap;
(5) the white hat announced ; "the illegal formation against Bangor and the foul against the
gorilla offset and we'll replay the down."
I've been asked what should have happened if Bangor had been legal. IMHO, I would have applied 9-10-1 and awarded a completed pass where the gorilla and the human met. There appeared to be several defenders between the receiver and goal line, so I wouldn't go there.
The play had a happy ending:
The local constables P_S P_S tR:oLl P_S P_S lead the gorilla back to his cage tiphat:
-
NFHS: 1-1-6 provides game officials with significant leeway, based on a presumption of mature judgment, but our function is to administer and enforce existing rules, which includes detecting and enforcing rules as they exist, and are stated to intend.
Penalty enforcement is geared to detect and penalize, as stated, clear violations of existing rules, rather than search through rules to find a potential violation, somewhere in the details, of what might be construed as a possible violation or a suspected inappropriate intent.
Despite the granted judgmental flexibility, we are held to a higher standard for penalty enforcement, of ACTUALLY observing a violation in it's entirety. We are not permitted to presume, deduce or guess and are responsible to take action on only those violations we are CERTAIN of.
-
NFHS: 1-1-6 provides game officials with significant leeway, based on a presumption of mature judgment, but our function is to administer and enforce existing rules, which includes detecting and enforcing rules as they exist, and are stated to intend.
Penalty enforcement is geared to detect and penalize, as stated, clear violations of existing rules, rather than search through rules to find a potential violation, somewhere in the details, of what might be construed as a possible violation or a suspected inappropriate intent.
Despite the granted judgmental flexibility, we are held to a higher standard for penalty enforcement, of ACTUALLY observing a violation in it's entirety. We are not permitted to presume, deduce or guess and are responsible to take action on only those violations we are CERTAIN of.
I'm a relatively educated man with a couple of Master's degrees and 40 years of both football and officiating experience.
And I have NO IDEA if you agree or disagree that this is a foul.
-
The only verbal thing of that nature that would be penalized is the defense confusing the snap count. This play is no foul.
-
NFHS: 1-1-6 provides game officials with significant leeway, based on a presumption of mature judgment, but our function is to administer and enforce existing rules, which includes detecting and enforcing rules as they exist, and are stated to intend.
Penalty enforcement is geared to detect and penalize, as stated, clear violations of existing rules, rather than search through rules to find a potential violation, somewhere in the details, of what might be construed as a possible violation or a suspected inappropriate intent.
Despite the granted judgmental flexibility, we are held to a higher standard for penalty enforcement, of ACTUALLY observing a violation in it's entirety. We are not permitted to presume, deduce or guess and are responsible to take action on only those violations we are CERTAIN of.
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/993/875/084.png)
-
Sorry for confusing you, how about, "Don't get creative with penalty decisions."
-
I think this would cover that situation.
ART. 6 . . . The referee has authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, on any situation not specifically covered in the rules. The referee’s decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game.
-
I think this would cover that situation.
ART. 6 . . . The referee has authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, on any situation not specifically covered in the rules. The referee’s decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game.
You're going to pull out the god rule because the offense yells, "Screen"? It would be a short Varsity career if that happened around here.
If you are talking about 8 year olds that might be easily confused, OK, do what you need to do. But in a high school game, leave it alone.
-
I knew we wouldn't make it through this discussion without 1-1-6 rearing its ugly head. hEaDbAnG
-
I just said its covered by that rule, which it seems to be. I would just tell the team not to do it anymore. This is the kind of thing that could escalate if not taken care of early.
-
What if they yelled "screen" and it really was a screen, and B tackled A behind the line? Would you apply the same rule then? What if they all yelled "timeout" and B players stopped in their tracks? the hypotheticals are endless. I've got nothing.
-
Regarding HIGH SCHOOL football (for youth leagues, you may have a differnt issue):
I would just tell the team not to do it anymore.
Why?
This is the kind of thing that could escalate if not taken care of early.
This is the kind of thing that will go away quickly when they see its not effective. And if it is effective, the defense will learn quickly.
Absent slurs or profanities, it's a non-issue, stay out of it.
-
NFHS: 1-1-6 provides game officials with significant leeway, based on a presumption of mature judgment, but our function is to administer and enforce existing rules, which includes detecting and enforcing rules as they exist, and are stated to intend.
Penalty enforcement is geared to detect and penalize, as stated, clear violations of existing rules, rather than search through rules to find a potential violation, somewhere in the details, of what might be construed as a possible violation or a suspected inappropriate intent.
Despite the granted judgmental flexibility, we are held to a higher standard for penalty enforcement, of ACTUALLY observing a violation in it's entirety. We are not permitted to presume, deduce or guess and are responsible to take action on only those violations we are CERTAIN of.
[/color]
I'm a relatively educated man with a couple of Master's degrees and 40 years of both football and officiating experience.
And I have NO IDEA if you agree or disagree that this is a foul[/color].
BEEEEUUUTIFUL AB!!!!!!!!!!!!! tiphat: LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
-
I'm a relatively educated man with a couple of Master's degrees and 40 years of both football and officiating experience.
And I have NO IDEA if you agree or disagree that this is a foul.
Those who are seeking a "one size fits all" answer, are not going to find one. As to whether all the various consideration being made result in a penalty being called, look for a yellow flag. If you see one, the conclusion is a foul, if not, don't worry.
-
Regarding HIGH SCHOOL football (for youth leagues, you may have a differnt issue):
Why?
This is the kind of thing that will go away quickly when they see its not effective. And if it is effective, the defense will learn quickly.
Absent slurs or profanities, it's a non-issue, stay out of it.
Have to disagree with you on this, it might go away if nothing is done it also may make the other team try to do a unsportsmanlike act of their own or take it out on the field with a late or cheap hit. I would just tell the team that they cant do it and its over.
-
IMHO, I would save 9-10-1 (the unfair act rule) for something more swashbuckling. We had such a critter in Maine this past weekend ,for those of you with computer search skills it was in the Bangor vs Edward Little game....
(1) Bangor threw a pass 30+ yards downfield and in front of the Edward little sidelines;
(2) a fellow in a gorilla suit came running on the field and bumped the intended receiver;
(3) pass sailed incomplete over the head of the gorilla and intended receiver;
(4) Bangor had a six man line and was flagged at the snap;
(5) the white hat announced ; "the illegal formation against Bangor and the foul against the
gorilla offset and we'll replay the down."
I've been asked what should have happened if Bangor had been legal. IMHO, I would have applied 9-10-1 and awarded a completed pass where the gorilla and the human met. There appeared to be several defenders between the receiver and goal line, so I wouldn't go there.
The play had a happy ending:
The local constables P_S P_S tR:oLl P_S P_S lead the gorilla back to his cage tiphat:
Hey Ralph, Wouldn't the gorilla's act be a non-player foul and thus administered separately from the illegal formation?
-
Hey Ralph, Wouldn't the gorilla's act be a non-player foul and thus administered separately from the illegal formation?
I would have enforced it that way with Bangor a net of 10 yard gain. I agreed with the whitehat that you couldn't get creative with the 9-10-1 enforcement where the offense had also fouled.
A further update on the play : It was reported in the Bangor Daily Snooze/News that a D-back leveled the gorilla after SHE interfered with the pass. The gorilla's head popped off after the hit and reveled that it was a high school girl. P_S The constables still did their duty P_S. I believe detention will be added to her class schedule :(. There was a player in an early Super Bowl that leveled a fan that came on the field and was later quoted : "When they come out on the field ,they play by our rules!" The fan was a guy.
SOX WIN...PATS WIN...LIFE IS GOOD
-
There was a player in an early Super Bowl that leveled a fan that came on the field and was later quoted : "When they come out on the field ,they play by our rules!" The fan was a guy.
Mike Curtis of the Baltimore Colts.
-
If the target were a game official, self defense seems a reasonable precaution, but win, lose or draw the fan needs to go to jail.
-
It's probably starting to get a little off the original topic, but here is the video of the gorilla attack (http://bangordailynews.com/2016/09/08/sports/girl-in-gorilla-suit-interrupts-bangor-edward-little-football-game/), in case you're curious.
-
I have a whole new level of appreciation for the work that you guys do up in Maine, Ralph. tiphat:
Did anybody check to see if she'd been into the lobster martinis pre-game?
-
This falls under the realm of Unsportsmanlike Acts or even the Unfair Act rule. If it has an impact on the play use your judgement and how much the act "hinders" play.
The action in the original post is NOT an Unsportsmanlike Act nor is it an Unfair Act.
Why?
Because shouting "Screen" is NOT and never has been a foul!