RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: BetweenTheLines on July 28, 2020, 12:12:19 PM
-
If a potential passer is contacted, and his arm is moving forward but the initial direction of the pass is parallel with the runner's end line is it a forward pass as indicated in 2-31-2note, or a backward pass as indicated in 2-31-5?
-
Rule it forward and get on with the game.
-
In the Game Officials Manual, page 86 of this years edition, is the "When In Question" table. If there is a question of "forward or backwards pass" you should rule forwards, along with "incomplete pass or fumble" should be incomplete.
No cheap fumbles.
-
In the Game Officials Manual, page 86 of this years edition, is the "When In Question" table. If there is a question of "forward or backwards pass" you should rule forwards, along with "incomplete pass or fumble" should be incomplete.
No cheap fumbles.
….And be prepared for the wing official that tweets his tweeter and signals incomplete pass on what appeared to be a fumble. You are now faced with two choices and neither are good :
(1) Rule incomplete pass - a bad call - and move the down;
(2) Rule IW and repeat the down - a bad call.
Opinions, please.....
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (5--man crew)
-
If my wing blows an incomplete pass on what "appears" to be a fumble, unless the opposite wing clearly saw something different, I'm going with the incomplete pass.
-
If my wing blows an incomplete pass on what "appears" to be a fumble, unless the opposite wing clearly saw something different, I'm going with the incomplete pass.
I agree, Calhoun. An explanation to B's coach could be : "Coach, I had to decide if to call it an incomplete pass which would count the down or an inadvertent whistle which would allow them to replay the down." Inadvertent whistles rarely have happy endings. :-X
-
As most of our white hats say in pre-game- "if one has incomplete, we all have incomplete".
-
….And be prepared for the wing official that tweets his tweeter and signals incomplete pass on what appeared to be a fumble. You are now faced with two choices and neither are good :
(1) Rule incomplete pass - a bad call - and move the down;
(2) Rule IW and repeat the down - a bad call.
Opinions, please.....
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (5--man crew)
Incomplete and move on.
-
In the Game Officials Manual, page 86 of this years edition, is the "When In Question" table. If there is a question of "forward or backwards pass" you should rule forwards, along with "incomplete pass or fumble" should be incomplete.
No cheap fumbles.
How do you guys rule on plays where you aren't sure if the runner is down or if he fumbled? Our philosophy in Texas is to rule fumble. But if the question is forward pass or fumble, we rule forward pass.
-
If a potential passer is contacted, and his arm is moving forward but the initial direction of the pass is parallel with the runner's end line is it a forward pass as indicated in 2-31-2note, or a backward pass as indicated in 2-31-5?
Follow: Rules Book 2-31-2 NOTE - "INCOMPLETE FORWARD PASS"
Follow: Officials Manual Page 86 "When in doubt" - "INCOMPLETE FORWARD PASS"
Follow these and they will keep you out of trouble.
-
How do you guys rule on plays where you aren't sure if the runner is down or if he fumbled? Our philosophy in Texas is to rule fumble. But if the question is forward pass or fumble, we rule forward pass.
Our local philosophy is that the runner is down. “No cheap scores, no cheap turnovers.”
-
I agree, Calhoun. An explanation to B's coach could be : "Coach, I had to decide if to call it an incomplete pass which would count the down or an inadvertent whistle which would allow them to replay the down." Inadvertent whistles rarely have happy endings. :-X
It's not YOUR decision to make. If it was clearly a fumble, you MUST go with the inadvertent whistle and replay the down. Otherwise, you go with page 86- it's an incomplete forward pass.
-
Begging your pardon, but it is most definitely a WH's decision, or at least he's involved in the process, being in close proximity to the play. I've had a couple of times when, as WH, I thought the pass was backward, but my wing blew it dead and called it incomplete. After consultation with the other wing, (not a timeout conference or anything like that, just a quick, "Hey [other guy] did you have that backward?) I made the decision not to overrule my wing. If the other wing had replied, "Yeah, that was definitely backward," then it would have been on me to make the decision to rule it an inadvertent whistle.
-
How do you guys rule on plays where you aren't sure if the runner is down or if he fumbled? Our philosophy in Texas is to rule fumble. But if the question is forward pass or fumble, we rule forward pass.
No cheap turnovers. When it doubt, he's down.
-
No cheap turnovers. When it doubt, he's down.
Absolutely, unless I "KNOW" he fumbled, his progress has been stopped and/or he's down.
-
There was once a study done at the NFL level and they studied all the runner down / fumble situations that were too fast to tell in live action. It was something like 80% or higher were really fumbles based on video. So by ruling fumble on those you have an 80% chance of being right. Obviously follow your rule code and philosophies. Hang on to the ball and be able to hand it to an official.
-
There was once a study done at the NFL level and they studied all the runner down / fumble situations that were too fast to tell in live action. It was something like 80% or higher were really fumbles based on video. So by ruling fumble on those you have an 80% chance of being right. Obviously follow your rule code and philosophies. Hang on to the ball and be able to hand it to an official.
Football is a different game at each level. The overall objectives are different, the skill and talent levels different, Officiating perspectives, somewhat different, facilities & review capabilities different, spectator expectations different. Expectations for each progressive level of the game provide unique differences, maturity, capabilities, expectations of the players, coaches and administrators at each level are different. Performance, production & reward responsibilities are markedly different.
Having different rule guidelines and interpretations, objectives and responses, based on all these and other inherent and consistent differences, seems both logical and appropriate to keep the essence of the game, and the applicability, and expectations, of those playing it at each different level, compatible and competitive for those involved, at each level.
-
Begging your pardon, but it is most definitely a WH's decision, or at least he's involved in the process, being in close proximity to the play. I've had a couple of times when, as WH, I thought the pass was backward, but my wing blew it dead and called it incomplete. After consultation with the other wing, (not a timeout conference or anything like that, just a quick, "Hey [other guy] did you have that backward?) I made the decision not to overrule my wing. If the other wing had replied, "Yeah, that was definitely backward," then it would have been on me to make the decision to rule it an inadvertent whistle.
In our association we have had varying mechanics for this and nobody can agree on whose call this should be. What I have heard is the off side wing is to signal with the arms forward or backward pass but I think it should be the near side wing who can best see the angle and make the call. The white hat to me would be too far behind the play to make a proper judgment.
I think when in doubt it should be ruled a fumble and let it play out. You could always bring it back after discussion and rule incomplete pass.
-
No cheap turnovers. When it doubt, he's down.
While I don't disagree with you, here's the official Texas/TASO philosophy:
Fumbles:
When in question, the runner fumbled the ball and was not down.
When in question, the ball is passed and not fumbled during an attempted forward pass.
The ground cannot cause a fumble. If the runner with the ball in his possession, contacts
the ground with something other than his hand or foot and the ball comes out
simultaneous with the contact the ball becomes dead. You cannot fumble a dead ball.
-
No cheap turnovers. When it doubt, he's down.
what he said.
-
While I don't disagree with you, here's the official Texas/TASO philosophy:
Fumbles:
When in question, the runner fumbled the ball and was not down.
When in question, the ball is passed and not fumbled during an attempted forward pass.
The ground cannot cause a fumble. If the runner with the ball in his possession, contacts
the ground with something other than his hand or foot and the ball comes out
simultaneous with the contact the ball becomes dead. You cannot fumble a dead ball.
Need to remove the first part of 3: "The ground cannot cause a fumble." That by rule is incorrect. The rest of 3 is OK as stated. Let's once and for all stop with "The ground cannot cause a fumble." statement - it is flat out wrong.
-
Need to remove the first part of 3: "The ground cannot cause a fumble." That by rule is incorrect. The rest of 3 is OK as stated. Let's once and for all stop with "The ground cannot cause a fumble." statement - it is flat out wrong.
A receiver who catches the ball in the air and contacts in bounds with his feet, even 1 foot then falls to the ground and the ball pops out. Is this an incomplete pass or a catch ruling the receiver down so no fumble?
-
The ground can not cause a fumble is incorrect. Had this happen in a game.
Runner breaks loose into the defensive backfield on a run. A safety goes low to tackle the runner. The runner is upended in a half somersault, his feet in the air and his hands pointed towards the ground. The ball strikes the ground first and pops out of his hand before any body part touches the ground.
-
IMHO:
As to QB with pass/fumble and forward/backwards pass plays-I would defer to the historic philosophy of incomplete pass and forward pass allowing A to keep control of the ball.
As to fumble/down plays-when in doubt, call it a fumble. You'll be right far more often then guessing runner was down.
Be in the right spot, look at the right players and take possession of your plays
-
With no disrespect intended, this is the RefStripes National Federation Discussion Page.
As such, the Texas/TASO philosophy's are NOT valid on this page. (They could however be valid on the Texas Topics Page)
NFHS Officials are expected to (and paid to) follow NFHS Guidelines.
From the 2020 NFHS Official's Manual, Page 86
GUIDES FOR - “WHEN IN QUESTION”
• Incomplete pass or fumble ............incomplete pass
• Forward or backward pass ......................forward
• Kick or pass touched or not...........................not
• Catch or not........................................no catch
• Passer has thrown or fumbled ..............has thrown
• Touchback or safety ...........................touchback
• Defenseless or not ...........................defenseless
• Excessive/Unnecessary or not........excessive/unnecessary
• Fumble or dead ball ...............................dead ball
• Helmet on or off .......................................off
• Accidental or intentional ......................accidental
a. Contact
b. Touching
c. Kicking
• 5-15 Face Mask.............................................15
• 5-15 Kicker/Holder .......................................15
-
i agree with this. IMO, there is 0% difference between ruling a pass forward to ensure A keeps the ball and ruling a player down to ensure A keeps the ball. But that's just me
-
i agree with this. IMO, there is 0% difference between ruling a pass forward to ensure A keeps the ball and ruling a player down to ensure A keeps the ball. But that's just me
Agree in principle but the reasoning could be better worded IMHO: .... there is 0% difference between ruling a pass forward since no one had it clearly backward and ruling a player down prior to a loose ball since no one had the ball out before the player was down.
-
Agree in principle but the reasoning could be better worded IMHO: .... there is 0% difference between ruling a pass forward since no one had it clearly backward and ruling a player down prior to a loose ball since no one had the ball out before the player was down.
Considering consistency, when you're when you're following a runner, from outside the sideline, and you see his head jerk, during a tackle, from inside the field of play, but can't actually see the opponent's hand and/or whether the facemask might have been involved, are you presuming and throwing a flag?
There's no requirement, or rational expectation, that we always actually see everything, but we are expected to rule correctly on everything that we actually see.
-
Agree in principle but the reasoning could be better worded IMHO: .... there is 0% difference between ruling a pass forward since no one had it clearly backward and ruling a player down prior to a loose ball since no one had the ball out before the player was down.
Yes that’s much better. Exactly what I meant to say.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Considering consistency, when you're when you're following a runner, from outside the sideline, and you see his head jerk, during a tackle, from inside the field of play, but can't actually see the opponent's hand and/or whether the facemask might have been involved, are you presuming and throwing a flag?
There's no requirement, or rational expectation, that we always actually see everything, but we are expected to rule correctly on everything that we actually see.
So in the actual topic, are you saying that because we don’t actually see the fumble, we shouldn’t rule it a fumble? Or are you saying that because we don’t actually see the ball down and dead in possession we SHOULD rule it a fumble? #imconfused
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What about those cases when we are not sure exactly what if anything we did see? Problem is, in the cases of passes and fumbles we have to rule something. If it’s a face mask or a hold we can ignore those and not call anything. But when a runner goes down and the ball comes out, it HAS to be something.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Considering consistency, when you're when you're following a runner, from outside the sideline, and you see his head jerk, during a tackle, from inside the field of play, but can't actually see the opponent's hand and/or whether the facemask might have been involved, are you presuming and throwing a flag?
There's no requirement, or rational expectation, that we always actually see everything, but we are expected to rule correctly on everything that we actually see.
I had this happen to me in a game last year. I saw the runners head 'jerk' but did not see the defenders hand on his facemask so I could not call what I did not see. What I could do is ask anybody else if they saw something, confer and then penalize according to what was actually seen.
The question on this forward or backward pass is who is in the best position to make that judgement? and when in doubt we refer back to what others in here are saying and that when in doubt it is a forward pass, when in doubt it is not a fumble. No cheap fumbles is what has been drilled into my head.
-
With no disrespect intended, this is the RefStripes National Federation Discussion Page.
As such, the Texas/TASO philosophy's are NOT valid on this page. (They could however be valid on the Texas Topics Page)
NFHS Officials are expected to (and paid to) follow NFHS Guidelines.
From the 2020 NFHS Official's Manual, Page 86
GUIDES FOR - “WHEN IN QUESTION”
• Incomplete pass or fumble ............incomplete pass
• Forward or backward pass ......................forward
• Kick or pass touched or not...........................not
• Catch or not........................................no catch
• Passer has thrown or fumbled ..............has thrown
• Touchback or safety ...........................touchback
• Defenseless or not ...........................defenseless
• Excessive/Unnecessary or not........excessive/unnecessary
• Fumble or dead ball ...............................dead ball
• Helmet on or off .......................................off
• Accidental or intentional ......................accidental
a. Contact
b. Touching
c. Kicking
• 5-15 Face Mask.............................................15
• 5-15 Kicker/Holder .......................................15
No disrespect taken, it's all good. Sometimes I forget there's a difference between the two on here. In this instance, I was pointing out the Texas philosophy to highlight how it is different, not that NHFS should adhere to that. Hope that makes sense.
On that note - this is something that I find very interesting, the distinction between the two philosophies. They are pretty much polar opposites. I'm curious the rationale that was used for the differing stances between the two.
-
No disrespect taken, it's all good. Sometimes I forget there's a difference between the two on here. In this instance, I was pointing out the Texas philosophy to highlight how it is different, not that NHFS should adhere to that. Hope that makes sense.
On that note - this is something that I find very interesting, the distinction between the two philosophies. They are pretty much polar opposites. I'm curious the rationale that was used for the differing stances between the two.
Capability of replay? ???
-
No, was referring specifically to the philosophy of 'when in doubt, fumble (Texas) or down (NHFS)
-
No, was referring specifically to the philosophy of 'when in doubt, fumble (Texas) or down (NHFS)
Perhaps the OBVIOUS difference in BOTH skill level and experience
-
IMHO, if the arm is coming forward WITH the ball, which is jarred loose with contact, it would be an incomplete FORWARD pass.
IMHO, if the ball is jarred loose before the arm starts forward, and he "throws" with an empty hand, it would be a fumble.
You may wish to further study the Brady tuck play..... :patrioticon: :patrioticon: :patrioticon: :patrioticon: :patrioticon: (Patriot fans)
-
IMHO, if the arm is coming forward WITH the ball, which is jarred loose with contact, it would be an incomplete FORWARD pass.
IMHO, if the ball is jarred loose before the arm starts forward, and he "throws" with an empty hand, it would be a fumble.
You may wish to further study the Brady tuck play..... :patrioticon: :patrioticon: :patrioticon: :patrioticon: :patrioticon: (Patriot fans)
I agree with Ralph!
I also agree that Brady provided how to intentionally ground a football from his own end zone by throwing it 65 yards downfield into no mans land for a safety! ^flag
-
Rule it forward