RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: juxone on October 14, 2020, 11:29:44 AM
-
Take a look at this clip, foul or no foul at the tackle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK5b1MN1XvM&authuser=0
-
No foul for me, he had his hands around his neck/upper body, I saw no pull or even grabbing of the facemask.
-
I'll defer to the BJ's call on this one.
-
The BJ was reaching for his flag before the arm went around the neck. He may have seen a hand pull the head down before the arm went around the neck. hard to seen from the reply. got to go with his call.
-
yep. Could have been a grab to a helmet opening. I'm not into nitpicking or refbashing here.
-
yep. Could have been a grab to a helmet opening. I'm not into nitpicking or refbashing here.
Everyone else is entitled to speculate, presume, even guess what "might likely" have happened. Field officials, on the other hand, are required to actually see whatever action they are going to rule happened, and whether it actually violated any rule, specifically governing the level of the game being observed.
-
In the clip at about the 10 second marks (first segment) and 24 seconds in the second segment, the left hand grabbed the face mask, then the right arm wrapped around the front of the facemask and then went around the neck -- coach was upset saying the back judge could not see the hand because the "defender was in the way". Just wanted some objective input, thanks.
-
In the clip at about the 10 second marks (first segment) and 24 seconds in the second segment, the left hand grabbed the face mask, then the right arm wrapped around the front of the facemask and then went around the neck -- coach was upset saying the back judge could not see the hand because the "defender was in the way". Just wanted some objective input, thanks.
There's ONLY one answer. YOU can ONLY call what YOU actually SEE. The coach, or film, may see something you didn't see, but none of that matters (see NFHS: 1-1-9).
The one exception would be if one of your crew mates ACTUALLY SAW the face mask grasped, then his call could/should overrule your call, but then you'd be responding to his call, not yours.
-
I'll also defer to the calling official. There is nothing here that clearly shows that it was not a facemask foul.
-
Just to clarify my original post, I wasn't disagreeing with the flag; I'd defer to him as well, just stating my opinion given the camera view. If a crewmate threw that flag I'd support it 100%.
-
Just to clarify my original post, I wasn't disagreeing with the flag; I'd defer to him as well, just stating my opinion given the camera view. If a crewmate threw that flag I'd support it 100%.
Your original post, says ALL that needs to be said, "I saw no pull or even grabbing of the facemask.". It simply doesn't matter what ANYONE else tells you they saw, (unless it's a crew mate - AND his flag is on the ground, at which point his flag is what's being consider.
When there is a conflict between officials, what was ACTUALLY SEEN always out-rules what "likely happened" - or not, "might have happened - or not, "could have happened - or not, etc. Coaches, spectators, other players may VERY WELL,HONESTLY, ACTUALLY SEE something critical YOU DIDN'T SEE, from whatever their vantage point provided. It just doesn't matter, EVER. ( NFHS:1-1-9 prohibits use of Replay equip. (with exception)
The BEST practice, when two or more game officials are observing an action from different perspectives, is to CONSULT with each other BEFORE AGREEING which perspective will rule, and give a SINGLE decided signal. When circumstances unfortunately produce conflicting conclusions, and signals, BOTH officials need to convene, resolve the difference and provide a joint single conclusion & signal. (something seen ALWAYS outweighs something presumed).
Whenever possible, eye contact with another covering official BEFORE signaling, allows for the opportunity to converge and confirm/challenge perspectives AVOIDING explaining conflicting signals.
-
Just saw the same video from this poster on the other forum asking if it was a "legal tackle or no"? Big difference between asking if this is a facemask or a legal tackle.
-
Yes, but did you read the "hypothetical "? The question was -- if there had NOT been a face mask-- would such a tackle have been legal.
-
Serious question: is Al a bot?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Serious question: is Al a bot?
I don't think so because I think he predates them.
-
Serious question: is Al a bot?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not quite sure exactly what you mean by "a bot". If you have something substantial to dispute about what was suggested, please detail. Old practices usually continue to work, until and unless, something newer corrects and/or improves them.
-
Not quite sure exactly what you mean by "a bot". If you have something substantial to dispute about what was suggested, please detail. Old practices usually continue to work, until and unless, something newer corrects and/or improves them.
Absolutely nothing in your last post had anything to do with the question asked by the poster. It’s just random rules and rants about stuff everybody already knows. Very similar to bot posters in other social media sites.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Absolutely nothing in your last post had anything to do with the question asked by the poster. It’s just random rules and rants about stuff everybody already knows. Very similar to bot posters in other social media sites.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Another "dead horse" crying out for burial. From reading some of these responses, apparently NOT EVERYONE is willing to understand and/or accept that the ultimate decision rests EXCLUSIVELY with the covering game official (alone). External challenging opinions can be (Preferably) ignored, or if deemed necessary, explained.
Long standing procedures and processes remain valid UNTIL they are PROVEN to be no longer valid, or until the covering official CHOOSES to ignore or abandon them.
-
Nobody is arguing that it’s not the officials responsibility to make a judgment call. That’s a given. I don’t understand your obsession with that point. That’s your default response to every question. But there are objective principles that can be applied to these rules questions. I’m sure the other posters would welcome those. The very nature of message boards elicit opinions. Those are not wrong. We all learn from reading the different opinions, some concerning the facts of the case, some concerning the different perspectives on judgment. I’m sure no one would argue that when it comes to the field on Friday night, each official is on an island of sorts in that he alone is responsible for accurately applying the principles of judgment to come to a right conclusion. Can we put that horse to rest?
-
yep. Could have been a grab to a helmet opening. I'm not into nitpicking or refbashing here.
This horse tried to lay down to rest long ago and you keep poking him. Sorry, It seems like you are nitpicking, or worse endlessly speculating.
What if, Coulda, woulda, shoulda opens up cans of purely speculative worms endlessly. If the covering official ACTUALLY SAW a helmet opening grabbed, or any part of the facemask grasped, it would be a foul, if HE DIDN'T it simply doesn't matter what anyone, or how many others "thinks" they saw.
If you choose to explain, I suggest keeping it simple. "Coach, you're allowed the luxuries of speculating and assuming, I'm NOT. I am REQUIRED to personally see a violation before calling it.", and I didn't.
-
Mechanics wise, why is the BJ 30 yds deeper than the ball?
-
Sorry, I have nothing but opinion to offer. I guess because he and he alone has the power to make that determination.
-
LMAO
-
Sorry, I have nothing but opinion to offer. I guess because he and he alone has the power to make that determination.
You forgot to use bold, itallics and capitalization. We'll have to deduct some points. >:D
-
You forgot to use bold, itallics and capitalization. We'll have to deduct some points. >:D
"Bold, itallics and capitalization", are only efforts to highlight focus, but are usually, and sadly, woefully ineffective against determined efforts to ignore direction. "Opinion", on the other hand is like anal orifices, everybody has one, and it's usually a little different than that of everyone else.
-
deadhorse: