RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Texas Topics => Topic started by: first_year_guy on January 05, 2022, 12:51:58 PM
-
Did anyone see the significant DOF call in this game during overtime? DOF was the call when a defender jumped into the NZ causing the wingback to react...it is my understanding that the wingback is NOT protected. FST should have been the call, this potentially cost CS the game, maybe coaches picks is not the best route?
-
You are correct, the Back in this case was not as we say "protected".
I won't comment on Coaches picks as that has been debated ad nauseum in the past.
-
Do you have a video of it?
If it's the one I am thinking of, there was some discussion in the chat room about this, because while it was a wing back that moved, it was a field goal formation and he was close to being on the line (he was slightly offset to block the end coming off the corner, and he absolutely moved in reaction to the defense player directly across from him stemming. ( I don't think anyone who saw it would say he moved on his own volition, i.e., getting the snap count wrong, etc., it was definitely a reactionary move of his foot.)
The discussion(as I recall) was whether or not he was actually on the line because of his positioning. I agree with the DOF call because he wasn't lined up like a true back, he was dang near on the LOS on the end of the line and he reacted to the defensive player directly across from him moving into the NZ. I can't recall if he broke the center's butt or not.
And same on coaches picking - literally everyone thinks/says it's a bad idea but the powers that be (TASO and UIL) like the system just as it is.
-
Look at 46:12 mark of the you tube video. Link included [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B77Ap1Bj2TA][/url]
Clearly in the backfield (not on the line).
-
Whether you think it was DOF or not is irrelevant here. Spirit of the rule can not directly contradict the actual rule.
Also the butt drop on the snapper could have been a FST.
-
ok, he definitely wasn't a lineman, don't know why I was thinking that, probably mixing it up with something else. But man, that's a tough call to pin on the wingback. He's clearly reacting to the defense, clearly in the NZ,in his area of responsibility, right in front of him.
I wouldn't mind seeing a rule change or AR to address this (on scoring kicks.)
And yes I didn't notice that but you could have had FST on the center as well.
-
My 2 cents...it should have been a FST and not a DOF. But it is what it is at this point.
Coaches should have ZERO say in who officiates their playoff games. This even includes the coaches having a say in which chapter is being used. As others mentioned as long as the UIL gives the coaches this authority this is how it will be. But as long as the UIL does in fact give the coaches this authority then there will always be inappropriate things done in order for officials to get themselves into consideration. TASO tries to put rules into place to prevent solicitation but we all know those rules are not followed. Again, it is what it is!
-
One must remember that UIL is in fact ruled by the superintendents of the schools
-
In opinion it was the incorrect call. It should have been a FST.
-
By the letter of the rule, yes it is FST... but where I struggle with it, is trying to understand why in this this situation it is a foul on the offense, when if he was on the line, it would be on the defense. This isn't a scenario where a back is 3-5 yards away from the ball, with no one directly threatening them. Arguably you could say that the back wasn't truly threatened, but the defender crossed into the NZ directly across from him, into his area of responsibility, and he reacted to that. I just don't see where the line is, that says this goes on O, or this goes on D, in this particular situation. What sets the two apart? Just because he is one yard off the ball? Wouldn't it make sense to extend the protection afforded the offense of being allowed to immediately react to a D player in the NZ in their area, to a player lined up one yard or less from the LOS, in their immediate area? Because if I'm a coach, why wouldn't I coach my DEs to try to get the back to move, since he is not afforded by current rule any leeway whatsoever in movement, and take my chances on him being in the NZ at the snap, because 50% of the bad things that can happen, are eliminated by rule (automatic DOF because lineman moved is out, leaving only being in NZ at snap.)
If the rule affords linemen protection from being penalized when a defensive player is in the NZ in their immediate area, it should also extend to the wing back on scoring kicks such as this (immediate reaction, in their immediate area, or directly in front.)
Help me understand they why part of this. Just my 0.02
-
Bobby,
To understand it you have to go back a few years. Don’t remember the year but before a rule change if ANY offensive player reacted to defensive movement, it was a false start. Rule change allowed for the offensive line to react only to protect themselves from being hit.
-
Time and distance.
No one would ever excuse an offensive lineman 'reacting' to a stomp of a foot by a defensive player several yards off the NZ.
But, when a defensive player moves forward into the NZ, he will, in all likelihood, be in very close proximity to an offensive lineman. It is simple human nature to react more quickly to movements that are close to you. The rulesmakers have set 'within one yard of the NZ' as the area within which a defensive player is not permitted to move forward into the NZ and cause a reaction by an offensive lineman that is head-up or to either side of the defensive player. Offensive backs are far enough way to be able to be expected to NOT react to such defensive movement. The defensive player is far enough away that the amount of time it takes for the offensive player to see and process that movement should be sufficient for him to recognize the movement as being before the snap, and and he should not react. If the backs are pressing their position - most likely, technically, illegally - then they put themselves at greater risk of committing a false start by reacting.
Personally, the only rule change I think we need is to eliminate the "stationary" element of 7-1-5-a-4. Linebackers and DBs should not be allowed to move up to within a yard of the NZ and make those stomping/lunging movements within 6 yards either side of the ball.
-
Thanks to both of you - both replies were informative and answered my question.
-
Personally, the only rule change I think we need is to eliminate the "stationary" element of 7-1-5-a-4. Linebackers and DBs should not be allowed to move up to within a yard of the NZ and make those stomping/lunging movements within 6 yards either side of the ball.
I agree!
-
Not that it actually does anything, but is the instance where it becomes a protest game since this wasn’t a judgement call but a straight misapplication of the rule?
-
Not that it actually does anything, but is the instance where it becomes a protest game since this wasn’t a judgement call but a straight misapplication of the rule?
I don't speak for the UIL, nor do I know their policy regarding protests. But, while not a strict "judgment" call, that error does not rise to a level causing a forfeit or some sort of replay of the game, if the UIL even has those remedies in their policy. The only thing that would come of protest is an acknowledgement that an error was made.
If they have such remedies, I would think it would take an erroneous awarded of score, or a failure to award a score, either of which that directly affected the outcome of the game, to rise to anywhere close enough to a level that would justify allowing either of those remedies.
A misapplication of rule that awards the ball to the wrong team is very bad, but, unless it results in a team making a score, and it happens in a time critical situation, I don't see that rising to the requisite level, either.
As hard as we try, we make mistakes. Part of life. Get used to it. Get over it.
-
I don't speak for the UIL, nor do I know their policy regarding protests. But, while not a strict "judgment" call, that error does not rise to a level causing a forfeit or some sort of replay of the game, if the UIL even has those remedies in their policy. The only thing that would come of protest is an acknowledgement that an error was made.
If they have such remedies, I would think it would take an erroneous awarded of score, or a failure to award a score, either of which that directly affected the outcome of the game, to rise to anywhere close enough to a level that would justify allowing either of those remedies.
A misapplication of rule that awards the ball to the wrong team is very bad, but, unless it results in a team making a score, and it happens in a time critical situation, I don't see that rising to the requisite level, either.
As hard as we try, we make mistakes. Part of life. Get used to it. Get over it.
Well stated here. Lord knows anyone will try to protest anything they can. And if they ever open that door to protest any rules misapplication there would be protests issued every week, involving every chapter. Unfortunately rules misapplications occur regularly. Every week I can find somewhere that DPI was enforced half the distance to the goal line and that's a common misapplication of a rule.
-
I understand that a strict reading of the rulebook would give you FST. After talking to a number of LOS officials and coordinators (some at a very high level) about this specific play, there's no way I'm giving the defense that call. They caused it, and by the spirit of the rule I'm putting that flag as DOF all day.
If it was a running back 4-5 yards deep in the backfield, that's a different conversation. But this wing was one yard off the ball and the defender immediately in front of him literally jumped into the gap that he's responsible for.
/my opinion anyway..... until my commissioner tells me to do it differently.
-
I understand that a strict reading of the rulebook would give you FST. After talking to a number of LOS officials and coordinators (some at a very high level) about this specific play, there's no way I'm giving the defense that call. They caused it, and by the spirit of the rule I'm putting that flag as DOF all day.
If it was a running back 4-5 yards deep in the backfield, that's a different conversation. But this wing was one yard off the ball and the defender immediately in front of him literally jumped into the gap that he's responsible for.
/my opinion anyway..... until my commissioner tells me to do it differently.
The note listed with AR 7-1-3-V makes it pretty clear that the exception only applied to Linemen. The same for AR 7-1-3-III. At some point a line has to be drawn on who is protected and who isn't. How far in the backfield would a back have to be to not be protected? 1 yard, 2 yards, 3 yards? It's much easier to determine if they are protected or not just by simply knowing if they are a back or a lineman.
-
I understand that a strict reading of the rulebook would give you FST. After talking to a number of LOS officials and coordinators (some at a very high level) about this specific play, there's no way I'm giving the defense that call. They caused it, and by the spirit of the rule I'm putting that flag as DOF all day.
If it was a running back 4-5 yards deep in the backfield, that's a different conversation. But this wing was one yard off the ball and the defender immediately in front of him literally jumped into the gap that he's responsible for.
/my opinion anyway..... until my commissioner tells me to do it differently.
This is what a Division 1 Coordinator opined to me: "This is a FST as this offensive player who moves is not protected as he is a back."
-
I understand that a strict reading of the rulebook would give you FST. After talking to a number of LOS officials and coordinators (some at a very high level) about this specific play, there's no way I'm giving the defense that call. They caused it, and by the spirit of the rule I'm putting that flag as DOF all day.
If it was a running back 4-5 yards deep in the backfield, that's a different conversation. But this wing was one yard off the ball and the defender immediately in front of him literally jumped into the gap that he's responsible for.
/my opinion anyway..... until my commissioner tells me to do it differently.
With all due respect, you would be wrong to call it DOF. This is not opinion, this is how the rule is written.
-
100% agree with TexDoc here. While every possible foul in Football is not a 100% absolute, this one is. The Team A Back moved and created a FST foul. He was a back - not a lineman - there is no debate about him being a back - it's very clear on the video. If we can't all agree on that - Houston we've got a problem. Just saying.
-
I agree that in the black and white of the rule book, this is a foul.
That said - and this may be for this specific instance only - I also agree with Rmars86, that within what I believe the intent of the rule to be, to protect B from getting cheap FST fouls against A, this should be DOF. He clearly and immediately reacted to B's move into the NZ, in his area of responsibility. Had he been 2-4 yards in the backfield, I think we wouldn't be even having this conversation.
It's unfortunate the way the rule is worded, that for this specific instance, he is penalized for that.
I see - and appreciate - both sides, but like others have said, letter of the law is FST.
-
That said - and this may be for this specific instance only - I also agree with Rmars86, that within what I believe the intent of the rule to be, to protect B from getting cheap FST fouls against A, this should be DOF. He clearly and immediately reacted to B's move into the NZ, in his area of responsibility. Had he been 2-4 yards in the backfield, I think we wouldn't be even having this conversation.
Well, back when the rules were changed so that a lineman can react to a team B player entering the NZ (see, even I'm old enough to remember the time when there was no rule 7-1-2-b-3 exception), the rules makers decided to include only the linemen in the exception. So, the intent of the rule is pretty clear, to protect only the linemen. If the intent changes, the rule language should change as well. If you want your TE to have the protection then you have the easy solution of changing your lineup so that the TE is on the line and the outer receivers are in the backfield.
An interesting quirk in this rule: 7-1-2-b-3 talks about restricted linemen but the exception applies to all linemen. But rule 7-1-2-b-4-a, which applies to all linemen, does not have the same exception...
-
I agree that in the black and white of the rule book, this is a foul.
That said - and this may be for this specific instance only - I also agree with Rmars86, that within what I believe the intent of the rule to be, to protect B from getting cheap FST fouls against A, this should be DOF. He clearly and immediately reacted to B's move into the NZ, in his area of responsibility. Had he been 2-4 yards in the backfield, I think we wouldn't be even having this conversation.
It's unfortunate the way the rule is worded, that for this specific instance, he is penalized for that.
I see - and appreciate - both sides, but like others have said, letter of the law is FST.
Our consistency would be all over the place if we tried to apply some type of "intent". One crew may think 1 yard in the backfield is far enough to lose protection while others may think it's 2 yards or something else. It's much easier to just use ALL backs are not protected as the rule is written.
-
Our consistency would be all over the place if we tried to apply some type of "intent". Once crew may thing 1 yard in the backfield is far enough to lose protection while others may thing it's 2 yards or something else. It's much easier to just use ALL backs are not protected as the rule is written.
And, if a, or some, coordinator(s) think(s) that should be changed, then, by all means, lobby the Rules Committee for a change. But, don’t unilaterally interpret the rule to, effectively, change the rule without authorization, concurrence or direction from the Committee and/or the Rules Interpreter.
-
Just to dispel the misconception, the back in question was 3-yards behind the LOS, not 1-yard. Ball was on B-17 and back was lined up on B-20. Video clearly shows this.
-
And, if a, or some, coordinator(s) think(s) that should be changed, then, by all means, lobby the Rules Committee for a change. But, don’t unilaterally interpret the rule to, effectively, change the rule without authorization, concurrence or direction from the Committee and/or the Rules Interpreter.
^good ^good ^good
-
This is what a Division 1 Coordinator opined to me: "This is a FST as this offensive player who moves is not protected as he is a back."
I mentioned in my post that I understand that a strict reading of the rules gives you a FST.
I talked to a different D1 guy than you who told me that he would give the calling official a marginal call or no grade on a FST because of the black and white rules.... but would want DOF 10 times out of 10 because of intent of the rule. "There's no way the defense should get the benefit of that call".
I guess you do what your coordinator tells you to do. I stand by my DOF decision and understand that it's the less popular decision on this board. Either way, I hope there is clarification on the national (or TASO) level on this type of play.
-
I mentioned in my post that I understand that a strict reading of the rules gives you a FST.
I talked to a different D1 guy than you who told me that he would give the calling official a marginal call or no grade on a FST because of the black and white rules.... but would want DOF 10 times out of 10 because of intent of the rule. "There's no way the defense should get the benefit of that call".
I guess you do what your coordinator tells you to do. I stand by my DOF decision and understand that it's the less popular decision on this board. Either way, I hope there is clarification on the national (or TASO) level on this type of play.
At what point does it become a FST? The rules and AR are pretty clear and they used defined terms with Lineman and Back. There isn't any gray area as to what a lineman is. Unless you want to "declare " that back to have been a lineman that's the only way. As the play showed he was pretty far off from meeting the definition of a lineman.
-
At what point does it become a FST? The rules and AR are pretty clear and they used defined terms with Lineman and Back. There isn't any gray area as to what a lineman is. Unless you want to "declare " that back to have been a lineman that's the only way. As the play showed he was pretty far off from meeting the definition of a lineman.
The player was a wingback, essentially one yard different than the lineman right next to him. Yes, he's clearly a back by our definition, I wouldn't argue otherwise, but his role and responsibility on this play is much more similar to a lineman than a back.
The defender jumped into the neutral zone so far that he was essentially shoulder to shoulder with the TE, within the gap that the wing was responsible for. The wing was "threatened" because if he did not react, the player would have been able to shoot the gap and been able to block the kick. The defenders action caused an instinctual flinch from the wing.
If we allow this to be a FST, I don't like setting the precedent that a defense can essentially "attack" a wingback without impunity and that wing has to remain still. If I'm a DC and in a tight spot (let's say Team A is 1/G at the B-1), I'm attacking that wing to see if I can get a free 5 yards.
Side note :
The definition that we typically use for "unabated" (2-18-2-e) states that it is DOF when the player "crosses the neutral zone and charges toward a Team A back". It is usually used when talking about the QB, but I could see someone arguing that it applies here.
-
If we allow this to be a FST, I don't like setting the precedent that a defense can essentially "attack" a wingback without impunity and that wing has to remain still. If I'm a DC and in a tight spot (let's say Team A is 1/G at the B-1), I'm attacking that wing to see if I can get a free 5 yards.
Side note :
The definition that we typically use for "unabated" (2-18-2-e) states that it is DOF when the player "crosses the neutral zone and charges toward a Team A back". It is usually used when talking about the QB, but I could see someone arguing that it applies here.
This is essentially what I was saying earlier - as written, the rule gives a free pass to the defense. We're all in agreement I think on what a strict interpretation of the rule is.
I don't the the unabated argument hold up though - the AR references in 2-18-2-e specifically mentions the defender charging towards the quarterback or kicker.
-
I emailed Steve Shaw with a link to the video, hopefully he will provide a definitive direction for this.
-
I emailed Steve Shaw with a link to the video, hopefully he will provide a definitive direction for this.
Good luck w/that.
As mentioned earlier in the string, a Div 1 Supervisor I sent the play to advised it is FST.
-
If some of you are going to give that back "protection", at what point do you not give him "protection"? We can't say that sometimes a back is protected and sometimes he's not. How do you explain to a coach on some plays in which you flagged team B on one play and then flagged team A on the next when both plays it was a back who reacted? Being that we can't claim a back is sometimes protected, but what we can claim is that sometimes a player is protected, and we have a rule that explains when a player is protected.
-
I think one way that could be resolved, is by creating an exception for scrimmage kicks formations, for backs immediately adjacent to the endmost lineman, but no more than 3 yards off the LOS. This really is the only scenario where this would need to be relevant - it's obvious in this formation that the back is going to be used as a blocker to protect the corner of the line from a defender shooting the gap off the hip of the outside lineman.
Any other play scenario, I am good with the back being held accountable for FST, as the rule is currently written.
I get the criticism. I just don't think it's fair to give the defense the ability to essentially trap the back into a FST with no consequences, in this particular type of scrimmage down. It's not so much as to protect the back from FST as much as it to to ensure that the defense can't get an unfair advantage by rule.
-
If some of you are going to give that back "protection", at what point do you not give him "protection"? We can't say that sometimes a back is protected and sometimes he's not. How do you explain to a coach on some plays in which you flagged team B on one play and then flagged team A on the next when both plays it was a back who reacted? Being that we can't claim a back is sometimes protected, but what we can claim is that sometimes a player is protected, and we have a rule that explains when a player is protected.
I agree with Bobby's post above - this is a very specific, unique situation in regards to a scrimmage kick. I won't pretend to be a rules editor.... but to your point about protection, we already have a mechanism in place for that which could be tweaked. If the nose guard jumps in the NZ, the LT isn't protected from a FST, but the 2 guards are because it is potentially their gap responsibility. I could see similar protections around a back who's gap is potentially threatened such as in this situation.
Or they could just issue an approved ruling with this kind of play and tell us exactly what they want. My supervisor says he wants a DOF. JDM states that their supervisor wants a FST. Just tell me which to go with... or else I'm doing what my supervisor wants and I'll deal with whatever the fallout is.
-
I think one way that could be resolved, is by creating an exception for scrimmage kicks formations, for backs immediately adjacent to the endmost lineman, but no more than 3 yards off the LOS. This really is the only scenario where this would need to be relevant - it's obvious in this formation that the back is going to be used as a blocker to protect the corner of the line from a defender shooting the gap off the hip of the outside lineman.
Any other play scenario, I am good with the back being held accountable for FST, as the rule is currently written.
I get the criticism. I just don't think it's fair to give the defense the ability to essentially trap the back into a FST with no consequences, in this particular type of scrimmage down. It's not so much as to protect the back from FST as much as it to to ensure that the defense can't get an unfair advantage by rule.
Why would you limit it to just scrimmage kicks? Wouldn't the "unfairness" be the same as for any other scrimmage play? So, you think any back who is no more that 3 yards from the LOS should be protected? I don't think this was an oversight by the rule makers. Backs and Lineman have clear definitions. The rule on who gets protection from FST fouls are clear as well.
Just imagine how inconsistent it would be if you applied a "3 yard from LOS" philosophy. Where is the 3 yards measured from? I have a hard time seeing if a player is exactly 3 yards. For me he might be 3.2 and don't get flagged. For you he might be 2.9 and gets flagged. That's not consistency. Our job is hard enough as it is. I'd much rather make sure we don't have more than 4 backs in the backfield. I really don't want to have to add another task to that by determining how back and back really is. Imagine telling a coach, "He's back-ish, but not back enough."
We already have a rule that prevents the defense from intentionally trying to create a FST.
-
I can't think of another play scenario where the wing back would just block the gap (step down to fill the hole) instead of firing off to engage a defender, or run a route.
3 yards is arbitrary, sure. The point remains though that this specific example gave the defense a significant advantage where the wingback - who for all intents and purposes has the same role and responsibilities as a lineman - is penalized for reacting to a defender in his area of responsibility (his gap to defend.) Like I said, I don't have an issue with the rule as written except in this very limited circumstance (scrimmage kick formation). That said - if word comes down that we enforce as written, that's what I'll do, regardless of whether I like it or think it gives the defense an advantage. I just think it warrants having a conversation to determine if it is in fact an unfair advantage that needs to be addressed either through a rule change, or philosophy or AR.
It would be nice to have clarity since two individuals have asked higher level coordinators how to handle, and gotten different responses.
-
So I got a response back from Steve Shaw:
Thank you for the rules question. I was not able to see the play, but your interpretation is correct. If a Team B player enters the neutral zone causing a lineman to react - it is a foul on Team B. If a back reacts, this would be a foul on Team A, unless Rule 7-1-5-a-4 applies. This is something I will discuss with the rules committee, but I haven’t seen any appetite to include backs in Rule 7-1-5-a-2.
So guess that settles it - until a change is made, we should rule it as FST, not DOF, regardless or situation or circumstance.
-
So I got a response back from Steve Shaw:
Thank you for the rules question. I was not able to see the play, but your interpretation is correct. If a Team B player enters the neutral zone causing a lineman to react - it is a foul on Team B. If a back reacts, this would be a foul on Team A, unless Rule 7-1-5-a-4 applies. This is something I will discuss with the rules committee, but I haven’t seen any appetite to include backs in Rule 7-1-5-a-2.
So guess that settles it - until a change is made, we should rule it as FST, not DOF, regardless or situation or circumstance.
^good ^good ^good
-
So I got a response back from Steve Shaw:
Thank you for the rules question. I was not able to see the play, but your interpretation is correct. If a Team B player enters the neutral zone causing a lineman to react - it is a foul on Team B. If a back reacts, this would be a foul on Team A, unless Rule 7-1-5-a-4 applies. This is something I will discuss with the rules committee, but I haven’t seen any appetite to include backs in Rule 7-1-5-a-2.
So guess that settles it - until a change is made, we should rule it as FST, not DOF, regardless or situation or circumstance.
"I was not able to see the play..."
In other words a video of the play was included or link provided in your email to Steve?
-
Yeah I sent him a link to the youtube video, with the time it starts at (46:12), not sure why he couldn't see it.