RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: fudilligas on September 22, 2022, 10:35:18 PM
-
Is it a legal block for an offensive lineman to lay on top of a defensive player, spread eagled and not grasping any part of the player....If not what would it be considered??.....Can it be holding if the player is not grasping any part of the defensive player??
-
I would not call that holding, but it could easily rise to the level of a UNR ("giving 'em the business").
I would sternly warn the player the first time he does it and try to prevent this action in the future.
-
I would not call that holding, but it could easily rise to the level of a UNR ("giving 'em the business").
I would sternly warn the player the first time he does it and try to prevent this action in the future.
We had this last Friday night. I warned him the first time, threw a flag for Unsportsmanlike conduct the next. He stopped doing it. Plus, it was completely away from the play. On the other side.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
It literally can't be unsportsmanlike under Fed Rules. It's either unnecessary roughness or its nothing.
-
It literally can't be unsportsmanlike under Fed Rules. It's either unnecessary roughness or its nothing.
I would have to agree after being corrected several times in the past in that Unsportsmanlike cannot be a "physical" foul under NFHS rules so we would have to have UNR or if the play contained some added "verbiage" we could go with the UNS. ;D
-
It literally can't be unsportsmanlike under Fed Rules. It's either unnecessary roughness or its nothing.
It was last Friday night. Will be next Friday too if it happens. I realize UNS is not a contact foul, but laying on someone not letting them up is not a contact foul either...
-
It was last Friday night. Will be next Friday too if it happens. I realize UNS is not a contact foul, but laying on someone not letting them up is not a contact foul either...
Plus, the idea that UNS can't include any contact is a fallacy. Riddle me this - If a player pushes an official, are you going to call UNR? or UNS? I have unsportsmanlike with an ejection.
100% WRONG AGAIN! Good grief dude. Read the book! hEaDbAnG
9-4-2 Illegal Personal Contact "No player or nonplayer shall intentionally contact a game official".
-
100% WRONG AGAIN! Good grief dude. Read the book! hEaDbAnG
9-4-2 Illegal Personal Contact "No player or nonplayer shall intentionally contact a game official".
Not exactly, "100 Wrong" because both 9-5-1-c (following an official's instruction) and 9-4-3-g describe circumstances that, depending on the unique action being observed, very well satisfy the offense described by "examples" included in the respective rule (which include the caveat, ""Examples are but not limited too:". )
-
100% WRONG AGAIN! Good grief dude. Read the book! hEaDbAnG
9-4-2 Illegal Personal Contact "No player or nonplayer shall intentionally contact a game official".
Need to be very careful trying to cherry pick individual rules. The NFHS rulebook is not structured to support that. You need to read much more carefully!
-
Need to be very careful trying to cherry pick individual rules. The NFHS rulebook is not structured to support that. You need to read much more carefully!
Need to be more careful calling a foul something that it isn't. Especially when the rule book addresses it specifically and exactly on point. If you call contact with a ref unsportsmanlike you are wrong. PERIOD.
-
How in the blue hell did we get from laying on an opponent to intentionally contacting a game official?
-
Need to be more careful calling a foul something that it isn't. Especially when the rule book addresses it specifically and exactly on point. If you call contact with a ref unsportsmanlike you are wrong. PERIOD.
If you don't call intentional contact with a game official an unsportsmanlike act then you missed the whole overriding guideline of NFHS rules. Sorry, but that is a fact.
-
How in the blue hell did we get from laying on an opponent to intentionally contacting a game official?
Not really sure but here we are! ;D
-
If you don't call intentional contact with a game official an unsportsmanlike act then you missed the whole overriding guideline of NFHS rules. Sorry, but that is a fact.
So just ignore the specific rule then? That's your theory? The rule enacted to cover the exact thing you are calling is meaningless? Then why is it there??? Sorry, but you are wrong.
-
How in the blue hell did we get from laying on an opponent to intentionally contacting a game official?
Ask Calhoun
-
So just ignore the specific rule then? That's your theory? The rule enacted to cover the exact thing you are calling is meaningless? Then why is it there??? Sorry, but you are wrong.
Thank you for you opinion.
-
Only because I love a good online
argument discussion...
Instead of contacting an official, a player shoves an opposing team's coach, during a play.
-
9-4-2 Illegal Personal Contact "No player or nonplayer shall intentionally contact a game official".
You're the one that brought it up.
-
You're the one that brought it up.
I actually brought it up. Posted it and then deleted it. I’ll admit that the letter of the law would call that illegal personal contact. But there’s more to officiating than just the letter. Maybe one day lawdog will realize that. Btw, that’s a really great descriptive user name.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Only because I love a good online argument discussion...
Instead of contacting an official, a player shoves an opposing team's coach, during a play.
I’m throwing for UNS if I see it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You're the one that brought it up.
Read what I responded to, the quote in my post, not his. He deleted it because I'm right. So ya, try again.
-
Right what I responded to, the quote in my post, not his. He deleted it because I'm right. So ya, try again.
No you’re not. I deleted it because I feared you may try to hang a hat on it and use it out of context. Which you did.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
There is a lot more to officiating than knowing the rules, I absolutely agree. One of the things that isn't there is making up rules. another that isn't there is using the wrong rule.
-
No you’re not. I deleted it because I feared you may try to hang a hat on it and use it out of context. Which you did.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Seriously, you have issues. You are obsessed with ignoring the plain language of a rule so you can ignore the plain language of another rule to call it wrong. Its pathetic. GIve it up. This is just ridiculous. You can't just use the wrong rule and say I'm smarter than the rules. No you are just doing it wrong. So absurd. What else do you call a completely different rule? Do you call holding clipping? Chop blocks blind side blocks? I mean you can just choose whichever rule there is and go with it and say how you have a much deeper understanding than the actual rule... Its no different than what you are so ridiculously defending here.
-
Lost in space.
-
IF the OL sat on his opponent,would that constitute butt blocking ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? (5-man crew)
-
There’s a way around all this legalese.
On the first occurrence, penalize for a PF. If he does it again, you can deem it to be flagrant (“persistently abusive”, 2-16-2c) and eject.
Same yardage and effect as 2 UNS penalties.
-
Seriously, you have issues. You are obsessed with ignoring the plain language of a rule so you can ignore the plain language of another rule to call it wrong. Its pathetic. GIve it up. This is just ridiculous. You can't just use the wrong rule and say I'm smarter than the rules. No you are just doing it wrong. So absurd. What else do you call a completely different rule? Do you call holding clipping? Chop blocks blind side blocks? I mean you can just choose whichever rule there is and go with it and say how you have a much deeper understanding than the actual rule... Its no different than what you are so ridiculously defending here.
You are seriously arrogant and abusive in your posts and I really don’t have time to deal with it. So, welcome to ignore.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Is it a legal block for an offensive lineman to lay on top of a defensive player, spread eagled and not grasping any part of the player....If not what would it be considered??.....Can it be holding if the player is not grasping any part of the defensive player??
Not a foul.
I have seen it called, but not for many years.
-
Not a foul.
I have seen it called, but not for many years.
thank you for getting us back on topic....as far as i am concerned i have nothing.....cannot find anywhere that says this is a foul
-
thank you for getting us back on topic....as far as i am concerned i have nothing.....cannot find anywhere that says this is a foul
Blocking an opponent to the ground is not a foul. That it would ever be penalized as unnecessary roughness, unsportsmanlike conduct, or a flagrant foul causing ejection is a discredit to officials.
2.3.1
There is no rule requiring A to stop blocking so that B can pursue the runner.
-
Blocking an opponent to the ground is not a foul. That it would ever be penalized as unnecessary roughness, unsportsmanlike conduct, or a flagrant foul causing ejection is a discredit to officials.
2.3.1
There is no rule requiring A to stop blocking so that B can pursue the runner.
There is a difference between blocking a player to the ground, which is completely legal, and laying on top of him, refusing to let him up after he’s on the ground.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
a. If it was a legal block to begin with, the continuation of the block is not a foul. Being on the ground is irrelevant.
b. No rule requires A to stop blocking so that B can pursue the runner.
-
Laying on top of an opponent for a prolonged period is not a block.
The first premise is false. A proper block can certainly become illegal if prolonged. Think about the block that begins between the hashes and continues out of bounds into the bench area. At some point that block became a foul. Same way here.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
So ya, try again
#DBAD
-
a. If it was a legal block to begin with, the continuation of the block is not a foul. Being on the ground is irrelevant.
b. No rule requires A to stop blocking so that B can pursue the runner.
As Calhoun noted the first "a" statement is incorrect on it's face. Simply because the block started as "legal" has virtually no bearing on what happens as the play progresses. While "b" is true as far as it goes there is serious limits to what it covers and the list is a long one. One major factor here is how far away from the ongoing action is the "pancake man". No need and IMHO not legal to simply continue an action to intimidate and impress upon the opponent that "mine's bigger than yours".
Suffice to say on occurrence #1 I've got a stern warning to bubba that his prolonged after the block action crosses the line and occurrence #2 will get him a flag for UNR with a 2nd warning that occurrence #3 gets him a flagrant UNR along with a DQ. As is noted MANY places in the NFHS books any prolonged actions beyond what is necessary to "finish the play" simply create ill will and in many cases will escalate to much more if not addressed immediately.
-
Laying on top of an opponent for a prolonged period is not a block.
Of course it is.
-
As Calhoun noted the first "a" statement is incorrect on it's face. Simply because the block started as "legal" has virtually no bearing on what happens as the play progresses.
Nonsense.
-
Nonsense.
a. If it was a legal block to begin with, the continuation of the block is not a foul.
So you believe this is true? That a block which begins legally can't become illegal if continued? I'd be interested to know how you came to that conclusion.
Did you read my example? If so, how do you repute that? Other than a one-word "nonsense."?
-
a. If it was a legal block to begin with, the continuation of the block is not a foul.
So you believe this is true? That a block which begins legally can't become illegal if continued? I'd be interested to know how you came to that conclusion.
Did you read my example? If so, how do you repute that? Other than a one-word "nonsense."?
In your example there was an intervening factor other than the block.
-
In your example there was an intervening factor other than the block.
Which was? Cmon Jeff, explain the difference.
I believe the two are similar because they both are actions beginning with blocks which continue beyond what is normal and or necessary.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Which was? Cmon Jeff, explain the difference.
I believe the two are similar because they both are actions beginning with blocks which continue beyond what is normal and or necessary.
Enough already! This horse is dead, and long buried. If the block was legal, fine nice job. If a secondary action, after the block, was improper, excessive, inappropriate whether or not it was excessive, illegal (on it's own) depends on WHAT that secondary action ACTUALLY WAS, and whether it violated some existing rule.