RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: FredFan7 on March 17, 2010, 09:33:24 AM
-
[yt=425,350]yKuKfLhIYSQ[/yt]
This happened in an NFL game, but how would you enforce these penalties in a high school game?
-
Basically, the same way the situation was handled by the NFL Referee. The original foul ( K's PF for the block on a player clearly OOB) was a live ball foul, which if the ball was still a kick would be a loose ball foul with enforcement from the previous spot. If R had possessed the kick prior to the foul, enforcement would be from the end of that related possession.
Presuming the retaliatory "Slugging" foul occurred after the down had ended, the dead ball foul against R would be enforced from the succeeding spot. If the R Slugging happened while the ball was still alive, that foul would be coupled with K's PF creating a double foul. The play would be repeated and the R player, guilty of Slugging, would still be ejected.
-
What about PSK?
Let us assume that the punch was a dead ball foul..... ^talk
-
Basically, the same way the situation was handled by the NFL Referee. The original foul ( K's PF for the block on a player clearly OOB) was a live ball foul, which if the ball was still a kick would be a loose ball foul with enforcement from the previous spot. If R had possessed the kick prior to the foul, enforcement would be from the end of that related possession.
Why isn't it PSK? The original foul was on R, not K.
Post-scrimmage kick — a foul by R (other than illegal substitution or participation) when the foul occurs:
1. During scrimmage kick plays, other than a try or successful field goal. - CHECK
2. During a scrimmage kick play in which the ball crosses the expanded neutral zone. - CHECK
3. Beyond the expanded neutral zone. - CHECK
4. Before the end of a kick. - CHECK
5. And K will not be next to put the ball in play. - CHECK
-
Is blocking a player who is OOB necessarily a foul in NFHS?
-
Why isn't it PSK? The original foul was on R, not K.
Forgive me, I got R & K confused. The initial block by R does satisfy the requirements of PSK (again assuming it occurred during the live ball) and would therefore be enforced from the PSK enforcement spot (End of the Kick). Otherwise the basic rulings would be the same. If the second foul was during the live ball, the fouls would offset as a double foul and the 4th down would be replayed and the K foul for "slugging" would still cause disqualification.
If the K foul was a dead ball foul, enforcement would be from the subsequent spot (determined after enforcing the PSK foul against R), 1st and 10 for R, the K player would still be disqualified.
On a side note, this was a great example of a crew taking a little extra time to make sure everyone was on the same page about what happened, and when. Any time there is more than one flag, there should be an automatic caution to slow things down to make sure the Referee understands all the details and sequence of events.
Under the NFHS code Blocking a player OOB is not an automatic foul, which is a judgment call based on the action observed. In this example, the block was clearly unnecessary and excessive.
-
In this example, the block was clearly unnecessary and excessive.
Upon what do you base this statement? At 0:11 of the clip you can see at the bottom of the screen the block has been made just prior to a fair catch signal and well before the ball is caught. Or are you determining any block made OOB is unnecessary and excessive?
-
Upon what do you base this statement? At 0:11 of the clip you can see at the bottom of the screen the block has been made just prior to a fair catch signal and well before the ball is caught. Or are you determining any block made OOB is unnecessary and excessive?
On what basis? The Viking player had taken 6 steps clearly OOB and was almost beyond the white belt that surrounds the field OOB, when he was blocked. I judge that to be unnecessary and excessive at any level under any circumstances. The fact that the score was 41-0 near the end of the 3rd period wouldn't help the blocker's argument either. Not that it matters, but I've been a Giant fan longer than either of those players have been alive, but that was a dopey play and an easy call to make.
The only bearing completing a Fair Catch would have on my decision is whether it would be a live ball foul or a dead ball foul against R. R made his illegal contact before K even started to come back into the field, which would have been a foul by A had he re-entered the field. His having done so after being knocked on his ear, before stumbling back out into the field, in my judgment, would NOT be grounds for an illegal Participation call.
-
So the fact the ball was still a live kick on a punt, the Vikings player job as the flyer is to get to the receiver and the Giants player job is to prevent that with neither knowing anything about where the ball might be or what the receiver is supposed to do, the block is excessive because? Would that block by itself be excessive if they were not OOB or is a different standard applied in bounds vs oob?
Again, beyond what I view as your questionable judgement, by what rule do you make this call in NFHS? It seems the NFL may have a rule about any block OOB (due to the R's announcement) but I don't see where the NFHS has that rule. Who cares how many steps he's taken OOB, his movement is continuing up the field and attempting to return, not continuing to the stands. And the block was almost beyond the white belt? Really? My view is the Giants player intiates contact before he even steps OOB (see 1:03 of the clip). Maybe he has really long arms.
-
So the fact the ball was still a live kick on a punt, the Vikings player job as the flyer is to get to the receiver and the Giants player job is to prevent that with neither knowing anything about where the ball might be or what the receiver is supposed to do, the block is excessive because? Would that block by itself be excessive if they were not OOB or is a different standard applied in bounds vs oob?
Again, beyond what I view as your questionable judgement, by what rule do you make this call in NFHS? It seems the NFL may have a rule about any block OOB (due to the R's announcement) but I don't see where the NFHS has that rule. Who cares how many steps he's taken OOB, his movement is continuing up the field and attempting to return, not continuing to the stands. And the block was almost beyond the white belt? Really? My view is the Giants player intiates contact before he even steps OOB (see 1:03 of the clip). Maybe he has really long arms.
Good call, Mike. We discussed this in our college meeting. And, a similar challenge was given by a rules guru. "Where in the rulebook does it state that player can't be blocked once he's stepped out of bounds during a play?" I don't think this is in the fed rules either. If anyone has any rules references, either Fed or NCAA please state rule reference.
-
So the fact the ball was still a live kick on a punt, the Vikings player job as the flyer is to get to the receiver and the Giants player job is to prevent that with neither knowing anything about where the ball might be or what the receiver is supposed to do, the block is excessive because? Would that block by itself be excessive if they were not OOB or is a different standard applied in bounds vs oob?
Again, beyond what I view as your questionable judgement, by what rule do you make this call in NFHS? It seems the NFL may have a rule about any block OOB (due to the R's announcement) but I don't see where the NFHS has that rule. Who cares how many steps he's taken OOB, his movement is continuing up the field and attempting to return, not continuing to the stands. And the block was almost beyond the white belt? Really? My view is the Giants player intiates contact before he even steps OOB (see 1:03 of the clip). Maybe he has really long arms.
Let's not waste a lot of time discussing whose judgment might be questionable, and leave it at different opinions. I think the original question related to how this would have been handled at the HS level. My experience suggests that the game, at the HS level, is intended to be played inside the boundary lines. Noting some exception to plays that may "bleed" inadvertently over those lines, I would usually ignore incidental contact violations.
From what I was able to observe, I simply would not be able to give the Giant blocker that benefit of the doubt based on his actions as related to this play. If you were the covering official and chose to ignore the behavior, and were willing to defend your decision, then it would be entirely your call to make, and I wish you luck with it, but it's not the call I would make if I were the covering official.
-
Oh I see. So it's another "Al's Common Sense Approach to the Rules" adjustment on what the NFHS rules actually state. Right? The only reason you have to hang your hat on the "unecessary block" rule is by calling it that way only because you view a block OOB as unecessary. And I would wish you more luck trying to support that.
-
"Where in the rulebook does it state that player can't be blocked once he's stepped out of bounds during a play?" I don't think this is in the fed rules either. If anyone has any rules references, either Fed or NCAA please state rule reference.
It's not, unless of course one chooses to stretch the intended purpose of other rules to satisfy one's personal sensibilities.
-
Oh I see. So it's another "Al's Common Sense Approach to the Rules" adjustment on what the NFHS rules actually state. Right? The only reason you have to hang your hat on the "unecessary block" rule is by calling it that way only because you view a block OOB as unecessary. And I would wish you more luck trying to support that.
Mike L, if it's all the same to you, I don't want to waste my time trying to explain "common sense" to you, as I just don't think you grasp the concept and frankly I have neither the patience nor inclination to educate you.
The original post asked a question, I answered it. You don't have to like my answer and you're free to provide your own decision. As I understand the game, it's supposed to be played within the field boundaries, whenever reasonably possible. Beyond the boundary lines is OOB.
If A, or in this case K, voluntarilly takes himself OOB he has every right to do so whenever he pleases. However, if he chooses to return In-Bounds, thereafter, he is guilty of Illegal Participation. He dosen't actually commit that foul until he actually returns in bounds (I don't know if that same concept applies to the NFL, but I don't work at that level and was addressing the question, as asked). You are free to disagree with my assessment, but I consider chasing a player, who has taken himself out of the game and is running OOB, regardless of what a player might "think" his opponents intentions might be about sneaking back in bounds, knocking him down while he's OOB is excessive and unnecessary.
-
I'll go with Al on this one but maybe for a different, but still "judgment call" reasoning. The blocker has plenty of time to set up a clean and solid block yet clearly lowers his head and gives him a solid helmet shot with the crown of his helmet to his facemask. That, IMO gets my flag, 100% of the time with no exceptions. When a blocker has every chance to make a quality block, yet chooses to go headhunting he has earned 15.
-
Mike L, if it's all the same to you, I don't want to waste my time trying to explain "common sense" to you, as I just don't think you grasp the concept and frankly I have neither the patience nor inclination to educate you.
I understand "common sense" very well. It just seems you run to that "excuse" whenever you wish to rule something to meet your standards despite having zero rule support to do so. That's a concept you obviously grasp well.
The original post asked a question, I answered it. You don't have to like my answer and you're free to provide your own decision. As I understand the game, it's supposed to be played within the field boundaries, whenever reasonably possible. Beyond the boundary lines is OOB.
I just don't think your answer has any rule support for the particular play in question. I've asked the question what rule are you basing this on and as yet you have not come up with an answer other than to say it's "excessive and unnecessary" apparently only because it happens OOB. An interesting "common sense" interpretation to say the least.
If A, or in this case K, voluntarilly takes himself OOB he has every right to do so whenever he pleases. However, if he chooses to return In-Bounds, thereafter, he is guilty of Illegal Participation. He dosen't actually commit that foul until he actually returns in bounds (I don't know if that same concept applies to the NFL, but I don't work at that level and was addressing the question, as asked). You are free to disagree with my assessment, but I consider chasing a player, who has taken himself out of the game and is running OOB, regardless of what a player might "think" his opponents intentions might be about sneaking back in bounds, knocking him down while he's OOB is excessive and unnecessary.
True, but in this case he did not take himself out of the play or oob (see 1:01 of the clip). He was blocked out, so your first point is quite frankly pointless to the situation at hand. So he has not taken himself out of the play and has every right to return and participate without penalty. Viewing the play it is quite obvious that's what he intends to do. And there still remains no rule that says he cannot be blocked.
-
I understand "common sense" very well. It just seems you run to that "excuse" whenever you wish to rule something to meet your standards despite having zero rule support to do so. That's a concept you obviously grasp well. I just don't think your answer has any rule support for the particular play in question. I've asked the question what rule are you basing this on and as yet you have not come up with an answer other than to say it's "excessive and unnecessary" apparently only because it happens OOB. An interesting "common sense" interpretation to say the least.
True, but in this case he did not take himself out of the play or oob (see 1:01 of the clip). He was blocked out, so your first point is quite frankly pointless to the situation at hand. So he has not taken himself out of the play and has every right to return and participate without penalty. Viewing the play it is quite obvious that's what he intends to do. And there still remains no rule that says he cannot be blocked.
Sorry Mike, but I wouldn't consider the Viking player to have been "blocked" OOB, at last from my observation of the tape. The issue is being able to grasp what exactly was going on following his going OOB. If you need a specific rule you might consider NF: 9-4-3 and consider examples b or g. Lord knows we've battered about NF: 2-29-1 enough to understand he was clearly OOB when blocked, unless you may want to suggest his feet may have been off the ground when he was blocked so he really wasn't OOB after all.
You might also consider NF: 9-6-1 & 2 and the special restrictions placed on A or K. You might consider that once K choce to leave the field, he took himself "out of the play", since he could not subsequently legally return to participate in the play. Your assessment of the seemingly insignificant contact by the receiving team on the Viking player before he went OOB consitited "blocking", but I don't accept your viewpoint. But that wasn't my main concern. That still is that although it's OK to knock someone OOB, chasing him while he's out there and reengaging him while he's clearly out there is excessive and unnecessary, and as it clearly did in this instance, incited roughness.
-
In my opinion, the K player went out of bounds on his own, and had not made an attempt to return in bounds when he was blocked. Having said that, while it may not be expressly illegal to block a player when he is out of bounds, I would submit that in this case, it would still be a foul because, having given up his ability to legally participate in the play, it is unnecessary to block him. Therefore, I would have a live ball personal foul for unnecessary roughness on R.
Just my opinion.
-
Its not only unnecessary roughness as he's well out of bounds and not involved in the play, its also a helmet shot as mentioned before too. You don't call that in a high school game and WOW is all I can say. Does it need to specifically describe the exact hit before you can realize it may be covered by unnecessary roughness? Can't you fathom any area for discretion in the rules? Apparentlyt that's well beyond some people's mental capacity and that would lead to a pathetic miss on a big time cheap shot in the this case. ^flag
-
Funny how despite all attempts of those in favor of coming up with something here to call, unnecessary roughness or block to the head or illegal helmet contact, the only thing the covering NFL official had was a block out of bounds. Maybe he didn't have the mental capacity to figure out all that stuff either.
-
Apparently in all your self professed genius MikeL you can't acknowledge that the NFL guys have a different set of rules and what he called really isn't all that relevant to what should be called in a NFHS game as this topic discusses. I wouldn't care if he called the guy for hitting with his left side when he should have hit with his rihgt. What the heck difference does it make what particular rule the NFL called when the question is what should be called and done under NFHS.
Bottom line if you don't protect a NFHS player from that kind of cheapshot, you simply don't get what your job as an NFHS official is. Ever heard of "player safety"? Its kind of a big deal, maybe you should study it... GOOD GRIEF!!!!
-
...having given up his ability to legally participate in the play, it is unnecessary to block him. Therefore, I would have a live ball personal foul for unnecessary roughness on R.
REPLY: Yes. he may have given up his right to "legally" participate in the play, but what if the Giant receiver comes up that sideline and the Viking player does return to participate (illegally). He may be the only person between the receiver and a big gain. And take it one step further. Suppose he reaches in from OOB and tackles the Giant receiver. So...should the OOB Viking player still be considered 'untouchable?'
-
Apparently in all your self professed genius MikeL you can't acknowledge that the NFL guys have a different set of rules and what he called really isn't all that relevant to what should be called in a NFHS game as this topic discusses. I wouldn't care if he called the guy for hitting with his left side when he should have hit with his rihgt. What the heck difference does it make what particular rule the NFL called when the question is what should be called and done under NFHS.
Bottom line if you don't protect a NFHS player from that kind of cheapshot, you simply don't get what your job as an NFHS official is. Ever heard of "player safety"? Its kind of a big deal, maybe you should study it... GOOD GRIEF!!!!
So again, are you saying only because the hit was out of bounds, it suddenly becomes a player safety thing? Right? Site a rule that supports that. Unless you would make that same call if the same hit happened in the middle of the field, you have zero rule support. Would you make that call?
My point in bringing up the non-calls by the NFL official was with nearly identical rules with the NFHS regarding unnecessary roughness & illegal helmet contact, it was not called that way. However some seem to feel it should should be in NFHS. I'm merely disagreeing with that contention and using the example of someone a lot farther along the officiating food chain than those here.
Oh and I say I have a pretty firm grasp of what my job as an NFHS official is. It's to enforce the rules as written in a reasonable and calm way, not to come up with stuff to satisfy my own personal beliefs on how to rule. Good grief indeed!
-
REPLY: Yes. he may have given up his right to "legally" participate in the play, but what if the Giant receiver comes up that sideline and the Viking player does return to participate (illegally). He may be the only person between the receiver and a big gain. And take it one step further. Suppose he reaches in from OOB and tackles the Giant receiver. So...should the OOB Viking player still be considered 'untouchable?'
I understand the side of the discussion that says there is no specific rule that says it is illegal to block an opponent who is out of bounds. But let me pose this question- If you take the stance that it is not illegal to block a player who is out of bounds, how far out of bounds can you go before it does become illegal- if it ever does? Into the coaches box? into the team area? beyond that? Where do you draw the line?
It is my opinion that officials are tasked with applying the rules to each situation as it occurs. If a player steps out of bounds and immediately attempts to come back in, I don't believe I have the same call. But that is based on the fact that IN MY OPINION, K is not attempting to gain an unfair advantage by his action, and it may not have been possible for R to realize in that brief moment that K was out of bounds.
In THIS case however, I believe that because the K player took himself out of the play, and because he did not attempt to immediately return, his further participation in the play would have resulted in a foul, it is unecessary for R to block him. Therefore, unnecessary roughness.
If K does participate illegally, then obviously, there is a foul and a penalty proscribed for that foul.
Taking your supposition that K's illegal participation prevents R from either a long gain, or ultimately, a touchdown, the rules give the referee the authority to award a penalty upto and including a score.
For me, I am more comfortable with the view that action should occur as much as possible within the field of play. I realize that there will be times when contact occurs outside the lines, and those cases should be judged individually. In this particular case, I believe the block was unnecessary.
.
-
So again, are you saying only because the hit was out of bounds, it suddenly becomes a player safety thing? Right? Site a rule that supports that. Unless you would make that same call if the same hit happened in the middle of the field, you have zero rule support. Would you make that call?
My point in bringing up the non-calls by the NFL official was with nearly identical rules with the NFHS regarding unnecessary roughness & illegal helmet contact, it was not called that way. However some seem to feel it should should be in NFHS. I'm merely disagreeing with that contention and using the example of someone a lot farther along the officiating food chain than those here.
Oh and I say I have a pretty firm grasp of what my job as an NFHS official is. It's to enforce the rules as written in a reasonable and calm way, not to come up with stuff to satisfy my own personal beliefs on how to rule. Good grief indeed!
MikeL, the basic point you are badly missing is that YOU don't get to decide how others view things. If you don't think the OOB hit was unnecessary then YOU shouldn't call it as such, but that's where you decision making ends. Do yourself a favor and knock off the, "you have zero rule support" nonsense as the appropriate rule support has been presented, and you simply don't agree with the interpretation provided. You are welcome to disagree with any opinion you may have, but all it will ever be is "your opinion", which doesn't automatically extend beyond you.
Good grief, my IDIOT, I am absolutey comfortabled my judgment serves to, "enforce the rules as written in a reasonable and calm way, (and doesn't) come up with (any) stuff to satisfy my own personal beliefs (although they have been developed over a long period and are basic to ) how (I choose) to rule". Apparently, I just happen to see things a little different than you. You asked for my logic, I gave it to you and, frankly, I don't give a damn if tou accept that logic or not. Your positions does not persuade me to change my judgment, and as long as we're both willing to stand by our decisions, life and the game of HS football wil go on.
This isn't some drama play requiring deep seeded analysis. Viewing a tape of a single play in a game I haven't worked doesn't provide, the almost 3 quarters of interaction, the actual game officials observed, which at the moment of this play had produced a 41-0 advantage for R. The size of that advantage contributes, somewhat, to my conclusion of "unnecessary", but with even a lesser differential, this action was clearly (in my opinion) over the line and not the type of interaction I would be interested in dealing with for the remaining 1 and 1/4 periods, which is what ignoring it would likely encourage.
-
Ignoring the POURING match for a moment, it seems to me that this could reasonably be covered by 9-9-1: "A player or nonplayer or person(s) not subject to the rules shall not hinder play by an unfair act which has no specific rule coverage."
In my opinion, R hindered play by an unfair act when he blocked a K player who was clearly out of bounds as a result of the first block. If the second block ISN'T an unfair act, then at what point does it become unfair? When the block takes place 10 yards off the field? When the blocker drives his opponent into the stands like this is the movie "Blindside"? This is about limits and interpretation. Determining if K was attempting to get back in bounds is inconsequential to the block by R. And since this situation has no specific rule coverage, as mentioned numerous times, then those who wish to use 9-9-1 as a means of protecting players can do so. Others who don't feel it falls into that category can rule as they wish.
-
Ignoring the POURING match for a moment, it seems to me that this could reasonably be covered by 9-9-1: "A player or nonplayer or person(s) not subject to the rules shall not hinder play by an unfair act which has no specific rule coverage."
This doesn't hold water as there is plenty of specific rule coverage regarding blocking and personal fouls. This rule is to cover truly outlandish situations and should be very rarely applied.
-
This doesn't hold water as there is plenty of specific rule coverage regarding blocking and personal fouls. This rule is to cover truly outlandish situations and should be very rarely applied.
The key words in "A player or nonplayer or person(s) not subject to the rules shall not hinder play by an unfair act which has no specific rule coverage." is in bold. The key word in that grouping is underlined.
Since this has no specific rule coverage, despite the fact that several rules are similar in regards to blocking and personal fouls, then it can be reasonably covered by 9-9-1...even though I agree with your belief that 9-9-1 should be used sparingly.
-
my only addition to this discussion is i dont see how the actions of the vikings player can be deemed a personal foul as i think we can all agree he threw a punch.
with that being said for arguments sake we have an illegal block out of bounds on R and an unsportsmanlike foul on K
thus
we have post scrimmage kick enforcement 10 yards from the end of the kick on R
then
we have a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty on K (live ball treated as a dead ball foul)
K player ejected.
1st and 10 for R
that is my answer to the original question without all the commentary on the original block tiphat:
-
i dont see how the actions of the vikings player can be deemed a personal foul as i think we can all agree he threw a punch.
If he threw a punch, it CAN'T be unsportsmanlike conduct. USC fouls are non-contact fouls. Whether he connected with the punch or not, if you deem he threw a punch, it's a PF, not USC.
2-11 for definition of fighting, 9-4-1 for foul for fighting