RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: NVFOA_Ump on December 30, 2010, 05:36:06 PM
-
You're kidding!
-
Call WITH the book, not BY the book.
Unbelievable.
-
If he would call the same thing with 2 minutes gone in the 1st qtr then he should call it at the end of the game. It IS a foul or it is not.
-
Everyone has an opinion when it is not called, but then when it is.............everyone has an opinion.
-
Call WITH the book, not BY the book.
Unbelievable.
Mike has video coming up for posting he said
-
[yt=425,350]Mg8sg1pATnw[/yt]
I don't know what the surprise is. This is not the first time saluting has been flagged
-
I can't for the life of me, figure out why an official would want to interject himself into the game like this. This is by all accounts, a "tweener". It could go either way, but you have a 2 point game with 1:30 left...and kids are excited and do things that they might later regret. This is not taunting, it's not in your face, and it's not even drawing that much attention to himself. It was over as quick as it started. In a bowl game, I just can't understand making that call.
Last night in the OK St vs AZ game, the Blackmon kid caught a 70 yarder on the sideline and jogged across the field at the 1yd line and stepped into the end zone...then went and practically did a Lambeau Leap. The B followed him all the way to the wall and talked him down. That's a lot better outcome than what we witnessed today.
-
Call WITH the book, not BY the book.
Unbelievable.
What does that even mean?
Is it a foul or isn't it? That is the only thing which matters...not any of that cryptic gibberish you are saying.
I can't for the life of me, figure out why an official would want to interject himself into the game like this. This is by all accounts, a "tweener". It could go either way, but you have a 2 point game with 1:30 left...and kids are excited and do things that they might later regret. This is not taunting, it's not in your face, and it's not even drawing that much attention to himself. It was over as quick as it started.
So officials calling fouls for things which they are instructed to call fouls for means they are interjecting themselves into the game... ???
In a bowl game, I just can't understand making that call.
Of course, what is and is not a foul changes in bowl games ::)
Last night in the OK St vs AZ game, the Blackmon kid caught a 70 yarder on the sideline and jogged across the field at the 1yd line and stepped into the end zone...then went and practically did a Lambeau Leap. The B followed him all the way to the wall and talked him down.
Sounds like it should be a foul.
That's a lot better outcome than what we witnessed today.
Because not calling a foul is always better than calling a foul, wouldn't want to risk making anyone upset because they didn't like your call.
-
If I were a player. I would recall all the "controversial" flags that have come at the end of different games as well as those where flags were not thrown. I don't think I would risk doing anything that may cause an official to throw his flag. Handing the ball to the official and going to my sideline would never be flagged. So, it's best not to risk playing with fire because sometimes you get burned and sometimes you don't. At this juncture of the game, I'm not going to put the official in a position to judge my action. Play it safe and just walk to your team area, there are a lot more people over there that you can salute out of the view of the officials.
-
COLLEGE FOOTBALL OFFICIATING, LLC
CFO GUIDELINES ON UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT FOULS
Player behavior in committing unsportsmanlike conduct fouls continues to be a major point of emphasis for the NCAA Football Rules Committee and the CFO Board of Managers. Recognizing these fouls and enforcing the penalties place our officials in a difficult situation. It is the nature of the business to be criticized, and it seems especially true when we try to apply the relevant rules (Rule 9-2-1). These are judgment calls, as are all the decisions officials make during the action of the game.
As officials apply their judgment, perhaps these guidelines will be helpful:
•Remember that the game is one of high emotion, played by gifted teenagers who are affirmed by playing a game at which they are exceptionally talented.
•Do not be overly technical in applying this rule.
•Do allow for brief spontaneous emotional reactions at the end of a play.
•Beyond the brief, spontaneous bursts of energy, officials should flag those acts that are clearly prolonged, self-congratulatory, and that make a mockery of the game.
A list of specifically prohibited acts is in (a) thru (h) on FR-122,123; this list is intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive. We can all agree that when these acts are clearly intended to taunt or demean, they should not be allowed—not only because they are written in the book, but because they offend our sense of how the game should be played. We now have enough experience with this rule to know what “feels” right and wrong. Note that most if not all of these actions fall outside the category of brief, spontaneous outbursts. Rather, they present themselves as taunting, self-glorification, demeaning to opponents, or showing disrespect to the opponents and the game.
When such a situation arises, officials should wait a count, take a deep breath, and assess what they feel about what they have seen.
If it feels OK, let it go.
If it feels wrong, flag it.
It will never be possible to be totally specific in writing what should and should not be allowed. But we trust our officials to be men of good judgment who know in their hearts what should and should not be allowed in the heat of an emotional game.
Rogers Redding
NCAA Secretary-Rules Editor
David Parry
CFO National Coordinator
-
officials should wait a count, take a deep breath, and assess what they feel about what they have seen.
If it feels OK, let it go.
If it feels wrong, flag it.
It will never be possible to be totally specific in writing what should and should not be allowed. But we trust our officials to be men of good judgment who know in their hearts what should and should not be allowed in the heat of an emotional game.
As usual RR is right ! This is "drawing attention to himself."..on the official !!!
-
Since therere were 2 flags would you penalize both officials?
-
Addendum:
Official says to player while throwing flag: "Wrong choice, kid."
Sounds like an official that was out to prove a point or teach a lesson, not officiate the game.
Compare and contrast the salutes in the UT-UNC game to this one. And the officials were from the same conference.
This was a call by an official (later covered with a second flag, not an independent call) that didn't understand RR's memo, and thought it was morer about himself than the game.
I had no rooting interest in this game, couldn't care less who wins or loses. But it was a poor decision at a critical point.
-
At this point we only have the word of a very emoptionally distraught young man as to what was said to him. I'd reserve judgment on that for awhile.
And how do you know why the 2d flag was there? Did you talk to someone or are you just assuming? It is possible both gys saw the same thing and were equally moved to flag
-
Quote from: Atlanta Blue on Yesterday at 05:47:16 PM
Call WITH the book, not BY the book.
Unbelievable.
What does that even mean?
For the uninitiated, it means that a good official realizes that what the book says and what it means aren’t always the same thing. A good official knows when an action rises to the level of a foul, and when good officiating can control thins better than a flag.
Is it a foul or isn't it? That is the only thing which matters...
Not that simple. Is every hold by an offensive lineman a foul? Is every contact by a DB pass interference? Of course not. A good official realizes the context of the action and can determine if the action rises to the level of the foul.
Reread the memo by Rogers Redding (you have read the memo, right?):
•Remember that the game is one of high emotion, played by gifted teenagers who are affirmed by playing a game at which they are exceptionally talented.
•Do not be overly technical in applying this rule.
•Do allow for brief spontaneous emotional reactions at the end of a play.
•Beyond the brief, spontaneous bursts of energy, officials should flag those acts that are clearly prolonged, self-congratulatory, and that make a mockery of the game.
Note that most if not all of these actions fall outside the category of brief, spontaneous outbursts. Rather, they present themselves as taunting, self-glorification, demeaning to opponents, or showing disrespect to the opponents and the game.
This kid’s single salute to his own fans was a sign of respect to them. It was brief, spontaneous, emotional at the end of the play. It was not taunting, self-glorifying, demeaning to an opponent, or showing disrespect to the opponent or the game.
Sounds like exactly the kind of thing that RR said leave alone. And it sounds exactly like Rogers’ reaction when one of his own crews called a similar foul in the UGA-LSU game last year: he announced publicly that the crew was wrong to flag such actions.
not any of that cryptic gibberish you are saying.
If that sentence is cryptic, you’re in the wrong business. It’s used in more training classes than you have probably taken. It was first taught to me by a wise official over 40 years ago.
So officials calling fouls for things which they are instructed to call fouls for means they are interjecting themselves into the game...
Reread Redding’s memo, and his LSU ruling from last year. The officials were NOT instructed to call fouls for things like this. They are expected to show good judgment. This wasn’t.
If the official thought it was so bad, get in front of the kid, tell him to knock it off, and guide him back to his bench. But keep the flag in your pocket.
Quote from: blindref757 on Yesterday at 06:28:07 PM
In a bowl game, I just can't understand making that call.
Of course, what is and is not a foul changes in bowl games
You are correct, it shouldn’t have been a foul in any game.
Kid drops the ball and fist pumps the crowd once or twice. Foul? Why is it foul if it’s a salute instead of a fist pump? And suppose it’s Army that just scored? Salutes to their commanding officer standing in the end line – that a foul too?
Quote from: blindref757 on Yesterday at 06:28:07 PM
Last night in the OK St vs AZ game, the Blackmon kid caught a 70 yarder on the sideline and jogged across the field at the 1yd line and stepped into the end zone...then went and practically did a Lambeau Leap. The B followed him all the way to the wall and talked him down.
Sounds like it should be a foul.
The leap, quite possibly. But the official understood the situation more than the letter of rulebook.
Quote from: blindref757 on Yesterday at 06:28:07 PM
That's a lot better outcome than what we witnessed today.
Because not calling a foul is always better than calling a foul, wouldn't want to risk making anyone upset because they didn't like your call.
It’s got nothing to do with making anyone upset. It has everything to do with knowing the role of the official, and that his job is to adjudicate the game fairly, which doesn’t mean technically.
As I learned long ago: it’s better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
Same thing here: It’s better to not call a foul and be questioned if you were managing the game well that to call one and prove you weren’t.
In every sport I have worked, and it’s been a few, the upper level officials don’t always know the rules better, and they don’t always have better judgment. But the upper levels of officials ALWAYS have better game management skills.
-
At 1:21 of the video, the B is walking to the player with his fist in the air. It looks like a basketball official calling a foul and walking into the paint to identify the fouler.
This does look a little odd, I have to say. If the flag had already been thrown, why approach the player? (unfortunately, it makes the "Wrong choice, buddy" thing more believable. :()
Agreed it's a judgement call, but in my opinion the act was not prolonged. It was over in a second and the kid was walking back on his own. Definitely doesn't fall into the "mockery of the game" category.
-
I was at the game. It was a good game, without much defense played by either team.
The USC happened in the end zone right in front of me. The refs flagged it so quick I doubt they even blinked.
People were talking about the call. There were Syracuse fans behind me that said it was a "HORSE FEATHERS call." I didn't say a word about it, but I have a question.
I know the call is technically correct, but is it the way the NCAA wants the game called? I know they want to get taunting out of the game. But is there any room for the kids to be kids? This ended up being a huge call that cost Kansas St. a shot at OT. It ended up being what people talked about in the stands and on the subway. This is not typically what we want as officials.
Is saluting permitted in the service academy games?
The announcers said that the player saluted the crowd. That’s incorrect. He saluted the camera that was right in front of him.
On a side note, look for the cop towards the end of the video? Just before that the “Pinstripe Trophy” was there. People started throwing snowballs at it from the upper deck. The trophy was taken inside and the cop was there looking for the perpetrators.
-
Maybe it is time to reduce or eliminate the celebration rules in BCS games. There clearly is a disparity in expectations between supervisors, the media, coaches and national coordinator.
Anytime a USC flag for celebration is thrown at a critical point in the game, the officials are absolutely villified by not only the usual suspects but also their fellow officials. It's a wonder anybody throws a USC flag anymore.
-
A KTSO would have sufficed...If the official would have bothered to allow this "spontaneous reaction", we would not be having this discussion. By the time the official reached for his flag, this act was completed...Have we not learned anything from the Washington/BYU game a couple of years back? Not very good game management and a GIC (game impact call)
-
A KTSO would have sufficed...If the official would have bothered to allow this "spontaneous reaction", we would not be having this discussion. By the time the official reached for his flag, this act was completed...Have we not learned anything from the Washington/BYU game a couple of years back? Not very good game management and a GIC (game impact call)
The flag on Washington was well deserved. That act is specifically listed in the book.
-
The flag on Washington was well deserved. That act is specifically listed in the book.
You mean the well deserved foul that was vaguely supported by the CFO Chief?
-
You mean the well deserved foul that was vaguely supported by the CFO Chief?
Surely you have read Rule 9, what does it have to say about the action of the Washington quarterback?
-
Surely you have read Rule 9, what does it have to say about the action of the Washington quarterback?
I'm aware of the rule and I'm also aware of other rules, such as aiding the runner, holding, and contact while the ball is in the air. My point is common sense has to be part of our consideration in sorting through the "gray areas."
Do you remember how vaguely Parry supported that call?
-
I'm aware of the rule and I'm also aware of other rules, such as aiding the runner, holding, and contact while the ball is in the air. My point is common sense has to be part of our consideration in sorting through the "gray areas."
Do you remember how vaguely Parry supported that call?
So, you're saying that he supported a correct call that is clearly backed up by the rulebook? OK.
-
This kid’s single salute to his own fans was a sign of respect to them. It was brief, spontaneous, emotional at the end of the play. It was not taunting, self-glorifying, demeaning to an opponent, or showing disrespect to the opponent or the game.
So a guy scores and his spontaneous reaction is to salute the spectators? That doesn't seem right. A normal spontaneous reaction would involve things like putting one's hands in the air, high fiving teammates.
The leap, quite possibly. But the official understood the situation more than the letter of rulebook.
Didn't you just say that things which are "self-glorifying, demeaning to an opponent, or showing disrespect to the opponent or the game" should be a foul? So why do you think runner who is way in front of all the defenders would run across the field sideways instead of scoring?
It’s better to not call a foul and be questioned if you were managing the game well that to call one and prove you weren’t.
Nothing was proved. Either way it is just questioning if you were managing the game right.
Wrong choice, kid.
You believe what some kid has to say about this? You really think he can recall exactly what was said by the official? You really think he isn't just making the whole thing up?
-
What we do not know...
-was this player a problem player throughout the game and was talked to on other occasions
-what direction the officials received, if any, prior to the game by their supervisor, NCAA rep (not sure if bowl games have these), or bowl rep.
-what was discussed in their pregame
-what history each individual official has with these types of calls
I'm not trying to suggest anything by asking these questions, other than pointing out we are dissecting one isolated play in time without considering other factors that could be in play. The rulebook has more to say about discouraging these types of actions rather than encouraging them. When in doubt, follow the rulebook; I think these guys did. If you don't want the call, don't salute! The player is the one who created this episode, NOT the officials! If we say this is okay, then what's next? (think of escalation) Everyone should understand this envelope will be, and has been, pushed over the years.
-
What we do not know...
-was this player a problem player throughout the game and was talked to on other occasions
-what direction the officials received, if any, prior to the game by their supervisor, NCAA rep (not sure if bowl games have these), or bowl rep.
-what was discussed in their pregame
-what history each individual official has with these types of calls
I'm not trying to suggest anything by asking these questions, other than pointing out we are dissecting one isolated play in time without considering other factors that could be in play. The rulebook has more to say about discouraging these types of actions rather than encouraging them. When in doubt, follow the rulebook; I think these guys did. If you don't want the call, don't salute! The player is the one who created this episode, NOT the officials! If we say this is okay, then what's next? (think of escalation) Everyone should understand this envelope will be, and has been, pushed over the years.
Excellent points!!!
-
So officials calling fouls for things which they are instructed to call fouls for means they are interjecting themselves into the game... ???
I've been to a camp or two and several years worth of local chapter meetings, clinics, and training events. In every experience, I've been taught that less is better. When given the opportunity to make a game changing call, it better be right and it better be obvious.
Of course, what is and is not a foul changes in bowl games ::)
Bowl games, at least the ones played in December, are exhibition games. They do count towards final rankings and there is money on the line, but that is all the more reason to let things like this slide. These games seldom result in "extracurricular activity" due to heated rivalries or kids from the same area who might all be familiar with one another and decide to upstage an old HS rival. I believe that it is best to be as inconspicuous as possible as a general rule.
Because not calling a foul is always better than calling a foul, wouldn't want to risk making anyone upset because they didn't like your call.
I think making someone unnecessarily upset would be a better way to end that phrase. This business is tough enough when you do it perfectly...no reason to go looking for trouble. I haven't talked to one fan or a referee that supports that USC call against K-State.
-
I haven't talked to one fan or a referee that supports that USC call against K-State.
Judgment is funny like that sometimes I guess.
-
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls10/news/story?id=5976141 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls10/news/story?id=5976141)
-
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls10/news/story?id=5976141 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls10/news/story?id=5976141)
No one is arguing that "by the book", the USC call was "correct". And that's really all Parry said with the quote: "Some people would say it's a little too technical, too marginal, but as it's written, officials are covered by the rule." What I, and many others, are saying is that it was a poor game management, a flag that could could have been handled with a "knock it off".
Of course Parry is going to "support" the call, and it is one reason I far prefer the style of Rogers Redding than that of Parry. Parry is a "the officials are never wrong" in public type of guy, where Redding is more open in his criticism.
Perfect example: last year's UGA-LSU game with a controversial USC call at the end of the game, much like this one. That week, when questioned by the press, Redding said, "While the official made the best judgment he could, his call should not have been made. The actions of the player did not rise to what this rule was designed to stop."
Parry thinks all of these things should be "handled in private". He may think that's better support of the officials, but in the long run, it destroys credibility. ESPN was even making jokes this morning about the best thing of all of the Big Ten/SEC matchups today is that it means no Big Ten crews can work the games. Right or wrong, the image of Big Ten officials was harmed this week, particularly with the Kansas State call.
Sitting back and issuing a release that says, "The calls were correct" is doing more harm than good.
-
Maybe you have never seen Parry's reseason video? He is very tough at times on there. I realize that is not something that is all that widely seen but it is certainly available for anyone who wants to get it
-
Does anyone realize a Big Ten crew worked the Champs Sports Bowl Tuesday night? Didn't think so. The job of the football official is to work the game such that no one knows you were out there, which is what the guys did Tuesday night. There hasn't been a peep written by anyone anywhere about the performance of that crew.
-
The job of the football official is to work the game such that no one knows you were out there
I wish this myth would die.
-
I wish this myth would die.
Amen.
No disrespect to the Big Ten crew, but I think that ageless axiom is not a credible crew goal for every game. Yes, in games where the players play and coaches coach (both without BS); the ball does not take funny bounces, and all the calls & administrations are crystal clear, it's easy for the crew to fly beneath the radar. But, more often than not, the circumstances of the game dictates that the crew has to make tough calls, be tested on the rules, and exert unpopular control. Crews who fly under the radar in the latter games are most likely not doing the game justice.
-
I wish this myth would die.
I hear you. I know the spirit of that, but I believe a good crew - particularly a good white cap - has the power to really affect the nature of a game. I like really fast games ... and like officials who maintain a brisk but methodical pace. I've seen some officials that just bog the snot out of a game ... and that's when the crap is more likely to happen.
-
Does anyone realize a Big Ten crew worked the Champs Sports Bowl Tuesday night? Didn't think so. The job of the football official is to work the game such that no one knows you were out there, which is what the guys did Tuesday night. There hasn't been a peep written by anyone anywhere about the performance of that crew.
This only happens when the players play a clean game and there's a game with no tough calls/situations. Otherwise it'll most definitely be known that you were out there.
-
Parry said with the quote: "Some people would say it's a little too technical, too marginal, but as it's written, officials are covered by the rule."
Don't think a call "covered by the rule" should always be a good call. A hold it's a hold, mh ? No sign of "point of attack" in the rulebook, mh ? So, why not to call a hold any given down ? It's there, it's in the book, so, call it !
In the end, the right definition is "toot technical, too marginal".
-
Don't think a call "covered by the rule" should always be a good call. A hold it's a hold, mh ? No sign of "point of attack" in the rulebook, mh ? So, why not to call a hold any given down ? It's there, it's in the book, so, call it !
In the end, the right definition is "toot technical, too marginal".
"toot technical" ???
-
Regarding USC fouls, in general, are some suggesting it might be better to ignore those that may be somewhat less than explosive, perhaps in hopes that bad behavior, ignored, will pass? Or is it smarter to identify and call attention to any such act, either by flag or if circumstances dictate just a "talking to"?
Reality might suggest that in ANY football game there are constant ebbs and flows of thoughts of retaliations and stupid behavior by players, that are kept under control ONLY by the perception (real or imagined) that game officials know what's going on and will deal promptly and severely with violations.
Perhaps the fastest, and surest, way to build towards a riot is to shake the perception (real or imagined) among players, that an opponent(s) is being given special handling and not being held accountable for bad behavior.
-
The rule states: "Any delayed, excessive, prolonged or choreographed act by which a player attempts to focus attention on himself (or themselves)." The act in question met NONE of the four characteristics mentioned in the rule. It was immediate, not delayed. It was minor, not excessive. It was brief, not prolonged. Obviously, no choreography was required.