RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: FLBJ on January 05, 2011, 08:07:54 AM
-
No rule references. Opinions if you like but basically just curious, yes/no.
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5990119
-
It goes against everything you are ever taught, but there are times that it is better to "give up" rather than fight for extra on the football field.
This was one of those times...
-
agreed. but I wonder if this opens the door for an angleshot by the defense: drive the runner into the endzone, then let him go, figuring that you can "re-tackle" him there.
-
IMHO he never fully regained his balance after being driven backwards into the EZ. He had separation but I would not have ruled a safety.
-
Great Mechanics, the Referee and Wing, who had the play coverted from opposite directions, immediately got together, agreed on what they saw and made a quick unambiguous, non-hesitant decision, and walked away. Just the way it's supposed to happen. It was their call, and they made it.
-
Does anyone remember the reverse angle replay they showed? The Line Judge CLEARLY comes onto the field at the 2-yard line with his hand raised to start the play clock. He felt forward progress had been established and signalled it. Why he didn't step up and admit it is sad. Also, the TD called back because the TE's wrist hit the ground? The exact same play (w/o the TD) took place in the Boise State / Va. Tech game Labor Day night. It showed up on the CFO Accountability tape as a correct call. I believe the NCAA declared shortly thereafter that the wrist is part of the hand and thus, the runner is not down when his wrist hits the ground.
-
The Line Judge CLEARLY comes onto the field at the 2-yard line with his hand raised to start the play clock. He felt forward progress had been established and signalled it. Why he didn't step up and admit it is sad.
Got to agree with 6310 here and disagree with Al. The official who should have participated and had a very clear and rock solid DB signal and spot at the 2 (the LJ) was not even part of the discussion. That doesn't work for me. The defense clearly put the runner into the EZ, and he clearly never had a real chance to get out. My vote is FP at the 2.
-
I also have progress at the 2.
-
Does not appear to be a safety to me. progress to the 2
-
So, how should the guys have fixed it? The LJ should have stepped up, obviously. Absent of that, can the IRO get involved and let the R know we have an inadvertent signal? If so, do they have to re-do the down?
-
FP at the 2. Stopped at 2 driven into endzone by Defense. The fact he let him go after getting into the endzone shouldn't matter. however Just Curious would we taking the same stand if when the defender let him go he went 100 yards down the field and they rule Touch Down. Somebody always comes up with a what if hEaDbAnG lol.
-
would we taking the same stand if when the defender let him go he went 100 yards down the field and they rule Touch Down.
I certainly think so. A ball carrier shouldn't get a second bite at the apple after his progress has been stopped.
-
Rule 2 Section 8
Forward Progress
ARTICLE 2. Forward progress is a term indicating the end of advancement
by the ball carrier or airborne pass receiver of either team and applies to the
position of the ball when it became dead by rule (Rules 4-1-3-a, b and p;
Rules 4-2-1 and 4; and Rule 5-1-3-a Exception) (A.R. 5-1-3-I-VI and A.R.
8-2-1-I-IV) (Exception: Rule 8-5-1-a, A.R. 8-5-1-I).
Rule 4 Section 1
Ball Declared Dead
ARTICLE 3. A live ball becomes dead and an official shall sound his whistle
or declare it dead:
a. When it goes out of bounds other than a kick that scores a field goal after
touching the uprights or crossbar, when a ball carrier is out of bounds,
or when a ball carrier is so held that his forward progress is stopped.
When in question, the ball is dead (A.R. 4-2-1-II).
-
Didn't think it was a safety last night; and still don't.
I haven't seen anything convincing to support the safety call on the forum - except for Al's lame argument. Just because their mechanics were "great" and because they were "unambiguous.....and walked away", and because it "was their call and they made it", it doesn't make the call RIGHT.
"Good mechanics" (supposedly) simply put the officials in the best position to make the call; they can't account for poor judgement.
-
FP at the 2. Stopped at 2 driven into endzone by Defense. The fact he let him go after getting into the endzone shouldn't matter. however Just Curious would we taking the same stand if when the defender let him go he went 100 yards down the field and they rule Touch Down. Somebody always comes up with a what if hEaDbAnG lol.
If you would give him a TD if he broke free from the second tackle, then you have to have a second progress spot. Therefore, safety
-
Are there any national or conference philosophies on runners breaking free after being driven back and allowing the play to continue? It seems to me that being held and driven back 5 yards seems to statisfy the requirement of a runner being held so that his progress is stopped. In other words, why isn't the ball already dead before the runner "breaks free"? Treating it otherwise seems to give him more than one bite at the apple.
-
I agree with Welpe, the play was over before he broke free. Also, if the LJ was running in at the 2, did he blow a whistle to kill the play?
-
If the LJ hand his hand up as I believe the video shows, that is as good as a whistle to kill the play. An inadvertent signal = an inadvertent whistle.
-
There was an ever-so-slight cap created, though. Camera angle may not give us what we need to make a good call. Given what I see, Forward progress concluded at the two-ish. Blown call?
What worries me is that you have two officials signalling the safety. That's the white-cap's signal only.
-
There was an ever-so-slight cap created, though. Camera angle may not give us what we need to make a good call. Given what I see, Forward progress concluded at the two-ish. Blown call?
What worries me is that you have two officials signalling the safety. That's the white-cap's signal only.
Why is this the R's call. The TD call is not (normally) the R's call and that also involves a goal line. Who better to call the safety or TD than the wings? I've never understood saying it's the Rs call.
Best regards,
Brad
-
Why is this the R's call. The TD call is not (normally) the R's call and that also involves a goal line. Who better to call the safety or TD than the wings? I've never understood saying it's the Rs call.
Best regards,
Brad
R only call on sacks or punts where R is deep and wings are there. Snap inside the 5 like that, safety is a wing call all the way.
-
R only call on sacks or punts where R is deep and wings are there. Snap inside the 5 like that, safety is a wing call all the way.
Totally agree with this.
-
This is NEVER the R's call in this scenario just like U's don't signal TDs. Looked to me as if he signalled after the wing official told him he was ruling safety.
-
Not offering an opinion on the safety vs forward progress call in this game nor the Pinstripe Bowl salute. But want to point out that it has been ~month since most of these officials have worked on a gridiron. They are not in mid season form. Like in any athletic endeavor, the participates' timing, concentration, and judgement must assuredly wain.
Right or wrong, I'm sure they are doing the best they can under the circumstances. And us arm chair zebras benefit from the high level of visibility of their efforts.
-
Good Crew Chief has to get the crew ready to work the ballgame. Has to remind the guys to look where they're supposed to be looking and make the fouls called actually make a difference. The guys who qualify for bowl games more than likely weren't pioneers during the season (that's why they're working the post season) so it's pretty much assumed they wouldn't start in the bowl game. Not every plan works out, though. . . . .
-
the layoff does make a difference. You can study the book, watch videos and have dozens of crew meetings but nothing beats being on the field - it is what it is - I once had a 5 week lay-off after my last regular season game and I'd be the first to say I was very rusty until perhaps the 2nd quarter. My crew chief (me) did a lousy job of getting me prepared. ;D
-
I wonder if it's ever been considered to have the National Championship crew work another bowl sometime during the bowl season in order to cut down the amount of time they have off.
-
the layoff does make a difference. You can study the book, watch videos and have dozens of crew meetings but nothing beats being on the field - it is what it is - I once had a 5 week lay-off after my last regular season game and I'd be the first to say I was very rusty until perhaps the 2nd quarter. My crew chief (me) did a lousy job of getting me prepared. ;D
Really like your honesty zebra99 :bOW
-
I've got forward progress at the two, a whistle, a dead ball signal and nothing else after that matters.
-
If the LJ had forward progress he should have told the R so. Any time you award a score especially the play should jump out at you. So a bowl game where two mistakes were made and not one time did any crew member approach the R and talk about what they were doing.
-
FP at the 2. Defense pushed him back & was riding him laterally.
-
FP at the 2yd line. No way should this be a safety in my opinion as stated many times before he was driven back in the endzone and by ruling it a safety you awarded team B, 2 cheap points. TXMike you've been silent on this play, how bout an opinion?
-
My initial thought was safety. But after reading things here and coordination with others, I now am in the "no cheap safety" camp. Determining when a runner's fwd progress has been stopped is almost always a "guess". If we are guessing, seems we ought to guess on the side of "no cheap scores". We are always going to be questioned on this. We stop the action just as the runner breaks free and we are criticized for quick whistle. We don't stop it and ball carrier gets clobbered more and we get criticized.
I don't know this to be true, but is it possible crew went safety expecting IR to take a look and correct if need be?
-
I wonder if it's ever been considered to have the National Championship crew work another bowl sometime during the bowl season in order to cut down the amount of time they have off.
Excellent suggestion!
-
Excellent suggestion!
Well, the teams go 37 days without a game in between, I'm not sure there's a difference.
Personally, I think the biggest problem is moving the Championship so late. But that's where the money is.
-
Unlike the teams or coaches, WE are expected to NOT make a mistake.
-
Unlike the teams or coaches, WE are expected to NOT make a mistake.
Like someone once said: "Officiating is the only avocation where you are expected to be perfect the first time on the field and, then, get better each time out".
-
Unlike the teams or coaches, WE are expected to NOT make a mistake.
Ask any fan, coaches aren't expected to make any either. And besides, every single one of those fans in the stands knows more about it than the coaches do.
Honestly, my wife has taken to not sitting among our own fans in a game I'm coaching. She tells me it's amazing how stupid we are in the eyes of the fans during the game. And when those fans are parents (and in my case, affluent parents who are used to getting their way), the critcism is magnified. Parents have not only the bias of being a fan, but of it being their child as well. I'm sorry, but no one is unbiased when it come to their own kids.
I was once told that there are three things every man thinks he can do better than every other man: make love, grill steaks and manage a baseball team.
My steaks aren't THAT great.
-
I was once told that there are three things every man thinks he can do better than every other man: make love, grill steaks and manage a baseball team.
I grill a GREAT steak. One outta three will get you into the Hall of Fame.
-
Let's also keep in mind that "when in question, forward progress is stopped."
-
I don't know this to be true, but is it possible crew went safety expecting IR to take a look and correct if need be?
Forward progress is a judgement call and not reviewable, surely?
-
I believe forward progress is only reviewable with respect to making the line to gain.
-
I believe forward progress is only reviewable with respect to making the line to gain.
It is possible that rule 12-3-3-c applies: "Live ball not ruled dead in possession of a ball carrier". It is also equally possible that it does not apply.
-
I'm no IR rules/interpretations expert - I just announce what they tell me to announce. But our understanding is forward progress can only be reviewed with respect to a first down - 12-3-3-e. Since 12-3-3-e is very specific mentioning forward progress but not including safeties, "statutory construction" rules dictate that not including other things like safeties was intentional, thus only what is mentioned can be reviewed.
We're told that 12-3-3-c relates to a fumble ruling on the field when the runner was down before fumbling. With this said, if they're going to allow review of fwd progress re: first down, it's equally if not more logical to allow review regarding a safety or not! 2 points is more important than a first down.
My guess is that the rules committee will look at this one for next year because of that game.
-
I thought all scoring plays were reviewable?
-
A safety is reviewable only if it involve the goal line. In this case the goal line was not involve. Where he was initially stopped was well beyond the goal line and his supposed new forward progress was well behind the goal line.
-
I thought all scoring plays were reviewable?
12-3-1 relates to scoring plays and only three types are listed - a. talks about live ball breaking the plane of a goal line. not sure if this covers going out into the field of playfrom the EZ (I think it does not) but it doesn't appear to involve the issue of forward progress re: safety.
-
A safety is reviewable only if it involve the goal line. In this case the goal line was not involve. Where he was initially stopped was well beyond the goal line and his supposed new forward progress was well behind the goal line.
agree - if the issue is only did the ball get out of the EZ before runner was down by rule - then it's reviewable, I guess under 12-3-1-a? We had that play reviewed in a game a couple of years ago. But if the issue is forward progress or not, not reviewable. I recall the rules committee struggled over making any forward progress reviewable because there's so much judgment involved but decided to allow it for 1st downs.
Frankly, I don't think pure fwd progress should be reviewable at all because it's all judgment; however, spotting the ball at the proper place when the runner is DOWN or OB by rule is a good thing as it lends itself to definite spots/locations determinable by TV replay.
-
If you would give him a TD if he broke free from the second tackle, then you have to have a second progress spot. Therefore, safety
I agree...in the chat room that night, I said...if this happens at the 48 yard line, no way they give him the 50 as forward progress. Safety.
We can't change what is and what isn't based on the fact that we don't want to be the ones awarding points. Sometimes...that's our job.
-
The minute the play ended I ruled safety and believe that was the correct call. It's been said the defense "let him go" and "rode him parallel". Put this play out at the 40 yard line. If he gets hit at the 42 and pushed back to the 39 and defenders are hanging on him but he pushes them off, and then gets tackled there, you gonna put it back at the 42. No you're not. This is no different. He fought off the defenders and was still on his feet and then got tackled. Safety is the right call.
-
Yes, I personally would rule the same in the middle of the field.
-
Are there any national or conference philosophies on runners breaking free after being driven back and allowing the play to continue? It seems to me that being held and driven back 5 yards seems to satisfy the requirement of a runner being held so that his progress is stopped. In other words, why isn't the ball already dead before the runner "breaks free"? Treating it otherwise seems to give him more than one bite at the apple.
Welpe...Good discussion about the philosophy of what to do. The conferences I have been a part of have used a philosophy of 1 tackler vs multiple tacklers on the runner. Philosophically if one tackler is on a runner give the runner an opportunity to break free from this tackle if 2 or more are on the runner then shut it down if they have him under control. In this case some may argue that the runner breaks free for a split second before being tackled. However, it can also be argued that giving a 3 yard loss in the field of play is one thing, but ruling a safety on the play also gives the ball to the other team...so you get the double whammy. IMO this play should be ruled dead at the 2 not a safety thus leading to giving the ball to Arkansas as well.
Just as we should avoid giving cheap fumbles we should avoid giving cheap scores...or in this case, a safety.
-
I still think it should have been FP because A got the ball out of the endzone, and B pushed him back in.
-
This is NEVER the R's call in this scenario just like U's don't signal TDs. Looked to me as if he signalled after the wing official told him he was ruling safety.
Ah, must be a Canoodian mechanic variance. U's can signal touchdowns up here, too.
-
Well, I was hoping to get 100 votes but 85 ain't bad.
When I saw this play, I ruled FP. IMHO, a safety is when the OFFENSE puts the ball in their EZ and can't get it out of there. In my view, when he broke free was after being put into the EZ. That being said, some discussion has taken place about whether there was separation BEFORE he got into the EZ in which case, maybe safety IS correct.
If 23% of you feel it was a safety, we should give enough leeway to the calling official about his judgement.
Interestingly, I spoke with an experienced (read OLD, ;D) official the next day who said, '10 officials see that, 3 will rule a safety'. Pretty good analysis based on our results!
Thanks for voting!
-
Well, at least one of your votes didn't come from an official, just a coach!
-
Well, I was hoping to get 100 votes but 85 ain't bad.
That being said, some discussion has taken place about whether there was separation BEFORE he got into the EZ in which case, maybe safety IS correct.
If 23% of you feel it was a safety, we should give enough leeway to the calling official about his judgement.
First, thanks for running the poll; there was some "interesting" discussion. But, can this REALLY be your conclusion?
From what I see in the film, there was (maybe) a slight separation in the end zone - but WAY AFTER the runner had been driven back 5 or 6 yards. Forward progress was stopped!
-
First, thanks for running the poll; there was some "interesting" discussion. But, can this REALLY be your conclusion?
No, I still believe it's FP at the 2 BUT what the POLL should point out is that it's NOT a slam dunk and that since we weren't there and may not have seen the nuances of the play, we should give the official the benefit of the doubt and have an open mind.
BTW, Blue, you may be a coach by name but as much as you know and contribute to this board, you're an official whether you admit it or not! LOL
-
If 23% of you feel it was a safety, we should give enough leeway to the calling official about his judgement.
Thanks for voting!
Considering that the field official is the only person whose judgment actually matters, and when he is in an appropriate position to make the call, shouldn't we ALL, "give enough leeway to the calling official about his judgement"?
-
Considering that the field official is the only person whose judgment actually matters, and when he is in an appropriate position to make the call, shouldn't we ALL, "give enough leeway to the calling official about his judgement"?
Hell, I make mistakes all the time! I had one play this year I passed on. I was in the right position. No other crew members said/called anything. Sent it to 5 different officials. All said I was WRONG. Clearly my judgement wasn't good even though I was the official on the field! pi1eOn
My point being not so sure that is the case here. While we had a majority, I don't know if we can say there is a consensus.
-
Considering that the field official is the only person whose judgment actually matters, and when he is in an appropriate position to make the call, shouldn't we ALL, "give enough leeway to the calling official about his judgement"?
Has an official (to include you) EVER made a mistake? ? ? There are few places where we can be honest with each other with the goal being to improve each other. I would hope this is one of those places.
-
Anybody who has worked "a" game, has made mistakes. The question was about "leeway", not about constructive criticism. There is a line, somewhere, bewteen constructive criticism, leeway and nitpicking something way past death.
Perhaps someday we'll have the technology so everyone watching a game can instantly vote on whether the 285th camera shot proves something happended, or didn't happen, by a pubic hair, but I wonder if there will be anyone interested enough in the game left to care. I frequently try and remind myself, "opinions are like IDIOTS, everyone has one, and it's just a little different than anyone elses".
-
BTW, Blue, you may be a coach by name but as much as you know and contribute to this board, you're an official whether you admit it or not! LOL
Thank you, but I know I don't qualify as an official. But I do pay attention to the rules, and I hope I have expressed through my posts that I respect officials.
-
Thank you, but I know I don't qualify as an official. But I do pay attention to the rules, and I hope I have expressed through my posts that I respect officials.
If that gets out, they-all gonna make you turn in your coaching card.
-
If that gets out, they-all gonna make you turn in your coaching card.
If you have to turn in your "coaching card", you can join my crew any time......you're more knowledgeable about the rules than most officials I know. (Scary....I can't believe I just said that about a coach!)