RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Texas Topics => Topic started by: TXMike on November 13, 2011, 04:08:21 PM
-
Blanco - Edna Playoff
http://www.advosports.com/news/2011/nov/13/edna_fb_1113_158379/
-
Glad it wasn't me!!!
-
Well with no vid or pics, we have to go off what the homer journalist described. Finger in the air gpin in. Yep, that was probably the wrong call. However, the had 1/10 from the 18 and couldnt put it in and overcome the call. These things happen, it's not the OFFICIALS fault you let the call affect you.
-
Well with no vid or pics, we have to go off what the homer journalist described. Finger in the air gpin in. Yep, that was probably the wrong call.
IN defence of my colleague in the media, he described the act. It's the coach's comment that kinda spins - but that's the comment he got, and the one I woulda printed in the same situation.
-
I don't know how you can defend either the writer or the editor. Nothing was said in the article about an attempt to get information from the officials, the chapter, TASO, or UIL about the call. That's crap.
-
I have a standard reply to these types of reactions to official's calls and its simple: "don't ever put yourself as a player in a position to have an official make a judgement call about your actions"
-
I have a standard reply to these types of reactions to official's calls and its simple: "don't ever put yourself as a player in a position to have an official make a judgement call about your actions"
I would like to see play on film and see if it was proglonged, choreographed, and truely was taunting the other team. Else no official was really on position to mess this up. If he thought it was wrong then it may have warranted a flag. May is a big stretch for me as well as being critical unless we have it on film.
-
I have a standard reply to these types of reactions to official's calls and its simple: "don't ever put yourself as a player in a position to have an official make a judgement call about your actions"
I think this is great, and coaches need to tell their players this.
As the back judge, this is generally going to be something I see. I have had a kid raise his hand one time this year as he was running in and give it a number 1. It was early in the season and I didnt flag it. I warned the kid not to do it again (and he didnt, although i couldnt have known that at the time). It certainly wasnt taunting in my judgment and after he scored he ran up and handed me the ball and went to his huddle. The away coach said he got called on it the week before and he thought I should have called it here. Several veteran officials felt the no call was OK.
Since it is a judgment call, this is one of those that gets called "inconsistently" because every officials sees things and calls things just a little bit differently.
-
"Since it is a judgment call, this is one of those that gets called "inconsistently" because every officials sees things and calls things just a little bit differently."
This is why TASO needs to use and incorporate a directive philosphy so something like this can be covered and handled consitently. Just my 2 cents.
-
The NCAA can't do it (and Redding's guidance on Uns Conduct suggests it is impossible to do so) so i doubt there is any way TASO (or even the all powerful UIL) could do it.
-
The NCAA can't do it (and Redding's guidance on Uns Conduct suggests it is impossible to do so) so i doubt there is any way TASO (or even the all powerful UIL) could do it.
^flag
I wasn't acutely aware that the "all and powerful" tiphat: Manor Road Crowd :bOW :!# even knew what a "rule" was, other than "thou shalt pass on to the minions of :bOW Manor Road an absolute minimum of 15% of your playoff revenue!" Sounds a whole lot like some kind of a clandestine State of Texas tax to me! z^
-
that has not stopped them from writing rule exceptions
-
I see to a degree Mike but we still can help on this better. But there was an Email on 10-3 that UNS was addressed. Hopefully it was big.
-
According to what I was told the player spiked the ball in the endzone after raising his hand at the 3 yard line in a continuation of his " excitement ".
-
I went to college with the Edna DC. Just got the tape via HUDL... from my limited eyes.....Not Good
Not so much that it was called but a very similar play was not called on the other team the first half. There was no spike either FYI
-
I wish you hadn't put that on there...ugh.
-
No spike-Thanks. Any way of posting video ?
-
Video (Part 1)
http://youtu.be/BP2hdVYgxCg
Part 2 up later tonight
-
Illegal block below the waist on the offense...15 yard penalty from the previous spot, replay the down.
-
Personal foul...illegal block below the waist on the offense...15 yard penalty from the previous spot, replay the down.
From the motion man? It does appear he starts outside the tackle box and blocks away from his nearest sideline.
-
He's on the wrong side of the North-South line at the snap for him to block below the waist...his adjacent sideline is to the top of the screen.
-
R can get that one...pretty obvious. I feel better knowing that Blanco didn't advance on this play...but my crew wouldn't be flagging the finger in the air. We are going to look for something a little more egregious than that to take a TD away in the playoffs.
-
Am I the only on that's been refreshing for 5 hours to see Part 2?
(Yes - I have an illness.)
-
Sorry, mother was hospitalized yesterday so I was unable to complete the editing till now
This one was flagged
http://youtu.be/-p6L5A4ePLg (http://youtu.be/-p6L5A4ePLg)
-
Play #1...finger in the air with no high stepping--one minor act = no flag
Play #2...finger in the air with high stepping--two acts = flag
I can support this based on what I see.
I retract my earlier statement...I thought the first clip was the game deciding call.
-
Sorry, mother was hospitalized yesterday so I was unable to complete the editing till now
This one was flagged
http://youtu.be/-p6L5A4ePLg (http://youtu.be/-p6L5A4ePLg)
Sorry to hear about your mother. No way either of those draws my flag.
-
Play #1...finger in the air with no high stepping--one minor act = no flag
Play #2...finger in the air with high stepping--two acts = flag
I can support this based on what I see.
I retract my earlier statement...I thought the first clip was the game deciding call.
High Stepping on the second clip...really??? I see him slowing down thus changing his running style, but high stepping?? This brings up an interesting point...what is your definition of high stepping?
-
High Stepping on the second clip...really???
I don't see any high stepping, either. That call is simply indefensible when taking Play 1 into account.
It "happens". It's "happened" to me.
Learn from it. Hope others learn from it. Move on.
-
I have to say, if it were me, i probably wouldnt have flagged the second one.... esp since I know i wouldnt have flagged the first.
That is my own personal opinion and trying to think how *I* would have done it.
-
"Learn from it. Hope others learn from it. Move on."
I agree.....
-
Flagging either of these would be weak. Let this stuff go. No prolonged for trying to bring attention to themselves.
-
^flag
IMHO, the only possible way that I, or my BJ for that matter, would have ever flagged such an act would be if the player(s) in question also turned to face the opposition that was trailing him while he was ardently displaying the "numero uno" digit toward the heavens. By "the only possible way", I'd have to see the intent of the perpetrator as proof positive that he was indeed taunting. I have been told by some of my college brethren that their commissioners pretty much dictated that if inside the 3 yard line, do not flag them but to dole them out a rather stern "BUTT-chewing" for what they did. I furthermore understand that TASO subscribed to this very same edict at this years State Meeting in San Antonio.
This is much the same way as some player "flipping" or "somersaulting" himself into the end zone. If he is way ahead of the defenders and does it, then that can only be construed as "showboating." Conversely, if he is encountering any defensive player(s) that are either in hot pursuit or defending in the vicinity of the goalline, and then he "flips," then in my minds eye, that act would be totally acceptable! z^
-
^flag
IMHO, the only possible way that I, or my BJ for that matter, would have ever flagged such an act would be if the player(s) in question also turned to face the opposition that was trailing him while he was ardently displaying the "numero uno" digit toward the heavens. By "the only possible way", I'd have to see the intent of the perpetrator as proof positive that he was indeed taunting. I have been told by some of my college brethren that their commissioners pretty much dictated that if inside the 3 yard line, do not flag them but to dole them out a rather stern "BUTT-chewing" for what they did. I furthermore understand that TASO subscribed to this very same edict at this years State Meeting in San Antonio.
So perhaps that is the answer. The crew chewed out the team for the previous incident and then called it when the player disregarded the warning.
And now we have a whole other can of worms opened on the contentious subject. Flag the act on the 3½ yard line but not the 3. Is this a penalty action or not? If it is at the 3½ yard why not nearer the goal line. If it is not inside the 3 then why is it a penalty outside?
It just gets more confusing.
-
So perhaps that is the answer. The crew chewed out the team for the previous incident and then called it when the player disregarded the warning.
Wait a minute.
Blue (sorry, don't know the teams) scored on play 1 and crew missed obvious illegal block and passed on UC.
White scored on play 2. Clean play, potential UC is for all intent identical. If you give the first team a freebie, don't you have to return the favor for team 2?
I can agree with chewing them out and penalizing them the next time, but you can't chew them out and then penalize the OTHER team when they do essentially the same thing.
-
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2011/nov/26/mf_onsports_112411_159578/?viewpoints (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2011/nov/26/mf_onsports_112411_159578/?viewpoints)