RefStripes.com

Football Officiating => Texas Topics => Topic started by: TexDoc on December 16, 2011, 03:40:09 PM

Title: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TexDoc on December 16, 2011, 03:40:09 PM
Okay Dallas crew, you screwed this one guys.  Look at rule 2-27-4-b.

Then look at the Refugio play at 6:10 in the 1st quarter.  Oooopps!
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: Hank on December 16, 2011, 03:51:01 PM
Video?
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TexDoc on December 16, 2011, 03:54:43 PM
We'll see if TXMike can get it posted.  I could but lots of work.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: Hank on December 16, 2011, 04:08:42 PM
Forgot to set the DVR.  Watching the 3A game now.  Argyle v Wimberley
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: Etref on December 16, 2011, 04:15:59 PM
Okay Dallas crew, you screwed this one guys.  Look at rule 2-27-4-b.

Then look at the Refugio play at 6:10 in the 1st quarter.  Oooopps!

What happened?

Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TexDoc on December 16, 2011, 04:27:36 PM
Refugio comes up to the line and gets set, all linemen with hands on knees.  Then they all stand up and face their sideline like they are looking for a signal from their sideline.  While they are still facing their sideline, shoulders nowhere near parallel to the line of scrimmige, the ball is snapped to the QB about 5 yards behind LOS and no one moves but the wideout on Refugio's sideline, who streaks down the field and catches a pass for a  long gain.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: Etref on December 16, 2011, 05:02:47 PM
Wonder is this was covered in pre-game????

In addition to illegal formation, possible hide-out?

Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: texref32 on December 16, 2011, 05:26:29 PM
If that is the only thing you got that we "screwed up" I'll take it. I hope you enjoyed WATCHING us on TV from the comfort of your couch!! aWaRd.

I would like to thank the Ft. Worth Chapter for their hospitality!! You guys did a great job of hosting.

Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TxSkyBolt on December 16, 2011, 05:45:01 PM
Did they communicate with the sideline?  If not, I don't think it's USC.  Looked like every lineman except maybe the left guard had shoulders about 45 degrees.  The receiver didn't have an advantage as the defender played him all the way.  Not so sure about this one Doc.

Best regards,

Brad
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TxSkyBolt on December 16, 2011, 05:49:51 PM
Upon further review. I didn't notice the split end to the L side.  He was facing/standing 90 degrees to the LOS.  Illegal formation.

Best regards,

Brad
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TL551 on December 16, 2011, 05:57:18 PM
Upon further review, there was a flag on the play, just sayin.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TexDoc on December 16, 2011, 06:02:40 PM
Don't take offense anyone, I'm just bringing up a play that we all need to be aware of.  I think this crew did a fine job.  Please don't take this the wrong way!
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: DallasLJ on December 16, 2011, 06:52:30 PM
Don't take offense anyone, I'm just bringing up a play that we all need to be aware of.  I think this crew did a fine job.  Please don't take this the wrong way!
  Crew did a great job . . . but that was an illegal formation that was not called.  Also probably should have been a FS or illegal formation on the 2 pt conversion in the middle of the 3rd quarter.  When they came back from break, they tried to show that Refugio ran the play with 10 players because there was a late player coming on the field back around the 20 yard line.  Either this late substitute is a FS, or, at the very least, he is the 5th man in the backfield.  I re-ran the DVR and A lined up with 4 in the backfield in the box.

 
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TXMike on December 16, 2011, 07:18:15 PM
I realize not everyine is as addicted to this stuff as most of  us but what rock were you living under that you did not see this very same thing done in last year's 5A game and realize it was as illegal then as it was today.  I don't see any flags but there was a crew discussion.  If someone threw it but got overruled by someone else maybe we will hear abiut it
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TL551 on December 16, 2011, 07:53:33 PM
The play was illegal,  there was a flag,  thats why there was a discussion after the play.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TXMike on December 16, 2011, 07:55:44 PM
Typically after an illegal play with a flag there is a penalty and an announcement of some kind.  Did we just miss it?
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TL551 on December 16, 2011, 08:01:16 PM
You're right, there usually is.  Maybe he went with the "if I ignore it, it will just go away" philosophy.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TXMike on December 16, 2011, 08:04:48 PM
 ;D LOL


We are gonna add that philsophy to the statewide philsophy document next year
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TxSkyBolt on December 16, 2011, 08:05:38 PM
RU sure there was a flag?  No mention of it and no "wave off".  I watched it several times and there was no indication of a flag

Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: DallasLJ on December 16, 2011, 08:10:22 PM
RU sure there was a flag?  No mention of it and no "wave off".  I watched it several times and there was no indication of a flag
  Watching the game there was a "crew conference" but no mention of a flag.  I am sure they were discussing whether it was US, when it was really a formation problem.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TXMike on December 16, 2011, 08:14:12 PM
The bulletin from Redding makesit an uns conduct issue also
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TL551 on December 16, 2011, 08:17:39 PM
I am 1000% sure there was a flag.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: DallasLJ on December 16, 2011, 08:18:52 PM
The bulletin from Redding makesit an uns conduct issue also
  Mike, this is different from the play you posted last week.  No one moved during this play.  No substitutes were used.  No talking to the sidelines.  Everyone just simply looked to the sideline.  So, I can not go with a UNS here.  Just a "quick snap" play.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: DallasLJ on December 16, 2011, 08:23:51 PM
I am 1000% sure there was a flag.
  I wasn't at the game, but just re-watched the DVR.  No flag was mentioned by the announcers and none was waived off.  There was a conference with everyone but the BJ, and then they simply got in position for the next play after giving Refugio the result of the play.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TxSkyBolt on December 16, 2011, 08:27:46 PM
I am 1000% sure there was a flag.

Can I assume you were in the game?
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TXMike on December 16, 2011, 08:31:03 PM
  Mike, this is different from the play you posted last week.  No one moved during this play.  No substitutes were used.  No talking to the sidelines.  Everyone just simply looked to the sideline.  So, I can not go with a UNS here.  Just a "quick snap" play.
10-4   I was not there so only saw what was on TV and assumed there must have been some communicating happening
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TL551 on December 16, 2011, 08:32:48 PM
can neither confirm or deny that, I can tell you there was a flag.  Maybe TV missed it because they were talking about the "dead man" play.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TxSkyBolt on December 16, 2011, 08:34:19 PM
Why can't you confirm or deny?  Are you in witness protection?
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TXMike on December 16, 2011, 08:48:12 PM
Last year's discussion on this type play in HS championship game:  http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=7593.0 (http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=7593.0)
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TXMike on December 16, 2011, 09:25:21 PM
Just looked at video again.  There WAS communicating going on and the Team A coach was even on the field!
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: Joe Stack on December 16, 2011, 10:25:56 PM
There's a couple of things that need to be stated.

First, this EXACT crew (I know all these guys) worked a first round game 2 years ago where they flagged and enforced a hideout play, taking away a TD. I'm not sure, but I believe they told the coach not to run it but he did anyway, then threw a fit after they flagged it. I saw the game on tape and the play in question.

Second, they missed, per 2-27, an illegal formation (I'm not sure how many are really familiar with that rule) IF you consider that rule infraction a gained unfair advantage. While I will concede its debatable in this play, its still an open question as to whether Team A gained an advantage. This was basically a fly/go route with single coverage and the DB had his eyes on the receiver who's shoulders WERE parallel to the LOS. Yes, you can argue other defensive players could have helped out but the way the play was run, I don't think anyone else would have been much help. Illegal formation is a 5 yard penalty and subject to advantage/disadvantage (just like holding and BIB -- nothing specific in rules about "point of attack" yet we all enforce it that way).

Third, not everyone is aware of the bulletins. I wasn't aware of the one on this type of play until reading it on here -- in fact, I didn't even know it was a bulletin for a few posts. Yes, we all should be more aware of them and TASO should make them more known, but as of now, they aren't -- and if there's additional play applications such as this one (nothing specific about hideout plays except for equipment OR substitution, and this involves neither) we need to be informed if we are expected to enforce it.

Not trying to be a homer for these guys. Just bringing up some additional thoughts on here that should be considered.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: texref32 on December 16, 2011, 10:32:19 PM
I can confirmed there was a flag on the play, and there was a discussion by the crew except for the backjudge.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TXMike on December 16, 2011, 10:49:53 PM
Guys WTF?   If you are not willing to give the details then why put these little teasers out there?  They do not lend anything to the understanding of what happened and how to prevent it from happening again.  This is not a  matter of national security.  It is a freakin football game. Anyone who is assigned to work a state championship game surely has the intestinal strength and self confidence to permit a study of what happened.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TxSkyBolt on December 16, 2011, 10:51:08 PM
What was the flag for?
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: texref32 on December 16, 2011, 11:00:23 PM
The flag was for ILF which was called by the LJ.  After the discussion it was determined that there was ILF and the flag was waved off.  I don't remember if the R made an announcement or not for the flag wave off......
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TXMike on December 16, 2011, 11:04:50 PM
Well he sure could have and we at home never would have known.  The way Fox does these games makes it very difficult to follow things like that. They don't deem it important and just ignore it alot of the time.  They are too busy trying to get the UIL propaganda on, or interview with State Farm big wigs, or doing some "human interest" BS
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TxSkyBolt on December 16, 2011, 11:08:49 PM
If there was an illegal formation, why was the flag waived off?
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: Headlinesman on December 16, 2011, 11:50:05 PM
The flag was for ILF which was called by the LJ.  After the discussion it was determined that there was ILF and the flag was waved off.  I don't remember if the R made an announcement or not for the flag wave off......
If it was determined that "there was ILF," why the hell was it waived off? The R just decided he didn't want to enforce that particular rule today, or what?
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: psv on December 17, 2011, 12:24:43 AM
He probably meant to say "there was NOT ILF and the flag was waved off"...

What is the saying here, FIFY?

Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TexDoc on December 17, 2011, 03:57:53 AM
What bothers me the most about this not being flagged is that coaches are watching these games and now think that play is legal the way it was run.  Then next year they run the same play, it gets flagged and they don't understand why.  To me it was fairly basic, you cannot run a play with your linemen not having their shoulders close to parallel to the LOS.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TXMike on December 17, 2011, 06:08:04 AM
Especially since now they have seen it 2 years in a row in championship games.  If "the best" officials in the state permit it, it must be legal.  So when we lesser officials flag it all hell is gonna break loose.

The video of this year's play:
http://youtu.be/2FQwmb0MBs4 (http://youtu.be/2FQwmb0MBs4)
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: 110 on December 17, 2011, 09:02:31 AM
As stated in the other thread, I have three guys on the line. Illegal formation. Clear as day, under ANY rules system I've worked.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TL551 on December 17, 2011, 09:26:19 AM
Especially since now they have seen it 2 years in a row in championship games.  If "the best" officials in the state permit it, it must be legal.  So when we lesser officials flag it all hell is gonna break loose.

The video of this year's play:
http://youtu.be/2FQwmb0MBs4 (http://youtu.be/2FQwmb0MBs4)

Listen,  I don't think there is any question that that play was illegal and should be called every time.  I agree that it is a problem when we allow this to go for big gains or touchdowns and it is seen on tv, and now other coaches see it and decide maybe they will try it too.  All I can tell you is I threw a flag for illegal formation, explained why, and got overruled.  You are free to come to your own conclusions as to why it was picked up.  I don't know if there was an explination given, I was running back to get my flag and then get ready for the next play.

Now, you really need to stop with the comments like "the best".  We all know how people feel about the way people get games.  All I know is none of us had ever worked for either coach and that we got the game on a coaches request. 
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TXMike on December 17, 2011, 09:33:02 AM
The reason I used those phrases in quotes is because that is what the fans and coaches will say.  Like I have said before, anyone who lurks here knows the reality re assignments and I am not trying to get into that issue at all nor infer that anyone in theses games has a misplaced conception of why they are there.    I was just trying (apparently not very well) to make the point that people outside our clan are going to use that description and decide what they saw was legal. 
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TL551 on December 17, 2011, 09:43:57 AM
And I agree 100%.  Since the SEC hide out play a couple of years ago, we had one run it in a game. (Called back and given a 15 yard penalty) and couple of others tell us in a pregame they were going to run it and they were told that they probably would not like the outcome if they did.  This play looked much worse on tv than it did live (maybe they all do). 
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TXMike on December 17, 2011, 09:49:29 AM
  This play looked much worse on tv than it did live (maybe they all do).
  Great point!!!  Something many of us (I plead guilty) forget at times.  We see things on TV and are flabbergasted at how blatant some things seem and perhaps it is because we are seeing things from multiple angles at the same time. 
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: texref32 on December 17, 2011, 10:59:48 AM
And I agree 100%.  Since the SEC hide out play a couple of years ago, we had one run it in a game. (Called back and given a 15 yard penalty) and couple of others tell us in a pregame they were going to run it and they were told that they probably would not like the outcome if they did.  This play looked much worse on tv than it did live (maybe they all do). 
Especially since now they have seen it 2 years in a row in championship games.  If "the best" officials in the state permit it, it must be legal.  So when we lesser officials flag it all hell is gonna break loose.

The video of this year's play:
http://youtu.be/2FQwmb0MBs4 (http://youtu.be/2FQwmb0MBs4)

Just to set the record straight it's kind of hard to see the same play 2 years in a row in a championship game when we didn't have a championship game last year!!
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TXMike on December 17, 2011, 11:03:28 AM
This was not a championship game?

http://youtu.be/2FQwmb0MBs4
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: texref32 on December 17, 2011, 11:34:07 AM
Especially since now they have seen it 2 years in a row in championship games.  If "the best" officials in the state permit it, it must be legal.  So when we lesser officials flag it all hell is gonna break loose.

The video of this year's play:
http://youtu.be/2FQwmb0MBs4 (http://youtu.be/2FQwmb0MBs4)

This was not a championship game?

http://youtu.be/2FQwmb0MBs4

As I say again it hard to have this play 2 years in a row in a CHAMPIONSHIP game, when you don't work a CHAMPIONSHIP game 2 years in a row!!!
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TXMike on December 17, 2011, 11:39:33 AM
I am not talking about a specific crew or official.  I am tallking about officials in general.  Coaches are going to assume whomever is working the games are the best in the state. 
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: clearwall on December 17, 2011, 11:41:20 AM
I am not talking about a specific crew or official.  I am tallking about officials in general.  Coaches are going to assume whomever is working the games are the best in the state.

...but really just the best from Hou or Dal chapter?  LOL
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: NTXRef on December 17, 2011, 03:25:49 PM
TL151, had did you handle explaining to the coach on your sideline that the flag you just threw wasn't going to be enforced (or explained)?  Also, was there discussion in the locker room at half or after the game on what should have happened?
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TL551 on December 17, 2011, 06:50:35 PM
I just told him the truth.  They thought it was illegal, I agreed, but got overruled.  They didn't like it, but they were very classy and just moved on.  As for the locker room, we talked about it and if it happens again we'll get it right.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TxBJ on December 17, 2011, 06:54:03 PM
Congratulations on the big game and thanks for sharing the details on what happened on the field.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TL551 on December 17, 2011, 07:46:25 PM
Thanks, no problem
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: TexDoc on December 17, 2011, 07:47:22 PM
TL, congrats to you and the crew.  I thought you did a fine job.
Title: Re: Refugio / Cisco
Post by: texref32 on December 17, 2011, 10:43:24 PM
TL, you are really a stand up guy!!!   LOL LOL