RefStripes.com

Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on December 18, 2011, 07:26:54 AM

Title: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: TXMike on December 18, 2011, 07:26:54 AM
I think that is what was announced.  Anyone know what that (illegal stemming) is?  Is Signal 19 the right signal?

http://youtu.be/murNaM_u1ig (http://youtu.be/murNaM_u1ig)
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: TxSkyBolt on December 18, 2011, 08:29:54 AM
Come on Mike. We all should know that it's illegal in NCAA football to stem! 

Stemming:  The use of linguistic analysis to get to the root form of a word.

The answer to that question on wikianswers was:  When the refs get payed by Louisiana Lafayette  LOL

Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: TxSkyBolt on December 18, 2011, 08:32:24 AM
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2011/12/18/2643928/illegal-spinning-stemming-new-orleans-bowl-penalty
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: El Macman on December 18, 2011, 09:06:13 AM
That is colloquial terminology that has started to show up in some circles, probably introduced by NFL guys to NCAA guys. Usually, such colloquialisms are intended to speak to the lay spectator, at their level of rules understanding, as well as provide a one or two word foul description. Unfortunately, at least in this case, not even the lay spectator knows this terminology (yet). I hope they don't get to know it. I hope RR issues a bulletin directing that this particular term NOT be used. As unusual as this foul is, just take the extra few seconds to say, "Delay of game - number 77 - defense. The defensive player made an abrupt movement with the intrent of causing a false start. 5 yard penalty - 3rd down."  And we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: fencewire on December 18, 2011, 09:27:26 AM
Looks like the defender was barking signals trying to draw the offense into a false start.  Disconcerting Signals?
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: Atlanta Blue on December 18, 2011, 09:39:43 AM
The foul was correct, the announcement was not.  As Macman says, it's DOG.

Stemming is the the shifting of the defensive line into different gaps from where the originally lined up in order to make planned offensive blocking schemes obsolete.  Stemming is perfectly legal.

Here, the DT keeps rocking forward.  That's not stemming, that's an abupt movement to cause the offense to flinch.

I had SDSU in the pool, but I agree with the foul, just not the signal or the announcement.
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: Rulesman on December 18, 2011, 09:41:56 AM
That is colloquial terminology that has started to show up in some circles, probably introduced by NFL guys to NCAA guys...
...and therein lies the problem!
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: chymechowder on December 18, 2011, 09:46:46 AM
isnt that what tommy chong got busted for?
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: Atlanta Blue on December 18, 2011, 11:24:01 AM
The word "stemming" does not appear in the NFL Rule or Casebook, and there is no such foul as Illegal Stemming in the NFL either.
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: El Macman on December 18, 2011, 11:44:30 AM
It is a term conjured and used by some coaches and/or players, that is infiltrating - no, infecting -  the officiating ranks. We need a vaccinating statement from Dr. Redding.
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: 110 on December 18, 2011, 02:02:43 PM
"Illegal growling, Defence, No. 44 ... five yard penalty, repeat the down."
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: Osric Pureheart on December 18, 2011, 03:16:17 PM
"Illegal growling, Defence, No. 44 ... five yard penalty, repeat the down."

You don't know what that is until you've been in a game where someone had been out for a vindaloo the previous night...
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: 110 on December 18, 2011, 03:50:53 PM
You don't know what that is until you've been in a game where someone had been out for a vindaloo the previous night...

Dude, I'm an umpire. I've seen more stuff than most of those stick-thin sideline guys could ever dream of. Why, deep beneath the piles of those two-yard plunges lies a truth about football that only we and the hogs share. Those twinkie white caps think they know that truth, but they don't. You want the truth? Fah, you can't handle the truth.

Or something.
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: SouthGARef on December 19, 2011, 10:40:38 AM
"Illegal growling, Defence, No. 44 ... five yard penalty, repeat the down."

And since we're talking about terminology, it's not "repeat the down". The down never started. It's "Delay of Game, Defense, Number 44. Five yard penalty, REMAINS third down."

Pet peeve of mine. :)
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: texref on December 20, 2011, 11:45:02 AM
And since we're talking about terminology, it's not "repeat the down". The down never started. It's "Delay of Game, Defense, Number 44. Five yard penalty, REMAINS third down."

Pet peeve of mine. :)

I started using something Job Bible suggested in Referee magazine 2 years ago. Leave out the Remains/Repeat/Still etc. and just say.....Delay of Game, Defense #44, 5 yard penalty, Third down.
Makes it a cleaner announcement IMO.
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: JasonTX on December 20, 2011, 04:27:52 PM
I started using something Job Bible suggested in Referee magazine 2 years ago. Leave out the Remains/Repeat/Still etc. and just say.....Delay of Game, Defense #44, 5 yard penalty, Third down.
Makes it a cleaner announcement IMO.
I think we hijacked this topic, so I'll add to it.  A pet peeve of mine is do not use "we have" in front of what foul is called.  "We have holding on the offense".  I can't stand that.
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: ABoselli on December 21, 2011, 05:20:22 AM
Quote
I think we hijacked this topic, so I'll add to it.  A pet peeve of mine is do not use "we have" in front of what foul is called.  "We have holding on the offense".  I can't stand that.

1000%    I cringe when I hear this. Who else would "have" it?
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: Rulesman on December 21, 2011, 10:37:45 AM
Hijack #2.......................

Penalty "refused"
Heard that in a bowl game last night.

Penalties are not "refused", they are "declined!"
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: mccormicw on December 21, 2011, 11:47:28 AM
Never had a team refuse a penalty but have had many coaches tell me that my calls were refuse (garbage).
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: Rulesman on December 21, 2011, 12:11:32 PM
...have had many coaches tell me that my calls were refuse (garbage).
...which often leads to more refuse...  ^flag
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: Curious on December 21, 2011, 12:18:34 PM
I had SDSU in the pool, but I agree with the foul, just not the signal or the announcement.

Never would have happened under Brady Hoke!!!!!
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: With_Two_Flakes on December 22, 2011, 04:50:03 AM
Who else would "have" it?
Chuckled when I read this.
The phrase "have it!" is part of UK sporting folklore after a famous stand-up comedian over here did a beer commercial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6W4RFQWbHc
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: Tieron on September 23, 2012, 05:37:09 PM
Hello all,

First of all, I apologize for necroposting on this thread, but I'm having issues finding this in the rule book.

I haven't been an Umpire for long and am working on making my officiating crew better, as well as teaching our players correct NCAA rules.

I've been searching on several forums and some users state that the defensive player must enter the neutral zone for this to be a dead-ball penalty. Others say that if the defensive linemen flinch to cause a false start its a dead-ball delay of game penalty.

Which one is it? And if possible could you quote the FR12 rulebook?

Thanks a lot!
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: mishatx on September 23, 2012, 06:10:28 PM
Quote from: 7-1-5-4
Player(s) aligned in a stationary position within one yard of the line of
scrimmage may not make quick or abrupt actions that are not part of
normal defensive player movement (A.R. 7-1-5-IV).

Quote from: AR 7-1-5-IV
Linebacker B56 is stationary within one yard beyond the neutral zone.
As the offense is calling its snap signals, B56 feints toward the line in an
obvious attempt to induce a false start by the offense. RULING: Deadball
foul, delay of game. Five-yard penalty at the succeeding spot.

Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: Tieron on September 23, 2012, 06:28:30 PM


what if they flinch on a hard count? wouldnt that be a normal defensive player movement?

would it still be a delay of game?
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: Rulesman on September 23, 2012, 06:32:44 PM
what if they flinch on a hard count? wouldnt that be a normal defensive player movement?

would it still be a delay of game?
Hard count, soft count, any kind of count. It doesn't matter. It's still DOG of their action is an obvious attempt to make the offense commit a false start.
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: Tieron on September 23, 2012, 06:34:57 PM
Hard count, soft count, any kind of count. It doesn't matter. It's still DOG of their action is an obvious attempt to make the offense commit a false start.

awesome, thank you both!
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: TXMike on September 23, 2012, 08:42:23 PM
There is at least 1 major conference which has directed their guys to be tough on the defense for movement that causes the offense to react.  They do not seem to have to even judge whether it was a deliberate attempt by the defense to cause the false start
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: dvasques on September 24, 2012, 12:19:51 AM
Like forcing D-linemen to be totally still until the ball is snapped? Not even the offense has that restriction
Title: Re: "illegal Stemming" (video)
Post by: Rulesman on September 24, 2012, 08:11:39 AM
Like forcing D-linemen to be totally still until the ball is snapped?
I don't believe Mike is saying that.