RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: maven on September 11, 2012, 02:43:50 PM
-
The Ohio rules gurus e-mailed NFHS 5 plays concerning sideline receptions and forward progress. The purpose was to request clarification regarding the new rule.
See whether you think the answers clarify anything ... anything at all.
http://ohsaafb.com/questions/ (http://ohsaafb.com/questions/)
-
Some similar plays with conflicting rulings...
-
We had a similar play on Saturday but it wasn't involving the player who scored. I think the reasoning behind this rule would be say while the player scoring is running down the field and 30 yards behind him a beaten defensive player takes a shot at an offensive player watching the score take place. If you allowed the offense to decline the penalty to keep the score....then technically defensive players could blast someone out of the play without penalty. It basically eliminates the cheap shot without consequences.
-
This is consistent with Illinois and how we were told to enforce the rule at our summer clinic.
-
Some similar plays with conflicting rulings...
Exactly. Poorly written plays, too. :(
-
Catch/no catch is fairly clear.
If an airborne receiver catches the pass and is hit by the defender causing him to land OOB (regardless of direction), the pass is incomplete.
If an airborne receiver catches the pass and is carried OOB sideways or backwards, the catch is good, keep the clock running and award the forward progress spot.
The difference is hit OOB vs carried OOB.
-
Catch/no catch is fairly clear.
...
The difference is hit OOB vs carried OOB.
Clear as mud, and no, the rule is not written to cover hit OOB vs. carried OOB. The rule says first contact must be INBOUNDS.
-
Clear as mud, and no, the rule is not written to cover hit OOB vs. carried OOB. The rule says first contact must be INBOUNDS.
Yes, you are correct, I meant to type hit inbounds and forced OOB (while still airborne) vs caught inbounds and carried OOB. If the receiver's first contact with the ground is out of bounds, then "hit" vs "carried" is significant.
-
If the receiver's first contact with the ground is out of bounds, then "hit" vs "carried" is significant.
And that's the problem: by RULE, no it's not. Pushed vs carried OOB makes NO difference in the new rule, and it was never supposed to make a difference.
But somehow, somewhere, the rule that was writen and agreed to by the committee has been bastardized by those that want to make it like the NCAA rule. It's NOT the same rule. By RULE, if the receiver doesn't come down inbounds for ANY reason, it's not a catch.
-
But somehow, somewhere, the rule that was written and agreed to by the committee has been bastardized by those that want to make it like the NCAA rule. It's NOT the same rule.
I agree. The rule and case plays (e.g., 4.3.3B) don't square, and nobody going up my chain of command -- local interpreter, state interpreter, NFHS interpreter -- can provide a straight answer regarding how to rule on these plays.
I worry before each game that we might see one, and breathe a sigh of relief that so far we haven't.
-
And that's the problem: by RULE, no it's not. Pushed vs carried OOB makes NO difference in the new rule, and it was never supposed to make a difference.
But somehow, somewhere, the rule that was writen and agreed to by the committee has been bastardized by those that want to make it like the NCAA rule. It's NOT the same rule. By RULE, if the receiver doesn't come down inbounds for ANY reason, it's not a catch.
+1
-
But somehow, somewhere, the rule that was writen and agreed to by the committee has been bastardized by those that want to make it like the NCAA rule. It's NOT the same rule. By RULE, if the receiver doesn't come down inbounds for ANY reason, it's not a catch.
And therein lies the unspoken truth that simmers beneath the surface in my group and maybe others. There is a small number of NCAA officials in our group that has taken on more and more of control in the way we operate- mechanics, equipment, etc.
It has caused some angst, i.e.- requiring purchase of black pants early on upon their introduction, switch to blue bean bags when there wasn't a thing wrong with the white ones we all had, introduction of college mechanics with only 5 officials.
I don't have a problem with most of it though I do tire of having to correct NCAA rule applications on the field in HS games when we start getting mish-mashed out there on Friday nights.
I worry before each game that we might see one, and breathe a sigh of relief that so far we haven't.
+1
-
In your entire officiating career, have you EVER seen an airborne receiver grabbed while in the air, and carried to the sideline to be dropped? I'm not talking about pushed so he landed OOB, I'm taking about CARRIED OOB?
I'm betting this is a play that's getting a lot more conversation than it deserves.
-
In your entire officiating career, have you EVER seen an airborne receiver grabbed while in the air, and carried to the sideline to be dropped? I'm not talking about pushed so he landed OOB, I'm taking about CARRIED OOB?
I'm betting this is a play that's getting a lot more conversation than it deserves.
18 years working the sideline and I have never seen a receiver carried off. I can count on one hand, the number of times I have had to make a decision on whether or not the receiver would have come down in bounds or not.
-
Butt blocking? LOL
pi1eOn
-
Clear as mud, and no, the rule is not written to cover hit OOB vs. carried OOB. The rule says first contact must be INBOUNDS.
The cases are pretty clear and the distinction is between carried and hit/pushed. No, it's not what the rule says, but that doesn't make the cases unclear, perhaps wrong, but not unclear.
-
How can an interpretation be CLEAR when the rule book says one thing and the case book another?
-
In your entire officiating career, have you EVER seen an airborne receiver grabbed while in the air, and carried to the sideline to be dropped? I'm not talking about pushed so he landed OOB, I'm taking about CARRIED OOB?
I'm betting this is a play that's getting a lot more conversation than it deserves.
That is not the play that concerns me, and I agree that people are making heavy weather of the play where the defender carries a runner OOB. This is what concerns me, and I don't think it's rare:
SITUATION: A88 is running toward the sideline at the A35YL, leaps in the air, and controls a pass. Before he returns to the ground, B54 contacts him so that he first touches the ground out of bounds at the (a) A34YL (forward progress stopped), or (b) A36YL (forward progress not stopped).
By rule, neither (a) nor (b) is a catch, since the receiver got nothing down inbounds after gaining possession. By the ruling in 4.3.3B, (a) is a catch and (b) is not because in (a) but not (b) the receiver's forward progress was stopped over the field of play. By the OHSAA football web site, I have no idea.
-
That is not the play that concerns me, and I agree that people are making heavy weather of the play where the defender carries a runner OOB. This is what concerns me, and I don't think it's rare:
SITUATION: A88 is running toward the sideline at the A35YL, leaps in the air, and controls a pass. Before he returns to the ground, B54 contacts him so that he first touches the ground out of bounds at the (a) A34YL (forward progress stopped), or (b) A36YL (forward progress not stopped).
By rule, neither (a) nor (b) is a catch, since the receiver got nothing down inbounds after gaining possession. By the ruling in 4.3.3B, (a) is a catch and (b) is not because in (a) but not (b) the receiver's forward progress was stopped over the field of play. By the OHSAA football web site, I have no idea.
NO CATCH in any of these situations unless he first touches INBOUNDS.
-
NO CATCH in any of these situations unless he first touches INBOUNDS.
Right, well not according to 4.3.3B:
*4.3.3 SITUATION B: A has third down and seven yards to gain at B's 30. A1 leaps near the sideline to attempt to catch a pass near B's 30-yard line. A1 is: (a) airborne trying to make the catch and is knocked backwards by B2 attempting to make the tackle and A1 lands outside the sideline at B's 32 or (b) airborne when he controls the ball attempting to complete the catch and is carried off the field by B2 landing out of bounds.
RULING: In (a), the pass is incomplete and the clock should start on the snap. In (b), the covering official must determine if forward progress was stopped in the field of play. If the covering official determines that progress was stopped in the field of play, it is a catch and the clock should not stop. If stopped inadvertently by the covering official, the clock should be restarted on the ready for play. If progress was not determined to be stopped in the field of play, the pass is incomplete and the clock shall be stopped, to be restarted on the snap. (2-15-1, 2; 4-3-2)
I realize that (b) employs the dreaded word "carried," but the basis for the ruling seems to be the idea that progress was stopped, not that the player was carried off. And in general, the rule (no catch without something down inbounds) and the case (official's judgment whether progress was stopped) still conflict.
-
The play in the case book is wrong. That's been established previously.
-
The play in the case book is wrong. That's been established previously.
Are you thinking of 3.4.3C, which NFHS corrected in the 2012 Interpretations? AFAIK there is no "official" correction of 4.3.3B.
-
I realize that (b) employs the dreaded word "carried," but the basis for the ruling seems to be the idea that progress was stopped, not that the player was carried off. And in general, the rule (no catch without something down inbounds) and the case (official's judgment whether progress was stopped) still conflict.
And that dreaded word is the difference. They are claiming that a player's forward progress can be stopped by being carried, but not by being pushed. The point of the case is to make the FED rule the same as the NCAA rule.
Problem is, the rules makers didn't write or mean for it to be the same. I have two people on the FED rules committee that have confirmed the case play was written and published without their agreement. but the rules committee only writes the rule book, not the case book. Whoever wrote the case misinterpreted the rule and the intent of the committee.
-
...I have two people on the FED rules committee that have confirmed the case play was written and published without their agreement. but the rules committee only writes the rule book, not the case book. Whoever wrote the case misinterpreted the rule and the intent of the committee.
I'm with you on this one Blue (imagine that!), but the disclosure at the bottom of page 2 of the Case Book indicate the Rules Committee has approved the interpretations contained therein. With that in print, I can understand the skepticism on the part of some to accept what we are saying.
I don't believe this is as much of a problem that the Case Book plays were rule misinterpretations as they are outdated rulings that haven't been removed/updated following the rule changes. Further disclosure at the top of the same page indicates this can happen, and should be reported to the NFHS.
The root of the problem is a slowness on the part of the Federation to react and issue a formal, updated opinion that is consistent with the rule as written.
-
AFAIK there is no "official" correction of 4.3.3B.
Therein lies the problem. The Case Book should mirror the rule book. Sometimes, it doesn't. (See the disclosures on page 2 of the Case Book).
-
I don't believe this is as much of a problem that the Case Book plays were rule misinterpretations as they are outdated rulings that haven't been removed/updated following the rule changes. Further disclosure at the top of the same page indicates this can happen, and should be reported to the NFHS.
Not disagreeing with your "inside info," but NFHS's characteristic slowness to revise or delete old, outdated cases cannot explain the existence of 4.3.3B, which is NEW for 2012.
-
Not disagreeing with your "inside info," but NFHS's characteristic slowness to revise or delete old, outdated cases cannot explain the existence of 4.3.3B, which is NEW for 2012.
Correct. But in this case, the rule committee wrote the rule with a clear intent and wording. After the rule was published, "someone" not on the committee (rules editor, officie assistant, summer intern, janitorial staff, who knows) wrote a new case play, and it got an asterisk because it wasnt' there last year.
Doesn't make it right, it makes for poor editing and fact checking for letting be published.
-
Correct. But in this case, the rule committee wrote the rule with a clear intent and wording. After the rule was published, "someone" not on the committee (rules editor, officie assistant, summer intern, janitorial staff, who knows) wrote a new case play, and it got an asterisk because it wasnt' there last year.
Doesn't make it right, it makes for poor editing and fact checking for letting be published.
Got it. I expect we'll have this play Friday night, and we'll call it by the (rule!) book. :)
-
I'll throw in a different twist. We all agree on the push OOB, but the NJ interpretation is that if an airborne receiver is grabbed and carried backwards and dropped OOB, it's a catch because his forward progress was stopped. If he's carried forward and dropped OOB, it's not a catch.
-
...if an airborne receiver is grabbed and carried backwards and dropped OOB, it's a catch because his forward progress was stopped.
And I think we'll all agree that's not what 2-4-1 says, either.
-
I'll throw in a different twist. We all agree on the push OOB, but the NJ interpretation is that if an airborne receiver is grabbed and carried backwards and dropped OOB, it's a catch because his forward progress was stopped. If he's carried forward and dropped OOB, it's not a catch.
Forward progress of what? He hasn't made a catch yet!
2-15-2:
When an airborne player makes a catch, forward progress is the
furthest point of advancement after he possesses the ball if contacted by a
defender.
Since he hasn't come back to the ground inbounds, as required by 2-4-1, he hasn't made a catch, and forward progress can't apply, because by definition, that can only apply to a player that has already made a catch.
-
Forward progress of what? He hasn't made a catch yet!
2-15-2:
When an airborne player makes a catch, forward progress is the
furthest point of advancement after he possesses the ball if contacted by a
defender.
Since he hasn't come back to the ground inbounds, as required by 2-4-1, he hasn't made a catch, and forward progress can't apply, because by definition, that can only apply to a player that has already made a catch.
Don't agree with your interpretation. What if a receiver catches the ball while airborne in the EZ, then is shoved backward to the 1 yard line where he is downed. Touchdown. So forward progress absolutely applies. Don't confuse the concept of forward progress with the concept of catch vs no catch. They are two separate issues.
-
Don't agree with your interpretation. What if a receiver catches the ball while airborne in the EZ, then is shoved backward to the 1 yard line where he is downed. Touchdown. So forward progress absolutely applies. Don't confuse the concept of forward progress with the concept of catch vs no catch. They are two separate issues.
I believe AB's point was that you have to have a legal catch before you can determine forward progress. In your play, the receiver does complete the catch by touching inbounds; in his play, he doesn't.
-
I believe AB's point was that you have to have a legal catch before you can determine forward progress. In your play, the receiver does complete the catch by touching inbounds; in his play, he doesn't.
Exactly. Forward progress is determined by the foremost point after POSSESSION, but not until a catch has been made. A player that never lands inbounds hasn't made a catch, and isn't entitled to forward progress.
Take your "catch" in the end zone. Diving (airborne) receiver possesses a pass while in the air over the end zone. He lands on his belly and the ball, which is under him, pops loose. Are you going to call a TD because he possessed the ball over the end zone? Or a leaping receiver jumps and possesses the ball over the end zone, but lands beyond the end line. Touchdown? Of course not, the passes were incomplete, because the receiver never touched inbounds, thus completing the catch.
Same with your play. It's not a TD when the ball was possessed, it didn't become one until he completed the catch. Under FED rules, a player that never hits inbounds, whether pushed or carried, hasn't completed the catch. The rules committee had a clear intent when making the rule: eliminate the judgment of whether a player WOULD have landed inbounds. They did NOT want to duplicate the NCAA rule, then wanted a clear, less judgmental issue: either he did or he didn't land inbounds. HOW he did or didn't wasn't supposed to matter, until the writer of the case play muddied the waters, against the wishes of the rules committee.
-
I believe AB's point was that you have to have a legal catch before you can determine forward progress. In your play, the receiver does complete the catch by touching inbounds; in his play, he doesn't.
You beat me to it, bama and Blue!
-
In the spirit of the rule. If a receiver is being carried, rather than being hit, out of bounds. The legs of the defender are almost like an extension of the receiver. Illinois is telling us to give them the forward progress, they do not want to see a player carried three yards to the OOB line and us giving the 'by the book' interpretation and calling the play incomplete / OOB. The Federation will more than likely clean this rule up next year.
-
The Federation will more than likely clean this rule up next year.
There is no reason the Rules Editor cannot clean it up THIS year.
-
There is no reason the Rules Editor cannot clean it up THIS year.
I'm guessing that being the NFHS Rules Editor isn't a full-time job.......
Does anyone here know or have contact with Bob Colgate?
-
The play in the case book is wrong. That's been established previously.
Really? Where can I read this?
-
I'm guessing that being the NFHS Rules Editor isn't a full-time job.......
Does anyone here know or have contact with Bob Colgate?
I'm sure it isn't as his title is NFHS Director of Sports and Sports Medicine. To get to him you are supposed to work through your state office. Bama, in your case I would call Greg Brewer.
-
I'm sure it isn't as his title is NFHS Director of Sports and Sports Medicine. To get to him you are supposed to work through your state office. Bama, in your case I would call Greg Brewer.
Actually, I was just wondering if someone on the board knew him well enough in an unofficial capacity to ask him (off the record) about some of these "rogue" case plays.
-
The Federation will more than likely clean this rule up next year.
I believe you may be giving them far too much credit.
Or as they taught us in law school: assuming facts not in evidence.