Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
11
That is not misapplication of a rule.  That is judgment, poor as it may have been in your eyes.  Why did you grant the conference?

You may be HACKED at your LJ but if you grant a coach-official conferences for judgment calls you may find yourself without one, and the other three positions too.
12
There is nothing technical about the rule. The player must come inside then numbers. You are the R. You see that the wide receiver did not come inside the numbers. For whatever reason, the LJ let it go because, technically, there was no advantage. The play results in a TD. Coach calls a time out to discuss the misapplication of a rule. He says the receiver never came inside the numbers, it's an illegal formation, 5 yard penalty. It's not technical now. R does what, give the lame excuse that there was no advantage, or drop the flag and enforce a clear violation of the rule? Not all coaches are ignorant of the rules. Some study them more than the officials do, which is good and sad at the same time. By the way, this is not hypothetical, this happened in my game. I called the TD back and had some choice words for my end guy. Didn't happen again and has not happened since. The point of my original post was not to discuss if the rule is good or bad, but to establish a set point mechanic when the players must be inside the numbers under the new 40 second rule.

So do you drop a flag and call the TD back when A55 holds B72 30 yards behind the play and A scores and the opposing coach sees it and brings it up to you? The rule is clear grabbing and restricting an opponent is holding no matter where it happens on the field.

I know you said you didn't bring it up to discuss the rule, but it definitely goes to the philosophy of when to call something and when to let it go.
13
There is nothing technical about the rule. The player must come inside then numbers. You are the R. You see that the wide receiver did not come inside the numbers. For whatever reason, the LJ let it go because, technically, there was no advantage. The play results in a TD. Coach calls a time out to discuss the misapplication of a rule. He says the receiver never came inside the numbers, it's an illegal formation, 5 yard penalty. It's not technical now. R does what, give the lame excuse that there was no advantage, or drop the flag and enforce a clear violation of the rule? Not all coaches are ignorant of the rules. Some study them more than the officials do, which is good and sad at the same time. By the way, this is not hypothetical, this happened in my game. I called the TD back and had some choice words for my end guy. Didn't happen again and has not happened since. The point of my original post was not to discuss if the rule is good or bad, but to establish a set point mechanic when the players must be inside the numbers under the new 40 second rule.
14
National Federation Discussion / Re: A method for shortening halftime.....
« Last post by ucanfindmj on Yesterday at 04:02:23 PM »
I have been surprised during the pregame conference with coaches that simply by asking, "So you want the regular 10 min half time," and how often that has worked for me.  I do confirm that they understood that I did say 10 min and not assume they weren't just thinking 15 before I proceed.
15
National Federation Discussion / Re: 2019 Rule Changes
« Last post by ucanfindmj on Yesterday at 03:56:40 PM »
Sorry, English is my second language and I often do make mistakes. I do try to get better, though :)

FWIW, I'm not an NFHS official nor connected in any way with the NFHS (or NCAA) rules committee.

I apologize if you felt I was criticizing you personally on the use of the English language.  I was referring to the NFHS specifically in regards to Rule 9-4-3i NOTE:  Illegal helmet contact may be judged by the game official a flagrant act... 

When asked the question on the NFHS exam, "Illegal helmet contact may not be judged by the game official a flagrant act."  According to the powers that be, this is a false statement.  In actuality, both are true.  As in, if I may do something, it is also permitted that I may not do something.

"If the statement, 'An official may not judge illegal helmet contact to be flagrant,' and this is False, then all illegal helmet contact must always be ruled flagrant."  That is from a 3rd grade English teacher...

That is what I meant by concept of the English language and not directed toward you.

I have been accused of not using or needing to use common sense and would like to say that I am just subject to the rules as they are written and put in place by the powers that be.  I did not eject a single player for illegal helmet contact this past season as none were judged to be flagrant. 

16
NCAA Discussion / Re: Wedge question - are any double-team blocks now a foul?
« Last post by Rob S on Yesterday at 03:53:38 PM »
A double-team block doesn't make it a foul, it's the aligning that is.

If one player initiates a block and then another comes and joins after in a double-team, that's not a wedge or a foul.
17
Oh, forgot to mention, NO FOUL if the result of the play is a touchback, or if the kicked ball goes out of bounds, or if there is a fair catch.  Mechanically, Mr. R, you can 'hold' on throwing until the ball is in runback, or throw and then pick up, with a 'never mind' announcement, in those no foul events.  Me, personally, I will probably 'hold' until the ball is in runback.  CFO coordinators might want their R's to throw, then pick up, to know their R's saw the action, and consciously (and correctly) rescinded the call.  Do what your coord wants.

Robert
18
So, if the receivers try to double-team block a kicking team man, do we have a 15-yard foul (unless the kick is a touchback, goes OOB or gets a fair catch)?
The statement of the penalty, says "Noncontact foul". What does this mean (I don't see that term used anywhere else in the book)? Perhaps it means that just getting the blockers shoulder to shoulder is the foul, regardless whether they actually team up to block a gunner. This will mean that the BJ, U and CJ will have to look for potential double-teams...

Archie,
It is a foul simply to form the wedge.  Contact with an opponent is not required.  It is called a Non-contact foul because the wedge would, technically, be formed - and be a foul - before contact is made, and it distinguishes this foul from an unsportsmanlike conduct foul, so it does NOT count against the players' with regard to their UNS counter toward DQ.
I recall in my FBS days, when the three-man wedge became illegal, the R's had primary responsibility for the wedge, because it tended to happen just ahead of the receiver.  The H & L had starting the clock duty, so the R didn't have to be concerned with that, and the H & L didn't have to be concerned with wedge blocks.  Can't say if that has changed, but can't imagine why it would have changed.  You are not nearly as likely to see wedge blocking as the play develops down the field.

Robert
19
National Federation Discussion / Re: 2019 Rule Changes
« Last post by Kalle on Yesterday at 01:30:59 PM »
I'm going to stick behind it, and would like to add, concept of the English language.  Use it as constructive criticism and do better.

Sorry, English is my second language and I often do make mistakes. I do try to get better, though :)

FWIW, I'm not an NFHS official nor connected in any way with the NFHS (or NCAA) rules committee.
20
National Federation Discussion / Re: 2019 Rule Changes
« Last post by ucanfindmj on Yesterday at 01:26:17 PM »
There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the rules committee and this is an appropriate place to do that. To be critical of them because they didn't consider a change in the minimum number of players required to participate in a play seems a little extreme. Be critical of them adding the superfluous language in the new formation rule. Be critical of them eliminating the auto first down on DPI as a compromise to get rid of the LOD of OPI. Those are things that actually impact the game. Nobody is going to play 11-man football with 6 or 8 players.

Welcome to the conversation.  I am critical of those things as well.  Don't get so hung up on the fact that no one can tell me when to forfeit a game based on the number of offensive players.  I only brought it up the once, yet you continue to harp on that I had that question.  Also, it is kind of hard to listen when you speak from so high up on the pedestal. 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10