USC @ PINSTRIPE BOWL

[NCAA-SJ]

What we do not know...
     -was this player a problem player throughout the game and was talked to on other occasions
     -what direction the officials received, if any, prior to the game by their supervisor, NCAA rep (not sure if bowl games have these), or bowl rep.
     -what was discussed in their pregame
     -what history each individual official has with these types of calls

I'm not trying to suggest anything by asking these questions, other than pointing out we are dissecting one isolated play in time without considering other factors that could be in play.  The rulebook has more to say about discouraging these types of actions rather than encouraging them.  When in doubt, follow the rulebook; I think these guys did.  If you don't want the call, don't salute!  The player is the one who created this episode, NOT the officials!  If we say this is okay, then what's next? (think of escalation) Everyone should understand this envelope will be, and has been, pushed over the years.

[MJT]

What we do not know...
     -was this player a problem player throughout the game and was talked to on other occasions
     -what direction the officials received, if any, prior to the game by their supervisor, NCAA rep (not sure if bowl games have these), or bowl rep.
     -what was discussed in their pregame
     -what history each individual official has with these types of calls

I'm not trying to suggest anything by asking these questions, other than pointing out we are dissecting one isolated play in time without considering other factors that could be in play.  The rulebook has more to say about discouraging these types of actions rather than encouraging them.  When in doubt, follow the rulebook; I think these guys did.  If you don't want the call, don't salute!  The player is the one who created this episode, NOT the officials!  If we say this is okay, then what's next? (think of escalation) Everyone should understand this envelope will be, and has been, pushed over the years.

Excellent points!!!

[blindref757]

So officials calling fouls for things which they are instructed to call fouls for means they are interjecting themselves into the game...
I've been to a camp or two and several years worth of local chapter meetings, clinics, and training events.  In every experience, I've been taught that less is better.  When given the opportunity to make a game changing call, it better be right and it better be obvious.
Of course, what is and is not a foul changes in bowl games 
Bowl games, at least the ones played in December, are exhibition games.  They do count towards final rankings and there is money on the line, but that is all the more reason to let things like this slide.  These games seldom result in "extracurricular activity" due to heated rivalries or kids from the same area who might all be familiar with one another and decide to upstage an old HS rival.  I believe that it is best to be as inconspicuous as possible as a general rule.
Because not calling a foul is always better than calling a foul, wouldn't want to risk making anyone upset because they didn't like your call.
I think making someone unnecessarily upset would be a better way to end that phrase.  This business is tough enough when you do it perfectly...no reason to go looking for trouble.  I haven't talked to one fan or a referee that supports that USC call against K-State.

[Welpe]

I haven't talked to one fan or a referee that supports that USC call against K-State.

Judgment is funny like that sometimes I guess.

[British Ref]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls10/news/story?id=5976141

[Atlanta Blue]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls10/news/story?id=5976141

No one is arguing that "by the book", the USC call was "correct".  And that's really all Parry said with the quote: "Some people would say it's a little too technical, too marginal, but as it's written, officials are covered by the rule."  What I, and many others, are saying is that it was a poor game management, a flag that could could have been handled with a "knock it off".

Of course Parry is going to "support" the call, and it is one reason I far prefer the style of Rogers Redding than that of Parry.  Parry is a "the officials are never wrong" in public type of guy, where Redding is more open in his criticism.

Perfect example: last year's UGA-LSU game with a controversial USC call at the end of the game, much like this one.  That week, when questioned by the press, Redding said, "While the official made the best judgment he could, his call should not have been made.  The actions of the player did not rise to what this rule was designed to stop."

Parry thinks all of these things should be "handled in private".  He may think that's better support of the officials, but in the long run, it destroys credibility.  ESPN was even making jokes this morning about the best thing of all of the Big Ten/SEC matchups today is that it means no Big Ten crews can work the games.  Right or wrong, the image of Big Ten officials was harmed this week, particularly with the Kansas State call.

Sitting back and issuing a release that says, "The calls were correct" is doing more harm than good.

[TXMike]

Maybe you have never seen Parry's reseason video?  He is very tough at times on there.  I realize that is not something that is all that widely seen but it is certainly available for anyone who wants to get it

[6310 Forever]

Does anyone realize a Big Ten crew worked the Champs Sports Bowl Tuesday night?  Didn't think so.   The job of the football official is to work the game such that no one knows you were out there, which is what the guys did Tuesday night.  There hasn't been a peep written by anyone anywhere about the performance of that crew.

[Welpe]

 The job of the football official is to work the game such that no one knows you were out there

I wish this myth would die.

[Diablo]

I wish this myth would die.

Amen.
No disrespect to the Big Ten crew, but I think that ageless axiom is not a credible crew goal for every game.  Yes, in games where the players play and coaches coach (both without BS); the ball does not take funny bounces, and all the calls & administrations are crystal clear, it's easy for the crew to fly beneath the radar.  But, more often than not, the circumstances of the game dictates that the crew has to make tough calls, be tested on the rules, and exert unpopular control.  Crews who fly under the radar in the latter games are most likely not doing the game justice. 

[110]

I wish this myth would die.

I hear you. I know the spirit of that, but I believe a good crew - particularly a good white cap - has the power to really affect the nature of a game. I like really fast games ... and like officials who maintain a brisk but methodical pace. I've seen some officials that just bog the snot out of a game ... and that's when the crap is more likely to happen.

[APG]

Does anyone realize a Big Ten crew worked the Champs Sports Bowl Tuesday night?  Didn't think so.   The job of the football official is to work the game such that no one knows you were out there, which is what the guys did Tuesday night.  There hasn't been a peep written by anyone anywhere about the performance of that crew.

This only happens when the players play a clean game and there's a game with no tough calls/situations. Otherwise it'll most definitely be known that you were out there.

[bitols]

Parry said with the quote: "Some people would say it's a little too technical, too marginal, but as it's written, officials are covered by the rule." 

Don't think a call "covered by the rule" should always be a good call. A hold it's a hold, mh ? No sign of "point of attack" in the rulebook, mh ? So, why not to call a hold any given down ? It's there, it's in the book, so, call it !

In the end, the right definition is "toot technical, too marginal".

[Rulesman]

Don't think a call "covered by the rule" should always be a good call. A hold it's a hold, mh ? No sign of "point of attack" in the rulebook, mh ? So, why not to call a hold any given down ? It's there, it's in the book, so, call it !

In the end, the right definition is "toot technical, too marginal".

"toot technical"

[AlUpstateNY]

Regarding USC fouls, in general, are some suggesting it might be better to ignore those that may be somewhat less than explosive, perhaps in hopes that bad behavior, ignored, will pass?  Or is it smarter to identify and call attention to any such act, either by flag or if circumstances dictate just a "talking to"?

Reality might suggest that in ANY football game there are constant ebbs and flows of thoughts of retaliations and stupid behavior by players, that are kept under control ONLY by the perception (real or imagined) that game officials know what's going on and will deal promptly and severely with violations.

Perhaps the fastest, and surest, way to build towards a riot is to shake the perception (real or imagined) among players, that an opponent(s) is being given special handling and not being held accountable for bad behavior.   

 

[VictorSlade]

The rule states: "Any delayed, excessive, prolonged or choreographed act by which a player attempts to focus attention on himself (or themselves)." The act in question met NONE of the four characteristics mentioned in the rule. It was immediate, not delayed. It was minor, not excessive. It was brief, not prolonged. Obviously, no choreography was required.