Author Topic: The 'common taters'  (Read 4420 times)

Offline ALStripes17

  • *
  • Posts: 224
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-11
  • Be invisible
The 'common taters'
« on: October 10, 2014, 08:41:00 AM »
I have a buddy that does some radio play by play for local HS games.  There were DBPF by both teams at the 5 yd line.  Crew signaled each foul and marked them off (out to the 20, back in to the 10)

Buddy started chastising the officials and wondered why they didnt offset.  I was able to send him a text to give him rule reference and he corrected it on air (without my name).

Maybe... just maybe, there is a tiny glimmer of hope for the 'common taters.'  Similar to the existence of life on another planet - very possible, just not in our lifetime :)
"I'm not concerned with your liking or disliking me - all I ask is that you respect me as a human being"

-Unknown-

Offline NJOfficial

  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-6
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2014, 08:48:31 AM »
I hate when they go nuts when an official throws a "late" flag.

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 410
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-27
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2014, 09:06:29 AM »
Buddy started chastising the officials and wondered why they didnt offset.  I was able to send him a text to give him rule reference and he corrected it on air (without my name).

Because they saw the same exact thing in the NFL on sunday, and they offset, so they think the 'non-professional' high school referees don't have a clue.


Online FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 695
  • FAN REACTION: +42/-9
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2014, 09:44:13 AM »
Had 4th and goal from the B 14 last night. Defensive pass interference on the play, so we went half the distance and replayed 4th down. I think only 6 people in the stadium (5 of us and our ECO) knew it wasn't an automatic first down. Next play was an interception. Losing coach still thinks he got robbed.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 456
  • FAN REACTION: +11/-19
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
The 'common taters'
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2014, 11:05:13 AM »
We had dpi on b last night on 3rd and 12. Marked it off, signaled first down. Coach went crazy.  "That's not a first down!! They changed that rule last year!!!"   Wut?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline busman

  • *
  • Posts: 1261
  • FAN REACTION: +49/-63
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2014, 10:31:55 AM »
Had a HS game broadcasted on the radio by locals. Game was played on college field hash marks, but there were HS hash lines on each 5 yard mark.  Announcer got all over officials for marking ball "outside the hash" on an attempted FG.  Did the same thing. Called the "hot line" and got the producer in the studio to tell him the reason. He apologized over the air also.

Online Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2574
  • FAN REACTION: +317/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2014, 01:20:55 PM »
I have a buddy that does some radio play by play for local HS games.  There were DBPF by both teams at the 5 yd line.  Crew signaled each foul and marked them off (out to the 20, back in to the 10)

Buddy started chastising the officials and wondered why they didnt offset.  I was able to send him a text to give him rule reference and he corrected it on air (without my name).

Maybe... just maybe, there is a tiny glimmer of hope for the 'common taters.'  Similar to the existence of life on another planet - very possible, just not in our lifetime :)
  HEAR YE, HEAR YE......support the following proposed rule change and all will be happy in zebradom......

10-2-5:

(a) Where there are 15 yard dead ball fouls (or live ball treated as dead ball fouls) committed by each team,and before the ready for play; each 15 yard dead ball foul will cancel a 15 yard dead ball foul on the other team. Any remaining 15 yard dead ball fouls will be enforced.

(b) 5 yard dead ball fouls will be enforced separately and in order of occurrence and would never cancel with a 15 yard dead ball foul.

VOTE : TO ADD FAIRNESS TO THE GAME FlAg1

VOTE : TO MAKE THE WHITEHAT'S JOB LESS COMPLICATED FlAg1 FlAg1

VOTE : TO MAKE THE UMPIRE'S sNiCkErS JOURNEY A SHORTER ONE FlAg1 FlAg1 FlAg1

VOTE : TO MAKE THE MEDIA FINALLY RIGHT "The penalties must offset ???FlAg1 FlAg1 FlAg1

VOTE TO REWRITE 10-2-5 FlAg1 FlAg1 FlAg1 FlAg1

Offline goodgrr

  • Roger Goodgroves
  • *
  • Posts: 273
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-12
  • We are always learning
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2014, 09:41:14 AM »
gets my vote

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +324/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2014, 10:24:25 AM »


(b) 5 yard dead ball fouls will be enforced separately and in order of occurrence and would never cancel with a 15 yard dead ball foul.

VOTE : TO MAKE THE MEDIA FINALLY RIGHT "The penalties must offset

That will really screw up the talking heads.  pi1eOn
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 523
  • FAN REACTION: +107/-4
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2014, 12:01:45 PM »
I don't see a huge need to over-complicate this by offsetting equal numbers of dead ball fouls. It's not that often you have 2 dead ball fouls on the same play (I get maybe 1 per season). To have 3 or more would be even more rare (never had it). Either keep it as is or offset all dead ball fouls. This is not something that needs a complicated enforcement.

Online Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2574
  • FAN REACTION: +317/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2014, 12:45:30 PM »
IMHO, the current rule can be overly complicated. "In order of occurrence" can have inequitable results if said fouls occur between the 30 and goal of each team (60% of the field!) It can also become very confusing if the dead ball fouls occur after a TD with the added variables of enforcing n the try or ensuing kickoff. Twice a similar proposal that would cancel ALL DB fouls made it to the floor but failed as it was felt that would leave some fouls unpunished. By canceling on a foul per foul basis that would be corrected.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 01:08:37 PM by Ralph Damren »

Offline ALStripes17

  • *
  • Posts: 224
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-11
  • Be invisible
Re: Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2014, 01:21:40 PM »
IMHO, the current rule can be overly complicated. "In order of occurrence" can have inequitable results if said fouls occur between the 30 and goal of each team (60% of the field!) It can also become very confusing if the dead ball fouls occur after a TD with the added variables of enforcing n the try or ensuing kickoff. Twice a similar proposal that would cancel ALL DB fouls made it to the floor but failed as it was felt that would leave some fouls unpunished. By canceling on a foul per foul basis that would be corrected.
Not to dilute the situation at all but the math/stats major in me made me cringe when I saw 60% of the field.

Only half of the time would DBPF by both teams be unequal inside the 30's, dependent on which team fouls first :P

For the sake of argument, I agree with offsetting these types of fouls in order for there NOT to be an advantage gained by either.
"I'm not concerned with your liking or disliking me - all I ask is that you respect me as a human being"

-Unknown-

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2014, 02:25:27 PM »
Not to dilute the situation at all but the math/stats major in me made me cringe when I saw 60% of the field.
Agree, so it's 60% of the field, 50% of the time.  All else being equal, that's still 30% chance of inequitable results.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3360
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-489
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2014, 04:11:13 PM »
Sorry gentlemen, but I would suggest the current rule stand as is.  NOBODY is supposed to hit, much less foul after the ball is dead, and EVERYONE (from pee wee up) should know that.  Allowing DBFs to offset provides opportunity and incentive to retaliate, because they're getting a free shot.  Yes, they lose the advantage of their opponents DBF penalty, but we're dealing with male teenagers, and an unpunished free shot is an attractive reward.

Multiple DBFs is not an "everyday" occurrence, but when it happens (if you want to minimize the chance of it repeating) both (all) players NEED to be publicly penalized, so they're hopefully embarrassed enough not to keep looking for "cheap shots", and restrain themselves when the ball is dead.

If you want to change the rules to DISCOURAGE repeat performances, you might consider adding "the guilty player must leave the game for 1 play after commiting ANY DB Personal Foul". That might provide some incentive to maintain poise and control emotions, and mgght also provide an opportunity for an immediate feedback "teaching moment".

As for the potential inequity in opponets DBFs inside the 30.  Players NEED to be taught (over & over) DON"T EVER foul when the ball is dead, especially anywhere near a goal line.  Life is full of consequences, and they're rarely FAIR.  Perhas the "ho-hum" nature of offsetting DB Personal fouls, at the professional level, is why they seem to happen as often as they do (sending messages and crap like that, officials are usually tasked to clean up after).

Expecting rule changes to eliminate announcer ignorance, is deffinitely "spitting into the wind".
« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 04:18:28 PM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline blarsen

  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #14 on: October 16, 2014, 12:27:28 AM »
I don't see any way that a change like this this could make things simpler, in fact it makes things much more complicated.  the current rule is simple:

Enforce DB fouls in the order in which they occur.

The new rule, as written, would be much more complicated; it took 2 paragraphs to explain it, and it still doesn't address a situation where the fouls do not occur in rapid succession.  Consider the following:

Well after A24 is downed at the A-20, A72 Blocks B67.  DBPF is enforced, ball on A-10.  After the RFP, B36 engages in Unsportsmanlike Conduct (Taunting, Disconcerting Acts, Profanity, whatever).

Are we then going to say that this foul retroactively offsets with the previous DBPF and take the ball to the 20? Or should we enforce it the full 15 to the 25?

Any rule that adequately addresses every situation involving DB fouls would certainly be much more complicated and confusing than the eleven words that express the current rule

As for fairness, Why should a DBPF or a USC by B be "penalized" less because the ball is near A's endzone?
If two fouls occur and the Ball is on the A-10, B's foul would only "cost" him 5 yards.
A is penalized fewer yards because each yard is much more valuable when you are near your own goal line, but that's not true when you are near the opponents endzone.

Finally, as an U, I always find that the  sNiCkErS is much sweeter when I've really worked for it.  Making the journey shorter just isn't worth it when it spoils the reward
« Last Edit: October 16, 2014, 12:29:16 AM by blarsen »

Online Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2574
  • FAN REACTION: +317/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2014, 07:06:21 AM »
Thirst day trivia tester :
 
Using the current 10-2-5 and the proposed change, how would you handle the following plays.....

 (1) Play ends with 3rd & goal from B's 10 when (a) A1 gives B1 a shove, (b) B1 then makes suggestive comments about A1 & his mother.
            Who started this :___________________________
            Where do you put the ball :___________________

 (2) Play ends with 3rd & goal from B's 10 when (a) B1 gives A1 a late hit, (b) A1 then drills the ball at B1.
            Who started this :___________________________
            Where do you put the ball :____________________

     Do you feel this is fair (Y/N)__________

     Under proposed change, where would you put the ball :______________
     Do you feel this is fairer (Y/N)____

 (3) A1 does Michael Jackson's "moonwalk" during the last 10 yards of his long touchdown run, B1 isn't amused and kicks A1 in the babymakers.
     What choices would you give the captains ....
          Under the current rule :_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

         Under the proposed rule :______________
       
         Which appears to be the most confusing (Current/Proposed)__________

(4) Same as #3, with A2 then kicking B1 in the butt .......
 
         What choices would you give the captains :( :o 8] ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( :!# oh,nevermind pray:;

 Editors note : The proposed change would treat a DB foul after the RFP separately.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3360
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-489
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2014, 09:07:40 AM »
In many situations in MOST football games, attentive observation by all field officials followed by instant, focused and relevant "instructions" directed towards players who have momentarily neglected their behavior responsibilities (ie: "Knock it off", "Shut your mouth", etc) can prevent situations from escalating to the point of requiring formal correction. 

The covering official's JUDGMENT is the key in determining whether the individual situation requires formal correction, or merits effort to defuse the situation without formal correction.The crew Umpire, by nature of his placement, is in position to share advice, helpful in steering the tone of the game, privately, semi-privately or generally with players of both teams, and these comments may well be the MOST EFFECTIVE deterrent to lapses in acceptable behavior available to officials.

When players ELECT to ignore such instructions they earn the consequences of HEITR decisions, and WHATEVER consequences earned, are therefore "FAIR".                                                                                                                                                                         

Offline blarsen

  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #17 on: October 16, 2014, 03:59:55 PM »
Ralph,

I understand your position and recognize the apparent inequity of punishing a team less if one of their players "started it" than if an opponent "started it."

I just think that rule 10 is one of the most misunderstood rules in the Fed code, and misapplications of rule 10 are always visible, and always have an impact on the game, especially near a goal line.

I don't object to a rule change to address this situation, but I think adding a system of offsetting fouls like the one proposed adds another layer of complexity to an already confusing rule, and can create situations where some retaliations would not be consistently enforced.  Why should making suggestive comments about an opponents mother cost 15 yards after the RFP, but only 5 (or whatever) before?  I certainly wouldn't want a player to decide to commit a PF because it will only "cost" him 5 yards

It seems that these concerns can easily be addressed without adding those layers of complexity.  Perhaps simply enforcing in reverse order of occurrence for fouls that are part of the same (causally related) series of events? or maybe always enforcing away from the nearest goal line first?

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1219
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: The 'common taters'
« Reply #18 on: October 16, 2014, 07:21:17 PM »
Ralph,

I understand your position and recognize the apparent inequity of punishing a team less if one of their players "started it" than if an opponent "started it."

I just think that rule 10 is one of the most misunderstood rules in the Fed code, and misapplications of rule 10 are always visible, and always have an impact on the game, especially near a goal line.

I don't object to a rule change to address this situation, but I think adding a system of offsetting fouls like the one proposed adds another layer of complexity to an already confusing rule, and can create situations where some retaliations would not be consistently enforced.  Why should making suggestive comments about an opponents mother cost 15 yards after the RFP, but only 5 (or whatever) before?  I certainly wouldn't want a player to decide to commit a PF because it will only "cost" him 5 yards

It seems that these concerns can easily be addressed without adding those layers of complexity.  Perhaps simply enforcing in reverse order of occurrence for fouls that are part of the same (causally related) series of events? or maybe always enforcing away from the nearest goal line first?

I like the “reverse enforcement” idea a lot.  In fact, for some real "old-timers", wasn't that the way it used to be handled at some level? :!#

Consider:
3/10 for A from B’s 20.  Following A25’s run to B’s 15, B3 questions A25’s parental lineage; after which A25 pushes B3 to the ground. The result of the play would be 4/5 for A at B’s 15.  By taking things “in the order of occurrence”, team A benefits by being awarded a first down at B’s 7.5.  Only after the first down is awarded, A25’s DBPF foul is enforced to B’s 22.5 – making it 1/10 from that point.

“Reverse enforcement” would result in 4/5 for A at B’s 15.  Seems much more equitable to me.