Author Topic: Philosophy for Calling Fouls  (Read 504 times)

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 565
  • FAN REACTION: +37/-7
Philosophy for Calling Fouls
« on: May 14, 2017, 07:27:12 AM »
At the same clinic, it was very interesting to hear the college officials talk about fouls. Specifically, they said that they would never call a foul for a Ineligible downfield if a WR covered an inside receiver and both were on the line. They would rule that one of the guys was behind the other and let the play go.  While that makes sense from an "advantage gained" perspective, what's the point of our very specific definitions of Linemen, Backs, "lines drawn through the waist of the snapper" and all the rest?

By that same logic, they wouldn't call a foul for a 6 man line, they would rule that one of the guys was on, and let the play go.

Thoughts?
"Never argue with stupid people.  They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2119
  • FAN REACTION: +66/-23
Re: Philosophy for Calling Fouls
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2017, 07:47:35 AM »
I can understand that philosophy in a college game, where televised games are approaching four hours in length.

I would flag those every time in HS.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3101
  • FAN REACTION: +243/-432
Re: Philosophy for Calling Fouls
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2017, 11:25:47 AM »
Most likely, there's no ABSOLUTE correct answer, and our response may best depend, and relate, to the specific situation we're looking at rather than some dictated degree, but whatever standard we set, we should be consistent in apply it.

When we focus on the precise letter of the rule, over consideration of the intent of the rule and how it applies to the UNIQUE situation we're observing, we can lose sight of the purpose the rule is trying to accomplish.

Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 1788
  • FAN REACTION: +34/-34
Philosophy for Calling Fouls
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2017, 06:48:30 PM »
Most likely, there's no ABSOLUTE correct answer, and our response may best depend, and relate, to the specific situation we're looking at rather than some dictated degree, but whatever standard we set, we should be consistent in apply it.

When we focus on the precise letter of the rule, over consideration of the intent of the rule and how it applies to the UNIQUE situation we're observing, we can lose sight of the purpose the rule is trying to accomplish.
"Blade of grass" philosophy


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1063
  • FAN REACTION: +46/-18
Re: Philosophy for Calling Fouls
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2017, 08:11:55 AM »
While that makes sense from an "advantage gained" perspective, what's the point of our very specific definitions of Linemen, Backs, "lines drawn through the waist of the snapper" and all the rest?

You also have very specific definitions of holding and DPI, but we don't call those to the letter of the law.

You'll live a lot longer if you don't throw ticky-tack fouls.  Calling a WR covered up when there is a stagger between him and the widest is a ticky-tack foul.

You said it yourself - NO ADVANTAGE GAINED.  If the team isn't intentionally covering up a slot (which I see maybe 1 play per year), the defense know's he's a WR.  They're going to cover him.  If there is even the slightest stagger, make him a back.

Your game will be much smother if you try to make the formations legal if you can.

Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 453
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-26
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: Philosophy for Calling Fouls
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2017, 09:11:22 AM »
You also have very specific definitions of holding and DPI, but we don't call those to the letter of the law.

You'll live a lot longer if you don't throw ticky-tack fouls.  Calling a WR covered up when there is a stagger between him and the widest is a ticky-tack foul.

You said it yourself - NO ADVANTAGE GAINED.  If the team isn't intentionally covering up a slot (which I see maybe 1 play per year), the defense know's he's a WR.  They're going to cover him.  If there is even the slightest stagger, make him a back.

Your game will be much smother if you try to make the formations legal if you can.

I have actually encountered a situation where the tight end was covered by a wide receiver and the defense noticed it before the snap.  A defender yelled to his teammates that the TE was ineligible and that no one should cover him.  How would the "make it legal" philosophy work out in that situation?

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2154
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-20
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Philosophy for Calling Fouls
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2017, 09:38:30 AM »
 ^talk The job of a sports official is to keep the game fair and safe...

 P_S The job of law enforcement is to keep everyone safe and not to infringe on rights of others.

 P_S ^talk These two jobs are similar in many ways......

  Ask yourself before you  ^flag a kid for being an inch or so on/off -in/out or whatever, that has no real baring on the game other than just adding another "notch" to your penalty flag; if you would be happy getting a speeding ticket for going 38 MPH in a 35 MPH vone.

DON'T BE A WALKING RULEBOOK WAITING TO HAPPEN!!!

 tR:oLl ^flag ^flag ^flag ^flag ^flag ^flag ^flag tR:oLl

Offline riffraft

  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-13
Re: Philosophy for Calling Fouls
« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2017, 02:23:39 PM »
Two wide-outs somewhat staggered I will not call it. Tight end in a 3 point and wide-out covering him, I am probably going to call it. I know when I played defense I would have noticed that the tight end was covered and ignore him as a receiver.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3557
  • FAN REACTION: +290/-212
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Philosophy for Calling Fouls
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2017, 04:35:54 PM »
I know when I played defense I would have noticed that the tight end was covered and ignore him as a receiver.
You're conceding an awful lot to the offense. Did you ever get burned?
"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 riffraft

  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-13
Re: Philosophy for Calling Fouls
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2017, 12:29:37 PM »
You're conceding an awful lot to the offense. Did you ever get burned?

I am sure I was burned a few times, but generally when it was noticed that the Tight end was covered, I would let my teammates know and with that hopefully the officials heard also and flagged appropriately.


Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3557
  • FAN REACTION: +290/-212
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Philosophy for Calling Fouls
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2017, 04:45:04 PM »
Hopefully? Wow! 😲
"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 bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1063
  • FAN REACTION: +46/-18
Re: Philosophy for Calling Fouls
« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2017, 11:00:56 PM »
I have actually encountered a situation where the tight end was covered by a wide receiver and the defense noticed it before the snap.  A defender yelled to his teammates that the TE was ineligible and that no one should cover him.  How would the "make it legal" philosophy work out in that situation?


Tight ends are a little different because teams DO intentionally cover up their tight end.  In that case you can rule the tight end covered (especially if putting the WR off the line would create an illegal formation).  Teams RARELY cover up their slot receivers, so always try to make them legal if at all possible.