Author Topic: Enforcement  (Read 564 times)

Offline NCVAReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-1
Enforcement
« on: August 04, 2017, 02:16:34 PM »
A 3/5 @ A-30.  A1 sweeps to the left and heads up the sideline.  At the A-32 yardline, A2 goes out of bounds to block B3, who has backed across the sideline.  Both players are out of bounds when A2 makes his block at the A-35 yardline. A1 steps out of bounds at the A-38 yard line.  The block is above the waist and from the front.

What do you have?

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 659
  • FAN REACTION: +41/-7
Re: Enforcement
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2017, 02:28:51 PM »
I've got 1st and 10 for A at their 38.
"Never argue with stupid people.  They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

Offline NCVAReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-1
Re: Enforcement
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2017, 02:36:07 PM »
What about 9-6-2 and 9-6-3?

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1205
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-42
Re: Enforcement
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2017, 03:25:37 PM »
I've got 1st and 10 for A at their 38.

You really want to cite 9-6-1.  What's OK for B or R is not OK for A or K. If A goes out of bounds to block B (who has unintentionally or accidentally stepped out of bounds), he (A) has participated illegally.  If B has INTENTIONALLY gone out of bounds, he has not fouled unless he commits a-d of Article 2

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 659
  • FAN REACTION: +41/-7
Re: Enforcement
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2017, 03:52:20 PM »
It's not a foul for IP unless/until the player of A or K returns to the field.  In the OP, the player doesn't return, so we can't have a foul for IP. 
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 03:54:32 PM by FLAHL »
"Never argue with stupid people.  They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1205
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-42
Re: Enforcement
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2017, 10:05:43 PM »
It's not a foul for IP unless/until the player of A or K returns to the field.  In the OP, the player doesn't return, so we can't have a foul for IP.

Coupled with Art 2, to foul does not require BOTH (1) returning to the field and (2) influencing - or otherwise participating in the play.  If A/K goes out of bounds and just stands there...no foul; but if A/K does a, b, c, or d of Art 2, he HAS fouled.  He can influence/participate in (illegally) the play by blocking B out of bounds.  No return necessary...

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 659
  • FAN REACTION: +41/-7
Re: Enforcement
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2017, 07:38:30 AM »
Here's my rationale - B3 "backed across the sideline" so he wasn't going to tackle A1, who was 3 yards away.  A1 went OOB anyway, so there was no advantage gained. To me, this is nothing. It's like holding away from the point of attack. May be worth talking to A2, but that's it. I want our crew to get the "train wrecks" that influence the play and anything related to safety. IMO, this is neither.
"Never argue with stupid people.  They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

Offline NCVAReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-1
Re: Enforcement
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2017, 08:31:27 AM »
These case plays aren't always as descriptive as they can be.  But in the case of A going OOB and subsequently initiating contact against an OOB B player are you getting that as a personal foul instead of IP even considering this all happens near the ball carrier during a live ball?

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3270
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-472
Re: Enforcement
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2017, 09:20:32 AM »
Whether or not the technical application of a rule supersedes the understood intention of the rule (being considered) is a constant judgment an official has to make on what is specifically being observed, which is why we've cautioned (and trained) to observe the entire event we're judging. 

Trying to lock down absolute results and decisions based exclusively on language, without a full understanding of how, and what, we've actually observed can be problematic.  One size rarely, if ever, automatically fits all."

Offline NCVAReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-1
Re: Enforcement
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2017, 11:26:38 AM »
I agree with you each play is different and judgment is an important part of each play.  But in the black and white language of this case play, and considering the black and white of the rules we're talking here, if A goes OOB and initiates contact against an OOB B player, to me we have to have either IP or a PF, all other things equal. 

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3270
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-472
Re: Enforcement
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2017, 12:01:32 PM »
Therein lays the problem with hypothetical questions.  As FLAHL suggests above, "Here's my rationale - B3 "backed across the sideline" so he wasn't going to tackle A1, who was 3 yards away.  A1 went OOB anyway, so there was no advantage gained. To me, this is nothing. It's like holding away from the point of attack. May be worth talking to A2, but that's it."

Everyone is required to ALWAYS know EXACTLY where ALL the lines are (which are ALWAYS presumed to be EXACTLY straight), but in the absence of any advantage being gained, or any inappropriate intent to harm, do we advance the game more by a well placed "word to the wise" or a conspicuous penalty?

If you CHOOSE to adopt a "One size fits all" policy, you can, but it will likely hamper your judgment a lot more than it will clarify it.