Football Theory II

[CalhounLJ]

i agree with this. IMO, there is 0% difference between ruling a pass forward to ensure A keeps the ball and ruling a player down to ensure A keeps the ball. But that's just me

[NVFOA_Ump]

i agree with this. IMO, there is 0% difference between ruling a pass forward to ensure A keeps the ball and ruling a player down to ensure A keeps the ball. But that's just me

Agree in principle but the reasoning could be better worded IMHO:   .... there is 0% difference between ruling a pass forward since no one had it clearly backward and ruling a player down prior to a loose ball since no one had the ball out before the player was down.

[AlUpstateNY]

Agree in principle but the reasoning could be better worded IMHO:   .... there is 0% difference between ruling a pass forward since no one had it clearly backward and ruling a player down prior to a loose ball since no one had the ball out before the player was down.

Considering consistency, when you're when you're following a runner, from outside the sideline, and you see his head jerk, during a tackle, from inside the field of play, but can't actually see the opponent's hand and/or whether the facemask might have been involved, are you presuming and throwing a flag?

There's no requirement, or rational expectation, that we always actually see everything, but we are expected to rule correctly on everything  that we actually see.

[CalhounLJ]

Agree in principle but the reasoning could be better worded IMHO:   .... there is 0% difference between ruling a pass forward since no one had it clearly backward and ruling a player down prior to a loose ball since no one had the ball out before the player was down.

Yes that’s much better. Exactly what I meant to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

Considering consistency, when you're when you're following a runner, from outside the sideline, and you see his head jerk, during a tackle, from inside the field of play, but can't actually see the opponent's hand and/or whether the facemask might have been involved, are you presuming and throwing a flag?

There's no requirement, or rational expectation, that we always actually see everything, but we are expected to rule correctly on everything  that we actually see.

So in the actual topic, are you saying that because we don’t actually see the fumble, we shouldn’t rule it a fumble? Or are you saying that because we don’t actually see the ball down and dead in possession we SHOULD rule it a fumble? #imconfused


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

What about those cases when we are not sure exactly what if anything we did see?  Problem is, in the cases of passes and fumbles we have to rule something.  If it’s a face mask or a hold we can ignore those and not call anything. But when a runner goes down and the ball comes out, it HAS to be something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Derek Teigen]

Considering consistency, when you're when you're following a runner, from outside the sideline, and you see his head jerk, during a tackle, from inside the field of play, but can't actually see the opponent's hand and/or whether the facemask might have been involved, are you presuming and throwing a flag?

There's no requirement, or rational expectation, that we always actually see everything, but we are expected to rule correctly on everything  that we actually see.

I had this happen to me in a game last year.  I saw the runners head 'jerk' but did not see the defenders hand on his facemask so I could not call what I did not see.  What I could do is ask anybody else if they saw something, confer and then penalize according to what was actually seen. 

The question on this forward or backward pass is who is in the best position to make that judgement?  and when in doubt we refer back to what others in here are saying and that when in doubt it is a forward pass, when in doubt it is not a fumble.  No cheap fumbles is what has been drilled into my head.

[dammitbobby]

With no disrespect intended, this is the RefStripes National Federation Discussion Page.
As such, the Texas/TASO philosophy's are NOT valid on this page. (They could however be valid on the Texas Topics Page)
NFHS Officials are expected to (and paid to) follow NFHS Guidelines.


From the 2020 NFHS Official's Manual, Page 86

GUIDES FOR - “WHEN IN QUESTION”
• Incomplete pass or fumble ............incomplete pass
• Forward or backward pass ......................forward
• Kick or pass touched or not...........................not
• Catch or not........................................no catch
• Passer has thrown or fumbled ..............has thrown
• Touchback or safety ...........................touchback
• Defenseless or not ...........................defenseless
• Excessive/Unnecessary or not........excessive/unnecessary
• Fumble or dead ball ...............................dead ball
• Helmet on or off .......................................off
• Accidental or intentional ......................accidental
   a. Contact
   b. Touching
   c. Kicking
• 5-15 Face Mask.............................................15
• 5-15 Kicker/Holder .......................................15

No disrespect taken, it's all good.  Sometimes I forget there's a difference between the two on here.  In this instance, I was pointing out the Texas philosophy to highlight how it is different, not that NHFS should adhere to that. Hope that makes sense.

On that note - this is something that I find very interesting, the distinction between the two philosophies.  They are pretty much polar opposites.  I'm curious the rationale that was used for the differing stances between the two.

[GA Umpire]

No disrespect taken, it's all good.  Sometimes I forget there's a difference between the two on here.  In this instance, I was pointing out the Texas philosophy to highlight how it is different, not that NHFS should adhere to that. Hope that makes sense.

On that note - this is something that I find very interesting, the distinction between the two philosophies.  They are pretty much polar opposites.  I'm curious the rationale that was used for the differing stances between the two.

Capability of replay?   

[dammitbobby]

No, was referring specifically to the philosophy of 'when in doubt, fumble (Texas) or down (NHFS)

[AlUpstateNY]

No, was referring specifically to the philosophy of 'when in doubt, fumble (Texas) or down (NHFS)

Perhaps the OBVIOUS difference in BOTH skill level and experience

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, if the arm is coming forward WITH the ball, which is jarred loose with contact, it would be an incomplete FORWARD pass.
IMHO, if the ball is jarred loose before the arm starts forward, and he "throws" with an empty hand, it would be a fumble.

You may wish to further study the Brady tuck play..... (Patriot fans)

[KWH]

IMHO, if the arm is coming forward WITH the ball, which is jarred loose with contact, it would be an incomplete FORWARD pass.
IMHO, if the ball is jarred loose before the arm starts forward, and he "throws" with an empty hand, it would be a fumble.

You may wish to further study the Brady tuck play..... (Patriot fans)

I agree with Ralph!
I also agree that Brady provided how to intentionally ground a football from his own end zone by throwing it 65 yards downfield into no mans land for a safety!   

[Lhaskins]

Rule it forward