More "Brilliant" Sportscasters

[TXMike]

[yt=425,350]4kE5ITst108[/yt]

[TxSkyBolt]

I love the text overlay...

[Sonofanump]

I think they did not listen to a single word that the sideline reporter said.

[DD]

Even if the receiver was forced out, the referee should have stopped the game and made an announcement as to why there was no foul.

[110]

Even if the receiver was forced out, the referee should have stopped the game and made an announcement as to why there was no foul.

Why should we, as officials, compensate for the lack of knowledge others may or may not have? There was no foul here, no officials conference, no controversy (save in the minds of the clowns behind the microphones) that would necessitate a yap session over the mike.

Sorry, I'm in the media biz, and I have little patience for announcers that don't know what the (*&W#(*&# they're calling.

[chymechowder]

mechanics question:

Do you throw your hat when the receiver is forced out, as well as when he steps out on his own?

I've heard different things. Some say only throw hat when receiver goes out on his own.  Others say throw it when he's forced out, too. (Like in this clip.) 

But that's always seemed strange to me: because the same symbol can represent two completely opposite things.

Why not throw different things?

hat down (went out on his own) + first touch = foul
bean bag (forced out and came right back) + first touch = no foul

This way, it'd be easy to justify to the coach why you've got a flag or no flag.  But if you use the hat for both of them, it kind of defeats the purpose of letting everyone know you saw something, right?

In the case of this clip, certainly the announcers didn't know what they were talking about. But I can understand why the coach might be upset.

Coach: "Hey that guy went out of bounds!  You even threw your hat!"

Official: "Yes, I threw the hat. And yes, sometimes the hat will be the smoking gun for a flag. But in this case, it's the smoking gun for a no-call."

Coach:   

[110]

mechanics question:

Do you throw your hat when the receiver is forced out, as well as when he steps out on his own?

Canadian process is to simply take a licence plate of a player that goes out on his/her own volition. Flag only comes if that player returns and willingly participates in a play. Seems logical to me.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Was he actually forced OB?  Don't see any "forced OB" contact in the clip and it appears that he's already behind the defender on an out pattern when he plants a foot well OB prior to changing direction and heading downfield.  No better views of this?

[Grant - AR]

mechanics question:

Do you throw your hat when the receiver is forced out, as well as when he steps out on his own?

I've heard different things. Some say only throw hat when receiver goes out on his own.  Others say throw it when he's forced out, too. (Like in this clip.)  

But that's always seemed strange to me: because the same symbol can represent two completely opposite things.

Why not throw different things?

hat down (went out on his own) + first touch = foul
bean bag (forced out and came right back) + first touch = no foul

This way, it'd be easy to justify to the coach why you've got a flag or no flag.  But if you use the hat for both of them, it kind of defeats the purpose of letting everyone know you saw something, right?

In the case of this clip, certainly the announcers didn't know what they were talking about. But I can understand why the coach might be upset.

Coach: "Hey that guy went out of bounds!  You even threw your hat!"

Official: "Yes, I threw the hat. And yes, sometimes the hat will be the smoking gun for a flag. But in this case, it's the smoking gun for a no-call."

Coach:  

We throw our hat any time a receiver goes out of bounds...forced out or on his own.  The only thing the hat does is signal that we saw the receiver go out of bounds.  If he went out on his own or didn't come back in "immediately" after being forced out and is the first to touch the ball, we then throw our flag to signal a foul.  

[Osric Pureheart]

I was once told that the reasoning behind throwing something regardless of whether he was forced out or not was to show your supervisor that you actually saw the guy going out of bounds...

[Diablo]

Why should we, as officials, compensate for the lack of knowledge others may or may not have? There was no foul here, no officials conference, no controversy (save in the minds of the clowns behind the microphones) that would necessitate a yap session over the mike.

Sorry, I'm in the media biz, and I have little patience for announcers that don't know what the (*&W#(*&# they're calling.

It's a given, in general, the public does not look favorably on officials.  This is brought about primarily by Jack & Jill Public's lack of knowledge in the rules and how officials administer them - especially rare situations.  A microphone on the R gives us an opportunity to explain a call or no call.  I believe we should take advantage of the opportunity to educate fans & coaches as much as possible.

[Diablo]

Was he actually forced OB?  Don't see any "forced OB" contact in the clip and it appears that he's already behind the defender on an out pattern when he plants a foot well OB prior to changing direction and heading downfield.  No better views of this?

As a reminder, there was a recent (2009) editorial change to the exception for loss of eligibility by going OB (7-3-4).  "Blocked", i.e. forced, was removed and the new criteria is "out of bounds due to contact by an opponent".  Although this makes it easier for the Team A receiver to avoid a foul, it also makes it much easier for officials to administer the exception.

In case you are wondering, the companion passages for OB Team A players on kick plays (6-1-2-f & 6-3-12) are unchanged.  Granting the exception requires that the Team A player be blocked OB.

[TXMike]

I know at least 1 conference which says (or used to anyway) that if the 2 players are running near the sideline and there is no clear separation between them, if the receiver steps out he is deemed not to have not gone out on his own.

[PSK]

mechanics question:

Do you throw your hat when the receiver is forced out, as well as when he steps out on his own?

I've heard different things. Some say only throw hat when receiver goes out on his own.  Others say throw it when he's forced out, too. (Like in this clip.) 

But that's always seemed strange to me: because the same symbol can represent two completely opposite things.

Why not throw different things?

hat down (went out on his own) + first touch = foul
bean bag (forced out and came right back) + first touch = no foul

This way, it'd be easy to justify to the coach why you've got a flag or no flag.  But if you use the hat for both of them, it kind of defeats the purpose of letting everyone know you saw something, right?

In the case of this clip, certainly the announcers didn't know what they were talking about. But I can understand why the coach might be upset.

Coach: "Hey that guy went out of bounds!  You even threw your hat!"

Official: "Yes, I threw the hat. And yes, sometimes the hat will be the smoking gun for a flag. But in this case, it's the smoking gun for a no-call."

Coach:   

The hat signals that the covering official is aware the receiver was out of bounds.  The flag, if thrown, signals that the receiver was judged to be out of bounds on his own or did not return immediately upon being forced out.

Coach: "Hey that guy went out of bounds!  You even threw your hat!"

Official: "Coach, he was forced out."

End of conversation.

[MJT]

We are told to put a hat down anytime we see a receiver OOB's, and we will have a flag if he is not forced out. We also have been instructed to use the mic to explain "no calls." This would be a great use of the mic, explaining to coaches/standsfans/TVfans why we do not have a foul on the play.

[Aussie-Zebra]

How much leeway do you give to immediately - the next step or the next few steps or within 10 yards ?

This question was recently put forward

A6 and B88 run together down the sideline as QB A2 throws a forward pass . A6 goes OOB on his own as B88 touches the legal forward pass near a sideline. A6 returns inbounds immediately and catches the ball and runs into the EZ.

The result of the play is ........
A) The ball is dead as soon as A6 touches it
B) Touchdown
C) Illegal Touching

No one answered correctly.

[MJT]

How much leeway do you give to immediately - the next step or the next few steps ?

That totally depends and it is a "have to see it to know" type of thing. If the force out has him and his momentum going more OOB's then it might take him several/many steps to legitimately get back IB's. As long as in your judgment he came back in as soon as he could, it is fine.

[Diablo]

This question was recently put forward

A6 and B88 run together down the sideline as QB A2 throws a forward pass . A6 goes OOB on his own as B88 touches the legal forward pass near a sideline. A6 returns inbounds immediately and catches the ball and runs into the EZ.

The result of the play is ........
A) The ball is dead as soon as A6 touches it
B) Touchdown
C) Illegal Touching

No one answered correctly.

I'll go with B) TD

[MJT]

How much leeway do you give to immediately - the next step or the next few steps or within 10 yards ?

This question was recently put forward

A6 and B88 run together down the sideline as QB A2 throws a forward pass . A6 goes OOB on his own as B88 touches the legal forward pass near a sideline. A6 returns inbounds immediately and catches the ball and runs into the EZ.

The result of the play is ........
A) The ball is dead as soon as A6 touches it
B) Touchdown
C) Illegal Touching

No one answered correctly.

You edited the question, adding the play after I answered the part about immediately.
The result of the play would be "B", a TD, as when B touched the pass, all players became eligible again.

Aussie-Zebra, if they are forced out, but do not come IB's immediately, they are still ineligible, and thus we have illegal touching (signal 16), which is a LOD at the PSpot foul.

[Aussie-Zebra]

Is there a rule or AR with a penalty if he doesn't return in bounds "immediately" or is it a USC as was suggested to me somewhere else ?

[Welpe]

Is there a rule or AR with a penalty if he doesn't return in bounds "immediately" or is it a USC as was suggested to me somewhere else ?

Rule 7-3-4

ARTICLE 4. No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds during a
down shall touch a legal forward pass in the field of play or end zones or while
airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A.R. 7-3-4-I-III).

[Exception: This does not apply to an eligible offensive player who attempts
to return inbounds immediately after going out of bounds due to contact by an
opponent (A.R. 7-3-4-IV)].

PENALTY—Loss of down at the previous spot [S16 and S9].

[Welpe]

AR 7-3-4-IV

Wide receiver A88 is blocked out of bounds by B1 and then runs 20
yards before returning to the field of play. A88 catches a legal pass in
Team B’s end zone.

RULING: Foul for illegal touching due to A88’s
failure to return inbounds immediately. Penalty—Loss of down at the
previous spot.

[Welpe]

I think they did not listen to a single word that the sideline reporter said.

I'm sure they heard every word, in smug anticipation that they were correct.  Their silence afterwards is hilarious.

[chymechowder]

We throw our hat any time a receiver goes out of bounds...forced out or on his own.  The only thing the hat does is signal that we saw the receiver go out of bounds.  If he went out on his own or didn't come back in "immediately" after being forced out and is the first to touch the ball, we then throw our flag to signal a foul.  

Agreed. But my question is, WHY do we signal that we saw the receiver go out of bounds?  What is the purpose of the mechanic?

We see players do other things that could lead to flags, but we don't signal.  Yes, some things we signal to each other, like a running back being outside the tackle box before the snap.  But that's sharing information.  Most things that we notice ahead of time, we simply have a flag if and when the foul occurs. (For example, you see tight end A87 covered up. He goes downfield. Then a forward pass crosses the neutral zone. You flag. Neither your WH nor the coach of the offense asks you to demonstrate that you saw A87 covered up presnap.)  

So why does the receiver OOB warrant a signal that is early, overt and not used by anyone other than the person who drops the hat?   I had always thought it was an offering of proof, of sorts, for a potential flag.  A preemptive way of backing up your call.  But more important, a potentially big call.  Otherwise, you could just have the flag, right?  Put another way, what's the problem with simply--and "hatlessly"--reporting to the WH that A80 went out of bounds on his own and was the first to touch?  

Is it not because we need to "prove" that we saw A80 go out of bounds?

And if we do need to "prove" this, shouldn't the offer of proof be different than the offer of proof for A80 being forced out?

[110]

Maybe we should toss our hats for other acts that are not illegal, as well.