Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
Would it be beneficial to have a rule change obligating players to avoid hitting officials in the field of play, at the  risk of a PF? That way they’d be less likely to try to screen off of you and hopefully try a little harder to avoid contact. For -5 yards, the coaches would for sure want them to avoid hitting the U.
2
Oklahoma last year allowed U to work from the offensive backfield in an attempt to keep them from being breathed on by linebackers.

My U tried it this year and went behind the defense during 2 minute drill and goalline situations. Felt it helped with some of his holding calls and hurt other calls he had to make and was safer. Not sure if the state wants to keep allowing/encouraging it or if he wants to do it again.
3
National Federation Discussion / Re: Umpire moving to the Offensive backfield
« Last post by HLinNC on Yesterday at 11:19:22 AM »
First off, the "C" position in NCAA is an additional official, not a replacement.  They still use an umpire in those conferences using 8 man mechanics, although it appears to me that the U works further back off the LOS now.

I know that we had one association west of us try it but they have stopped.  I know I watched one championship final last weekend that had a crew with the U in the o-backfield so it is still going on somewhere in NC but it is not an accepted mechanic for the most part.

Discussions that I have heard among senior officials that also have NCAA experience is that it really isn't feasible in a 5 man crew.  With 7 man crews, the wings stay on the LOS and at least give you some coverage on the edges but without them, a lot will be missed.  Given the state of our numbers, we aren't going to have 7 man crews in the regular season any time in the foreseeable future, if ever.

When umpire protection became a topic a few years back, I said that I can see a day when the U wears a hockey helmet on the field.
4
Apologies for not meeting your clarification requirements.  The question of either creating an additional "C" official's position, or adding that option to the existing configurations at the NFHS level, seems like a legitimate concern that might best be addressed by a thorough. and professional review.  The impact, and it's benefit, of the "C" position during the NCAA experiment should provide valuable insight and be a significant reference in consideration of such a review.

Applicability and practicality of conversion, in the NFHS environment,  for less than an 8 man officiating configuration utilizing a "C" position, would likely be a significant and important consideration as would determining overall benefit (or detraction) achieved by such a re-design.  Evaluating such a conversion through an organized, collaborative, sanctioned and thorough review and assessment, seems a potentially far more direct, and effective, path to a conclusive recommendation, in either direction, than endless "What if" bantering.

NFHS has a long, and generally successful practice, of establishing temporary "Trial" programs in selected jurisdictions to help evaluate, monitor and assess significant adjustments under actual competitive circumstances, to confirm potential benefit or verify potential prohibitions that may prove helpful in assessing this major adjustment.

A useable, practical conclusion, unfortunately, may require more serious, targeted evaluation than multiple research degrees, decades of on-field experience or even a long stay in a Holiday Inn might rationally produce.
5
Formation of a serious NFHS Committee of the pros/cons of the current Umpire mechanics and those mechanics currently employed by the creation of handling observation of center field activity from the "C" position would be a welcome effort to answer this question.

Assessment should include an honest assessment comparing the observation capability of both positions, any added safety features available to both options, impact on the performance of coverage from either/both perspectives and any coverage effect, or limitation, posed by either/both placements.

I have more than one degree from a major research university, and going on 40 years of NFHS football experience.  I have no idea what this means.

Of course, I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so there’s that.
6
I was on the Manual Committee from 2016 - 2020. Moving U to the backfield was often discussed but it was felt that in 4 and 5 man crews it would not provide as good coverage. I was an umpire for several years and fully realize the importance of "gittin' outa' da' road". I found that reading the guards would often tip the type of play and would enable me to not be there. When they retreat blocked, I'd read pass and move to the LOS which would usually take me out of any pass patterns. Hope you stick with it, Bubba Ump, and moving to white hat will allow you to see the players running away from you rather then at you !
7
Formation of a serious NFHS Committee of the pros/cons of the current Umpire mechanics and those mechanics currently employed by the creation of handling observation of center field activity from the "C" position would be a welcome effort to answer this question.

Assessment should include an honest assessment comparing the observation capability of both positions, any added safety features available to both options, impact on the performance of coverage from either/both perspectives and any coverage effect, or limitation, posed by either/both placements.
8
National Federation Discussion / Umpire moving to the Offensive backfield
« Last post by Bubba Ump on May 14, 2021, 05:24:24 PM »
Just wondering if there is any talk about moving the Umpire to a safer local.  In California we just finished up our season and I'll be the first to admit that I'm done being the human screen for crossing routes.  I have worked hundreds of games at Umpire including a few State Finals and this weird Covid season will be my last at "U".  I've worked tight to the line, I've worked 8 yards deep and I can see no reason to go back in there.  We lost one of our better Umpires, the first game of the season to a blown out knee, but he's like a 25 handicap.  I'm a 6 with Bandon Dunes weather report on my phone...  Seriously, we are having a tough time getting people to go in there.  I used to crave it and now I'm just trying to not get hurt.  The crossing routes, wide receiver screens and the RPO are putting us in the way like never before.  "You Tube" "Officials getting smacked".  I understand that no one is safe out on the field and there is probably more risk driving to the game.  I would just love the option to join the College officials and call it the "C" position.  Love to hear your thoughts.... 
9
NCAA Discussion / Re: Impetus (and A's lack thereof)
« Last post by dammitbobby on May 14, 2021, 04:09:48 PM »
Impetus is what causes the ball to travel from the field of play into the end zone, even if that impetus is imparted on the ball while it is in the end zone. This is easy enough to envision when the ball is fumbled, passed, kicked or batted in the field of play, then travels across the goal line where it becomes dead. However, it may be a little harder to envision a ball getting fumbled, passed, kicked, or batted while in the end zone, and then it travels into the field of play, then returns over the goal line into the end zone, where it becomes dead. But that is what this scenario offers. The ball was already in the end zone from the batting by Team B in the field of play. Had the ball stayed behind the goal line and become dead, even after A4's kick, the impetus would have been from the batting, and the result would have been a touchback.
Impetus on the ball was still with the batting until the ball traveled into the field of play. Then, when it returned into the end zone, the kicking of the ball is what caused it to travel from the field of play, back into the end zone where it became dead. Thus, the impetus was from the kick.

To reinforce this concept, if a punter receives the snap in the end zone, at that moment, impetus is with the snap. Even when he kicks the ball, impetus is with the snap, until we know what happens with the kicked ball. If it goes directly OB in the end zone, the result is a safety, but not because of the kick, itself. It is because Team A put the ball into the end zone from the field of play with the snap, and then the ball became dead there. Impetus remained with the snap.
By the same token, when Team A punts the ball, and a Team B players catches the ball in the end zone, then, while still in the end zone, throws a backward pass out of bounds behind the goal line, that's just a touchback, because Team A is responsible for the ball being behind B's goal line (impetus is with the kick), where it became dead.

This is where it clicked, thanks.
10
NCAA Discussion / Re: Impetus (and A's lack thereof)
« Last post by ElvisLives on May 14, 2021, 03:13:43 PM »
OK, I would have gotten this wrong... and I don't understand the rationale. 

8-5-2-a Initial Impetus

ARTICLE 2. a. The impetus imparted by a player who kicks, passes, snaps or fumbles the ball shall be considered responsible for the ball’s progress in any direction even though its course is deflected or reversed after striking the ground or after touching an official or a player of either team.

2-16-1-a Kicking the Ball; Legal and Illegal Kicks
ARTICLE 1. a. Kicking the ball is intentionally striking the ball with the knee, lower leg or foot.
b. A legal kick is a punt, drop kick or place kick made according to the rules by a player of Team A before a change of team possession. Kicking the ball in any other manner is illegal (A.R. 6-1-2-I).
c. Any free kick or scrimmage kick continues to be a kick until it is caught or recovered by a player or becomes dead.

I'm not understanding that since a kick is a kick is a kick, why that isn't considered new impetus, as I understand it from 8-5-2-a?

Impetus is what causes the ball to travel from the field of play into the end zone, even if that impetus is imparted on the ball while it is in the end zone. This is easy enough to envision when the ball is fumbled, passed, kicked or batted in the field of play, then travels across the goal line where it becomes dead. However, it may be a little harder to envision a ball getting fumbled, passed, kicked, or batted while in the end zone, and then it travels into the field of play, then returns over the goal line into the end zone, where it becomes dead. But that is what this scenario offers. The ball was already in the end zone from the batting by Team B in the field of play. Had the ball stayed behind the goal line and become dead, even after A4's kick, the impetus would have been from the batting, and the result would have been a touchback.
Impetus on the ball was still with the batting until the ball traveled into the field of play. Then, when it returned into the end zone, the kicking of the ball is what caused it to travel from the field of play, back into the end zone where it became dead. Thus, the impetus was from the kick.

To reinforce this concept, if a punter receives the snap in the end zone, at that moment, impetus is with the snap. Even when he kicks the ball, impetus is with the snap, until we know what happens with the kicked ball. If it goes directly OB in the end zone, the result is a safety, but not because of the kick, itself. It is because Team A put the ball into the end zone from the field of play with the snap, and then the ball became dead there. Impetus remained with the snap.
By the same token, when Team A punts the ball, and a Team B players catches the ball in the end zone, then, while still in the end zone, throws a backward pass out of bounds behind the goal line, that's just a touchback, because Team A is responsible for the ball being behind B's goal line (impetus is with the kick), where it became dead.





Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10