RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Texas Topics => Topic started by: psv on December 18, 2020, 11:06:12 AM
-
Canadian Franklin - 13 seconds left. Franklin #24 is being tackled near the sideline. The contact starts inbounds, but he is not technically down until he was out of bounds. His forward momentum was not stopped in bounds. The Short Flank wound it.
This isnt peewee, SV or a blowout... this was a close game and it forced Franklin to use their last timeout.
The clock should have been stopped.
-
Canadian Franklin - 13 seconds left. Franklin #24 is being tackled near the sideline. The contact starts inbounds, but he is not technically down until he was out of bounds. His forward momentum was not stopped in bounds. The Short Flank wound it.
This isnt peewee, SV or a blowout... this was a close game and it forced Franklin to use their last timeout.
The clock should have been stopped.
Just possible, the (impartial) covering official saw it slightly different than you.
-
Also possible, he made an error. I get it, that officials miss things or get something wrong, but the much bigger error the crew made was not stopping to review, which left 3 seconds that ran off the clock that should have been put back on, (10 seconds instead of 13) and they could have kept their timeout. That would have likely given them two plays to score, instead of just one.
-
Is forward progress reviewable for clock status? Seems like a highly subjective judgment call tome, like holding etc..
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
As I interpret this, I believe so, but not to determine forward progress (that's only reviewable if the line to gain or a TD are in question), but whether or not he was tackled in or out of bounds.
ARTICLE 3. Reviewable plays involving potential dead balls and loose balls include:
g. Ball carrier in or out of bounds. If a ball carrier is ruled out of bounds, the play is not reviewable, except as in Rules 12-3-1-a and 12-3-3-d.
-
Also possible, he made an error. I get it, that officials miss things or get something wrong, but the much bigger error the crew made was not stopping to review, which left 3 seconds that ran off the clock that should have been put back on, (10 seconds instead of 13) and they could have kept their timeout. That would have likely given them two plays to score, instead of just one.
If you're seeking absolute and consistent perfection, football officiating may not be the place to find it. The best we can strive for is consistent "Excellence", and as Mr. Lombardi suggested, although "perfection" is NOT attainable, consistently pursuing it can help us achieve and maintain "excellence". "Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda" are false arguments, if either team was ahead by 10 points, it wouldn't have much mattered.
-
If you're seeking absolute and consistent perfection, football officiating may not be the place to find it. The best we can strive for is consistent "Excellence", and as Mr. Lombardi suggested, although "perfection" is NOT attainable, consistently pursuing it can help us achieve and maintain "excellence". "Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda" are false arguments, if either team was ahead by 10 points, it wouldn't have much mattered.
Maybe for you. But every time I step out on the field, I expect perfection, from me, and my crew mates. Do we achieve it? Of course not. I don't care if it's a 7th grade game or a varsity playoff game, I expect us to ball out every play, 100%. And when we don't, we try to learn from it, so we can do it better next time. Doesn't mean we don't keep striving for perfection, even though it's not attainable.
If you want to have a lower standard for yourself, that's on you.
And in this specific situation, it absolutely mattered as it was a one point game.
-
As I interpret this, I believe so, but not to determine forward progress (that's only reviewable if the line to gain or a TD are in question), but whether or not he was tackled in or out of bounds.
ARTICLE 3. Reviewable plays involving potential dead balls and loose balls include:
g. Ball carrier in or out of bounds. If a ball carrier is ruled out of bounds, the play is not reviewable, except as in Rules 12-3-1-a and 12-3-3-d.
My point is that replay would not be able to correct this error if indeed it was an error. It’s total judgment by the covering official as to whether the play was over due to forward progress stopped. But then again, I’m not versed on replay so maybe somebody who is could offer some guidance.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb1Yl5S6azk&feature=youtu.be
-
"but the much bigger error the crew made was not stopping to review"...dammitbobby
In these games the on-field crew does not have the option to review anything, nor do the coaches. Every play is reviewed by D1 college replay officials and they decide when an official review is necessary. Perhaps they saw something differently than the replay Fox Sports showed.
But I do appreciate how people can sit on their couch, watch a game on TV and act just like the casual fans and parents they get on here and complain about. Good job.
Happy Holidays everyone and congrats to all of those selected to work post-season assignments.
-
I agree the clock should have been stopped on this play. Not only is it situational but the defense also did not do their job by ensuring the runner was tackled in bounds. And one cannot argue forward progress in bounds.
In watching this game there were numerous clock issues that took place on this last drive so this particular play simply added to that list of issues.
-
Yes, I was incorrect, in that the crew cannot stop the game to review. My mistake.
That said, this is something that should be discussed and reviewed so people can learn from it. I could care less who won the game, I care about advancing officiating and in situations like this, these kinds of error must be minimized, because it makes ALL of us look bad, and when we hide behind a wall of silence and can't acknowledge errors or mistakes, that hurts us all. Covering our eyes and pretending they don't happen doesn't do anyone any good. Acknowledge them and learn from them.
-
Maybe for you. But every time I step out on the field, I expect perfection, from me, and my crew mates. Do we achieve it? Of course not. I don't care if it's a 7th grade game or a varsity playoff game, I expect us to ball out every play, 100%. And when we don't, we try to learn from it, so we can do it better next time. Doesn't mean we don't keep striving for perfection, even though it's not attainable.
If you want to have a lower standard for yourself, that's on you.
And in this specific situation, it absolutely mattered as it was a one point game.
Forgive me bobby, but it seems your "assuming" 1. the clock should have stopped, 2. assuming, the field official misjudged the play ending in-bounds and 3. assuming the Offense was entitled to 3 extra seconds and a clock stoppage. Of course, you're entitled to those assumptions, but they extend no further than you. THE call was made and the responsibility for making it rests ENTIRELY with the covering official.
What "Coulda, shoulda, woulda, mighta" happened, simply doesn't matter. It's not about the official's "Standards" and why would you QUESTION they were anything less than yours? If you want to pursue perfection, great, but the best you'll ever catch is consistent excellence, and that will require constant effort, learning and a willingness to adapt to endless assessment and evaluation. Wanting to be perfect is a great START, but it's only a start, up a really steep hill.
-
Forgive me bobby, but it seems your "assuming" 1. the clock should have stopped, 2. assuming, the field official misjudged the play ending in-bounds and 3. assuming the Offense was entitled to 3 extra seconds and a clock stoppage. Of course, you're entitled to those assumptions, but they extend no further than you. THE call was made and the responsibility for making it rests ENTIRELY with the covering official.
Not to speak for dammitbobby but we point these things out to get better. This was an error in decision making/loss of focus/whatever by the short flank at a crucial juncture of the game.
1) There is no assumption here. I am staying, factually, the clock should have been stopped. The fact that the short flank wound it is an error. Fairly serious one considering the circumstances of the game at this juncture.
2) I am stating for a fact, the calling official misjudged this play and made an error. No need to assume. I am also correct in my analysis. This isnt a guess or an opinion. Watch the play. Tell me where in that play would have been an opportunity for the clock to stop if you disagree.
3) I am unsure what replay could have done here.
The bottom line is that this was a material error at a crucial time. If the crew reads the boards, they have something to work on. If they dont, we all have something to work on because we dont want to be in that crucial situation and make the same mistake.
Merry Christmas :)
-
So does anyone disagree with PSV opinion? I’m going to tell you what I saw. The kid is hit inbounds and goes a little forward then out of bounds. I can see why the covering official wound the clock. Initial contact was inbounds. After the coach was done yelling at me why I didn’t stop the clock, I would explain what I saw. Then say look up a that ginormous screen above us. See he’s hit inbounds first. He’d be like no but he fell out of bounds or something along those words. Then I’d say your kid should run OOB instead of trying to get more yards. That would have stopped the clock. He’d disagree and we’d move on. But like I said I can see why he wound it.
-
The primary point of this discussion board IMHO is for us to get better at what we do. As we all know, and Al frequently points out, we never going to reach perfection. The issue to reinforce here is that we can only call what we actually see and that we should not under any circumstances be calling something that we had to assume happened. Spending time pointing out that HD multiple angle replays we have available shows an error was made is not real helpful or instructive. Important lesson here is what can we do to do it better? Maybe don't get to close to the play (sometimes if it comes to us it's unavoidable), call what we actually see, and simply do our best.
-
So does anyone disagree with PSV opinion? I’m going to tell you what I saw. The kid is hit inbounds and goes a little forward then out of bounds. I can see why the covering official wound the clock. Initial contact was inbounds. After the coach was done yelling at me why I didn’t stop the clock, I would explain what I saw. Then say look up a that ginormous screen above us. See he’s hit inbounds first. He’d be like no but he fell out of bounds or something along those words. Then I’d say your kid should run OOB instead of trying to get more yards. That would have stopped the clock. He’d disagree and we’d move on. But like I said I can see why he wound it.
So let's learn. A forward progress call by rule REQUIRES that the succeeding spot be FORWARD of where the play ended. It has virtually nothing to do with where the first contact was. On this specific play the calling official very clearly marks the succeeding spot as the OB spot so by rule that's not forward progress.
-
So does anyone disagree with PSV opinion? I’m going to tell you what I saw. The kid is hit inbounds and goes a little forward then out of bounds. I can see why the covering official wound the clock. Initial contact was inbounds. After the coach was done yelling at me why I didn’t stop the clock, I would explain what I saw. Then say look up a that ginormous screen above us. See he’s hit inbounds first. He’d be like no but he fell out of bounds or something along those words. Then I’d say your kid should run OOB instead of trying to get more yards. That would have stopped the clock. He’d disagree and we’d move on. But like I said I can see why he wound it.
I do not disagree with PSV but I do disagree with this take. I don't want to sound too literal but saying "initial contact was inbounds" is not the appropriate response. The post above me states it correctly that it's all about forward progress being in bounds if you're going to keep the clock running. That forward progress must be in front of where the runner went OB. In this situation you cannot keep the clock running, claim it's because of forward progress in bounds only to give team A the ball where the runner went out of bounds in front of the initial contact. You can certainly try to explain what you saw, and that's perfectly fine. But you DO NOT advise the coach to then look up at the screen and watch the replay. You also DO NOT watch the replay yourself. Telling a coach to watch the replay is asking for trouble and not the proper way to manage a sideline. If I was a coach and you said to me "see he's hit inbounds first" my response to you would be every player is usually hit inbounds first, in some way, before going out of bounds. Then you have no argument. Again, not trying to be too literal in this statement but this is the way it's going to be perceived.
-
I do not disagree with PSV but I do disagree with this take. I don't want to sound too literal but saying "initial contact was inbounds" is not the appropriate response. The post above me states it correctly that it's all about forward progress being in bounds if you're going to keep the clock running. That forward progress must be in front of where the runner went OB. In this situation you cannot keep the clock running, claim it's because of forward progress in bounds only to give team A the ball where the runner went out of bounds in front of the initial contact. You can certainly try to explain what you saw, and that's perfectly fine. But you DO NOT advise the coach to then look up at the screen and watch the replay. You also DO NOT watch the replay yourself. Telling a coach to watch the replay is asking for trouble and not the proper way to manage a sideline. If I was a coach and you said to me "see he's hit inbounds first" my response to you would be every player is usually hit inbounds first, in some way, before going out of bounds. Then you have no argument. Again, not trying to be too literal in this statement but this is the way it's going to be perceived.
Agree about "the take". However, the covering official apparently considered Forward Progress stopped at the initial contact (inbounds) ending the play inbounds which kept the clock running. where he marked the spot may have been off, by an inch or two. Agree referencing the Jumbotron is a BAD idea, and unnecessary, and a simple confirmation, and clarification, of his judgment should be sufficient to explain the clock continuing to run.
The Coach can choose to disagree, but the result is entirely based on the judgment of the field official.
-
Agree about "the take". However, the covering official apparently considered Forward Progress stopped at the initial contact (inbounds) ending the play inbounds which kept the clock running. where he marked the spot may have been off, by an inch or two. Agree referencing the Jumbotron is a BAD idea, and unnecessary, and a simple confirmation, and clarification, of his judgment should be sufficient to explain the clock continuing to run.
The Coach can choose to disagree, but the result is entirely based on the judgment of the field official.
His judgment was wrong. He made a bad call. It happens.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Pet Peeve:
I hate the mechanic of a covering official winding the clock. The clock is running and the only signal required in this instance is a STOP THE CLOCK. Even when the line to gain has been made, the STC signal is sufficient and then a vocal acknowledgement to the R or a visual signal to the R for in bound or out of bounds.
Just my nickel's worth.
BTW: He missed this call badly. No way in the world that this was anything but out of bounds. May have had a .1% impact on the final score but its too bad that a good official (don't even know the chapter he is from) will be remembered for this one play.
-
Pet Peeve:
I hate the mechanic of a covering official winding the clock. The clock is running and the only signal required in this instance is a STOP THE CLOCK. Even when the line to gain has been made, the STC signal is sufficient and then a vocal acknowledgement to the R or a visual signal to the R for in bound or out of bounds.
Just my nickel's worth.
BTW: He missed this call badly. No way in the world that this was anything but out of bounds. May have had a .1% impact on the final score but its too bad that a good official (don't even know the chapter he is from) will be remembered for this one play.
Regarding the stop the clock signal, I get what you're saying about it not being required. However, it sure does help the opposite sideline to know if you've got the ball in bounds or out of bounds. Especially if it effects the opposite sideline. As an official on that sideline it gives me the opportunity to communicate to my coach that the clock is moving with him being inbounds without having to ask. Additionally, I've also been in countless games where the clock operator took it upon themselves to stop the clock on their own by thinking the runner went out of bounds. Then it gets frustrating to get the clock moving again. It's really a very minimum signal that goes a long way with communication and game management.
-
If I'm the clock operator I only stop the clock when the official gives the signal. If there are 2 seconds left and Team A just gained a first down inbounds near the sideline and that official gives the wind the clock signal before giving the stop the clock signal, those 2 seconds will be ran off. On a first down the only signal needed is to stop the clock. The covering official should then communicate that the clock is hot and that will be relayed to the opposite sideline quickly. Per TASO mechanic the winding signal should not be used if we are to stop the clock for a first down. This signal is only given when there isn't any reason to stop the clock, so if the next down will not be a 1st down, and the runner is stopped inbounds near the sideline, then we'd give the winding signal.
-
Pet Peeve:
I hate the mechanic of a covering official winding the clock. The clock is running and the only signal required in this instance is a STOP THE CLOCK.
Just my nickel's worth.
BTW: He missed this call badly. No way in the world that this was anything but out of bounds. May have had a .1% impact on the final score but its too bad that a good official (don't even know the chapter he is from) will be remembered for this one play.
Clarification, over speculation and possible confusion has been a worthwhile effort for over 100 years, especially when there's NO downside. Signals are intended to avoid speculation, possible confusion and wasted time (necessitated by having to adjust time). Only those, who really don't much matter, would be likely to judge and remember a good official, based on his decision on a play like this. It's something the clock operator and opposite side coach rely on.
Even a nickel has lost serious value, in recent times.
-
I'm good with winding the clock if it's close and there might be a question late in a half, especially from the far sideline. I do think some officials do it too much when the tackle is nowhere near the sideline or when time is not a factor.
If I'm the clock operator I only stop the clock when the official gives the signal. If there are 2 seconds left and Team A just gained a first down inbounds near the sideline and that official gives the wind the clock signal before giving the stop the clock signal, those 2 seconds will be ran off. On a first down the only signal needed is to stop the clock.
This is a a different scenario if the ball carrier has reached the LTG and I completely agree, Jason. If the clock needs to stop, just stop the clock. We can tell coaches and players that will start again.
-
Don’t be so technical. If the player gets out of bounds, give it to him.
-
Don’t be so technical. If the player gets out of bounds, give it to him.
When it's obvious, I trust "my" view & judgment. When it's close, I trust the "covering official" to guide my response. I don't have the authority, or inclination, to decide to "give" or "take away" anything from either team.
-
Don’t be so technical. If the player gets out of bounds, give it to him.
If he just barely OOB before going in the end zone, do you give it to him!
-
If he just barely OOB before going in the end zone, do you give it to him!
Yes? If he’s oob he’s oob. I’ll give him the oob spot. Every time.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Late to the party, but in no way, shape or form do I see any forward progress on this play. Think of it this way: If the same play happened in the middle of the field, where would you spot the ball?
-
Late to the party, but in no way, shape or form do I see any forward progress on this play. Think of it this way: If the same play happened in the middle of the field, where would you spot the ball?
Not intending to burst an bubbles, but...the view from 10-15 feet in real time, and video are different. the covering official was observing from an appropriate position and concluded the play, and forward progress ended in-bounds. As we ALL (Officials, Players, Coaches) should know and accept, his judgment is the ONLY one that matters (subject to possible instant peer review). All the kings horses and all the kings men are NOT going to change the decision at this late date.
Opinions are like butt-holes, everyone has one and it's different than anyone else's. Coulda, woulda, shoulda speculation is reserved for spectators (who paid for admission).
-
Not intending to burst an bubbles, but...the view from 10-15 feet in real time, and video are different. the covering official was observing from an appropriate position and concluded the play, and forward progress ended in-bounds. As we ALL (Officials, Players, Coaches) should know and accept, his judgment is the ONLY one that matters (subject to possible instant peer review). All the kings horses and all the kings men are NOT going to change the decision at this late date.
Opinions are like butt-holes, everyone has one and it's different than anyone else's. Coulda, woulda, shoulda speculation is reserved for spectators (who paid for admission).
Question just for my information: are you in favor of instant replay? Specifically the opportunity to overturn or reverse erroneous calls by officials? When there is definite video evidence?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Not intending to burst an bubbles, but...the view from 10-15 feet in real time, and video are different. the covering official was observing from an appropriate position and concluded the play, and forward progress ended in-bounds. As we ALL (Officials, Players, Coaches) should know and accept, his judgment is the ONLY one that matters (subject to possible instant peer review). All the kings horses and all the kings men are NOT going to change the decision at this late date.
Opinions are like butt-holes, everyone has one and it's different than anyone else's. Coulda, woulda, shoulda speculation is reserved for spectators (who paid for admission).
1. Nobody is trying to change the call now. We were discussing if it was correct or not and how other officials saw it. That’s the entire point of message boards like this.
2. This isn’t opinion-based. These are the facts. The ball carrier went out of bounds. He was still moving forward throughout the action so his progress was not stopped. This runner should have been ruled out of bounds and the clock should have been stopped. This official made an error in judgement.
The rest of us are using it as a teaching/learning tool. If you don’t care to do the same, feel free to move along. But throwing up your hands and saying “That’s what he ruled and nothing else mattered” is not productive to our development as officials.
-
1. Nobody is trying to change the call now. We were discussing if it was correct or not and how other officials saw it. That’s the entire point of message boards like this.
2. This isn’t opinion-based. These are the facts. The ball carrier went out of bounds. He was still moving forward throughout the action so his progress was not stopped. This runner should have been ruled out of bounds and the clock should have been stopped. This official made an error in judgement.
The rest of us are using it as a teaching/learning tool. If you don’t care to do the same, feel free to move along. But throwing up your hands and saying “That’s what he ruled and nothing else mattered” is not productive to our development as officials.
Thank you. I’ve been searching for the right words. You said it all.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
1. Nobody is trying to change the call now. We were discussing if it was correct or not and how other officials saw it. That’s the entire point of message boards like this.
2. This isn’t opinion-based. These are the facts. The ball carrier went out of bounds. He was still moving forward throughout the action so his progress was not stopped. This runner should have been ruled out of bounds and the clock should have been stopped. This official made an error in judgement.
The rest of us are using it as a teaching/learning tool. If you don’t care to do the same, feel free to move along. But throwing up your hands and saying “That’s what he ruled and nothing else mattered” is not productive to our development as officials.
Well said. :thumbup
-
1. Nobody is trying to change the call now. We were discussing if it was correct or not and how other officials saw it. That’s the entire point of message boards like this.
2. This isn’t opinion-based. These are the facts. The ball carrier went out of bounds. He was still moving forward throughout the action so his progress was not stopped. This runner should have been ruled out of bounds and the clock should have been stopped. This official made an error in judgement.
The rest of us are using it as a teaching/learning tool. If you don’t care to do the same, feel free to move along. But throwing up your hands and saying “That’s what he ruled and nothing else mattered” is not productive to our development as officials.
Really? Your complaint seems to be one of "your view (from film) was better than the covering official's (real time/location) actually was, and that he, doesn't understand "Forward Progress" as well as you. If there was a constructive suggestion about positioning, understanding, or explaining the rule the rule, signaling or some tangible beneficial correctible issue, I might agree there was a useful "teaching/learning tool" offered.
However, "your OPINION" is somehow better than his, alone, doesn't seem all that beneficially instructional. Since this was a "Championship Level" game it seems safe to assume that official earned his way on THAT field, and his coverage and positioning confirms his assignment. Film can be a great instructional tool about a lot of facets of the game, however it doesn't yet offer offer much help in what is perceived to be actually seen, or what that UNIQUE perspective dictates the impartial, instant judgment to be.
Of course, today's technology can subsequently prove an instant, real time judgment incorrect and suggest appropriate adjustment to help avoid repetition, but I didn't see any such constructive, specific advice offered. An external, subsequent "opinion" may prove to be accurate, but without tangible advice or suggestion, it has little, if any, practical value. Just another opinion, hopefully we all seriously strive to be the vey best, we can, but consistent, absolute perfection
is likely to remain beyond our grasp.
-
Really? Your complaint seems to be one of "your view (from film) was better than the covering official's (real time/location) actually was, and that he, doesn't understand "Forward Progress" as well as you. If there was a constructive suggestion about positioning, understanding, or explaining the rule the rule, signaling or some tangible beneficial correctible issue, I might agree there was a useful "teaching/learning tool" offered.
However, "your OPINION" is somehow better than his, alone, doesn't seem all that beneficially instructional. Since this was a "Championship Level" game it seems safe to assume that official earned his way on THAT field, and his coverage and positioning confirms his assignment. Film can be a great instructional tool about a lot of facets of the game, however it doesn't yet offer offer much help in what is perceived to be actually seen, or what that UNIQUE perspective dictates the impartial, instant judgment to be.
Of course, today's technology can subsequently prove an instant, real time judgment incorrect and suggest appropriate adjustment to help avoid repetition, but I didn't see any such constructive, specific advice offered. An external, subsequent "opinion" may prove to be accurate, but without tangible advice or suggestion, it has little, if any, practical value. Just another opinion, hopefully we all seriously strive to be the vey best, we can, but consistent, absolute perfection
is likely to remain beyond our grasp.
What are you trying to prove? This is asinine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Really? Your complaint seems to be one of "your view (from film) was better than the covering official's (real time/location) actually was, and that he, doesn't understand "Forward Progress" as well as you. If there was a constructive suggestion about positioning, understanding, or explaining the rule the rule, signaling or some tangible beneficial correctible issue, I might agree there was a useful "teaching/learning tool" offered.
However, "your OPINION" is somehow better than his, alone, doesn't seem all that beneficially instructional. Since this was a "Championship Level" game it seems safe to assume that official earned his way on THAT field, and his coverage and positioning confirms his assignment. Film can be a great instructional tool about a lot of facets of the game, however it doesn't yet offer offer much help in what is perceived to be actually seen, or what that UNIQUE perspective dictates the impartial, instant judgment to be.
Of course, today's technology can subsequently prove an instant, real time judgment incorrect and suggest appropriate adjustment to help avoid repetition, but I didn't see any such constructive, specific advice offered. An external, subsequent "opinion" may prove to be accurate, but without tangible advice or suggestion, it has little, if any, practical value. Just another opinion, hopefully we all seriously strive to be the vey best, we can, but consistent, absolute perfection
is likely to remain beyond our grasp.
No one is arguing the covering official's qualifications to be in that game. Not one single person.
As far as constructive feedback about positioning, mechanics, etc., did you even read all the comments on the first page? There was an excellent discussion that I certainly found helpful, regarding wind/not wind and cross field mechanics... which is entirely the point of conversations such as this.
-
No one is arguing the covering official's qualifications to be in that game. Not one single person.
As far as constructive feedback about positioning, mechanics, etc., did you even read all the comments on the first page? There was an excellent discussion that I certainly found helpful, regarding wind/not wind and cross field mechanics... which is entirely the point of conversations such as this.
Forgive me if I misunderstood the half dozen, or so, DIRECT accusations and/or snarky suggestions pointing at on-field error & official's misjudgment. Questions, comments, discussions about constructive or instructional ideas relating to rule interpretations, coverage positioning are indeed helpful and worthwhile, but all the, "my view, my interpretation, my judgment is somehow superior" is pretty much worthless.
-
When it's obvious, I trust "my" view & judgment. When it's close, I trust the "covering official" to guide my response. I don't have the authority, or inclination, to decide to "give" or "take away" anything from either team.
Lol. You’re the one who said it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Opining that the official made a mistake, isn’t the same as saying he wasn’t qualified to be there. Not sure why you conflate the two.
-
I make a motion we lock this thread. We’ve done about all the damage we can do here.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
If he just barely OOB before going in the end zone, do you give it to him!
Apples and oranges
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Really? Your complaint seems to be one of "your view (from film) was better than the covering official's (real time/location) actually was, and that he, doesn't understand "Forward Progress" as well as you. If there was a constructive suggestion about positioning, understanding, or explaining the rule the rule, signaling or some tangible beneficial correctible issue, I might agree there was a useful "teaching/learning tool" offered.
However, "your OPINION" is somehow better than his, alone, doesn't seem all that beneficially instructional. Since this was a "Championship Level" game it seems safe to assume that official earned his way on THAT field, and his coverage and positioning confirms his assignment. Film can be a great instructional tool about a lot of facets of the game, however it doesn't yet offer offer much help in what is perceived to be actually seen, or what that UNIQUE perspective dictates the impartial, instant judgment to be.
Of course, today's technology can subsequently prove an instant, real time judgment incorrect and suggest appropriate adjustment to help avoid repetition, but I didn't see any such constructive, specific advice offered. An external, subsequent "opinion" may prove to be accurate, but without tangible advice or suggestion, it has little, if any, practical value. Just another opinion, hopefully we all seriously strive to be the vey best, we can, but consistent, absolute perfection
is likely to remain beyond our grasp.
Here's the take away and learning moment Al. In the waning minutes of a game if the ball carrier is trying to get out of bounds give it to him. Yes this may be different than how you'd call it in the middle of the game but that's the way to handle these situations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Forgive me if I misunderstood the half dozen, or so, DIRECT accusations and/or snarky suggestions pointing at on-field error & official's misjudgment. Questions, comments, discussions about constructive or instructional ideas relating to rule interpretations, coverage positioning are indeed helpful and worthwhile, but all the, "my view, my interpretation, my judgment is somehow superior" is pretty much worthless.
hEaDbAnG
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk