Author Topic: Play-by-play/color guys not knowing the rules (Read 33910 times)

medi-ogre · « **on:** January 27, 2015, 04:02:54 PM »

As you may be able to tell from my personal text, I have some pet peeves as it applies to how these jokers relate the rules to the general public. These guys, who are supposed to be experts, constantly misapply the rules or don't know the rule to begin with. Calling an offensive player offsides when he actually committed a false start is like nails on a chalkboard for me.

Another one for me is not knowing the difference between defensive holding/illegal contact/PI. They invariably mix these up or apply one part of the criteria for one to the other. Example would be when a defensive hold has occurred down field and the color guy says something along the lines of, "yep, it happened past the 5 yards, so the ref's gotta throw the flag there." Implying that if the cornerback grabbed the receiver's jersey right off the LOS, no flag would be thrown.

I guess this is why we are seeing the proliferation of the Mike Pereria's of the world becoming rules consultants during games, and I think this is a good thing overall so these clowns can be set straight. That being said, what are some of your announcer pet peeves?

Tom.OH · « **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2015, 06:32:36 PM »

That's why I call them "common taters".

HLinNC · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2015, 06:50:03 PM »

Where do you get the idea that they are "experts"? They are former players, coaches and professionally trained broadcast talent. They are rules experts as much as I am about the Tampa Two defense or Spider Y 2 Banana.

Kalle · « **Reply #3 on:** January 28, 2015, 12:35:28 AM »

Quote from: medi-ogre on January 27, 2015, 04:02:54 PM

Calling an offensive player offsides when he actually committed a false start is like nails on a chalkboard for me.

One of my pet peeves is using the incorrect word "offsides" when it is actually "offside"

AlUpstateNY · « **Reply #4 on:** January 28, 2015, 08:53:33 AM »

Quote from: medi-ogre on January 27, 2015, 04:02:54 PM

I guess this is why we are seeing the proliferation of the Mike Pereria's of the world becoming rules consultants during games, and I think this is a good thing overall so these clowns can be set straight. That being said, what are some of your announcer pet peeves?

The real problem may be a lot less with announcer's imperfections and short comings, as it is with your expectations. Why would you expect these individuals to be rules experts?

The best "standard" should have been, but unfortunately wasn't, set by (Dandy) Don Merideth, who after a solid, if not excellent, playing career took his always positive personality, widely entertaining, clearly stated, laced with genuine humor observations of a game he honestly enjoyed talking about and explaining in his own manner.

He never claimed to be an "expert" about anything, and rather than needing to repeatedly affirm his knowledge and experise, simply let the substance of his observations speak for themself in a pleasant, often humorous and always entertaining and instructional easy manner. He didn't have to remind anyone how smart or experienced he actually was, you just kind of knew it.

There is a small number of, very successful, announcers following that model and a much larger group, who we can only hope, are still trying to learn it.

ECILLJ · « **Reply #5 on:** January 28, 2015, 09:50:04 AM »

Quote from: medi-ogre on January 27, 2015, 04:02:54 PM

I have some pet peeves as it applies to how these jokers relate the rules to the general public....
so these clowns can be set straight....

Ogre,

Your frustration is understood, I watch games and find myself correcting the commentators. My wife has come to accept this as part of my game watching habits.

With that being said, we need to remember the commentators role is to entertain and inform us about the game. They should have good rules knowledge but they don't need to be experts on the rules.

I like to use the television games as a training exercise by keeping my rule and case book handy. If I see something I have a question about, I look it up (specific to NFHS rules). Sometimes, I discover I was initially wrong with my call.

One more thought, if during a game a coach had a rules dispute and you overheard him referring to you as a Joker or a Clown, how would you react?

Rulesman · « **Reply #6 on:** January 28, 2015, 10:23:13 AM »

Quote from: ECILLJ on January 28, 2015, 09:50:04 AM

...we need to remember the commentators role is to entertain and inform us about the game. They should have good rules knowledge but they don't need to be experts on the rules.

The problem is very few have a good grasp of the rules and the majority of the x-million watching think they are experts.

Magician · « **Reply #7 on:** January 28, 2015, 02:31:35 PM »

Quote from: Rulesman on January 28, 2015, 10:23:13 AM

The problem is very few have a good grasp of the rules and the majority of the x-million watching think they are experts.

This is a true statement. They speak with authority and fans think they are stating facts. I did before I became an official. That was the first thing I realized when I learned I didn't know the rules. Most coaches, players, and fans get rules knowledge from announcers and don't know what they don't know.

VALJ · « **Reply #8 on:** January 28, 2015, 03:47:17 PM »

Quote from: ECILLJ on January 28, 2015, 09:50:04 AM

Ogre,

Your frustration is understood, I watch games and find myself correcting the commentators. My wife has come to accept this as part of my game watching habits.

My wife HATES to be in the room when I'm watching a football game.
/

Quote from: ECILLJ on January 28, 2015, 09:50:04 AM

One more thought, if during a game a coach had a rules dispute and you overheard him referring to you as a Joker or a Clown, how would you react?

Depends on how he says it. If he's quiet and not talking to me directly I'd be inclined to ignore it. A bit louder, or something to his assistants about these clowns out here and I may say something to the effect of "Coach, I'm sorry, I missed that. What did you say?" Give him a chance to realize that I heard him, and that I'm giving him some rope. If he's going to yell it, or direct it at me personally?

medi-ogre · « **Reply #9 on:** January 28, 2015, 04:53:48 PM »

Ummmm. Ok. Guess that will teach me to try to post a topic that I though might be interesting to discuss. Rookie mistake. Won't happen again.

To those whose question was why would I expect these people to be experts on the rules, I guess I do not think I am asking them to be experts. For the very intricate and detailed analysis of the minutiae of football rules, that is what the Mikey P's of the world are now tasked to do. That being said, I do not think knowing the difference between a false start and offside (thanks Kalle, will not make that mistake again) to be expert level rule knowledge. Maybe it is just me, but if my job of which I am getting paid pretty well to do and allows me to hang out at NCAA or NFL football games is to analyze the game I'm announcing, I am going to be pretty sure I know of what I speak. This includes knowing the difference between cover 0 and cover 2, or how a reverse differs from an end around (this one does annoy me...jet seeps are end arounds not reverses. A reverse has to have the offense going one way and then reversing direction.), or how DPI is different from IC.

If I took the stance of stating something as fact, I would want to know under any reasonable examination my facts would hold up for fear of some no name message board troll calling me a joker or a clown. I guess if they did not so often come across as mis-stating rules as factual gospel, I would give them more slack. If there is any doubt, qualify your analysis with, "If I'm not mistaken the rule here is X." I would see it as I have a responsibility to the fans to properly and correctly call the game. But again...maybe that is just me.

Bugolathe · « **Reply #10 on:** January 31, 2015, 08:14:25 PM »

I just hate when we're treated like we're watching a game for the first time and that "you have to have UNDISPUTIBLE video evidence to overturn a call."

clearwall · « **Reply #11 on:** February 24, 2015, 10:35:33 AM »

Quote from: Kalle on January 28, 2015, 12:35:28 AM

One of my pet peeves is using the incorrect word "offsides" when it is actually "offside"

Mine is "illegal" block in the back/hands to the face.

Legacy Zebra · « **Reply #12 on:** February 24, 2015, 10:51:17 AM »

Actually, "illegal block in the back" is the correct term for the foul. There are certain instances where blocking an opponent from behind is legal.

clearwall · « **Reply #13 on:** February 25, 2015, 04:22:43 PM »

When have you thrown a flag for a LEGAL BIB though?

"We threw a flag, but just wanted everyone to know it was fine. This flag is for a LEGAL Block in the Back."

lol

hefnerjm · « **Reply #14 on:** February 26, 2015, 04:04:14 PM »

Quote from: clearwall on February 25, 2015, 04:22:43 PM

When have you thrown a flag for a LEGAL BIB though?

"We threw a flag, but just wanted everyone to know it was fine. This flag is for a LEGAL Block in the Back."

lol

I think LZ's point was that when you announce the foul, if you dont say that the block in the back was, in fact, illegal, it could imply that all BIB is illegal, which is not the case.

clearwall · « **Reply #15 on:** March 10, 2015, 02:52:10 PM »

Do you say "illegal tripping?" Because there are cases(against the ball carrier) where tripping is legal.
"Illegal" Pass Interference? Behind the LOS, PI is legal.

AlUpstateNY · « **Reply #16 on:** March 10, 2015, 03:00:44 PM »

Quote from: clearwall on March 10, 2015, 02:52:10 PM

Do you say "illegal tripping?" Because there are cases(against the ball carrier) where tripping is legal.
"Illegal" Pass Interference? Behind the LOS, PI is legal.

Why would you feel it necessary to announce, or who would you be announcing to, any action that is legal and for which no penalty flag has been produced?

Legacy Zebra · « **Reply #17 on:** March 10, 2015, 04:33:06 PM »

I never said that it would be an appropriate announcement from a white hat. Just that, technically, it was the proper term for the foul so it's not wrong for commentators to use the term.

clearwall · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2015, 09:40:57 AM »

Quote from: Legacy Zebra on March 10, 2015, 04:33:06 PM

I never said that it would be an appropriate announcement from a white hat. Just that, technically, it was the proper term for the foul so it's not wrong for commentators to use the term.

Ah, I meant from the White Hat. Sorry for not clarifying.

AlUpstateNY · « **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2015, 01:47:51 PM »

Quote from: Legacy Zebra on March 10, 2015, 04:33:06 PM

I never said that it would be an appropriate announcement from a white hat. Just that, technically, it was the proper term for the foul so it's not wrong for commentators to use the term.

Don't mean to belabor a point, but "Tripping" a runner, or someone pretending to be a runner, is NOT (the foul of) Tripping, nor is contacting an eligible receiver, in an otherwise legal manner, behind the Line of Scrimmage, the foul of Pass Interference. If any behavior by a player is legal, there shouldn't be any reason to mention it as being legal, unless it would be to explain why it was not illegal.

The one thing most commentators have no shortage of, or need more of, is extra, or meaningless, words.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2015, 11:37:06 AM »

Several years ago I was watching a state championship game from the warmth of the pressbox with some members of the state association. Nearby, radio announcers for team A were at work when:
(1) A1 fumbles at B's 5; (2) A2 dives for ball, which squirts into B's EZ; (3) B recovers,

signal touchback; (4) Announcers begin to scream ; "THAT'S A TERRIBLE CALL, IT SHOULD BE A SAFTEY

!:" (5) During the ensuing commercial break, an association guy informs them that I'm a "rules guy"

; (6) They shove a mic in front of my face; (7) I try to explain : "Because A caused the fumble to go into B's EZ it would be a touchback unless A had recovered it..."; (8) The color guy interupted : "..SO THERE YOU HAVE IT, WE WERE ROBBED BY A TERRIBLE RULE..."
...I then went for a hot dog.....

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder

ljudge · « **Reply #21 on:** March 22, 2015, 07:30:07 AM »

Although your intentions were genuine, Ralph, but that's considered highly unprofessional. I have a similar personality where I love to set people straight and do so in a respectful manner which I'm sure you did. But nothing good can come from it. Had you done this in a college game you'd be out on your ear in a microsecond. Please don't get me wrong I'm not trying to criticize but just saying what officiating authorities would say (as I have received memos titled "comments in the pressbox"). If I was your high school chapter prez I would likely give you a "atta boy" pat on the back (behind closed doors) but kick you in the butt as you left telling you to never do it again.

zoom · « **Reply #22 on:** March 22, 2015, 08:18:48 AM »

Quote from: ljudge on March 22, 2015, 07:30:07 AM

Although your intentions were genuine, Ralph, but that's considered highly unprofessional. I have a similar personality where I love to set people straight and do so in a respectful manner which I'm sure you did. But nothing good can come from it. Had you done this in a college game you'd be out on your ear in a microsecond. Please don't get me wrong I'm not trying to criticize but just saying what officiating authorities would say (as I have received memos titled "comments in the pressbox"). If I was your high school chapter prez I would likely give you a "atta boy" pat on the back (behind closed doors) but kick you in the butt as you left telling you to never do it again.

However, the NCAA recognizes that an official in the press box is good for the game. This is why a conference can assign officials to that role. In this case, the state association can't chastise him for speaking. He didn't ask for the mic, the association basically shoved it in front of him. He cited the rule without showing anyone up or throwing the officials under the bus. The commentator came out looking foolish.

That being said, in our association, we have a strict "No Comment" policy and are supposed to refer the media to the association interpreter for rules questions. We have had to let go of an official last year who got into it with fans after a game. But that official wasn't Ralph, not even close...

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #23 on:** March 23, 2015, 07:38:40 AM »

Good points, Zoom & Ljudge, I didn't seek out the mic - it sought me out . My words were in defense of the officials call. I would never critique an official's call publically either to the media or to the frenzied masses. As we near playoff time each year (with more

in the stands than on the field), I incorporate "Ms. Manners do's and don'ts for

" which includes the following advice:
Those next to you in the stands may feel that you are an expert.
They will want your opinion on close /questionable calls.
IMHO, you've got two possible answers......
"GREAT CALL, HE WAS RIGHT ON TOP OF IT

!" - If you agree it was

"Couldn't really

tell from here,

'spect he had a better

look than we did,though

" - If you don't

.

I would never belittle an official in public - only offer constructive criticism , in private, if the official asked. During the season, I'm asked to comment on certain rules as my state's interpreter. I'll happily discuss a rule in general, but if it pertains to a specific call made, I'll either defend the call if I feel it was correct, or respond that I'll need to discuss it with the crew involved first, if I feel it wasn't.

AlUpstateNY · « **Reply #24 on:** March 25, 2015, 03:26:04 PM »

Remembering some sage advice LONG ago (I think it was given by Flower t Thumper) "If you have nothing nice (supportive) to say, best to say nothing".

I don't see a problem answering a serious question positively, as long as you're absolutely sure your answer is accurate, and if you can't be positive and supportive, Ralph's suggestion about deferring an opinion based on the distance involved and the better view of the covering official, usually works pretty well, and may even work to avoid additional questions.