UNS Rule affects Mass. HS Championship Game

[TxSkyBolt]

Gotcha Hank.

[chymechowder]

the MIAA released a statement. pasted below. (Life lessons for the win!  )

MIAA statement on Cathedral-Blue Hills Super Bowl
  Wednesday, December 7, 2011  |  http://www.bostonherald.com  |  High School Football
STATEMENT REGARDING DIVISION 1V-A FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

Franklin, MA Dec. 6, 2011 - - In response to inquiries regarding an unsportsmanlike penalty called in the Division IV-A football game the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) issued the following statement:

The official involved reported he had determined a violation of NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations of Rule 9, Section 2 covering Unsportsmanlike Conduct Section A. He called the violation and assessed the penalty.

There is no provision in MIAA rules (or rules for any other sport at any other level) to overturn an officials’ call after a game has been concluded. Once the final whistle is sounded the game is over. (Reference – MIAA Handbook Rule #17, Page 24) The Cathedral coach chose not to challenge the call when it was made.

At the start of the season the MIAA and football officials took comprehensive measures to ensure that everyone understood this rule. In fact, the officials at this game reminded the captains and coaches that there would be zero tolerance for any unsportsmanlike actions. Likewise, this message was communicated in the pre-playoff game administrative meeting, as well as the MIAA”s Super Bowl Breakfast with coaches and captains.

Anyone may parse the language of rules and apply them as they see fit. Contest officials must familiarize themselves with the rules, both the letter and the sprit, and bring their judgment to bear in calling the game. Per the Points of Emphasis in the NCAA Rulebook: “When an official imposes a penalty or makes a decision he is simply doing his duty as he sees it. He is on the field to uphold the integrity of the game of football, and his decisions are final and conclusive and should be accepted by players and coaches.”

MIAA Philosophy reflects that high school students who participate in educational athletics learn many things from that experience including lessons that we believe will be helpful as they go forward in life. While we hope and wish they would all be from positive experiences sometimes that is not the case.

Losing a game, having an official’s call go against you, even occasionally having an officials’ mistake go against you or your team are all part of sports. Athletic officials try hard to do the best job possible but they are human. Athletes must learn to put these things behind them and move forward. During their lifetime they will experience similar situations where they feel “wronged” by a superior or authority figure and they must learn to deal with that situation.

Finally, we would hope that in people’s reaction to this situation they would consider the students and coaches at Blue Hills Regional Vocational Technical School who feel their properly won championship is being tarnished and discredited.

[ljudge]

A New England relative sent this to me. 

Menino weighs in on football controversy
The Lowell Sun
Updated: 12/07/2011 08:41:00 AM EST

BOSTON (AP) -- Boston Mayor Thomas Menino is weighing in on the excessive celebration penalty that cost a local high school football team a shot at a state title.

Cathedral High School quarterback Matthew Owens was about to score the go-ahead touchdown in the final minutes of Saturday's Super Bowl game when he briefly raised his left arm in triumph. The gesture drew a flag that nullified the touchdown and Cathedral wound up losing 16-14 to Blue Hills Menino told WBZ-AM on Wednesday that he plans to invite the Cathedral players to lunch, calling them "champions on the field and off the field."

Menino called the unsportmanlike conduct call "ridiculous" and said the rules should allow for reasonable displays of exuberance by student athletes.

The organization that governs high school sports in Massachusetts is reviewing the play to determine if the rule was applied properly.

[chymechowder]

I know. It's too funny.  yes, the call was the wrong call. but the Mayor getting involved and the nonsense he's spouting--sorry, make that MUMBLING--is just ridiculous.  this is from today's Herald.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino this morning called the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association “frustrated athletes” for adopting rules that robbed Boston’s Cathedral High School of a coveted Super Bowl title.

“I think sometimes these rules are written by frustrated athletes,” Menino said on a visit to the high school. “They never participated in a sport, and they don’t know what it is to be excited. You play in a football game, you run for a touchdown, and you do something special.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_1207mayor_slams_miaa_as_frustrated_athletes_who_ruined_super_bowl_game/srvc=home&position=0

[TXMike]

In the finest traditions of politicians everywhere who can't solve their community's real probelms and instead focus on those issues which they can use to win votes, even when they are issues they are powerless to influence.

[Curious]

FYI Here's another good NCAA site with lots of football info including the 2011 Play Situation Memos:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/ncaa/NCAA/Sports%20and%20Championship/Football/Playing%20Rules/index

Excellent!!

Thanks "Ump"...

[Atlanta Blue]

Let me paraphrase the MIAA memo:

"Sure, it was a bad call, nothing we can do about it now.  Get over it."

[DallasLJ]

Let me paraphrase the MIAA memo:

"Sure, it was a bad call, nothing we can do about it now.  Get over it."

  A very good summation.

  I am disappointed the MIAA did not take the position that it was a judgment call and just left it at that, instead of implying the official used poor judgment.  These types of calls are often judgment calls, calls that the players' conduct forces us to make a decision.

[Rulesman]

...The Cathedral coach chose not to challenge the call when it was made...

Huh?

[younggun]

I think they mean by 'challenge' is call a timeout and ask for a discussion on the misapplication of a rule.

[Rulesman]

I think they mean by 'challenge' is call a timeout and ask for a discussion on the misapplication of a rule.

Haven't we established this was a judgement call and not a misapplication of a rule?

[pgh guy]

  A very good summation.

  I am disappointed the MIAA did not take the position that it was a judgment call and just left it at that, instead of implying the official used poor judgment.  These types of calls are often judgment calls, calls that the players' conduct forces us to make a decision.

Similar to the way that this is a learning experience for the players and coaches, it's also a learning experience for that official.  While most of us agree that this brief display of exuberance does not rise to the level of a foul that we would want in the National Championship game, this official will hopefully learn from this and someday reflect upon this call.  We have all made calls that were not popular and we have made calls that are incorrect.  A large part of what we do on the field involves accountability.  If this official is honest with himself, he will realize that this should have been a pass and that nobody would be saying after the fact that a flag was deserved in that situation.  Moral of the story:  We get into more trouble for what we call, than what we don't call...

[chymechowder]

Similar to the way that this is a learning experience for the players and coaches, it's also a learning experience for that official.  While most of us agree that this brief display of exuberance does not rise to the level of a foul that we would want in the National Championship game, this official will hopefully learn from this and someday reflect upon this call.  We have all made calls that were not popular and we have made calls that are incorrect.  A large part of what we do on the field involves accountability.  If this official is honest with himself, he will realize that this should have been a pass and that nobody would be saying after the fact that a flag was deserved in that situation.  Moral of the story:  We get into more trouble for what we call, than what we don't call...

+1000

the reason i'm still upset about this is I'm seeing first hand how our board (or at least half of it) is handling this. and it's the opposite of what you suggest.

rather than looking at this as a possible educational experience, there are assigners who are putting up walls and defending the call.  either by citing rules that dont' exist ("the book says you can't raise your hand!!!"), or by passing the buck to the MIAA.

yes, an MIAA rep has a brief pre-coin toss meeting with officials and coaches. and yes, good sportsmanship is one of the things they mention.  but trying to link the MIAA with this specific call is a red herring.  (maybe that should be yellow herring for the flag color?)

I guess I shouldnt be too surprised.   I think I'm taking my college board experience (only 2 years) and looking at the HS board through the lens of what the college board would do.

[mccormicw]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I have been approached by several friends and coworkers about this issue.  Apparently it is a big news story everywhere now.  I think it is such a shame that so many people (including some officials) talk so negatively about someone's motivation, common sense and skill level when they know so little about the individual.  I personally have no idea of why the calling official threw the flag.  Maybe he over officiates, maybe he felt the player was taunting the other team, maybe he was told by his crew chief, local association or other authority that there was zero tolerance for any act beyond running.  I would not have thrown a flag in a similar game situation but I have no problem with another official throwing the flag.  (Of course I will reconsider that stance if my crew chief or supervisor want it thrown). 

It is one thing to have to hear overly negative comments from the press and public.  It is another thing to hear it from other officials.  It is okay for officials to discuss whether a mistake was made on a particular call.  It is even okay to disagree with a call.  But we should ALWAYS empathize with the calling official.  Holy crap.  That guy is our brother in arms.  I hope no one on this board takes this personal.  It was not aimed at anyone on here. 

[Atlanta Blue]

I'm not sure anyone here is denigrating the official as a person.  Even as a coach (and an official in other sports), I can empathize with the poistion.  But empathy or not, there is nothing wrong with criticizing the call.  It was poor judgment.

Hiding behind "They want zero tolerance" is justifying the action.  There is no good justification, it was poor judgment.  Wanting "zero tolerance" still means wanting zero tolerance of what's in the rule, not stretching it to something that was never meant to be included.  Even the MIAA statement says, in veiled terms, that is was a bad call.

But bad calls happen, even from good officials.  I'm assuming, that if he got to a state championship game, he had to be pretty good, unless the MA way of choosing playoff officials is totally political (politics in Massachsetts, who would think such a thing?).

But if it's a bad call, a great official will own up to it with at least, "Yeah, I might have missed that one."  A less than excellent official continues to try to justify his bad call.

[clearwall]

I'm not sure anyone here is denigrating the official as a person.  Even as a coach (and an official in other sports), I can empathize with the poistion.  But empathy or not, there is nothing wrong with criticizing the call.  It was poor judgment.

I thought the same thing. I dont remember seeing in this thread anyone calling the official incompetent or a bad person, what we are criticizing is a gross misapplication of the rule. This video should definitely be included in someone's training stack of what NOT to flag.

[mccormicw]

I'm not sure anyone here is denigrating the official as a person.  Even as a coach (and an official in other sports), I can empathize with the poistion.  But empathy or not, there is nothing wrong with criticizing the call.  It was poor judgment.

AB, I have no problem criticizing a call if the point is to become better informed or better officials.  IMO, it is also fine to be critical in a general conversation about an official's call.  Where I object, and I may be in the minority, is when we (not necessarily a member of this group) use phrases to describe the act or official with words we would never use to describe ourselves when we make a mistake.  I have never heard an official talk about something he or she did with words/phrases like "unconscionable" , "very sad" or "even shame on me". 

As I look through the threads on this board, 98% of the comments are positive (even if critical).  I guess that is a pretty good mark.  I guess I could  a  and relax a bit. 

[BankerRef]

Hiding behind "They want zero tolerance" is justifying the action.  There is no good justification, it was poor judgment.  Wanting "zero tolerance" still means wanting zero tolerance of what's in the rule, not stretching it to something that was never meant to be included.

I have thought the same thing during some of the discussions on this board related to HCTs and Targeting calls.  If the rulesmakers wanted us to officiate those particular things so broadly, why did they define them so narrowly?

While there is no way I would have had a flag on this play I can certainly understand the official's potential confusion over what is or is not a foul since we seem to have no shortage of interpretations and expectations from a multitude of authorities.

[TX Zebra]

Lots of discussion of what the 1 official did or didn't do...

Not looking to throw the crew under the bus, but looking to explore if someone else on the crew could/should have got to the B and talked about whether the foul was justified. I'm thinking there was at least one other set of eyes on the runner who saw the action and passed, maybe 2? Our crew talks about "help plays" alot and as individual officials, we welcome the help to avoid a big mistake. 

Again, not criticizing the call, more viewpoints on whether this is a case where a fellow crewmate can come in with help on a critical call like this...

[110]

Following up on the previous "talk 'em out of it" I've done it - and had it done to me - and I firmly believe it's part of the toolkit for a crew, at all times.

I remember talking the R/HL out of a BIB that I'd seen develop as a legal block with no separation. I talked to both of em (working U) and asked, "guys, you had a better view of the side at the end - did you see separation." Neither had seen the play from the start, neither saw separation, so we picked up the flags.

The very next game, the tables were turned. And that's the other part of the process: we have to be receptive to our brothers and sisters in stripes, regardless of our experience - and of theirs.

[justbill]

I seem to remember early on in this story that the flag was for going into a highstepping motion at about the 9 yd line, not for raising his fist in the air.  That is consistent with the spot of the ball after the penalty was applied.  If it was for the fist in the air, the ball would have been placed several yards back.  The media assumed it was the fist and published a picture accompanying their story of the fist in the air as well.  As we all know, this then becomes the "facts" surrounding the whole thing. I can't find anything relating to that now and I could be confusing with one of the other USC calls being discussed.

Does anyone else remember that or have knowledge that this was or was not the case?

Also, if that was the case, does that alter anyone's opinion on the validity of the call?

[TxSkyBolt]

Just look at the video.... No high stepping.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=30.183883,-98.876478
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Atlanta Blue]

I seem to remember early on in this story that the flag was for going into a highstepping motion at about the 9 yd line, not for raising his fist in the air.

That was reported, however the video shows there was no change on stride of any sort.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I seem to remember early on in this story that the flag was for going into a highstepping motion at about the 9 yd line, not for raising his fist in the air.....

Does anyone else remember that or have knowledge that this was or was not the case?

I believe that you're referring to my earlier post where I quoted a source that was at the game.  The video shows that information was incorrect.

If in fact the "high-stepping" had occurred on a play like this, then IMO it's a violation of rule 9-2 as currently written and certainly could deserve a flag. 

[Osric Pureheart]

I have a question.  What's the difference between running into the end zone with an arm raised, and high-stepping in?  Why is one act automatically worth a live-ball 15-yard penalty and the other is not?