Hey, Ohio Guys.....

[bama_stripes]

Found this tidbit on another site:

In Ohio this year, we have to have the rule book, case book, and our mechanics manual on the field and be prepared to back up any ruling we make.

How is this going to work from a practical standpoint?  Will coaches have to use a challenge TO?  Is there a time limit involved?  Will you be forced to find more midnight buffets?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Sonofanump]

When I worked high school, we had to bring them on the field (left them withthe chain crew).  So this is not a new thing for Ohio.  We never pulled them out, never needed to.  The head coach can call a time out to challenge an interpretation or misapplication of a rule only.

[schube]

That's what we have done. the chain crew gets to carry them all. if you caught without them on the sideline, the GOLD book talks of suspension of games.

[mbyron]

Found this tidbit on another site:

How is this going to work from a practical standpoint?  Will coaches have to use a challenge TO?  Is there a time limit involved?  Will you be forced to find more midnight buffets?

Inquiring minds want to know.

That was my tidbit, and I expected this question, which has worried me for some time now.

The state has offered little guidance on how to handle the issue overall. Yes, it's a challenge TO, but no time limit. We are to stop the game, answer the coach's question, and if requested show him something in one of the books that backs up our ruling. I will say only that in my association, some white hats are better prepared for this sort of thing than others.

Nothing says how many times a coach may request a conference and consultation. For my crew, I will follow something like the pro procedure: they get 2 challenges, and a third if 1 is successful. That's, I have to hope, a straightforward application of rule 1-1-6. 

[Rulesman]

Ohio has you on a slippery slope.

[HLinNC]

Sounds to me as if you're making more of an issue than it is.  NFHS has a procedure for a coach to request a conference to discuss misapplication of a rule.  It looks as if Ohio officials will have to be able to back up their ruling by showing the head coach in the book where/why/how they did.

His limit is 3 per half.  After that, if he's wrong, it'll cost him 5 yards each time.  If he's right, those 5 guys probably need a new hobby.

[mbyron]

His limit is 3 per half.  After that, if he's wrong, it'll cost him 5 yards each time.  If he's right, those 5 guys probably need a new hobby.

Where did you get that limit? The TO is charged to the team only if he is wrong.

And some guys do need a new hobby, but in the meantime their games will get loooooong.

[bama_stripes]

Y'all better bookmark CB 4.3.3B.  Otherwise, you'll be there all night trying to explain why rule 2-4-1 doesn't really mean what it says.

In addition, you better print out the May 2012 FED Interpretation bulletin to prove that mere touching of the ball by an ineligible downfield is not OPI.

[mbyron]

Y'all better bookmark CB 4.3.3B.  Otherwise, you'll be there all night trying to explain why rule 2-4-1 doesn't really mean what it says.

HA! Funny you should say that. Our local interpreter just last night was trying to tell the association that 2-4-1 DOES mean what it says. So I turned him on to 4.3.3B, and he got confused. Sent an e-mail to the state just this morning to try to get it sorted.

I can tell you that my crew will be on top of both 4.3.3B and IDP/OPI.

[HLinNC]

Where did you get that limit?

From the 3 prior ones he'll get wrong

[Tom.OH]

I have worked varsity games in Ohio for 10 years and we have never had to get the book out even though it was right there.

[ftalerico]

In my 40+ years of officiating, I have never seen a coach challenge a call on the field by calling a charged conference.

[VALJ]

I have had one.  The thought his DB had intercepted a pass in their EZ for a touchback, but I had it as a simultaneous catch.  If he had asked me what the call was, I would have told him that, and saved him the timeout, but when I offered to tell him what I had and he said "no, I want to talk to him" and pointed to the white hat...

[mbyron]

Y'all better bookmark CB 4.3.3B.  Otherwise, you'll be there all night trying to explain why rule 2-4-1 doesn't really mean what it says.

In addition, you better print out the May 2012 FED Interpretation bulletin to prove that mere touching of the ball by an ineligible downfield is not OPI.

Apparently, our state interpreter wants to go with the letter of the law on 2-4-1 and ignore 4.3.3B AND 7.5.4G.

I got this in an e-mail this morning:

“In Ohio we are trying to keep the rule simple. If the receiver catches the ball but does not come down inbounds the pass is ruled incomplete. End of story.”

I have made the case against this oversimplification. I think I can sell the sideline play, but if the receiver catches the ball airborne in the EZ but comes down in the field of play, coach is going to want that touchdown. And, by the book, he should have it.

I do not expect to prevail, and will comply with the state rules interpreter. What's the point of taking the books on the field if we're not going to abide by them?

[mbyron]

Alas for our poor state interpreter, this was NOT the end of the story. He was apparently outvoted by the other two state guys, and 4.3.3B is again the law of the land. At least until we get some new direction from NFHS...

Oh, the drama of football!

[bama_stripes]

Hot off the press:

Alabama will use LCD officiating on this issue -- no foot touch = incomplete pass.  When asked about the CB plays which indicate otherwise, our State Interpreter decreed "The Case Book is wrong."

Guess he's too busy with his NFL schedule.     

[mbyron]

Hot off the press:

Alabama will use LCD officiating on this issue -- no foot touch = incomplete pass.  When asked about the CB plays which indicate otherwise, our State Interpreter decreed "The Case Book is wrong."

Guess he's too busy with his NFL schedule.     

Well, it was our former NFL guy who flipped our state interpreter, who was initially claiming that the case book needs updating.

I had pointed out that 4.3.3B is a NEW case play for 2012, but oh well!

[Tom.OH]

Well, it was our former NFL guy who flipped our state interpreter, who was initially claiming that the case book needs updating.

I had pointed out that 4.3.3B is a NEW case play for 2012, but oh well!

Good thing case books are always correct with no updates needed.

[mbyron]

Good thing case books are always correct with no updates needed.

Oh, I'd never say that. But a NEW case written specifically in support of a NEW rule — those they usually get right.

[VALJ]

FWIW, our state association says no foot inbounds = no catch.  Period.

[mbyron]

FWIW, our state association says no foot inbounds = no catch.  Period.

Of course, that's wrong: the receiver can have a hand, or knee, or... inbounds and have a catch.

I believe our state interpreter's exact words were "No foot inbounds = no catch. End of story."

Two days later, Ohio officially endorsed the ruling 4.3.3B. 

[VALJ]

OK - "no contact inbounds = no catch.  Period." 

[bama_stripes]

Our interpreter says that in order for forward progress to be a consideration, the receiver has to make contact in bounds, regardless of the action of the defender.

This is supposedly per an NFHS interpretation, although I haven't been able to find one to that effect.

[ECILLJ]

Illinois is allowing us to give them forward progress if the receiver is carried out of bounds.

[El Macman]

Illinois is allowing us to give them forward progress if the receiver is carried out of bounds.

Sounjds consistent with NCAA. The key word there is "carried," which means he is so held by an opponent that his voluntary progress is stopped in the field of play, so he didn't really go out of bounds. The ball is dead inbounds - keep the clock runnin' (unless some other reason to stop it).