Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2023 ×


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Personal Information

  • School
    Unbiased Official
  • Affiliation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

JustRules's Achievements


Collaborator (7/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • Dedicated
  • Reacting Well
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post

Recent Badges

  1. First, the only impact to moving up or down is for the tournament. If a team would slip back after a top class, they aren't likely to compete in the current class either. A 2A school that bumps up to 3A could actually end up in an easier sectional than the 2A sectional depending on the make-up of the schools in that area. If they are good enough to a win a sectional in 2A the next, they may be competitive for a win or two in the 3A sectional. I'm good with a 4-year cycle as well, but then you open yourself up to a team winning 4-straight state titles. You have to be willing to accept that. If there is ever a change to regular season districts/sectional assignments with a qualifying tournament rather than this conference exhibition season, the impact to bumping up becomes much bigger. I think in that case you do probably need to have a 4-year cycle. Or consider other criteria. You would have regular season sectional records to factor in for example.
  2. I was pointing out the absurdity of how the regular season has no bearing on how the post-season is done. When I tell people from other states about how Indiana does this, they think I am joking. They can't believe anyone would ever set up a system like this. We have a competitive 9-week exhibition season.
  3. We did this a lot in high school for baseball. Our school was the only bigger school that played high school baseball (wasn't a big sport in my home state). Our varsity would travel to an out of state tournament and play area junior colleges. The JV and freshmen teams played varsity teams from small schools in the area. We had 2000 students and these small schools had like 40 or 50 students. They were SMALL!
  4. Is that a bad thing? Many conferences have become unstable anyway. Many other states do this district structure. Many in Indiana will oppose it because it sets up perfectly for a qualifying tournament as well.
  5. There is no connection to anything that happens in the regular season to what happens in the post season today. Why arbitrarily add this? I'm guessing there are years where Cathedral didn't play 5 IHSAA teams. Or possibly the Deaf School.
  6. I was on my 7th grade team but didn't play much. Played a lot more backyard football with friends. You don't need to have played to be a good official. You have to be willing to learn and understand rules, philosophies, and mechanics and enjoy the game. There tend to be more who played that become officials, but it's definitely not a requirement for guys. It shouldn't be a requirement for women.
  7. Recruiting is at best an educated guess trying to project how athletes will perform and develop at the next level. There are plenty of examples over the years where players go to levels below their ultimately performance and those who go P5 end up not working out. It doesn't mean the schools were wrong for missing someone. That's one of the reasons the transfer portal is so active. Players trying to find their best level now that they have experienced college football. It doesn't mean IU was wrong on the time. They just made the wrong educated guess on how players would turn out.
  8. On the targeting call I've had several veteran college officials disagree on whether the contact was initiated with the crown or not. And they are all watching the same video. It's amazing how we can all watch the same thing and see different things. That's why even replay is not perfect.
  9. The states that have implemented replay have generally kept it simple. They only use the line feed from the broadcast. And limit replays to scores and sidelines. Officials in the states who have done it have said it's not used often, but it has been helpful when it's been used.
  10. If the covered TE puts 8 on the LOS and 3 backs and there is any gap between the wideout and TE, you put the wideout as a back. That's what is meant by not nit picking it. If the wideout is slightly back and the next guy in is the T then put him on. But if putting him in the backfield creates 5 in the backfield, you have a potential foul either way. Put him on to avoid the illegal formation foul, but then flag the TE for ineligible downfield if he goes downfield and there is a legal pass beyond the LOS. That's why I said you had two different situations. You were describing the first two situations. I was trying to get you to the third situation which would likely result in a foul if there is a legal forward pass beyond the LOS. I'll also add if it's obvious the 5th player is back (especially a T who has been warned they are too deep) or the wideout is closer to the LOS than the TE, you are not nitpicking. Contrary to popular belief, good officials don't look for reasons to throw flags. They let the obvious situations jump out at them.
  11. You are bringing up two different situations and combining them into one. The general philosophy is "put them where they are supposed to be" if it's close and you can prevent a foul. If your options are to put the receiver as a back, but it results in an illegal formation (5 in the backfield) or put him on and it covers the TE (meaning you have an ineligible lineman on the other side or 8 on the LOS), you will put him on and then monitor the TE for going downfield. Teams that intentionally cover a TE are trying to pull coverage or go heavy on one side. Usually when you give the wideout the benefit of the doubt and rule him off, he's the 4th back.
  12. Someone pointed out to me the umpire may have also been using the common mechanic to signal to the wing with his arm on his chest This is done to indicate to the wings you see the ball in the end zone. You don't know if the runner was down prior to crossing, but you know he's there now. I'm not a fan of this mechanic. Coaches are aware of it, and if they see it but the wing doesn't rule TD you now have a different form of conflicting signals. If this is what the crew was doing, and the U also thought the runner was in, you have 2 officials making a very incorrect decision. The wings need to hustle in as quickly as possible on plays like this because you have no idea where the ball is. The U should try to get to the runner ASAP and have them stay where they are so the wing can rule. Huge lesson for this crew, and I'm sure they are beating themselves for missing this one. He's not a terrible official who should never work again (I've seen that comment several times online). He made a huge mistake and has to learn from it. Some consequence is appropriate (i.e. no post season next year, no final the next time he's eligible).
  13. It can but after enforcement they would have had to reach the line to gain. This was a goal to go situation so there was no way for A to get a first down on a penalty enforcement for encroachment. We also don't know for sure on this video if the box was at 1 before the 4th down play. If you look at the previous play the line to gain chains are lying on the ground. But when the box is shown with 1 during the discussion, the line to gain chains are now in place for Ballard's drive. They could have already switched it getting ready for the next series. It's possible it was 1 on the 4th down play, but this video doesn't prove it. The coach's argument based on lip reading was only that the ball had broke the plane. It definitely looks possible the ball was across, but if the H was on the goal line this would be an easy one to see. If the H did tell the box to update to 1st down and the teams both assumed it was 1st down (defense is reacting like they knew it was fourth down), I agree with Bob's use of the God rule to replay the 4th down. I would need to be absolutely positive the box was 1 before the play and the coach believed that to be correct down. Tough situation for the crew and a potentially huge mistake on their part.
  14. Those are great ideas. I'm surprised nobody has brought them up here before. @Bobref...do you think this may be something to consider and propose to the IHSAA? Seriously, I do like both of these ideas for the reasons you state. I would even be open to 6 teams per sectional so that 4-5 or 3-6 team that struggled due to injuries or competition level gets a chance. 1 and 2 get byes and 3 plays 6 and 4 plays 5 in the first round. The best way to do this of course would be to align your regular season schedule with your sectional teams. That way the seeding it based on actual results. If you don't want to have all rematches in the sectional round, pair 2 sectionals together and play cross sectional the first 3/4 rounds. I don't expect we'll ever see something like that though.
  15. One of the challenges with some shields today is any tint may depend on the angle. I had a game this year where I could see my reflection in the shield of the player. He insisted there was no tint. I asked another player to confirm we could see our reflection, and he said he could not. Turns out if the player turned around 180 degree and I looked at it from that side, perfectly clear! That's not fair! I wish the manufacturers would keep it simple and only sell clear eye shields.
  • Create New...