JustRules

On 4/2/2024 at 3:12 PM, temptation said:

Just curious as I am out of the loop on this topic, but how do other states do things when it comes to seeding?  What is the most popular method?

Is it solely by record in most cases?  All schedules are not created equal so would it incentivize a softer schedule for some schools?  How does schedule strength factor in?

A common approach is teams are placed into sections, sectional, districts by the state just like Indiana. Your schedule is largely determined by those categorizations plus whatever non-section games you play. You play everyone in your section/sectional/district and seeding is based on record within that group. The idea of conferences and long-term scheduling contracts don't exist. Certain teams qualify for the post-season based on the records with common opponents. There is either a section/sectional/district tournament or sections/sectionals/district play each other. For example, #1 in District A hosts #4 in District B and so forth. Teams still get to play their geographic rivals either because they are in their section/sectional/district or they schedule them directly. This is easier in sports that play more games, maybe a little more difficult in football with only 9 or 10 games.

5 hours ago, cloudofdust said:

If the TE is not breaking the waist of the snapper how is he still allowed to be classified as a lineman?

I know it happens all the time but by rule he is not a lineman.

Definition states lineman must break waist of the snapper. I cant find anything saying they just have to break waist of nearest lineman. Albeit my rule book is 2021 model...

Correct. But you were proposing if someone is breaking the waist of the nearest linemen, they should be a lineman. I was showing you why that doesn't work or what the result would be. The current rule works fine as it allows for the intent of the rule to be enforced. If 82 is on the end and breaking the waist of the snapper and the wideout or possibly a wing back is technically breaking the waist of the end but they are clearly in as a back then treat him as a back. Unless they are obviously on or obviously off, the official is going to put them where they are legal. This also most commonly done for two wideouts that are staggered. HS won't be as liberal as the "blade of grass" difference to make the formation legal, but if there is an obvious stagger between the two it's not something to be too technical with. The biggest issue is usually that T that cheats back too far or the teams who like to have the entire line as deep as possible. That's where warnings are usually given if they are close.

The issue is he's using the term "back" as a player wearing an eligible number and referred to as a running back on the roster. Roster positions do not exist in the rule book though. All offensive players are defined as either a lineman or a back (unless they are in no-man's land). #68 is clearly a back if he's lined up behind the QB in front of the tailback. He's a lineman on the roster, but by rule on that play, he's a back. He's not eligible due to his number, but by definition he's a back. And the WR lined up on the line of scrimmage because he's breaking the waist of the snapper is by rule a lineman.

The other issue with the example cloudofdust is using is let's say the guard is breaking the waist of the snapper, he's a lineman. Then the tackle is breaking the waste of the guard but not the center, he's a lineman. Then the TE is breaking the waist of the T but not the snapper, he's also a lineman. If the LOS is the +20, you now have a TE lined up with his feet on the 16 but by his definition a legal formation. And the wideout on that side who needs to be a back is on or inside the 15. That's quite the V formation.

2 hours ago, Footballking16 said:

That's literally the only reason why. The IHSAA can sit back and justify a 71-6 drubbing in a "postseason" game, citing the luck of the draw. They no longer can however if/when the sectionals are seeding appropriately. And be doing it the way they have been, they screw deserving teams in the process. It's a joke honestly. 

I agree. Random draw with all-in does still determine the ultimate champion. It's just a very odd way to do it. Nobody would ever come up with this system if they were creating a new system from scratch. We just have too many people who grew up in this system and feel it's the only logical way to do it. People are inherently resistant to change regardless of how crazy the current system is.

16 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I'm not sure that's the only thing as there are still bragging rights games, traditional rivalries, etc., but there's some truth to that.  Coming out of Texas where the rankings are done based on standings in a district, you could be in a 10-team district and see your season ended by the 3rd game unless you pull an inside straight.  There were still rivalry games and "sister school" games that motivated teams to play on later in the season, but sometimes you were already looking a year into the future before that stench started to rise in the locker room.

In Texas, we never thought much about districts because they were already set for you.  The state put you in, somewhat, geographic proximity with other same-size schools.  Think of the sectionals for Indiana at 1A-4A.  I'd conjecture that while everyone's talking about seeding/qualifiers, the one thing that I think Indiana's missing is "How will it impact conference structure?"  If random draw goes away and that supposedly automatically brings about qualifiers, then I'd also expect the a number of conferences to go away or completely realign from their current forms ... especially those that are mixed class ... and not through an organic process that we see now.

I think a lot of states do it that way. My home state does. There isn't much variability year to year in the districts like we may have in Indiana, but even then they probably wouldn't change much more than they do already. That is probably the the most logical approach though because then you have your schedule set for you most of the season and you are determine seeding entirely based on the results on the field. Some will argue against it because some sectionals will have travel issues, but that's only for a couple games each year and the road trips are fun for the students. They were some of my favorite memories competing in high school. Every conference road game for us was a 2-3 hour drive. I remember getting home from basketball games at 12:30am! That would be a much bigger change I think would be hard for people to accept, but there are many states that do it without thinking about it. And it still leaves 3-4 non-conference games for traditional rivals that aren't in your district.

40 minutes ago, foxbat said:

That's conjecture.  You'd have an argument if Monrovia made it to the second round or even the sectional final and lost, but in essence, Monrovia did what everyone says you have to do to take that crown; they eventually played the best in that sectional and beat them.

As for seeding them, go ahead and seed them.  It's not costing Indiana anything extra as there is already that "10th game."  Whether it's guaranteed terminal or guaranteed "near terminal," it's still on the books.  You can certainly argue about whether the schools get a "take" of the 10th game, but that's relatively easy to work out.

Again, I've still not seen the reasoning that all-in only works with a random draw.  Perhaps it eventually leads to folks deciding to create a qualifier, but it's not fact that it only works with a random draw.  And maybe it does lead to a qualifier and maybe folks just say, "That's pretty much what we expect the first round to be and now it is pretty much guaranteed."  It just seems odd to me that there are statements of conjecture as fact and wanting to skip to the "foregone conclusion."  What does it hurt to seed first and see where it goes?

I think the reason the all-in only works with a random draw is the teams at the bottom are very unlikely to be competitive in the first round. With a random draw they have the hope they'll draw another team at the bottom so they have a competitive game. That's what helps keep them motivated once they are out of conference title contention. The argument many make against a qualifier is once a team loses 3 or 4 early games they have nothing to play for. That's one of the key reasons I think there are some coaches opposed to seeding. They know they could always be that lower team praying for a lucky draw. 

26 minutes ago, JQWL said:

It always amazes me on a forum that should be for promoting football in Indiana, the amount of people on this forum that either want to eliminate teams completely or eliminate teams from playing games. There is nothing wrong with the all-in. Kids get very few football games to play in their entire lives and once it's done, it's done. Let's not try and minimize the experience just so fans can feel like it "means more."

If you make it a qualifying tournament you add a 10th game so everyone is still guaranteed 10 games. Nobody loses a game. This does improve and promote Indiana HS football because as Bobref mention it creates a playoff atmosphere for more regular season games either because it involves earning a playoff spot or possibly seeding for hosting a playoff game. I've worked many week 8 or 9 games that feel more like an exhibition game or scrimmage because the result has no impact on conference championship or anything playoff related. The players still play hard and to win because that's their nature. But you can't deny a playoff atmosphere is different than a regular season.

And the test I give is explain this process to anyone not familiar with it. 100% don't believe me when I explain it to them. They can't fathom anyone would have an all-in with random draw. Even as I try to explain why it works for people in Indiana they still think I'm making it up. They always ask, "why do you play a regular season?" This is the most illogical way to do a tournament that could ever be conceived, and there is a reason nobody else does this or considers this.

Not sure of the exact number of teams in each class in Illinois, but they do use a qualifier like every other state. If they have 32 teams in each class, that's the number that make the tournament. I also believe they don't set the class cutoffs until the qualified teams are determined. Then they split them into classes. Another very different approach. I personally like the playoff qualifier as it adds even more meaning to the regular season. People will argue teams that lose several games early will consider themselves out of the playoffs and not care any longer. In today's system they don't have to care either because they lose the rest of their games they still make the tournament so nothing changes for them. They are just hoping they get a lucky draw. If they don't their last game and their tournament game are no different.

2 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Bob I specifically asked the question when the nomenclature was changed from “not enough guys on the line”, to “five guys in the backfield”, what we do with the slot in no man’s land. I was told if he’s not on the line he’s in the backfield. My point was exactly what you posted. I would LOVE to know specifically who and where it was addressed. 
 

Also along these same line, last year was somewhat eye opening for me, for the first time in many years I was no longer a crew chief. I was AMAZED at the drop off in the amount of pertinent information I no longer received from North Meridian in terms of rulings and the normal communications we receive. Now I totally understand when guys show up at meetings and say I never heard that. 

That answer would be the philosophy answer that Bob is referring to. Another way to look at it would be to put them where they are legal if possible. If the wing back would create a 5th back and he's close enough to the snapper, put him on. Then warn him after the play to be clearer on where he's supposed to be. But technically he's still not a back or lineman if he's in no-man's land. Nothing changed that with the rule change a couple years ago.

4 hours ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

No, it was a good pitch. You just have to think about the same problem that arises with the coaches poll every year. Unfortunately as coaches, you don't have all the time in the world. You also don't see a lot of the teams in your sectional. Yes you can have an idea of who is good but you don't necessarily get to see them on film, see who they play, etc. so trying to have the coaches seed a sectional would be difficult if you don't see everyone because records can be deceiving. Not to mention opinions of other schools, relationships between coaches, I have respect for a lot of coaches all over the state. I also know other coaches I trust about as far as I can throw them if you are catching where I'm going with this.

They trust them to rate the officials which determines how far a crew gets to advance. You think they know nothing about other teams in their sectional. They know even less about the crews and how good they are. But they ultimately determine crew ranking. It's often determined by a volume of votes rather than a quality of votes. So the more well known crews advance regardless of quality. Fortunately for the IHSAA the crews who know a lot of coaches are also pretty good, but that hasn't always been the case. It also prevents the really good crews who aren't as well known from advancing. The key factor for popularity? The crew chief is also a basketball official who has had advanced far in the basketball tournament.

58 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

No disagreement and I didn't insinuate the non call with the late hit to the hit to Purdy's head while he was on the ground had any impact to the game.  But Blandino felt (and I agree) that it should have been a foul.  It was late and it was an agregious hit to the QB's head that ripped his helmet half off his head and bloodied his mouth.  This official either missed the hit, or didn't feel it was a foul.  I absolutely believe there would be variability across the league with officials as many (if not the majority) would have thrown the flag for roughing the QB.  (or for the late hit) I can't help from wondering if this same play had been flagged had it been Pat Mahomes instead of Purdy as I do believe "superstars" do receive a certin "benefit of the doubt".  You probably don't agree with me on the latter, but I absolutely believe there is varability across the league at times depending who is involved.  This is something discussed in length with NBA officiating.

I am not anti-officials.  I think their efforts are outstanding performing an incredibly difficult job.  I am old school, but personally, I'd like to see less replay reviews for calls.  I just believe that since we are involving human beings, errors will and do occur...with coaches, players and officials...and that's ok.  Its why they are all evaluated and have differing degress of success and longevity.  

The one I saw (don't remember helmet coming off or anyone getting bloodied) would have been a late hit and not roughing since it was a dead ball. No difference in enforcement so the same result. Based on where it happened I'm guessing nobody had a view of it. Just like when a player gets up from a pile and claims they got punched in the tenders at the bottom of the pile. I thank them for thinking I have amazing super powers to see through bodies.

Seriously though...you seem to have an interest in understanding this better so I would encourage you to consider officiating. It really is a great avocation. You the team aspect of working with your crew mates and other officials. You are an important part of the game with a goal of applying consistent judgement of all calls throughout. Fine tuning your pre-snap routine, identifying and correctly reading your keys at the snap, progressing through the play both in movement and focus so you are looking at where you need to look, slowing down each play aa they happen to make sure you saw what you thought you saw, making many decisions during the play (legality at the snap, foul/no foul, in bounds/out of bounds, catch/no catch, fumble down, spot, and many others). Each play only lasts 5-7 seconds, but you may have made 10 different judgements in that time. Communication with players and coaches between plays. Communication with your crew mates. All factors going into the quality of your work. Forgetting the last play if you think you missed something. Being better on the next play. The camaraderie before and after the game with your crew. We often call each other on the way home to compare how our games go. Many officials meet at a local restaurant for dinner after the game as well.

Just now, Bash Riprock said:

Not sure where your statistics come from, but I never said officials have high error rates.  Never said officiating is easy.

I think its clear I don't understand the rules....nor any coach or player.....only officials.......

By the way, I have some good friends that are officials at the collegiate level....a couple of them played Power 5 football....one of them has a Super Bowl ring.  While they would agree with some of what you state....they are at a very different place in terms of dismissing the knowledge of players and coaches about the rules.

Bottom line, officials are graded for a reason...and like any other profession, some are better than others.

I'm just saying the number of missed called you think you see and the number of missed calls that actually happen are very different numbers. If they weren't you would not be very critical of the work the NFL officials are doing. All your early justifications were based on the observations of coaches, players and announcers. I never said they didn't understand the rules. I'm saying they don't understand them nearly as well as they think they do. But they are the ones that fans take as Gospel so that misunderstanding gets taken as truth. And when an official then tries to explain the rules or a call they get dismissed because it's counter to what this coach or player or announcer said.

Looking back at your initial comments on this topic you were more focused on the influence missed calls have on a game. They may to some extent and some will appear to have a bigger impact depending on the timing. But ultimately there are several things over the course of the game that have an impact and no one play or call determines the outcome of the game. The Lions didn't lose only because Coach Campbell decided to go for it twice on 4th down rather than kick FGs. The great catch off the defender's face mask and fumble on the subsequent drive also played pretty big roles. The receiver catches the pass on the 1st 4th down play and there may have been a very different outcome. But the article that started all this was how much Shawn Smith's crew favored the visiting team, and I pointed out the fallacy of that argument. But people seem to think the crew has any influence in the outcome of the game. There are so many things over the course of the game that do that.

1 hour ago, Bash Riprock said:

I understand coaches yell out for penalties or complain because ones are called...but is this always because they don't understand rules or could this also be because they didn't have the view to actually see what truly happened?  Could it be both and not always the lack of understanding the game?

BTW, I watched both games yesterday, and listened to both the officiating experts point out what they felt were missed calls...especially with a couple of non-calls.  Example, Dean Blandino pointed out a missed late hit on the QB to the head when he was on the ground...replays confirmed he was right and it should have been a foul.  Officials do make mistakes from time to time....they are indeed human and we can all point to examples.  That is all I am saying.  They do a great job and no one expects them to be error free.

I never said they were perfect. There are going to be a couple calls each game that could have or should have been called differently. There are 160-180 plays per game. If there are 2-3 plays with incorrect calls That's a 98% accuracy rate. That's pretty amazing! The one I saw was I believe was on the other game and Steratore was the rules expert. The QB had scrambled and tackled downfield in the middle of other players. The only view that could likely see that hit was the overhead camera they showed. I don't believe any official would have had a view of that hit. So while they get a downgrade for not calling it, there was nothing they could have done differently to see it. But trying to get replay involved in those kinds of plays would cause more problems than solve as proven by the PI experiment a couple years ago. There are certain types of calls we need to leave with the officials on the field and accept a 98% accuracy rate.

None of this changes the original point of our discussion. As much as you think you understand the rules, you don't know them as well as you think you do. The same is true for coaches and players and TV analysts. They will never have a perfect game, but the number of errors is much smaller than you realize. Since you are a former player and coach I assume you aren't doing either now. I would strongly encourage you to contact some local officials and join us. You may find out how fun and challenging this avocation is. You'll also find out how little you previously understood the rules. They are more complex than you realize but not something you can't easily learn with time and experience. The latter part is critical though because it takes repetition and study to be able to see the nuance of each call. And this goes well beyond fouls and non-fouls. That's a small portion of what we are looking at and judging on every play.

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

I’ve officiated a thousand football games, and watched several times that many. Therefore, I am fully conversant in how to coach a football team, even though I’ve never actually done it.

Sounds stupid … maybe even a little bit arrogant … don’t you think?

So true! Knowing what you don't know is often more important than knowing what you do know. I may have some ideas of what i would do if I were a coach, but I know every coach knows more about coaching than I do.

4 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

As a former player and coach, I understand what holding is and isn’t. The head referee misses holding calls for time to time, especially with non-calls. That is a fact. 
 

All officials do their best, and some are better than others. But like any other human who are considered masters of their craft, they are not without blemish. 
 

Much of the media you downplay are former NFL players and they point out officiating errors through video. Dismissing their views as not understanding the game isn’t credible. 

I have so many coaches screaming for holding on plays where it is obviously not holding to know coaches don't understand holding as well as they do. Some of that is because at the high school level we also have officials who call very ticky tack holding. We have to do better there.

No official is perfect so you aren't wrong there. But they are also right a lot more than you think. I know it sounds condescending or arrogant to say coaches and players don't know or understand rules, but it's the absolute truth. Everyone assumes because someone played they know the rules, but when I have in depth rules discussions with someone they realize how little actually know. Once I learned I didn't know the rules of football until I became an official I realized I don't know the rules of baseball or basketball as well as I thought I did. That's why I ask officials in those sports when I see something I think is wrong. I always learn something. I was on the board for a local youth league and a situation arose where a runner was not called out when a batted ball hit him as he was running from 2nd to 3rd. I always thought that was an out. Not only did I learn that's not always the case, but it's also different in the various rule sets. HS is different than Babe Ruth is different than Little League is different than American Legion. And baseball and softball have different rules about it. I had two siblings of one of the players get in my face and argue they have been playing X years and were current college players and had never seen that called. Then they called their dad who who had coached for 30 years, and he insisted the umpire was wrong. Guess what? Every baseball umpire I talked to asked me the same question when I presented the scenario. Had the ball passed an infielder when the ball hit the runner? That was a key factor in every rule set and none of the players or coaches arguing had any idea that was a factor.

Here's another great example, there are no fouls for "over the back" or "reaching in" in basketball but you hear announcers use it all the time. But as fans we all believe those acts are fouls.

On 1/24/2024 at 4:16 PM, Bash Riprock said:

I am not saying anything in deliberate, but the referee does make calls impacting the QB.  And there is tremendous interpretation that occurs.  For example, how I have witnessed Patrick Mahomes and Matthew Stafford earning roughing the QB calls were very different in the games they played. Is that due to simple variability in how the referee judges the foul...perhaps.  

I have also seen the referee make holding calls (or decide not to throw the flag) and replay will show us if he got it right or not in many of those cases.  Is a missed call deliberate?  I don't think so.  (others may have their own opinion)  Can they be impactful?....absolutely.

Can a referee or any official be influenced by the behavior or reputation of a given player?  Again, perhaps not intentionally, but do I believe certain players get the benefit of the doubt, which can include crunch time....absolutely.  At the end of the day, the referee is human, and not a robot.

Over the course of a season a referee may call roughing 5 or 6 times. Holding calls are subjective and involve judgement the fan or media may not understand. It's not just a grasp or a pull. What you think was missed is most likely not a miss. There are several philosophies and training videos to try to be as consistent as possible from official to official and crew to crew. At the HS and college level we have to put the hold into a category. I assume NFL guys use the same or similar philosophies (their defensive holding philosophies are much tighter than ours). It has to be a material restriction at the point of attack and had an impact on the play. Most of the missed holding complaints is missing one of those elements. Even then we could show the same play on video to 10 very good officials and there could be a split of opinion. It's not black and white so there will be some level of judgement. Fans will point to this point and say "see, the official the can pick the one he/she wants to get the outcome he/she wants." That's the last thing on their mind as they are making the decision. I know you won't believe that, but it's a very weird phenomenon. You don't think about which team is involved because you are focused on seeing what you need to see and making the best judgement you can in the moment based on what you saw.

In this context you are correct that mistakes can be made for a variety of reasons, but they are definitely not intentional. They are human and not robots. But the number of blatant misses either way are rare. As the replay experiment with PI showed a few years ago, it creates more problems than it solves. The game is not perfect. The ball bounce funny. Receivers drop passes, defenders take a bad angle, runners carry the ball too loose and drop it. These are all the imperfections that make the game so unpredictable. Perfection is the enemy of great. We have great now and will never achieve perfection.

On 1/25/2024 at 1:31 PM, Muda69 said:

What?  I've been told on this very forum that this kind of thing is anathema, working with different crews.  Blasphemy!

 

The point is more about people saying "this crew" or "that crew" calls things a certain way and they expect the same results in the postseason. If there are any tendencies in a crew they wouldn't exist in the post-season because the crew is not Huchuli's crew or Vinovich's crew so there is no connection to the tendency. And the tendency is more likely going to be tied to the games they were randomly assigned to work. The officials perceived performance is often determined by the number of crazy things that happen in the game. For example, in the first 5 plays in the Chiefs-Bills game they had an illegal bat and a missed illegal forward pass. Both are very strange and rare plays. Some games have much tougher calls than others and the more tough plays the more likely there are to be issues, real or perceived.

Articles like that prove how little some people understand how football and officiating work. First, the referee makes very few of the calls in a game. Their attention is so focused on the QB and kickers they often have no idea what the result of a play is. There isn't much they could do to "influence" a game or "favor" one team. Second, the crew he's working with in the playoffs is different than the crew he's working with in the regular season. So any "trends" someone may think to propose wouldn't apply because it's a different set of people. It would be like having Patrick Mahomes as your Pro Bowl QB and then predicting the AFC Pro Bowl defense is likely to give up a lot of points because the Patrick Mahomes-led Chiefs give up more points than any team in the league.

3 hours ago, Indiana Fan said:

Is Carmel still not playing CG?

I haven't seen anything changing that stance yet but I don't have any inside information.

For teams like Center Grove and Carmel who have to fill a schedule without the benefit of a conference it may be the only way they can find opponents. Center Grove is opening at home with a team from Baltimore. They had a hard time finding an opponent. This at least gives them more options.

1 hour ago, Coach Nowlin said:

So assume 2 who messed up got the boot??  The WH and LJ?  

It's actually 6 of 7 (NFL only has 7 officials on the field). The one not assigned this week was the LJ. That doesn't mean he won't be assigned next week though. 4 of the 6 assigned are alternates this week which means they could get another assignment later in the playoffs as well. All this really proves is Schefter's speculation of a playoff ban the crew didn't actually happen.

On 1/7/2024 at 4:41 PM, Bash Riprock said:

Perhaps...if one goes back and reads my comments, I don't excuse anyone...but when it comes to human error, I can see where both sides need to own this.  I too have watched the video's over a number of times.  The official absolutely could have seen 70 (as he saw several times earlier in the game) and assumed he was reporting again WITHOUT actually hearing his report, which has been pointed out is required.  70 has stated he never verbally reported.  If he is being honest, then there was an error on the official's part by assuming 70 did verbally report.  Do the Lion's players ultimately own the reporting...sure...no one is arguing they don't.  But that doesn't mean the official did not err as well, and I am simply pointing out this possibility.

After being on this forum for a long time, I understand the mere mention of a possible official error would lead to responses from you and Bob.  Kind of like death and taxes, it was a certainty.  

BTW, that wasn't the only error/controversial call during the game......so it indeed happens from time to time.  

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39215679/officials-missed-tripping-call-lions-controversial-penalty

 

Now the tripping call definitely looks like an error. The official was fooled somehow and had the wrong team/player doing the trip. That happens. Unfortunately nobody else saw it to take him off the call. I haven't had a chance to watch a version of the video I could slow down to see if there was some other action that could be considered tripping (I don't believe there is). This is what would actually be considered an officiating error and one big enough that it alone could keep an official from a playoff assignment.

The reason why you see officials defend other officials is because most of the time the calls fans and media think are horrible errors actually are correct or at worst tight judgement calls.

As for the actual requirements of reporting, this is possibly where the rule and philosophy may be slightly different. I've only seen articles report the requirement but not seen the actual wording of the rule. The video the NFL shared mentioned both but not sure if they were saying they both had to be done or they both are valid methods. Either way every report from the rules experts and former officials has said the signal is most commonly used. Most of the time you just see the lineman turn around in the huddle and swipe his chest and that seems sufficient. Based on the video 70 was not close enough to the R to verbalize his reporting so there is no disagreement there. But the R clearly responded to his signal considering it reporting. If that's not what 70 intended it's now on him to get that clarified. The R has no idea he's wrong and no idea 70 isn't going to line up in an eligible position at this point.

4 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

It's a shame that one cannot discuss possible human error from both sides, without being accused of "piling on".  I understand your passion and bias being a formal official....but yes, officials can make mistakes as well.  They are human.

They absolutely do make mistakes. Most of the time those mistakes are caused by not having the best angle or getting fooled by what they saw. The only fault in this situation is if the R noticed there were 2 other players approaching him after he ruled 70 as the player reporting, he could have stopped to ask them if they had anything to add. But he never saw them or acknowledged them so 68 should have realized he never completed his reporting. And 70 clearly should have seen the referee point to him to acknowledge his signal. Detroit was intentionally trying to create confusion so they knew they weren't clear in what they were doing. But it is 100% on them to make sure the R knows who is reporting so the officials can correctly officiate the play. The R could have slowed down and possibly saved the Lions from their clumsiness and officials often are able to recognize and do that. But you can't fault them for something that is ultimately the responsibility of the team to execute clearly.

I'll provide a good example. When we line up the teams for a kickoff, we'll never allow a kickoff to occur if each team doesn't have 11 players on the field. If they have 10 or 12 we'll let them know before the BJ and LJ leave the field. That's not our responsibility. The number of players on the field are the responsibility of the teams. Another example is getting players to line up before the snap. If there appears to be 5 in the backfield or an eligible number is covered and the wing can get the attention of the wideouts, he'll let them know he has them on or off. It's then up to the player to determine if they need to adjust, but these are all examples of preventative officiating. They aren't required and being unable to do it isn't an error by the official as the teams are ultimately responsible for being legal.

So yes in this case, the referee could have possibly prevented the Lions from poor communication that resulted in a foul. But it's the players who ultimately needed to be more clear. This site provides a good summary of what happened. A key thing they have confirmed is the officials were graded as Correct Call for this specific play. This lines up with the two things released from the league this week.

https://www.footballzebras.com/2024/01/final-analysis-of-the-lions-eligibility-reporting-scheme/

On 1/4/2024 at 11:27 AM, Bash Riprock said:

I love how the officials run to one side of the fence every single time....of course, officials don't make mistakes.  🙄

Can you show me the NFL rule where it states a form of lineman reporting as a eligible receiver is the "brushing of their chest"?  .....

I guess there no absolute way the official could have "assumed" 70 was reporting, correct?  

I don't have a copy of the NFL rule book, but we are fortunate to have several NFL officials in Indiana who know the rules. They've shared with me you can report either verblly or physically. Usually it's just one eligible player giving a quick signal to the R who then announces and tells the defense. They can verbally tell them as well. As long as they communicate. It's usually a very simple, uncomplicated thing. The Lions decided to get cute and it backfired. The referee likely didn't look for any additional people reporting because he knew there were 6 ineligible numbers on the field and 1 of them reported to him as ineligible. If you watch the all-22 video he gets the attention of the area shortly after he started moving from the sideline area. This was coming out of a time out. The Lions sent 11 players out and then swapped out 2 of them including 70. 

Yes, I guess you can say the referee "assumed" 70 was reporting, but it was because 70 gave him a clear "reporting" signal as he ran in from the sideline as he had done the entire game. I'm not blindly supporting the official. I'm just stating what you can clearly see on video.

21 hours ago, CoachGallogly said:

It’s pretty obvious if you watch the wider version that the white hat makes eye contact with 70 running on and the white hat even points at 70

 

70 said he didn’t report. I believe that to be true.  68 also said he said one single word “report” I also believe this to be true.  
 

but the timing here is where we can see plausibly what happens.  70 runs on like he had other times directly at the white hat instead of the huddle (this is important) the white hat sees him, jumps the gun and begins to go tell the cowboys when 68 and 58 impede his path. 68 says “report” and the white hat likely thought “yeah I already know buddy I see 70 coming in” and didn’t process that 68 was reporting himself.  White hat continues on his path and informs cowboys of 70. 

I agree with your assessment. The R clearly communicates with 70. 70 is brushing his chest as he's running to the R so that is a form of reporting. He wasn't intending to actually report. Coach Campbell has admitted they were attempting to deceive the Cowboys defense so they didn't know who was reporting. There is nothing wrong with doing that, but I don't get why they would do it. The referee is going to tell the defense who reported so any deception goes away long before the they get lined up. It's 100% on the Lions to make sure the referee knows who is reporting. The R never acknowledged 68 but he did acknowledge 70 so even if they didn't hear the announcement on the PA of 70 reporting as eligible, 70 knew he was the one identified as eligible by the R. The referee had no idea he had the wrong number so I'm not sure how he can be faulted in any way here. If the Lions had made sure 68 was the one who was considered as reporting the play was perfectly legal.