JustRules

Several scrimmages like this over the summer. Teams are allowed up to 5 competitions which include 7v7 or thud scrimmages. Many are done at camps as well. Sometimes the schools get officials involved. They don't pay, but it's good opportunity for officials to knock the rest off and prepare for the season. I know Brebeuf is hosting a 4-team scrimmage tomorrow and the IOA will have several members of their new officials class there to help them. These scrimmages are great for new officials to get some snaps.

Texas and Georgia pay almost twice what we are paid in Indiana. They have similar shortages. That's why I don't think pay is ultimately a huge factor. It may have an impact on the short term but that's it.

Much easier to say nothing is allowed than to try to legislate what comments are OK and which aren't and what paint style is OK and which aren't. I would be fine if they got rid of the rule, but I get why they took this approach. Pretty easy to comply.

As others have stated there are rules that must be followed and I assume it varies sport to sport. Swimming appears to be more liberal than others. The coaches for club and HS cross over significantly and there is a club season that happens during the HS season. Swimmers are limited to only 2 club events though during the HS season. Coaches are also banned from coaching during the normal summer moratorium seasons. But they are allowed to coach their swimmers during regular club season. The clubs are technically more community focused than school focused. For example, you'll find swimmer from Chatard and Cathedral at clubs in Carmel, Lawrence, Fishers, and Warren Central. Probably some Washington Township as well.

There are some limitations, but I'm not sure of the exact wording. It may be that the college can't host the event, but another organization can rent the facility. There are games played at Ball State every year, Cathedral has played games at UIndy, and I think Ritter still plays several games at Marian. As for the D3/NAIA schools hosting regional/semi-state, they would not be able to commit to semi-state week because that is the first round of the tournament. It could look bad to their coach to apply to host a high school semi-state. He could read it the school has no confidence they'll make the playoffs.

Yes, and I consider that even worse than a player or coach gambling especially within the sport they officiate even if it's not a game they work. He not only should be fired and never eligible for rehire. He should also not be allowed to attend an NBA game. Gambling is for the fans. Any participants or anyone tied to a participant should not be involved. I doubt coaches and players have the same limitations as officials on other forms of gambling, and I'm fine with that too.

I don't expect they are surprised their players get involved with gambling. They are told what will happen if they do and get caught. I have no sympathy for any punishment up to and including permanent bans from the sport. Pete Rose was one of the best players in the history of baseball and deserves to be in the Hall of Fame based on that. But he gave up everything when he chose to gamble on baseball games. He has only himself to blame.

I see it more as them supporting something the fans do but for obvious reasons don't want their participants doing it. That's very logical because they are gambling on the outcome of games something the participants can influence. The NFL creating partnerships with the gambling entities is still valid because they make their money regardless of the outcome. I have no idea if they are advertising contracts or a percentage of bets placed, but either way they do not influence the winners of the bets. In the scope of an athletic contest gambling is much more damaging than legal issues off the field. I'm OK with the league getting involved there as well, but the courts should be the primary arbiter and they don't impact the outcome of games.

You don't want those involved in the games involved in any form of gambling. It's a bad look and gets them potentially into some bad situations. Let's say Ridley loses $1500 on these games. He tries to get it back and loses $5000 the next time. And it grows. Suddenly he owes someone a lot of money. He could get pressured to do something in one of his games to settle his debts. The best way to avoid that is to ban gambling by the partipicants entirely. I know from an officiating standpoint the B1G is so opposed to gambling officials are not allowed to do any kind of gambling. This includes basketball pools and fantasy sports. I believe NFL officials are not allowed in a casino at any point during the season even if they aren't gambling. Violating any of those would result in immediate dismissal from the staff. I would imagine players and coaches are under even more scrutiny.

Most of the other leagues were either trying to compete with the NFL (original USFL) or tried to be over the top (XLF). They will definitely fail if they try to be either. Leagues that were trying to be there own thing with reasonable expectations were fairly successful (NFL Europe, Arena League).

It will if you understand what you are watching. If you are looking for NFL-level quality you'll be disappointed. The players were all good college players and the games were competitive. I assume they'll likely experiment with some NFL rules and broadcast techniques.

If this league only tries to be the developmental league it is giving players still trying to get to the league with an opportunity to compete against other players and get things on film, it may create an opportunity for someone. They aren't trying to fill up 60k seat stadiums. They aren't trying to attract millions of TV viewers. But they could be fun games to attend or watch. I watched some of The Spring League last year in Indy. These would probably be a lot of the same players. The games were entertaining. Some players got camp invites or signed with CFL teams. It's not a bad thing.

Most states don't have the coaches providing any input into the post season assignment process. Some allow them to provide feedback that may be considered by the assigner. A handful go so far as Indiana and have it be the primary way crews are evaluated. I don't see Indiana changing that any time soon. Anything else would be more work than they want to invest in officiating.

Pay isn't the primary reason. There are states that pay $120-$150 per varsity game and they have the same shortages we have. Where pay becomes a factor is when all the other issues listed above arise. If you have to leave work early and it causes issues with your employer. Or you are missing your kids' activities. Or your spouse/partner is upset about the amount of time you are away. Or if you are annoyed by the abuse you receive. You have to ask yourself if the pay is worth it for whatever other factor is affecting you. But if none of those things exist you'll probably work if you are paid $200/game or $50/game. That's why I think raising pay will not impact retention much. It may help with recruitment because that person will see an opportunity to make some side money and a higher game fee will help tip that scale. But the other issues need to be addressed. I personally like the meeting requirements and arrival time for games because that's what good officials should be doing. But I understand it can be a challenge for some. We need to do a better job recruiting people that aren't bothered by those things.

No matter which direction they do it an official will be looking into the sun as it sets. It's usually the H on the visitor sideline. At least if it's east-west the R and U share the sun every other possession.

A couple observations I love the fact this new organization has a Director of Officiating - huge improvement! I think the travel restriction should be at the school district level like all other high school activities; my job is done! No way I would be a part of anything led by Muda so I resign

If the mechanic doesn't have the wing move back behind the passer if he scrambles that way he's prone to get run over if the play ends up on the sideline. If the mechanic doesn't account for that I see a place where I can make a recommendation. There are not many passes thrown that far downfield in a HS game. I would also argue that if their key goes that far downfield there is likely another receiver who stayed in short on their side. The wing should switch with the BJ on their keys as the routes develop. I would propose wing officials to not drift more than 5 yards on most plays and be ready to retreat if a passer rolls to their sideline. I'll review the manual and submit a recommendation.

What changed several years ago was removing the requirement one of the blocks needed to be delayed. A simultaneous high/low block was legal. The low block was defined as the knee or below which always seemed odd.

Actually a very easy call for the U. It's not where the pass crosses the sideline, it's where it lands or would have landed. As for the wings, they should not be in a huge hurry to move downfield unless a pass is thrown deep. And if a pass is thrown deep obviously it will have crossed the LOS. They'll usually have a good idea of the relation to the LOS.

The NFHS announced the rule changes passed at last month's meeting in Indy. What are your thoughts on these changes? Intentional grounding not a foul if passer is outside the pocket and pass is beyond the line of scrimmage High-low (chop block) now requires the low block to only be below the waist rather than the knee (did anyone think was the rule already?) Player may now wear the number 0 (00 and 03 isn't legal) IHSAA can make the team box go beyond the 25 Penalty does not need to be accepted for offended team to start the game clock on the snap under 2 minutes in each half 40-second play clock used after foul by the defense Any official can request a new ball (previously on the referee - another one I didn't realize) https://nfhs.org/articles/revised-intentional-grounding-chop-block-rules-headline-2022-high-school-football-rules-changes/?fbclid=IwAR3Br9r3hQFNfo-9iucxy83utpXx2hf5f2rAuihi9m8td0FW9hUB1K-3dI8

If Bob has taught us anything it's that you should never use still photos to justify or dispute calls in football. And you lose all credibility on the lower right photo when the foul that was called was defensive holding. That means it happened before the ball was thrown so it was well before the action in this photo.

Good 30 for 30 on Tuck Rule. One of the things discussed was if that had been ruled a fumble the Patriots lose and Drew Bledsoe returns as the starter the following year. Does Brady gets his chance with the Patriots or go somewhere else? Is he as successful early in his career in a different system?

Once you become an official your comments carry some weight regardless of level. If you say that was an incorrect call others will give it credibility. You have no knowledge of NFL rules or philosophies. There are many subtle differences that we don't realize. Saying that contact would not be a foul in your HS game is valid. Saying an NFL official who has worked multiple years in the NFL and been assigned to a Super Bowl is wrong is not cool. Leave those comments to the fans who get their rules knowledge from announcers.

Nobody is going to make up a call. If there is any hint that you intentionally made up a call to correct a potential error from earlier you will almost certainly not be allowed back on staff the following year. Someone who is working in a Super Bowl most definitely would risk that. This is probably one of the most absurd assumptions fans make about officials.

I have a lot of respect for Mike and his opinion on things like this. This is a judgement call and his judgement is no foul. The official on the field felt it was a foul. I'm not sure how connected Mike is to the current leadership and the conversations they are having with the current staff. They may have felt this was a correct call and their opinion is the one that mattes. I've seen this called defensive holding a dozen times this season in various games. There must be some aspect of this they want called defensive holding. Maybe that's different from when Mike was the VP of Officiating. I have no idea. This would not be defensive holding in my HS games. The only thing I can think is wrapping your hands around the receiver as he makes his cut even if you don't restrict him is a foul. That is the consistent thing I've noticed with all of these defensive holding calls I've seen lately in NFL games. As an official you should know better than to post as an arbiter of NFL rules. I don't know and you don't know but one of us is admitting that we don't know.