JustRules

I'm from one of the many states that uses co-ops for the small schools and they vary from sport to sport. The thought of potential conflict never crosses anyone's minds. Ultimately high school sports are about participation with a good dose of competition. Allowing the co-ops provides more opportunities for some students to participate.

1 hour ago, BTF said:

A better metric for the success factor, Pierce said, would be to use a larger window of historical data to predict future success. That would help eliminate cases where a talented group of athletes achieves success and then graduates, leaving a team to compete above its weight without the same level of talent.

 

Hit the nail on the head. Many of us saw this from the beginning. Bump it to 9 points over a 3 or 4 year period. 

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.

On 4/27/2023 at 9:31 AM, Muda69 said:

To codify that connection if you want to be a member of the IHSAA and play in it's football tournament.  It's that simple.

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.

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!

On 4/28/2023 at 11:44 AM, foxbat said:

Would likely be the end of conferences as we know it.  Would lay open the path to districts.

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.

On 4/20/2023 at 8:56 AM, Muda69 said:

Because IMHO if you want to be an IHSAA state champion you should then play predominately other IHSAA member schools during the regular season.  If the IHSSA would adopt this rule then its approach to regular season scheduling would not longer be as  much "hand-off", would it?

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On 12/20/2022 at 8:18 AM, Punttheball said:

You are correct. I was bringing up two different situations.  It was more of a reply directly to Bobref because of the nitpicking comment as if neither situation was something of importance to the crews anymore.  

Each instance though is happening more and more without recognition from sideline refs.  Covered up TEs are going out for passes more and more.  END OF SITUATION!  And 5 men in the backfield is going uncalled more and more.  END OF SITUATION.  In my opinion, not emphasizing these calls compromises the defenses more than it seems to appear to those in the refereeing world.  

Are these both situations in which crews are being told not to nitpick about?  Or is one less important to crews than the other?  Because they are both important to coaches.

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.

On 12/14/2022 at 7:49 AM, Punttheball said:

Honestly, this is a terrible answer.  Defensive coordinators set coverages and defenses based on formations and receivers.  It is important to identify ineligible receivers as a defense.  This is why a covered TE is allowed to go down field and catch passes.  Shouldn't 5 men in the backfield be important?  It is terrible on so many levels.  You are allowing the possibility of 6 eligible receivers!  I'm guessing that if you are not "nitpicking" on vs. off then you don't care if teams have 5 ineligible numbers on the field either? Officials are more worried about the sidelines, if they are being observed, reading the scripted card before the game, if the balls have enough air in them, are they the correct balls, then applying simple on the field basic rules!

I already know your reply will be something in line with not enough eyes, or we do what Mr. Faulkens says, or go to the IFCA, or there is already a shortage of officials "and guys like you are why!"

This is bad to me.

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.

23 hours ago, Bobref said:

 

So, if you’re the R, you go to the wing official who signaled the TD, and say “ I know who had the ball. Who TF do you think had the ball.?”

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).

1 hour ago, jets said:

What am I missing here?? Isn't/Can't encroachment result in a first down?? 

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.

41 minutes ago, GroundSquirrel said:

I have been thinking about this for awhile but the regular season in Indiana means absolutely nothing unless your going for a conference title. From classes A-4! There is roughly 8 teams per sectional what’s wrong with saying the playoffs will be the top 4 teams from each sectionals. That way we avoid having matchups like Lutheran vs Cloverdale. I just think it would make the regular season mean a little more maybe there’s a better to it. Also i think they should flip the class like how the set 32 teams for 6A make 1A set first then trickle down to 6A maybe Whiteland could have competed at the 6A level. Just my two cents gain this maybe isn’t a good idea but the IHSAA does need to rethink its structure for football.

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.

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.

On 11/21/2022 at 8:18 PM, Irishman said:

TM also went to "dynamic pricing". Basically, the higher the demand for tickets, the more they charge. They say it's to eliminate the touts (aka scalpers and reselling services). What that means is they are now doing the exact same thing those people do. Maybe we can get to a point where TM is shown to be a monopoly and has to break up. That said, venues and artists can help control this. Ford Field does not use TM. Artists can set their ticket prices as well, but most just leave it up to Live Nation to schedule dates and set prices. 

You know who owns Ticketmaster right?

I had it up in multiple browser windows plus my TV and two mobile devices. It was a regular control center. Hard to focus on any one game but nice to be able to switch to a close game at the end. Lots of great football played Friday night and some heartbreaking losses.

Just now, gonzoron said:

I know. Rodney told us in his original post.

Now you are just trolling and wasting my time and everyone else's time. I'm out.

1 minute ago, gonzoron said:

I didn't read it as criticism of officials. I just read it that the officials were moving to the State Championship game. I suppose someone with a chip on their shoulder would read criticism into it. Criticism is abuse?? Give me a break.

He didn't say the officials were going to state. He said Carroll defeats the officials. Nice try.

Being critical of a call or calls by disagreeing with them is fine. Fans are biased and will see things how they want to see things. The officials are going to call things as they see them. Maybe they had a bad angle or were out of position or made a decision too quickly. Or maybe they were actually right. Accusing them of intentionally make calls against a team (which is what this quote did) is accusing them of cheating.

Maybe he meant this: Carroll defeats HSE overcoming some unfortunate calls that went against them in the same game to go to state

But he didn't. Words matter. He's had plenty of chances to clarify but instead used a movie reference to support his argument.

BTW...this crew is working a state final this week.

On 11/19/2022 at 12:46 PM, gonzoron said:

He didn’t say that.

Here is exact quote:

Quote

Carroll defeats HSE and the zebras in the same game to go to state

That directly says their opponents were HSE and the officials. He is saying the officials intentionally made calls against Caroll to help HSE win. How else could you interpret that? If people don't see why this contributes to the abuse of officials we will never be able to overcome this obstacle to retaining younger officials .Officials are never opposed to ANY team.

This is one area where NFHS, NCAA, and NFL are all vastly different. NFHS is the simplest. The kick crosses the plane it's a touchback.

13 hours ago, gonzoron said:

How was that critical?

 

When you say a team has to compete against the officials you are directly implicating them of intentionally making calls against your team to increase their chances of losing. It's one thing to disagree with judgement calls but to accuse the crew of cheating on favor of one team crosses the line and needs to be called out.

GC is right. The comment probably should have been ignored. But in getting frustrated with officials leaving due to abuse and recruiting being hard because people don't want to put up with the abuse. His comment doesn't affect my desire to keep officiating because I know he's ignorant on this  topic. And the more people realize how the words they choose contributes to the problem maybe we start see some change. 

4 minutes ago, Rodney said:

Called it

Carroll defeats HSE and the zebras in the same game to go to state

The best way to know someone doesn't know anything about officiating is to be critical of the best crew in the state hands down.

On 11/17/2022 at 11:27 AM, Sportsguy said:

Here's the dirty little secret: the mercy rule or some form of it had already been informally used in Indiana high-school football before it was codified. Anyone who regularly attended Wabash football games at the turn of the century can confirm that.

It was informally done but there were instances where one team would refuse to do it so regular clock rules were applied. This eliminated that option. That's why coaches pushed it.