JustRules

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.

Don't use HS rules and philosophies on it because I've seen very similar action called DH in many NFL games. Not sure what element of it is a foul but it could be any contact at the time of a route cut could be a foul. Different league different rules.

That act is called defensive holding in the NFL. Not sure if their rule or philosophy is different or there is something about it we aren't picking up on. Us HS officials are in no position to determine if that call was correct or incorrect per NFL rules.

Your local association would also be a great resource. Reach out to your football chair. They usually have a good feel for which crews are looking for new members. This is a networking profession!

Not from what I've heard. We have some MIC games on our schedule the next few years involving Carmel and CG, and I'm being told they will likely not change.

Looks like we agree. So many people are saying the touchback was by far the worst are option are not accurate. They were all very likely to succeed but required execution. The other options had a similar risk of low failure. They all should have worked. Just because this one didn't work had little to do with the decision to kick it into the end zone and more to do with the failure of the defense to make one play.

The squib kick could have been recovered and immediately downed depending on where it was recovered. I've also seen squib kicks that hit the back of a receiving team member sooner than expected and recovered before the 40. The risk of a pooch kick is it could be fair caught with no time off the clock (or 1 second) in better field position than the 25. If it's hear the sideline it also has the risk of going OOB giving them the ball at the 35 or further depending on where it goes out. None of the options are risk free so pick the one you feel the most comfortable doing. Just because this one didn't work in this case doesn't mean it was the wrong option or that one of the other options would have worked better. KC had to make two awesome plays to get in position for the tying FG.

If Hill somehow got that kick and returned for a TD or long enough to set up the FG they would have been skewered for that. Or if the kick had gone OOB the Chiefs would get the ball at the 40. As a coach you have to pick one and realize good or bad could happen either way. The one he picked turned out to not work, but that doesn't the mother options would have worked.

I agree with this. These officials work together at clinics and pre-season camps, attend the same meetings, and often change crews year to year. Mixed crews in the NFL is very different than mixed crews at the HS level. I also believe the NFL philosophy is to make this a catch even if the whistle blew shortly before the catch. The only other time I remember this happening was a Patriots game a few years ago. Brady had rolled out to the near side and threw a pass downfield. It was caught and the receiver advance several yards and possibly a TD. The defensive coach was on the near sideline and he was upset about something (missed hold maybe?). He actually got in front of the wing official during the play. This distraction caused him to blow his whistle while the ball was in the air and just before the receiver caught it. They ruled the whistle had no impact on the catch so they awarded the catch but not the advance. I believe they were supported on that ruling. Rules can be complex but they don't always address every combination of every situation in a game. That's why it's so important for the officials to know the intent and philosophy of the rules to handle situations like this.

Great reply SenatorFan. It's entirely possible many fans don't realize how they contribute to the abuse of officials and words like "robbed" have very specific meaning. You personally aren't responsible for our shortage but comments like the ones you made collectively do. It's important to point that out when we see it. Less of a concern but something to consider as well. Judgement calls are just that. The official making the call has training, rules knowledge, mechanics knowledge, philosophy knowledge all in their tool box to see what they see and make a judgement. Angles and other players in the way contribute to that judgement as well. In many cases these types of judgements will not have a right or wrong answer. Even with the benefit of excellent video you could have disagreement among officials on judgement calls like this. That's why many officials who respond to plays like this are going to support it even if they think they may have had a different judgement on the field. In this particular play most of the officials I've talked to have said they felt it was the right judgement but others say they would have let it play out a little longer and rule TD. Most of the latter group though also said they would have also flagged the other UT player for assisting the runner. That is a huge assertion because that's a very rare foul and needs to be huge. I'm sure there are officials out there who feel this should have been a TD with no foul for assisting the runner, but I haven't talked to one yet. And trust me, this play is a huge point of conversation among officials around the country. The difference is we recognize this as a difference in judgement and not an "I'm right and you are wrong" situation. When a call is blatantly wrong is when the rule is misapplied or an official is out of position to make a call. These are things the officials often notice but fans rarely see. I always find that fascinating. For example, there was a play in the Sugar Bowl where Baylor QB/RB missed a handoff and they ended up with a busted play. The QB scrambled and found a receiver for a pass that gained about 9 yards. The LT had gone to the second level to block when he realized it was a busted play. At that point he was 6-7 yards downfield. He ran back toward the LOS before the pass was thrown. The announcers noted it, but commended him for getting back before the pass was thrown. Unfortunately that is wrong by rule. This was a miss by the crew that did not involve judgement. 6-7 yards is well beyond the allowed 3 yards and it was well before the pass was thrown. The U and probably the L will get downgrades on this. So yes, have an opinion on calls, but also understand when it's a judgement call or a rules application that is more black/white. Disagree with the call but realize it's not necessarily right or wrong. Also realize you may not completely know or understand the rule. Bobref's intent in sharing thoughts on these posts is to educate, and I think he does an excellent job. I try to do my little part as well.

Hilarious but he will probably be reminded to turn his mic off before doing that next time. Shawn is a great guy, and I'm sure he'll get a lot of positive run on this.

Agreed. For many teams winning a sectional game is a great accomplishment. Or a sectional final or regional final. You don't need a situation where every team has a fair shot to win a state final. Schools are getting rid of valedictorian and top 30/50 designations because it creates too much stress to accomplish or doesn't spread the love enough to more students. That implies not achieving those things is failure. That's now how education should work. That doesn't mean systems can't be tweaked. But if you keep changing it so everyone has a legitimate shot at a championship you remove a key purpose of high school athletics. I'm good with class sports so there are more than 1 opportunity to win a championship. But we don't need 7 or 10 or 12 classes to do it.

If you have an 8-team playoff, the 3v6 and 4v5 games would be good. Maybe 5 and 6 win those games and match up better with 1 and 2 so we have better semi-finals. Or go with a 12-team playoff so the first round is 5v12, 6v11, 7v10, and 8v9. Those would all likely be very good games as well making the overall playoffs entertaining. And teams 5-12 have far fewer teams opt out to start their NFL draft prep or enter the transfer portal. Same would be true for a 24-team playoff which I actually prefer. FCS uses 24, D2 uses 28, and D3 uses 32. There are many very good playoff games at those rounds. Once they figure out how to generate more revenue from 11 or 23 playoff games compared to 42 bowl games and appease the 60+ teams that don't get a postseason opportunity this will happen.