Bobref

Opinions vary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzFCnHc8KU0

Wow, I could write a book on that. SHort version: Every crew that applies for the playoffs is assigned a score which is a combination of experience, test scores, meeting and clinic attendance, observer evaluations, and coaches' ratings. Crews are advanced through the playoffs according to those scores, adjusted for a "new blood" process which insures that there are a certain number of crews in the finals every year that have never worked the finals before. It's much more complicated that that, but those are the broad strokes.

Just trying to educate people on some points of officiating that they don't, and couldn't be expected to know, from time to time. But you can only educate people who are willing to be educated.

Yeah, I wouldn't have been too proud of that post if I'd made it, either. Makes you look kind of like a whiny baby. I bet if you asked the admins nice they'd take it down, so no one else who feels the need to dig through this thread looking for hours old comments will see it.

Ineligible receivers downfield was, indeed, a point of emphasis this year, likely because of the increasing prevalence of RPOs.

You may be disgusted. But it's not "honestly.

Nunya.

Then you haven't seen enough of my posts. If you're talking about this specific play, I don't think the DPI call could be called unreasonable by anyone. Some might not have called it. But no one can really say it was unreasonable to call it. As for the receiver stepping out, I have no idea. Perhaps the reason I agree so often with the call on the field is that they usually get it right. But I have not hesitated to call out officiating errors on this forum where warranted. I won't hesitate to do that. I just don't see an error here. This crew did make a few errors, but no one on here has raised them. If you do, I'll be happy to comment and concede that they didn't work a perfect game.

Yes, but I won't. Really, it's not for me to make that information public. But I can tell you that they are from neither Boone nor Allen counties.

Let me tell you, that is a terrific hustle play by the Head Linesman. That ball was thrown a long way downfield. His mechanic is to hold the line of scrimmage until the receiver on his side gets 10 yds. downfield. Then he drops off the line and moves to the ball when it is in flight. That's a terrific piece of coverage right there.

As I said, I don't know if the receiver stepped out, or if he did, why he did. But, if the receiver voluntarily stepped out and returned, then the result of the play should have been a double foul, i.e., live ball fouls by both teams that offset, and the down is replayed at the previous spot. What bias? I said I didn't see that part of the play. I'm not saying what should have happened. I'm just telling you what the rules say. Or are you not interested in that?

Both of those things are illegal participation ... but so are many others. The rulebook definition is "any act or action by a player or nonplayer than has an influence on play." Simply running a pass pattern on the opposite side of the field from the play is participation, since it occupies a defender.

I did not see the play in question on the replay, only live, and don't know whether or why the receiver stepped out of bounds. But this is the rule: A receiver who was eligible at the start of a play remains eligible throughout the down, no matter what. If the receiver steps out of bounds as a result of contact with the defender, no matter how slight, and returns to the field of play at the earliest opportunity, there's no foul. If the receiver stepped out of bounds on his own and returns to the field of play, it is a foul at the spot he returns. The foul is for illegal participation, a 15 yd. live ball penalty which, in this particular case since it occurred during a pass play, would be enforced from the previous spot and the down replayed. Since the DPI and the illegal participation are both live ball fouls, they offset and the down is replayed at the previous spot. From what I saw, the DPI was a good call. The other 6 observers I'm watching the game from the pressbox with agree.

I’m sitting in the pressbox with half a dozen other observers. Unanimously agreed with the call.

Then it’s no foul.

Just stepped out of bounds, or did the defender have anything to do with it?

Solid call.

If the penalty had been declined, no option exists. The game clock would have started as soon as the referee marked it ready for play ... and then Luers would have had 25 seconds to snap.

Great catch by the officiating crew to offer WEBO the option to have the game clock start on the snap following enforcement, since it’s inside of 2:00.

And if you’re Luers, you don’t score. Game over.

Luers answers. 14-13. 4 TDs in the first 16:46 of play.

WEBO with a nice drive following a good kickoff return. 13-7. 8:59 of the 2nd.

Luers answers immediately with a quick drive, including a long pass play. 7-7. 3:58 of the 1st.

“Simple” and “easy” are great ... if you’re talking about puzzles. But that doesn’t mean they are “best.” The “best” solution is one that can be implemented easily, sure, but it also should address the problem, and fix it with the fewest negative consequences, i. e., collateral damage. The SF doesn’t “punish” anyone (I think that’s the word you meant to use.). But I understand how using loaded words like that serves your agenda. The SF is an attempt to go right to the “problem” and fix it at the root, not use a broad, non-specific remedy that accomplishes the purpose, in part, but throws out a lot of babies with the bathwater.. The complaint people have about the PPs is that the playing field is not level. But even the most rabid anti-PPers have to admit that some PPs do not use their inherent advantages to achieve football success. If the objective of the class system is for like opponents to be matched (within reason), then only those who use advantages, and are therefore not “like” their other class members should be targeted. That’s what the SF does, and that’s what a multiplier doesn’t do. And logically, there is no justification for not using the SF on publics as well. No one would seriously argue that publics like Munster & Carmel don’t have a significant socioeconomic advantage over fellow publics that translates to higher extracurricular participation rates, better facilities, and if you want to dig deeper, probably better nutrition and health care. Those that utilize these advantages to excell over the long term in football are no more “like” their fellow publics than are the PPs. If they show that they have had disproportionate success relative to their class competition, then obviously they have tilted the playing field. If the goal is “like” vs. “like,” they also should be affected by whatever tool you are using to level the playing field. If your goal is to “level the playing field” as much as possible, then the SF is a far superior solution. On the other hand, if your goal is simply to slap down the damn Catholics, the multiplier is for you. Just adjust the multiplier till you get to the point where the PPs are winning championships at the same rate as the publics, regardless of the consequences to those PPs like Bishop Noll and Park Tudor. Simple and easy, sure. But fair? I don’t think so.

Because that’s he way the SEC used to do it. They were the last conference to sign on to the national mechanics.