Bobref

After explaining how the coaches’ vote is conducted, we have progressed to the point in our analysis of the system where it has been well-demonstrated that the annual coaches’ vote is the primary differentiating factor that determines officiating crew selection and advancement in the playoffs. The question now under discussion is whether that serves the goals we’ve identified for the process. The answer is mixed. Let me state at the outset that I have nothing but the greatest respect for coaches. I couldn’t do their job. Their job is a lot harder than mine. The vast majority of them fill out their coaches’ vote ballot conscientiously, attempting to do the best job they can. As explained below, however, they are unsuited for the job. I have seen an awful lot of high school football over the years. Still, my knowledge of the workings of the Wing-T pales in comparison to that of even the greenest assistant coach. Why would anyone expect the reverse not to be true when it comes to officiating? I would certainly hope we hear from some coaches on this topic. If you would prefer not to comment publicly, please PM me with your comment and I will see that it gets into the discussion without attribution. Recall that one of the goals of the process is to “give all relevant stakeholders a voice.” Clearly, coaches are significant stakeholders in the process. The coaches’ vote gives them a voice. So, the existing process supports that goal. However, the other goals the coaches’ vote purports to advance all relate to the correlation between coaches’ vote and officiating proficiency. Unfortunately, as demonstrated below, the coaches’ vote is not just an unreliable way to gauge officiating proficiency, it actually has some undesirable effects on officiating behavior. The flaws in the coaches’ vote as an indicator of officiating proficiency are many. Some are obvious, some are subtle. These 7 come to mind in no particular order. After listing them, I'll expound on them one by one, generating (I hope) lots of questions and comments. Please, officials, don't take this as an opportunity to b*tch about how your crew got screwed. This is a more general discussion on the merits and flaws of the process. Coaches are not trained evaluators of officiating performance. Coaches are not unbiased: outcomes influence perceptions. Coaches are not given clear enough standards, and the standards they are given promote inconsistency and do not correlate to officiating excellence. Coaches are not required to rate every crew they see during the period under review, introducing selection bias to the process. The coaches’ vote provides officials with no useful feedback. Coaches often have misconceptions about the practical effect of their votes. Coaches vote dependence influences officiating behavior in a negative way. Let's take these identified "flaws" in the coaches' vote process one by one. 1. Coaches are not trained evaluators of officiating performance. Asking coaches to rate officiating performance is asking them to do a job for which they are neither educated nor trained. Most coaches know most of the rules. No coach, in my experience, knows the rules to the extent an official should. And rules knowledge is only the most basic skill involved in officiating proficiency. Most coaches are completely unschooled in officiating mechanics, and have little understanding of the philosophies that are drilled into officials, allowing them to properly apply black and white rules to real game situations. Every official has had the experience of making a rules mistake … and the crew being the only ones in the stadium aware of it. Frankly, it is unfair to the coaches to ask them to do a job for which they are unsuited. And how do officials feel about it? Just imagine how you would feel at your job if the people in control of your professional advancement had never done your job, didn’t know what your job entailed, and had never been told what it is that makes you good – or bad -- at your job. That is not to say that input from coaches should not or cannot be a factor in assessing officiating proficiency. Coaches are well equipped to comment on the crew’s appearance, demeanor, professionalism, communication skills, hustle, etc., all qualities which have a place in evaluating an officiating crew. But to exalt those qualities over rules knowledge, solid mechanics, and proper application of officiating philosophy – as the current process does -- is not likely to either identify the most skilled crews, or advance officiating proficiency as measured by any conceivable metric. Next: Coaches are not unbiased: outcomes influence perceptions. ·

Turns out I will be at Ames Friday night observing the crew.

The “old” Ames Field had, hands down, the worst officials’ dressing facility in the northern half of the state. It was below ground and it’s primary use was the freshman football team locker room. All the sweaty, dirty equipment was hanging there. I remember some very warm nights there where you had to stifle your gag reflex going in there. The new facility is very nice.

2006 Regional, Norwell @ New Prairie. We showed up for the game, went into the locker room, had our pregame, walked out and the temperature had dropped 20 degrees into the 30s, and it was raining. We turned around, went back to the locker room and put on every stitch of clothing we had. The rain turned to sleet, and then ice pellets. The first half was an absolute mud bath. By early in the 2nd half, the temperature had dropped even further, and the mud ruts began to freeze. Footing was horrible. One player dominated the game: Norwell QB Chandler Harnish, who went on to star at Northern Illinois. He must have rushed for over 200 yds. in Norwell’s 49-20 win. After the game, I took off my knickers and socks and threw them in the trash. That was the most uncomfortable I have ever been on a football field, and the worst field conditions I’ve ever seen.

I knew it was some directional.

Sagarin disagrees. With the game at Andrean, Sagarin has Eastbrook the favorite by < 2 pts.

Was the personal foul for contact against the passer?

🤣😂😅

I always enjoy your in-depth analysis. 🤣

I won’t have to tell them. They know that there will always be fans who will think it was a bad call. That is the nature of fans.

I can promise you this play will appear at several clinics, association meetings, etc. It’s a great teaching opportunity.

Let me reiterate, it was not a bad call. In my opinion, it was not the correct call. But that doesn’t mean it was a bad call. They are not the same thing. I want that to come across very clearly.

Here are my thoughts. They are lengthy and involved, as this is a very, very difficult call. Please read the explanation as well as the conclusion so that everyone understands I have absolutely no problem with this Referee's call. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this is a multiple state finals crew. The R has a stellar reputation, well-deserved. I’ve spent a long time looking at the video and going through the rule book and case book, luxuries this Referee didn’t have. I’m still not sure I’ve got it right. But I looked at the play from the standpoint of an observer, who will get the crew together after the game to discuss mechanics, rules, and thought processes on this very difficult play. Here’s my $.02: From the video angle (which is not the same angle the R had), it looks like to me the QB is securely holding the ball, he begins his throwing motion, changes his mind, tries to hold onto the ball, but with momentum it comes out of his grasp. It is possible that a different angle shows something else. But from the comments I’ve seen, that seems to be the likeliest explanation for what happened. I saw someone reference the “tuck rule.” That rule doesn’t exist in the NF code. So, forget about that. So, the question I’m going to work through is whether this is an incomplete forward pass, or a fumble recovered by the defense for a TD, as ruled by the R. First, let me state categorically, I have no criticism of the R’s performance on this play, or even his final ruling. From what the video shows, R was in the right position, looking at what he was supposed to be looking at. He came in deliberately but decisively with a good signal. His body language displayed confidence in his call. He did everything right from a mechanical standpoint. Second, in order to answer the critical question, we start with the rules. What is a pass? “Passing the ball is throwing a ball that is in player possession. In a pass, the ball travels in flight.” It is also true that “Prior to releasing the ball on a pass, if the potential passer is contacted, and the ball is released, it is a forward pass if his arm was moving forward on contact.” We also have to factor in the “when in doubt” that officials can use to resolve thorny issues like this one: “When in doubt, it is an incomplete forward pass and not a fumble.” Here’s the case for a fumble vs. an incomplete pass: The rule says a pass is “thrown.” This is not a term that is defined in the rules. To many people, the word “thrown” connotes an intentional act, not an accidental one. If the QB did not intend to release the ball, he didn’t “throw” it, so it cannot be considered a pass. In other words, a pass must be intentional, not accidental. No intent, no pass. And if it’s not a pass, it must be a fumble. This is a reasonable interpretation of the rules. In none of the secondary sources of case plays I looked through was there any play that contradicted this line of reasoning. So, even though I don’t agree with this interpretation of the rule, I can see it is a reasonable one … especially when you take into account that I’ve spent several hours on this play today, and the R had about 2 seconds to process everything that happened. So, I say again, I find no fault with the R on this play. I just don’t agree with him. It’s clear that both the language of the rule and the case plays I’ve read illustrating the proper interpretation of the rule use the arm moving forward as the key criterion for pass vs. fumble. Once the arm starts moving forward, if the ball is released while the arm is still moving, it’s going to be a forward pass. This is true if contact causes the ball to come out. This is also true if, for example, the passer is contacted and, as a result, the ball actually goes backward. Once the arm starts moving forward, only two things can happen: Either the ball doesn’t come out, and the QB remains a runner, or the ball comes out, and it’s a forward pass. In other words, if the ball comes out after the arm starts to move forward, it cannot be a fumble. There is also the “when in doubt,” which, in my view, tilts the playing field toward pass vs. fumble. Finally, there is a philosophy at work among officials that we simply don’t want to award cheap turnovers, let alone a fluke TD. So, taking all of these things into account, if I were calling this play, seeing what I saw in the video (which may well not be the same thing the R saw on the field), I would have called this an incomplete forward pass. But as an observer, there is no way I would ever downgrade the R for his call on this play, even though I would have called it differently with the information I have. Ultimately, he made a judgment call, and his judgment was well within the realm of reasonable. Those who think everything on the field is black and white, with no gray areas, should realize through this discussion that sometimes there’s plenty of gray out there. I think one thing we can all take from this play is that sometimes it’s fairly simple out on the field. But sometimes the guys in stripes are asked to do a virtually impossible job. And this play looks like one of those.

It depends on the type of play. If the offensive holding occurs on a pass play, it’s enforced from the previous spot, unless the foul occurred behind the previous spot, in which case it’s enforced from the spot of the foul. On a running play, offensive holding is enforced from the end of the run, unless the spot of the foul is behind the end of the run, in which case it’s enforced from the spot of the foul. Hey, if this stuff was easy, anyone could do it. 😂

I will be there tonight to evaluate the crew.

The Mercy Rule is in effect until we get to LOS.

Dave Shelbourne was the head coach at Avon, and Rick Wimmer at Fishers. But here’s the kicker: the photo was taken by Tim Adams!

Not so much the on-field incident itself. It’s more the vitriol it seems to generate from fans, broadcasters, parents, social media. Officials need to have thick skin and very selective hearing. But some people have lower limits on what they’re willing to endure. The result is that sort of stuff shrinks the pool of those willing to become officials … or, stick with it after a few years. Retention is also a big part of the shortage.

You’re asking the right questions … but of the wrong people. Officials in NCAA football are prohibited from answering these types of questions by their conferences and supervisors. Personally, I think it’s asinine. In a sense, officials are their own worst enemies when it comes to transparency. I can’t tell you how many times here on the GID I’ve looked at a video clip of a “terrible” call, and was able to explain why, from an officiating standpoint, the call was actually correct. I firmly believe most people are willing to be educated. In that sense, this policy of essentially stonewalling represents a lot of missed opportunities to educate people.

I laughed out loud at the “refs need to be held accountable” blather. You have no idea how competitive officiating at that level is. And I’ll bet you’ve never been involved in a session with your peers and the supervisor where one of your calls gets sliced and diced mercilessly.

I don’t envy the crew, having to deal with that. And a playoff game! I expect there will be consequences.

Widely known by whom? Not by officials, that’s for sure. The B1G has always been a leader in NCAA officiating, going all the way back to when it’s supervisor of officials, Dave Parry, became the first ever national coordinator of mechanics. Now, if you want to check out some really uneven D-I officiating, check out the SEC.

If there was physical contact — and it sounds like there was — the proper call is a dead ball personal foul for unnecessary roughness, not unsportsmanlike conduct. But a player can still be ejected if the conduct is deemed “flagrant,” or if it crosses the line and satisfies the criteria for “fighting.” And the fact that the game was terminated at that point does not preclude disqualification, since the officials retain jurisdiction for that purpose even after the game was terminated.

Was #62 disqualified last Friday?

😴😢🥱