Bobref

And I told you, albeit indirectly, that I’m not interested in offering uninformed opinions. So, fish ain’t bitin’.

Obviously, you missed my point. None of us on the outside looking in can be aware of all the factors that need to be taken into consideration. The hardest thing to know — is what you don’t know. The second hardest is to admit it.

Seems to me like some people are jumping to a lot of conclusions without anything more than speculation and conjecture as support. There’s really no credible public information on what was involved in the decision-making process. So any “conclusions” are really just uninformed opinion.

This is the key difference. In Fla., the schools were able to replace one group of officials with another. Neither the number of games, nor the number of officials available to work changed at all. But, if you suddenly removed 10% of the licensed officials from the available pool, there’s no one to replace them.

I think rather than not being smart, officials are still clinging to the idea that they have an obligation to the kids … and to the game. But the numbers of officials are so low that there is no safety margin. It would only take 15-20% of the football officials in the state to say that they were not going to work unless — fill in the blank: pay is increased, or certain security measures are implemented, or the manner in which officials are selected for the tournament is changed, or we get to use pink beanbags, or whatever — to bring the system to a crashing halt, and require lots of rescheduling. Let me be clear. I’m not advocating that officials unionize, or engage in some sort of job action. But the powers that be ignore the possibility at their own peril.

Amazing isn’t it? Think of it this way. There are approximately 8 billion human beings on the planet. The number of them who can do that with any degree of confidence can be counted on the fingers of one hand … and you’d have fingers left over.

You know, this sort of thing comes at a tricky time. Don’t think officials are not closely monitoring what comes next in situations like these. And by a “tricky time,” I mean the continuing shortages has given officials huge power … that they have shown no inclination to use … yet. But officials have a scarce resource that is much in demand. If the local officiating association refused to work games at that school until certain measures relating to officials’ safety and security were implemented, it’s not like the school can just go out and hire replacements. Beware waking the sleeping giant.

You know, in some states this falls within the definition of “kidnapping.”

If the game clock expires during the down, that is correct.

This sort of thing is covered by the “unfair acts” rule. If someone commits an unfair act for which there is no specific rules coverage, the Referee awards any penalty he believes is equitable, including the award of a score. But it has nothing to do directly with extending the period. The example you gave was a nonplayer foul, so it wouldn’t extend the period anyway.

It is not illegal touching because, regardless of the fact that he is guilty of illegal participation, the receiver was eligible at the snap, so he remains eligible throughout the play. It’s a foul for IP whether they throw the ball to him or not. Since he remains eligible, you could actually have IP and DPI as offsetting penalties.

Yes, because the ball never changes hands after it is dead. 😉 There is no general access to HUDL video, even by coaches. The owner of the video has to actively “share” it with someone for them to access it. If you can get your coach friend to share it with me, I’ll be happy to look at it and tell you what I think. Share it to bobref@comcast.net.

Always nice to hear. Thank you for noticing.

I had them in Week 3 that season, and he was playing then. The reason I remember is that his Dad and uncle were old baseball teammates of mine.

I recall Highland started a frosh QB all season in 1987, including the state championship game.

Thought you might enjoy this. https://babylonbee.com/news/new-study-proves-refs-are-totally-biased-against-your-team# New Study Proves Referees Are Totally Biased Against Your Team CAMBRIDGE, MA—Sports researchers at Harvard have proven that the officials are totally biased against your favorite teams. Their report, entitled the Referee Equity and Fairness (REF) study, will be published next month in Sports Illustrated. Dr. James Fairplay, the lead researcher on the study for more than two decades, said the results were hardly surprising. “We always suspected the refs were against you, but now we have empirical evidence to back up our hypothesis,” he noted. “The REF study proves that the referees, umpires, judges, and other officials at all levels of sport are most definitely always biased against your favorite teams.” The study, which was the first of its kind, looked at thousands of sporting events since the year 2000. Researchers interviewed hundreds of players, coaches, and fans of all teams involved and asked them to rate the fairness of the officials on anonymous surveys. “We found strong evidence of referee bias against your teams in every single survey,” Fairplay noted. “This was true at every level, from pee-wee to the pros, and even at the Olympics. Whichever teams you were rooting for, the refs were definitely against them. Honestly, we’re not sure why nobody picked up on this before.” Fairplay also said referee bias is almost certainly the reason why your team didn’t make the playoffs last year, and why your fantasy team is doing so poorly. Now that the REF study is concluded, Fairplay said researchers will turn their attention to figuring out whether the broadcasters calling the game on TV are actively rooting against your favorite teams as well.

That is about 95% true. Penalties that include loss of down are exceptions. No extension of the period for those fouls. Also, no extension of the period for fouls that result in a safety.

Still done that way today, grass or otherwise.

That’s correct. This is illegal participation, not illegal touching, since any player who is eligible at the snap remains eligible throughout the down. The foul occurred during a loose ball play, so the 15 yd. penalty is enforced from the previous spot. The offense then gets to run an untimed down after enforcement.

You can never make a call with confidence based on a still picture.

“Good” is the enemy of better.

Try and find some other level of football, or any sport, where the exhibition season is 150% as long as the longest possible “real” season.

Can you actually stand in front of a mirror and watch yourself say this with a straight face? Do you not see how this stunts the potential of high school football in Indiana?

Depends on the foul being called.

I assumed that. What I’m looking for are examples of whatever it was that caused him to come to that conclusion. Many times I have found that when you probe to get at the underlying facts, there are misconceptions about the rules or mechanics, and people can be educated.