Bobref

And what exactly makes you say this?

I always spend a week in Quetico, but haven’t been able to get in there the last two Summers.

I’m in Canada instead of at a game observing an officiating crew. On the other hand, there’s this consolation.

Where was your AD during all of this?

I spoke with fans many times when leaving the field after a game. Often times a fan will ask about a particular call or play. If I could educate the fan by answering the question, I would. If it was a “sour grapes” question, I’d avoid it. But it was always about the rules, never about judgment calls. Offering a judgmental observation like that to a perfect stranger is unprofessional, IMO. More problematic is that you have no idea where that observation is going to be repeated, whether it’s going to be repeated accurately, or embellished, or what that person’s reason is for asking the question. Much better to stay away from that stuff.

I’m not crazy about hearing that an official made such a remark in a postgame setting where it might be repeated … as it was.

I usually just put “5K” when they ask for my “race,” since that’s about as far as I can go these days.

This is a live ball foul. Play continues. After the down ends the defense has the option of the result of the play, or 5 yd. penalty from the previous spot and replay the down. Now, if this is a case where a man in motion suddenly cuts sharply toward the line of scrimmage just prior to the snap, there is a school of thought that treats this as a false start, since what happens is essentially the man in motion starts the play before the ball is snapped. In that case, it’s a dead ball foul. Blow the whistle immediately and penalize 5 yds.

I can assure, if a player is consistently playing on the edge, week after week, the officials are quite aware of it. So, either everyone is missing it, or it’s not actually happening. But since you watch film every week, perhaps you can share some clips of this dirty play.

So, by my reckoning, you’ve gone from “he’s a dirty player every week,” to “something happened at the end of the South Warren game.” That’s quite a difference.

Obviously.

It just seems unlikely that all the officials and all the coaches are missing something that only you are picking up on.

But the ball is still dead, as soon as it is possessed by any player, R or K.

When an R player signals for a fair catch, the receivers give up the right to advance the ball in return for protection. It doesn’t matter whether a fair catch, or any catch, is actually made. As soon as an R player possesses the ball, it’s dead.

Technically true. A team is entitled to a new ball at the start of any series. A try is not a new series, so there is no entitlement to a new ball for the try, unless the scoring team was not the team in possession at the start of the down. If you score with the other team’s ball, you can use your own for the try.

I stand corrected. I was quoting Indiana’s Mercy Rule.

Did you really mean that Mercy Rule timing was in effect in the 2nd period? Because if so, that was in error.

If I were king, DPI would be an automatic 1st down, and yardage enforcement would be according to what we jokingly called the “umpire rule.” The umpire gets the ball at the previous spot, and starts walking toward the Team B goal line. He stops when he gets to the spot of the foul, half the distance to the goal, or 15 yds., whichever comes first.

Please don’t ever call this. I mean, never.

Way ahead of you, as usual. Here’s what Mr. LeMonnier had to say on that subject: In speaking with one coach about intentional grounding and the passer being under duress, he semi- jokingly replied that his passer was under duress from the time the snap started, maybe from the time they called the play. He might be right but the reality and purpose of this discussion is on identifying the elements of “under duress” so we can consistently rule on the legality of the pass. Is your definition of duress the same as my definition? Here’s some indicators of duress... 1) panic on the part of the passer; 2) being chased or forced out of the pocket; 3) rushing the passing attempt because of a “heavy rush”. QBs/passers who panic show it by rushing a throw because they see or sense the impending contact coming from the rush. They won’t care where the pass goes or if an eligible receiver is in the area. They’re getting rid of the ball hoping it will ease the pain of the hit they’re about to take or just trying to avoid the loss not caring whether it’s called “grounding” or not. The passer who is chased or forced out of the pocket is different than the passer who sprints on of the pocket on a planned roll out type play. The roll out passer isn’t being forced out of his pocket or protection. Whether he’s under duress will depend on the rush and competency of his blockers. But simply rolling out is not an indicator of duress. When the passer is trying to set up or is set up in the pocket and now pulls the ball down and scrambles to avoid a potential sack, this is being under duress. If he chooses to pass then he needs to find an eligible receiver or get outside the tackle box and get the pass to or beyond the NZ to avoid the ING penalty. The question we hear the most is, “Is it duress when the passer, under a heavy rush, stands his ground without flinching and throws it away? He didn’t show panic nor did he get flushed out of the pocket. At best he just dipped a shoulder to avoid contact and maintained his focus downfield trying to find a receiver. No receiver is in the area and the passer was not outside the tackle box.” Assuming the pass is not tipped nor the passer’s throw altered by the defender’s contact, the passer will be responsible for where he throws the pass when he is under duress or a heavy rush. So the answer is “yes” this is considered duress. In my view, the concept of “duress” is no less imprecise than many other concepts we have to deal with regularly as officials. The situations where the concept will be the difference between foul and no foul will be few and far between. But the fact that it’s hard to enforce consistently because of the degree of judgment involved is not a reason to abandon the concept altogether.

Or, we have too many “rule book officials,” who think the process starts and stops at the black letter language of the rule, without any consideration of philosophy or the intent of the rules makers.