Bobref

Cloverdale @ Cascade has canceled. Cascade looking for an opponent … for their Homecoming.

Someone said they picked up a game with a Michigan team.

Well, we’ve got a nice discussion going, including a “rant.” 😂 I’m happy to throw a little fuel on the fire. As long as I’ve been officiating, there has been an ongoing debate about the proper interpretation of the IG rule and, specifically, where does the concept of “duress” figure in to the equation, if at all? So, I will play Devil’s Advocate. Scenario #3: This is where the rubber meets the road, and the controversy begins. Here’s an excerpt from an article by George Demetriou (he’s long been my go-to guy for interpretation of NF rules) appearing last month in Referee: “Where the ball meets the ground is of no consequence unless the referee judges the passer was under duress. Although that term does not appear in any rulebook, it is the embodiment of the motivation to conserve yardage and is indisputably a critical component of the foul. Duress is a judgment call and solely is within the domain of the referee. There can be a foul for intentional grounding to conserve time without duress, but not to conserve yardage — the intent to save yardage is simply not there unless a sack of the passer is likely.” In his publication “Redding Study Guide to NFHS Football Rules,” Demitriou writes that one type of IG is a pass “thrown (under duress) into an area where there is no eligible Team A receiver.” (2020 Ed., p. 34). So, if time were critical in our play, it could be considered to be a foul. But if the QB simply gives up on the play without being in danger of being sacked, it’s no foul, since he was not “under duress.” Here are a couple of excerpts from an article by Bill Lemonnier, one of the most accomplished white hats in B1G officiating history: “When talking about intentional grounding, we use the term “under duress” as a pre- qualifier or requirement for ING to be called. It makes sense... a passer who’s under duress, in trouble or about to be sacked might intentionally throw the ball/pass away to avoid the loss. …” “The next question is if the QB/passer is NOT under duress can he just end the play by throwing the ball into an area where there is no receiver or if he’s still in the tackle box, just throwing the ball forward to the ground and incomplete? And how about the QB/passer who throws the ball high over the end line when deep in the red zone? Most would argue that the passer is not avoiding a loss of yardage when no “heavy rush” is imminent. He’s only giving up the down.” So, using the philosophy these two highly respected officiating leaders say is the proper way to interpret the rule, the answer to Scenario #3 above is: No foul.

Meatheads, stuck firmly in the mid-20th century.

Calculating the risk/reward ratio on this, and other decisions, is why they pay those guys big bucks. One thought is that the situation enters into the math. How badly do I need a score here? Am I going to be in good field position even with a decent punt and a fair catch? And of course, personnel issues are relevant as well. Is this guy actually irreplaceable on my team, or can I pretty much make up for his lost production with a couple of other guys already on my roster? Very few wide receivers are actually irreplaceable. But I doubt I’m going to have my star QB covering punts anytime soon.

I’ve been involved in HS football for over 1/2 century, and I have been firmly convinced all that time that coaches do not put enough emphasis on special teams. It is hard for kids to be disciplined enough to consistently drive the ball the length of the field to score, without making mistakes. Special teams generate field position advantage that can give the offense short fields, and even big play scores. And special teams is a place where you can offset physical and athletic disadvantages with scheme and ingenuity. If I were a coach, I’d spend a lot of time blocking kicks and running tricks.

No. Other than you can only play with 11, of course. 🤣

Somebody’s got a burr under his saddle.

Coan had a good game. That’s all. You pointed it out. Even a blind pig finds a truffle now and then.

Now I’m confused …. Coan was 26/35 (74%), 4 TDs, 1 int., 366 yds. That works out, under the NFL system, to a QBR of a little over 133. 158.75 is perfect. So, it seems to me he’s not the problem. The problem is without a rushing game, they had no ability to take the air out of the ball in the 4th quarter, like they tried to do. They have a preseason first team AA at running back, and he averages 2.3 yds./carry. Sounds like an O-line issue to me.

I don’t like the word “soft,” since to me it implies less than 100% effort, and I wouldn’t accuse someone of that just because of the style of their offense. But there is no doubt that the game has changed dramatically. It’s now much more of a scheme, matchup, one on one game than ever before. Now, it’s all about getting the ball to players in space, so they can make a big play. Reminds me a lot of MLB these days, where record numbers of homers are being hit … along with record numbers of strikeouts. Both football and baseball now live by the big play. I halfway think that the reason is our video game, internet, text message, social media culture simply lacks the patience, and the attention span, to be effective at doing it the old way.

The lesser of two evils. These are very basic procedures any varsity level back judge should know.

You make the call.

Perhaps. Need more answers, then we can discuss.

I thought that game was downright embarrassing. But it reached a new low when I was watching highlights on ESPN this morning, and they show an IU player on the sideline, #33, and “Indiana” on his jersey is misspelled “Indinia.” I mean, that’s just humiliating.

Intentional Grounding is a Point of Emphasis this season. As a guy who wore that white hat for 30+ years, I found IG to be among the most challenging calls I had to make. The rule has nuances that most fans and many coaches (and, unfortunately, some officials) do not appreciate. There are also rule differences at all levels of play. So, I thought we might benefit from an open discussion of some of the more nuanced aspects of the high school rule. We start with the bare language of the rule, which is relatively straightforward: “ART. 2 . . . An illegal forward pass is a foul. Illegal forward passes include: … d. A pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive ­receiver. e. A pass intentionally thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage or to conserve time. EXCEPTION: It is legal for a player positioned directly behind the snapper to conserve time by intentionally throwing the ball forward to the ground immediately after receiving the snap that has neither been muffed nor touched the ground.” Based on the language of the rule, how would you rule on the following play situations? 2nd and 6 from the B 42 yd. line. QB A1 drops back to pass. Under a heavy rush, he dumps the ball off to what he thought was his outlet receiver, standing all alone at the B 42. Except, it turns out it isn’t a receiver, but #78, who catches the ball and advances to the B 38, where he is tackled. Same as 1, except this time #78 doesn’t catch the ball, but muffs it, and it falls incomplete. He rolls right and gets free of the rush. After surveying the field, he decides there’s no one open, and he’s under instructions to avoid running the ball because of a bad ankle, so he simply gives up the down by throwing the ball incomplete into an area unoccupied by an eligible receiver. Chew on these for a little while, and then I’ll come back and we’ll discuss the answers. I think you’ll be surprised and, I’m betting you might find some of this a bit controversial.

OK, I heard Iowa was going to be better. Or perhaps …

I edited my previous answer to address your question. Sounds like they made the right call. The key is that the player doesn’t actually possess the ball while airborne, since his recovery doesn’t occur until he both holds the ball securely and returns to the ground inbounds. Since the ball had already broken the plane when the player holding it returned to the ground in the end zone, it’s a touchback.

I’m not at all sure that’s what happened. It does not appear that the K player ever actually possessed the ball. The only question then is whether the ball broke the plane of the goal line. Can’t really tell from that angle. If the K player did grab the ball in the field of play while airborne, and landed in the end zone with the ball having broken the plane, that’s a touchback. He hasn’t completed the recovery until he returns to the ground, so when the ball broke the plane, it was still a kick. Which brings me to the real substance of my post: that is absolutely terrible officiating by that back judge. He should be nailed to the goal line in that situation. If the ball was either possessed or touched by the K player in the field of play, there should be a beanbag at that spot. If the ball broke the plane, he should signal the touchback. After the play was over, he needs to kill the clock, and point in the direction the receivers will be going. And he needs to look like he gives a s*it while doing it.

This is actually a fairly common scenario, and the tip-off is that it was a QB sneak. By not coming set before the ball was snapped, the QB gets a rolling start … which is an unfair advantage. This is a foul. The more interesting question from the officials’ standpoint is: exactly what foul is it? The talk about stopping for 1 second is significant, but perhaps not for the reason you think. The QB was, in effect, in motion at the snap. His motion was illegal because it was forward. Even if he actually came to a brief stop, but not for a second, he would be considered to still be in motion. So, the proper call is illegal motion, not illegal shift, a live ball foul at the snap. Play continues until the down is over. But … There is also a school of thought out there with the philosophy that we don’t want to run unnecessary plays or replay downs. So, if you can call something a pre-snap dead ball foul — like false start — that is preferable. Proponents of that philosophy — including the rebel group’s leading proponent @JustRules — might call this a false start, on the theory that the QB’s movement was the “start” of the play, but the ball had not been snapped.

The 1. The position of any player’s body relative to the goal line is irrelevant in high school football. The position of the ball is everything.

When to switch footballs is completely discretionary with the officials. However, when a new series of 4 downs starts, the offense should get a new ball if they want. There is no rule requiring a team to use a timeout to get a new ball in the game. I suspect that what this is really about is the familiar “kicking ball” scenario. A team checks in several footballs before the game. One of them is the ball they want to kick. But they don’t want to play scrimmage downs with it. Sorry, there is no such thing as a “kicking ball” in high school. A team may be required to play with any one of their checked in footballs. They are all the same.

River Forest @ Lake Station just canceled due to the unavailability of a number of Lake Station players.

Weird free kick stuff happened last week … and a couple of our crews were not quite equal to the task. What will happen this week? Post your questions, observations, etc., right here. But keep in mind this is a “No Whine Zone.” You can commiserate with your fellow fans about how the guys in stripes done your team wrong back in the thread on the game itself. This thread is for questions, answers, and discussion. Have at it! And good luck to the 3rd team on the field tonight.

As thorough, thoughtful, and thought provoking as any analysis I can remember seeing on the GID. Thank you. I did not notice any reference to the local youth football programs. I have seen several cases of “creeping apathy” reducing a once solid program to one barely competitive. A “disconnect” between the youth programs and the high school programs can result in kids growing and thinking it’s no big deal to wear that jersey. A culture that was built over decades can disappear in a few years. Not saying that’s the case at Penn, I have no idea. What’s the state of youth football in Granger? It used to be huge.