Bobref

Wow! 6 whole posts in your GID career and already a rating of -3. It’s clear somebody doesn’t understand something. Thanks for enlightening us, since this is a topic that’s never been discussed on the GID before. 😉

It’s an interesting philosophical question. I answered it that way because I know how I would feel if I were second guessed on the basis of video evidence of that quality. The Line Judge had absolutely the best view of anyone in the entire stadium on that play. As a semistate level official, I am not inclined to second guess him on the strength of a press box level video. Hence my invocation of the “incontrovertible video evidence” standard. At the NFL or D-1 levels, however, where the video replay capabilities are far better, I can tell you based on my conversations with actual replay officials, the standard is quite different. Regardless of what they say, if the replay official thinks he had a better look at the play than the on-field official, he’s going to make what he thinks is the right call. The bottom line is, should be, and always will be “get the call right.”

And ... another case of sour grapes.

If you can let me know approximately when this occurred during the game, I’d like to take a look at the video.

I watched the video of the onside kick, probably 25 times. If I were a replay official, the call on the field would stand because there is not “incontrovertible video evidence” to overturn it. But, because I have been accused - inaccurately - of being an apologist for officials, I will say this was a poorly officiated play. There were a number of errors made on the play, none of which had any bearing on the call, but which are troublesome nonetheless. First, and most egregious, the crew failed to react to what was an obvious impending onside kick. In that circumstance, the manual clearly calls for the crew to assume the “obvious short kick formation.” Instead of one official at the kickers’ 40 yd. line on the chains sideline and one on the press box sideline at the 50, as is usually the case, the Linesman and the Umpire move up, so that there is an official stationed at both the K 40 and at midfield on each sideline. This is a potentially disastrous mistake which would have earned a significant downgrade during an evaluation. Fortunately, the onside kick went directly to the Line Judge stationed at midfield, so the error did not come into play. On any kickoff, and especially when an onside kick is a possibility, the “up” officials start the play with beanbag in hand, so they are ready to mark a spot of first touching. Neither the Back Judge on the 50 nor the Line Judge at the 40 did so, which led to... The Line Judge, instead of marking the spot of first touching with his beanbag, dropped a flag instead. He then gave Signal 16, hands on both shoulders, which is the correct signal for first touching ... except when it is accompanied by a flag, in which case it signals the foul “illegal touching,” which this clearly was not. This led to confusion in reporting the situation to the Referee, with the result that nobody knew what was going on for a significant amount of time. I would have suggested that the proper sequence of signals, all by the Line Judge, should have been (1) beanbag at the spot of first touching, (2) kill the clock when the ball was possessed by Andrean, (3) signal “first touching,” pointing to the spot of the touching, and (4) point an Eastbrook recovery, since there was no question that Eastbrook would elect to take the ball at the spot of first touching. Bottom line, a poorly officiated play, but IMO, insufficient evidence to say it was the wrong call.

There’s 42 years of experience behind that paragraph. It’s called “value billing.”

That’ll be $300. 😆😉

I think he means “morale.” You don’t need to be able to spell in order to operate an end zone camera. 😜

Because people make offers of settlement for all sorts of reasons besides guilt. As a matter of social policy, the law encourages compromise of disputes. If litigants were permitted to introduce in evidence the fact that the opponent offered to settle the claim, fewer offers would be made for fear that they would be used against the offeror.

Nothing terribly surprising here. Your reaction is precisely the reason offers of compromise are not admissible in evidence at legal proceedings to prove culpability.

Thanks.

Anyone got any video? I saw a still of the onside kick, which tells us nothing.

To be honest, my only interest in this game is the officiating crew. Regular season opponents, 8 losses between them, it’s just the MIC championship game. Doesn’t seem like a state final.

Just another example of why semistate games should be played at neutral sites that reduce travel distance and can accommodate larger crowds.

That sort of 🐎💩 is unworthy of a class program like Heritage Hills. Try being a gracious winner. It might be a refreshing change.

Seriously, you should get some help.

The “cult of victimhood” is apparently alive and well at Eastbrook.

I say, turn loose the lawyers. Then there will be an accounting.

Oh, yes. Several times. And with high school kickers threatening the goal line with increasing frequency, I would expect to see it more and more.

Yes, as long as the hit doesn’t rise to the level of a personal foul. Remember, a receiver waiting on a forward pass is a defenseless player, by definition.

Ouch!

60 is definitely not “older.” 😠

I don’t believe it’s random, but the specifics of the process are well above my pay grade.

I believe the guy holding the plaque is the Referee of the crew assigned to work the game - from The Region. Either that, or his doppelgänger.

There is a distinct possibility that the covering official knew it was not a foul, bur in the heat of the moment, went to his belt and came out with a flag instead of a bag. I’ve seen it happen. That’s why when I observe a crew, one of the fist things I look for on the opening kickoff is that the “up” officials (back judge and line judge), as well as the Referee, have a beanbag in hand on every single free kick. No exceptions.