Bobref

I’m not looking past anything. There’s nothing to be done about the outcome of the game. So, I’m focused on what comes next. Sorry you won’t get your pound of flesh … as unproductive as that would be.

So, you’ve decided on the basis of one game’s performance, with a substitute Referee, that this crew is irredeemable? Wow! I was on the field for 40 seasons, and have been observing and evaluating crews for the IHSAA for the last 7 years, and even I wouldn’t do that.

As I said before, we agree. This was the wrong outcome. You call it common sense. I call it understanding the philosophy behind the rules. We arrive at the same place.

The sideline warning procedure is used for (1) nonplayers being outside the team box, but not on the field, or (2) having more than 3 coaches in the restricted area at any time, or (3) having anyone in the restricted area while the ball is alive. See Rules 9-8-1k and 9-8-3. The sideline warning procedure is used to control the sidelines off the field. It is not used for personnel on the field who shouldn’t be there.

Very glad you’re not running the show. By the way, we agree that this was the wrong outcome. Where we disagree is that you’re all about punishment, while I believe in rehabilitation.

The sideline warning procedure is invoked in specific circumstances not present in this situation.

Given the shortage of officials, perhaps this could be used as a teaching moment, rather than passing a death sentence on a crew based on your observation of a single game. It is possible to improve, you know.

Because it doesn’t fit the criteria for a sideline warning. You can’t just make it up as you go along.

No. I saw the same thing. And you no doubt also heard the officiating expert, Mike Pereira, explain that was an incorrect use of the sideline warning procedure.

I am reliably informed that the Referee was a last minute substitute on the crew because the regular Referee suffered an injury. I can certainly understand why they were a little rough in their crew communication under those circumstances.

I only disagree with two things you said: “By the book it was correct.” Not so sure. See my post above. “If you can't flag it when it happens, then you shouldn't flag it a full 5 minutes after the last play.” As they say these days, “keep the main thing the main thing.” And the main thing is to get the call right. If it takes a serious discussion between the crew members on a play like none of them has ever seen in their careers, then so be it.

I’ve reviewed the above clip of the play in question. Here’s what I saw: The Brebeuf QB has the ball, comes under pressure, scrambles around, is hit, and goes down. The ball comes out, and no one blows the whistle, so they obviously felt it was a fumble. The loose ball is recovered by a Brebeuf player who carries it a short distance, and is then tackled. The play started at about the 7 yd. line. The QB went down about the 6. The ball became loose and was recovered about the 9, with the runner going down at the 11, between the Danville hash and the center of the field. All of this action took place between the hash mark on the Danville side of the field and the middle of the field. After the QB goes down, and while the ball was loose and during the run after it was recovered, Danville players in uniform left the bench area, and crossed the sideline to celebrate with their on-field teammates, some of whom can be observed running to meet them while the ball was still alive. The entering players got as far as the 15 yd. line. None got further on the field than the 9 yd. marks on the Danville side. Now let’s look at the relevant rules: 9-6-4 . . . It is illegal participation: a. When any player, replaced player, substitute, coach, athletic trainer or other attendant enters and participates during a down.” 2-30 … “Participation is any act or action by a player or nonplayer that has an influence on play.” 9-8-1 . . . No coach, substitute, athletic trainer or other team attendant shall act in an unsportsmanlike manner once the game officials assume authority for the contest. Examples are, but not limited to:” “i. Being on the field except as a substitute or replaced player.” Both illegal participation and unsportsmanlike conduct are 15 yd. penalties. In this case, the critical difference is in their enforcement. Illegal participation is a live ball foul. If accepted, replay of the down is required. Unsportsmanlike conduct, on the other hand, is always enforced as a dead ball foul, regardless of when it occurs. This means the result of the play stands, and enforcement is from the succeeding spot. So, the question here is whether the Danville players coming off the sideline “participated,” or not. Looking at this video clip, it’s very hard to make the case that they did. None of them got farther into the field than the 9 yd. marks. The play was inside the hash at all times, and was actually moving away from the Danville sideline as the players were entering the field to celebrate. None of the Brebeuf players appeared to have been hindered or distracted by the Danville players entering the field. It’s just my opinion, and it’s based on this single video clip, but I believe the right call here — if you’re going to call anything — is unsportsmanlike conduct on Danville. The play stands. The game is over. The crew chief makes an unsportsmanlike conduct report to the IHSAA. Having said all that, let me add something else. Not by way of excuse or justification, but to make the explanation more complete. It almost goes without saying that this is an extremely unusual situation. I encountered only one that was even vaguely similar in 40 yrs. on the field and 7 as an observer. The pressure as you’re standing there talking with the crew, trying to get it right, is difficult to describe if you haven’t been there. Without the luxury of video review, the crew on the field would have a difficult time determining when the Danville bench players entered the field, since their attention was understandably focused elsewhere. If they were unsure, the logical thing to do is give the benefit of the doubt to the offended team, in this case, Brebeuf. I’m not saying that’s what happened. It’s just a thought that occurred to me when I was trying to put myself in this Referee’s place.

I’ve reviewed the above clip of the play in question. Here’s what I saw: The Brebeuf QB has the ball, comes under pressure, scrambles around, is hit, and goes down. The ball comes out, and no one blows the whistle, so they obviously felt it was a fumble. The loose ball is recovered by a Brebeuf player who carries it a short distance, and is then tackled. The play started at about the 7 yd. line. The QB went down about the 6. The ball became loose and was recovered about the 9, with the runner going down at the 11, between the Danville hash and the center of the field. All of this action took place between the hash mark on the Danville side of the field and the middle of the field. After the QB goes down, and while the ball was loose and during the run after it was recovered, Danville players in uniform left the bench area, and crossed the sideline to celebrate with their on-field teammates, some of whom can be observed running to meet them while the ball was still alive. The entering players got as far as the 15 yd. line. None got further on the field than the 9 yd. marks on the Danville side. Now let’s look at the relevant rules: 9-6-4 . . . It is illegal participation: a. When any player, replaced player, substitute, coach, athletic trainer or other attendant enters and participates during a down.” 2-30 … “Participation is any act or action by a player or nonplayer that has an influence on play.” 9-8-1 . . . No coach, substitute, athletic trainer or other team attendant shall act in an unsportsmanlike manner once the game officials assume authority for the contest. Examples are, but not limited to:” “i. Being on the field except as a substitute or replaced player.” Both illegal participation and unsportsmanlike conduct are 15 yd. penalties. In this case, the critical difference is in their enforcement. Illegal participation is a live ball foul. If accepted, replay of the down is required. Unsportsmanlike conduct, on the other hand, is always enforced as a dead ball foul, regardless of when it occurs. This means the result of the play stands, and enforcement is from the succeeding spot. So, the question here is whether the Danville players coming off the sideline “participated,” or not. Looking at this video clip, it’s very hard to make the case that they did. None of them got farther into the field than the 9 yd. marks. The play was inside the hash at all times, and was actually moving away from the Danville sideline as the players were entering the field to celebrate. None of the Brebeuf players appeared to have been hindered or distracted by the Danville players entering the field. It’s just my opinion, and it’s based on this single video clip, but I believe the right call here — if you’re going to call anything — is unsportsmanlike conduct on Danville. The play stands. The game is over. The crew chief makes an unsportsmanlike conduct report to the IHSAA. Having said all that, let me add something else. Not by way of excuse or justification, but to make the explanation more complete. It almost goes without saying that this is an extremely unusual situation. I encountered only one that was even vaguely similar in 40 yrs. on the field and 7 as an observer. The pressure as you’re standing there talking with the crew, trying to get it right, is difficult to describe if you haven’t been there. Without the luxury of video review, the crew on the field would have a difficult time determining when the Danville bench players entered the field, since their attention was understandably focused elsewhere. If they were unsure, the logical thing to do is give the benefit of the doubt to the offended team, in this case, Brebeuf. I’m not saying that’s what happened. It’s just a thought that occurred to me when I was trying to put myself in this Referee’s place.

And you’d defend Benedict Arnold if he had one of those ugly striped helmets on his head. 😂 Seriously, I’m going to hang fire until I find out what actually happened. I know that’s a revolutionary approach where officiating is concerned, but I’m going to try it. I’ll let you know what I find out.

“If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.” — William Tecumseh Sherman

Back in the old days, a bunch of us had Illinois reciprocal licenses. We’d work an Indiana game Friday night. Then on Saturday, we’d go over to Illinois. They’d play the JV game at 11 a.m., and then the varsity game immediately thereafter, and we’d work both.

Sorry if the explanation isn’t up to your standards of clarity or specificity. But if you’re expecting an answer like “The QB can bob his head to an angle of 45 degrees without penalty, but if he goes beyond that it’s a foul for a false start,” you’re not going to find it. Like I said, you may not like it, but you can’t escape it. Much of officiating training involves learning guidelines that help you decide what needs to be called, and what’s a no-call. In other words, informing officiating judgment. That’s why we get paid the big bucks. 😂

You won’t find the answers to these questions in a rule book. Or a mechanics manual, for that matter. That’s because you are asking about the exercise of officiating judgment. The rule book is the starting place. But you can’t learn how to officiate by reading the rule book. That’s why we go to clinics, attend association meetings, watch video, read articles, etc. To learn the reasoning behind a rule, and the philosophy with which it is enforced. Then we can correctly apply those black and white rules to the infinite varieties of situations which we face on the field. And you won’t find the term “illegal procedure” anywhere in the NF rule book. There’s no such thing.

That’s not a personal foul. That’s unsportsmanlike conduct.

The Irish play Army, as well, last game of the season.

This interesting story from the Fighting Irish Daily Facebook page: "PLAY LIKE A CHAMPION TODAY." Notre Dame doesn't make a dime off it. All the rights money goes in the pocket of the little sign painter who made it -- Laurie Wenger. "I have MS," says Wenger, who retired from Notre Dame in 2009 but still lives in South Bend. "So it really helps pay my medical bills." How a simple sign painter has made all that money off Notre Dame starts with Lou Holtz. He was the new football coach at Notre Dame in 1986 when he was leafing through an old football picture book and saw a black-and-white picture of a sign that said, "Play Like a Champion Today." He had to have one. He dispatched one of his assistant coaches, George Stewart, to the campus sign shop. "Coach wants something like this painted up ASAP," Stewart said, handing Wenger a piece of paper. It took about three days. When she finished, she closed her eyes, said a quick prayer and rushed it over to the football office. Prayer answered. Holtz loved it and had it hung on the wall of a narrow staircase leading to the field. "I told my players, 'Every time you hit this sign, I want you to remember all the great people that played here before you, all the sacrifices that your teammates have made for you, all the people, your coaches, your parents, who are responsible for you being here.'" Since that day, some of the greatest players in Notre Dame history have touched it -- from Tim Brown to Rocket Ismail to Manti Te'o, Holtz believed in the sign so much that he had Laurie make another one and took it with him to road games. It became so screwed into Notre Dame lore that you'd think George Gipp had slapped it, too. "People think that sign has been up there since Christ was in diapers," Wenger says. "But, really, it's only been about 25 years." Right away, somebody wanted a copy -- Rudy Ruettiger. Yes, that Rudy, from the movie of the same name, although that came seven years later. "I thought, 'Wow, this guy is into it," she says. "And then my husband thought, 'If he wants it, maybe other people would want it." So her husband set out to get it trademarked. "We checked to see if we could have the rights, and the school said 'Well, it doesn't say "Notre Dame" on it, so go ahead.'" It's nearly as famous as the Golden Dome, and, as it has turned out, worth almost as much. #GoIrish

There is a line of cases in Indiana arising out of some nursing home sexual abuse situations where the employer is held responsible for the acts of an employee who sexually abused residents, simply because the employee’s duties made it possible for him to prey on a vulnerable population that could not defend themselves. I’m not suggesting anything at all about the Triton matter, because I don’t know the facts. But I can visualize an extension of that reasoning to a school corporation employee whose job duties place him in a position to take advantage of a vulnerable population, such as underage kids. Don’t know of a case like that, but I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility just because “they didn’t know.”

Elmer Layden owned an insurance agency in the Region for many years.

Happy 100th birthday to The Four Horsemen. It was 100 years ago today that Notre Dame beat a powerful Army team 13-7 at the Polo Grounds in NYC, a victory made legendary by the great Grantland Rice, who gave them their name. “Outlined against a blue, gray October sky the Four Horsemen rode again. “In dramatic lore they are known as famine, pestilence, destruction and death. These are only aliases. Their real names are: Stuhldreher, Miller, Crowley and Layden. They formed the crest of the South Bend cyclone before which another fighting Army team was swept over the precipice at the Polo Grounds this afternoon as 55,000 spectators peered down upon the bewildering panorama spread out upon the green plain below.”

There’s no hard and fast answer here. The QB (or any other offensive player) is not allowed to simulate the start of a play, or do anything else designed to cause the defense to encroach. Hand clapping signals, or voice inflection, can be used without penalty. When you get into head bobs and other movement, it gets dicey. There’s no way to eliminate officiating judgment, and that will necessarily result in some degree of perceived inconsistency.