Bobref

Yeah, I have no idea whether it was a TD. My issue is that official left himself open to criticism because he wasn’t where he should have been. He let the play go past him and then trailed it. That’s the correct technique at the 50 yd. line, but not at the goal line.

To be followed shortly by the required annual #All-InFormatSucks post.

Then there should have been an official planted at the goal line when the play got there. Goal line mechanics require the wing official on that sideline to move from the 5 directly to the goal line as soon as the ball is snapped. Error in goal line mechanics by that wing official makes it easy to dispute the call. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.

Man, if you can make that call from 2 still pics, we need to sign you up and get you a whistle! Unfortunately, there’s no official at the pylon where we’d like to have one. Where was the ball snapped from and what type of play was it?

The rule book has specifications for the goal. If the goal (or any other aspect of the facility) is not up to spec (such as the 2 ft. - instead of 2 yd. - restricted area at Hobart), the instructions to the officials are “play the game and report it to the IHSAA.”

Rule 9-3-7 provides that K may not initiate contact unless (a) the legal kick has traveled 10 yds., or (b) Team K may legally recover the kick, or (c) an R player initiates contact within the neutral zone. The foul is for an illegal block, which is a 10 yd. penalty.

Does it matter if the ball crosses over the sideline in the air before crossing the goal line plane? The answer, of course, is “it depends.” If the runner is grounded, as long as he crosses the plane inside the pylon the goal line extends, and the ball can be outside the pylon. The plane extends through the sideline. If the runner is airborne, however, the ball has to pass inside (or over) the pylon for the TD. Otherwise, it’s out of bounds where the ball crosses the plane of the sideline.

Actually, if the Team K player touched the kick before it was grounded, they didn’t execute it perfectly, since that’s against the rule. 🤣 Too many people watching those internet videos of NCAA onside kicks.

It is not possible for the defense to possess the ball in OT. But it is possible for the defense to score and win the game.

Yes, in OT the goal line is always the line to gain … although you can still get a 1st down by penalty.

That is not correct. Any time the defense possesses the ball in OT, the play is over. OT rule 5-1-1: “If the defensive team gains possession, the ball becomes dead immediately and the offensive team’s series of downs is ended.”

My favorite Bill Parcell’s quote: “You are what your record says you are.”

Uphill … both ways! 🤣

Back in the day at St. Edward our practice field was where they parked the cars for the varsity game on Friday nights.

The rule is you must have 5 on the line and no more than 4 in the backfield.

I have a vivid memory of working a game many years ago on a field that had been invaded by moles. They had used rollers to flatten it out. But still, at one end of the field you had to step very gingerly, or risk turning an ankle. It was so bad, we wrote it up to the IHSAA. Don’t see that on field turf!

I’d really like to know what the big attraction for recruits is at Texas A&M. I mean, they haven’t even won their division in recent memory, let alone a conference title, let alone contend for a national title. Yet they get a real blue chip class in the Top 5 almost every year. It’s got to be more than Jimbo’s sunny disposition.

Here is a very good article from Referee magazine on 3 of the toughest judgment calls on fouls — holding, pass interference, and blocking in the back — from the point of view of the official. Fans, coaches, etc., I bet when you read this, you’ll learn something new. For example, the next time you hear someone drag out that tired cliche that the officials “could call holding every play,” you can explain to them, using the information in the article, why that is not really true. https://www.referee.com/3-miscalled-fouls/ Three of the Toughest Judgment Calls In most seasons, false starts are the most frequently occurring fouls and arguably the foul that requires the second least amount of judgment (calling 12 players in the formation doesn’t require much judgment). But every foul requires some degree of discretion before the flag is thrown. For various reasons there are three fouls that seem to be most often called incorrectly. Holding Judging the legality of blocking is arguably the most difficult aspect of officiating a football game. On any given play there are six to 10 blocks and some of them go unobserved by a crew of five. Consequently, holding and illegal use of hands may be the most problematic of all fouls in football because there are so many forms of hand contact between players during constant personal collisions. Complicating the matter is the rules allow defensive players more freedom (push, pull and grasp to get at the runner) in how they use their hands. For a holding foul to be called, a player must prevent an opponent from possibly making a play by using an illegal technique. In other words, there must be a demonstrated restriction. If an opponent is taken to the ground, that is an obvious restriction. That could occur either through an outright tackle, a takedown or, less frequently, the pull-over in which the blocker pulls the opponent down over himself to make it look like he has been run over. An upright restriction can occur if the opponent is grabbed and prevented from moving to participate in the play (grab and restrict). The opponent can also be grabbed and physically manhandled to a different position (jerk and restrict) or be hooked with an outstretched arm to alter his path to the runner (hook and restrict). None of the preceding restrictions are likely to have an impact on the play unless they occur at or near the point of attack — an area in close proximity to where the play is intended to go. Since that isn’t really a “point,” some prefer to call it the “attack zone.” By examining the logic trail an official must follow, we can begin to understand why that foul is inconsistently called. First is the judgment on the legality of how the hands are used. Often the hands are hidden from the observing official and the decision must be made on the effect of the apparent grip. If the hands are deemed to be used illegally, the official must decide if the technical indiscretion actually restricted the opponent. Did the jersey pluck slow him down? Did an arm bar change his path sufficiently to prevent a tackle? Sometimes opponents will hold onto one another while they are moving — the so-called “dance.” Who is holding who? In actions such as that, it is hard for an official to make an accurate distinction. The next step is to assess the impact of restriction on the play. A block may begin legally and then progress to an illegal restriction. In passing situations, that may happen after the quarterback has released the ball. Or it may happen far enough away from the quarterback that an impact on the play is highly unlikely. Some officials will call that; others won’t. Additionally, because the point of attack is not a precisely defined term and is not addressed in the rulebook, there are officials who do not take that into account when ruling on holding. Whether an act does or does not prevent a play may not be taken into consideration. Takedowns by offensive players who are well away from or behind the play pose a particular problem for officials, especially when they are out in the open for all to see. Some officials believe the takedowns should always be called while others make exceptions especially when a touchdown would be negated. Similarly, there is a school of thought that holding should not be called when a defender is double-teamed. The theory is that if the offense is committing two players to one opponent, any advantage gained by holding is negated because a different defender has gone unblocked. Other variations include calling unnecessary roughness instead of holding and declaring a dead-ball foul when the act began while the ball was live. Without taking all those notions into consideration, a simple grab of a jersey — and a relatively quick release — may look like a foul, but it isn’t necessarily so. Consequently, making judgments on holding requires a thorough knowledge of what is legal, plus long study and experience to detect the actual behavior and to determine if an advantage has been gained. Pass Interference The inequities in the calling of pass interference appear to emanate from two elements. The first of those is an apparent lack of understanding on the part of the officials that both receiver and defender have a right to the ball and that “incidental contact” is a legitimate option if both players are making a simultaneous and bona fide attempt to reach the ball. Some officials are unconsciously biased in favor of the offensive player. When you think about it, any favoritism should be for the defender; he doesn’t know what’s happening, while the receiver is following a planned route that has been decided in the huddle. The words “not playing the ball” often enter the discussion by officials on pass interference and although the phrase is not mentioned in the rulebook, it is a legitimate factor — to a point. A player who is not playing the ball is responsible for any contact with an opponent, while a player who is playing the ball — making a bona fide attempt to reach the ball and looking back at it — may be absolved from unintentional contact. The second source of inconsistency is “catchability.” Under NCAA rules, a pass must be catchable for there to be defensive pass interference. However, an uncatchable pass does not excuse offensive interference (7-3-8c). In NFHS play, it is not interference if the contact by team B is obviously away from the direction of the pass (7-5-11c). However, if such contact interferes with an eligible opponent’s opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the ball, catchability is not a factor. The spirit of pass interference restrictions is to apply them to intended receivers and their defenders and not to other players who go downfield. Some prep officials will avoid calling an interference foul when the pass is not catchable and they can be very creative in explaining their rationale, such as, “The play was over when the contact occurred.” That discretion is frequently applied when the ball is past both players when the contact occurs or when both players are or nearly are out of bounds and no catch is possible. Other officials will strictly follow the rule and call a foul. Blocks In The Back The challenge in calling blocks in the back is that contact from the side is legal. If the player who is blocked saw or could have seen the blocker, there is probably not a foul. A block from the side, even though violent and even though it results in a player being put on the ground in vigorous fashion, is not a foul unless for some other reason it is also a personal foul. Frequently blocks from the side are erroneously flagged. The placement of the hands or shoulder during the block is a good indicator. If an official can see both jersey numbers, unobstructed, on the back of the player being blocked when the initial contact occurs, it’s difficult to rule such contact a foul. To be called a foul, a block in the back should clearly meet the definition of contact on or near the numbers of the player being hit. Another guideline is to note how the player who is blocked falls. If the blocked player falls forward, he almost certainly was blocked in the back. That is the type of fall that is most prone to cause injury and a player would not go down like that unless it was unavoidable. If he falls to side, it is a sign he was most likely blocked from the opposite side, but it is not an absolute indicator because in some cases players who are blocked in the back are able to turn to their side to lessen the impact. Another aspect of those blocks that is subject to varying philosophies is whether the blocked player is knocked to the ground. Those should be called as a safety foul and they usually are (if observed). Contact that merely puts a player off stride is subject to advantage/disadvantage. Not every bump in the back should be flagged. A slight brush that does not cause the contacted player to tip off-stride is not a foul. Some contact of that sort is incidental, because the player making the contact may himself have been jostled into another individual. However, slight contact that causes a defender to stumble and to perhaps miss an opportunity to make a tackle is deserving of a flag. Additionally, location is a factor. That type of block may take place far from where a play can be made. If an opponent is tipped off balance far from where the ball is in play, such action may be judged incidental, as having no effect on the play. If the contact occurs away from the point of attack and does not affect the outcome of the play, a verbal reminder.

Agree to disagree. And I have seen plenty of coaches endure highly frustrating situations without “blowing a gasket.” Some would call it “class.”

That’s why these plays won’t die. Occasionally you slip one by.

That’s why these plays won’t die. Occasionally you slip one by.

It’s 4th down, so numbering exceptions are in effect. I think you mean an illegal shift. They look set to me. Agree that this looks like the A11 … except that it’s 4th down. The A11 was intended to be an every down offense, which resulted in a rule change.

Look, the best I can do without a visual is tell you what the rule says. Was the play “clearly intended” to cause the defense to jump? Does it “simulate action at the snap?” If it does either of these things, it’s a foul. Is there any way to give a black letter hard line answer to a hypothetical? No. If this is heading in the direction of trying to remove officiating judgment from the equation, just give up now. The rule is written to not just allow such judgment, but to require it.

You mean in all your years of coaching you don’t know how to embed a video clip? Or are you just using that as a way to get an abstract answer you might be able to twist around to use later? What I’m saying is you have to read “intent” in order to call the foul, and you can’t do that in the abstract. Show me a video clip and I’ll be happy to give you my opinion. Please keep in mind that another type of false start is action which simulates the start of the play. Again, got to see it.