miner_35

1 hour ago, BDGiant93 said:

Team A is called for offsides on an onside kick. Team B recovers. Team A is penalized five yards and rekicks and recovers.

 

Could Team B decline the offsides penalty after the first recovery or must Team A rekick?

No, ball is dead before the kick in high school in that case.

1 hour ago, hhpatriot04 said:

Is there not an exception for illegal participation? I believe there is also some lenancy in interpretation if say a coach or player came onto the field to blatantly affect the outcome of the game...

ART. 2... No player shall intentionally go out of bounds during the down and:

a. Return to the field;

b. Intentionally touch the ball;

c. Influence the play; or

d. Otherwise participate.

<^>Bookmark this article                             

ART. 3... No replaced player, substitute, coach, athletic trainer or other attendant shall hinder an opponent, touch the ball, influence the play or otherwise participate.

<^>Bookmark this article                             

ART. 4... It is illegal participation:

a. When any player, replaced player, substitute, coach, athletic trainer or other attendant enters and participates during a down.

b. If an injured player is not replaced for at least one down; unless the halftime intermission or overtime intermission occurs.

c. To have 12 or more players participating at the snap or free kick.

d. To use a player, replaced player, substitute, coach, athletic trainer or other attendant in a substitution or pretended substitution to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick.

e. For a player to be lying on the ground to deceive opponents at or immediately before the snap or free kick.

f. For a disqualified player to re-enter the game.

g. For a player whose helmet comes completely off during a down to continue to participate beyond the immediate action in which the player is engaged.
2021-22 NFHS Football Rules Book - NFHS © 2021

36 minutes ago, Goose Liver said:

0:09 left in the game (4th quarter)
Offense on about the 50 yard line. 
Quarterback drops back and throws the ball to end zone and receiver catches the ball in end zone. 
Clock is now at 0:00. 

Flag was thrown on the play for “illegal touch” by receiver who caught the football in the end zone. 
He stepped out of bounds on his own just inside the 5 yard line. 

Officials negated the TD and placed the ball on the offenses 45 yard line. 
And gave the offense an untimed play. 

Shouldn’t the game have been over on the penalty on the offense?

I know the game can’t end on a defensive penalty unless penalty is declined by offense.    

If he stepped out on his own, he technically commits illegal participation. That's 15 yards. Play has to be accepted to negate the touchdown, therefore the offense gets to run another play since we can not end on an accepted penalty. If they decline and the game is within 8 points before said touchdown, they have an opportunity to run the PAT. If it has no change on the outcome, such as a team taking the lead as time expires or trails by more than two after the touchdown, the PAT is not attempted.

If he stepped out on his own, he technically commits illegal participation. That's 15 yards. Play has to be accepted to negate the touchdown, therefore the offense gets to run another play since we can not end on an accepted penalty. If they decline and the game is within 8 points before said score, they have an opportunity to run the PAT. If it has no change on the outcome, such as a team taking the lead as time expires or trails by more than two after the touchdown, the PAT is not attempted.

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

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

If anyone on my crew calls this... they will be replaced... immediately.. 

6 hours ago, MDAlum82 said:

Bob Ref:

IMO, the one rule in high school football most in need of “fixing” is pass interference.  As it stands, with a maximum penalty of 15 yds, this is one of the most abused areas of the current high school game.  It potentially subjects offensive players to unnecessary aggression, especially when it benefits the defense.  Coaches even teach DBs and defensive players to foul instead of giving up a long pass or a touchdown.  I have routinely seen WR & RBs, get shoved, pushed, kicked, knocked down, and worse, often well beyond the 15 yd penalty area just to avoid an otherwise big play or TD.  This limit on the amount of penalty yardage gives an major advantage to the Defense.  Why is this rule still in place and what would it take to fix it?

If the official calling this deems it to be blatant enough, there is technically a NFHS rule stating there can be another 15 yards tacked on. Have fun explaining that to the coach..

2 hours ago, PCFan1996 said:

But wouldn't running out of bounds be considered losing yards?  He was told to avoid running the ball so he shouldn't be trying to get upheld, correct?

He could slide to the ground or take a knee or pass the ball backwards out of bounds. I agree that it could be called, especially at the end of each half, but I see no advantage gained in doing such a thing in this scenario.

2 hours ago, miner_35 said:

#1 Illegal Touching

#2 Illegal Touching and Intentional Grounding: the drop conserves time and he was under pressure.

#3 could be Intentional grounding, but he is not under pressure and not just trying to conserve time or yardage. Could be interpreted differently by different crews.

2 hours ago, Bobref said:

You make the call. 

Personally, I would not call it Intentional grounding due to the fact he could just as easily run out of bounds, but no one is around him. This just has to be interpreted the same for both sides throughout the entire game. 

#1 Illegal Touching

#2 Illegal Touching and Intentional Grounding: the drop conserves time and he was under pressure.

#3 could be Intentional grounding, but he is not under pressure and not just trying to conserve time or yardage. Could be interpreted differently by different crews.

2 hours ago, Greene County Coach said:

I would agree... Eastern played well... hit a lot of open shots.  Executed the game plan well.  I think they put themselves in a position to win regardless of officiating.  I'm just not sure they were 10-14 points better (which is the margin for most of the 4th quarter).  

Linton did themselves no favors with poor shooting and missed opportunities.  I doubt they hit any 3 pointers... and we seemed to settle for jumpshots rather than attacking the rim.  It will be a good learning tool for the Miners.  Friday nights team will be a chunk of next year's varsity squad.  No Lincoln and a less than 100% Pyne will be part of the mix next year.  It can be a learning tool for next year when a couple JV guys join the mix.  That mix will have to win games differently than the 2020-2021 Miners.  

My biggest officiating issue was it seemed 2-3 calls would go against the Miners every time they made a run to extend the lead early or catch up later in the game.  Most were questionable calls or inconsistent to the way that same official called things on the other end.  Throw in the fact the guy seemed to want to be the star of the game... it was a problem for me.

Not very often you see an official like that either, but it makes for a sad day when they are more talked about than the kids playing. No Lincoln hurt as he is a match up nightmare. I just wish he would play a little more defense with his athleticism and not force some of the shots when others are open. With that being said, he is very talented and it is easy for me to say as I just watch on the TV this year. The dynamic is different when being there in person the whole time. 

I just saw where the Miners hit 0 three point shots for this game. It has been awhile since that has happened. If they hit 4 of those shots, which is less than normal, we have a whole new ball game. A sectional rematch would be interesting, and I would expect a different outcome.

11 hours ago, Greene County Coach said:

What a weekend...

Bloomfield won against North Central and WRV, which should have been expected.  They are 5-1 in the conference with only North Daviess left on the schedule.  They have a legitimate chance at winning the conference.  I'm not sure what the by laws are on the amount of games required to be eligible.  Years ago Linton lost a football conference championship due to losing a game to a cancellation.  Looks like the Cardinals won't have that to worry about.

WRV lost both games, which shouldn't be a shock.  I heard rumblings about their game against Bloomfield, but I can't imagine the Cardinals losing regardless of other factors.

North Daviess went 1-1, but a close loss to Orleans isn't an awful loss.  

So... the big upset was Eastern over Linton on Friday night.... I'm not sure how to approach this... being respectful to those deserving of respect.  I'll approach as an Eastern fan and a Miner fan Here it goes...

Eastern-  Coach Hudson had a good game plan predicated on ball movement and utilizing their big man to open up their shooters.  They executed the plan well.  Rippy was tough around the basket... he didn't hit everything, but he required attention and an extra defender hanging nearby to help.  Creager, Rees, and Valentine were outstanding at moving the ball and hitting open shots.  I'm guessing they hit 8-10 three pointers for the game.  I can't count how many times they hit shots when the Miners made a run.  They had to be very happy with how they played.  Regardless of how the next two paragraphs go... they played well... well enough to win Friday night.

Linton-  First, Linton was without Lincoln Hale.  He looked to get dressed... then he was back in his warm ups.  Knowing Eastern was a formidable opponent... this had me a little worried.  Especially with Josh Pyne back at well below 100% and Logan Webb and Braden Walters a little banged up (Logan looked to have a head injury last week, while Braden's back needs special attention by the trainer).  Joey Hart and Drew Smith kept the Miners in it early, but they still didn't seem to be hitting open looks.  As the game progressed, Eastern became better at forcing Hart into tougher shots.  If Hart was hitting open 3 pointers... this game goes down to the wire.   I think the Miners would have been better served to keep pushing it down low to Webb, Walters, and Smith.   It was a growing pain game for the Miners.  After all... they are pretty young.  On a good note... the Miner JV demolished Eastern's JV... so the future of the series looks good for the Miners.

Now for my less than respectable opinion of the game... Officiating robbed everyone in attendance of a barn burner.  By officiating... I mean one official.  I'll leave it at that.  Personally, I still think Linton would have been in real danger of losing, but it was a shame to see an official become the star of the show.

This is coming from a licensed official. I believe I know which official you are talking about and I completely agree. Horrible for both sides but very inconsistent on the charge/block call. Linton seemed to get the majority of bad calls from the one, but he was bad for both sides while I was watching. Makes me sick at times but we all have a bad night. Linton also missed a lot of lay ups, as well.

In the end, a good win for Eastern and a great learning tool for the Miners.

I feel like the WR is starting to move forward with the snap. It looks worse than it is in full speed. It is one of those things where the wings should communicate "Hey, he looked like he was moving forward in his motion on that last one, but it wasn't something that I felt was enough to call. Can you watch it on your side too and let me know?" 

You may see that play ran several more times and you may not. I go by the rule of thumb of looking at the hips. if they look to be turned endzone to endzone with motion occuring, it probably warrants a penalty. if not, tread lightly my friends.

On 12/23/2020 at 11:12 AM, Bobref said:

I did not see a foul. I don’t consider myself an expert on the NCAA rules. But I didn’t see either contact by the defense, or reaction by the offense.

That's why I said it is a foul in high school, didnt know about college. Assumed it was similar to NFL. The QB really selling the hard count can be considered something used to draw the defense offside if that head bob is considered bad enough, depending on the officials. They even went over stuff like that from in the IFOA videos this past seasons. Once again, I see no harm here. Offense just needed to move or snap the ball, solves a that problem. 

100%, regardless of a missed call at least at the high school level, pretty sure it is different in college. Also, QB could be called for false start with the head bob. Kind of at the discretion of the official. 

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

You could have 50 unsportsmanlike penalties for people running onto the field. It wouldn’t matter. Once they ruled the fumble had been recovered by the prone player, everything that happened after that was irrelevant.

I would not have called that a recovery, but maybe that is just me.

5 minutes ago, miner_35 said:

If you go back and look, #16 does go after the ball, with no helmet at that. That in itself is illegal participation.

However, western Michigan had players come out on the field too. Didn't catch that the first time. Lots to decipher.

5 hours ago, Bobref said:

Going to have to take exception to this, at least under NF rules. For this to be illegal participation, the people crossing the sideline would have to touch the ball, hinder an opponent, or “otherwise participate.” I didn’t see this. It fits much more closely with 9-8-1,“Being on the field except as a substitute or replaced player.” That makes it unsportsmanlike conduct. It makes a big difference because if the foul on BSU is unsportsmanlike, the live ball foul for illegal forward pass against WMU is enforced and, because its penalty includes loss of down, the period is not extended, the score is canceled, and the game is over.

On the other hand, if you call it illegal participation, it combines with the WMU foul to create a double foul. By rule, a double foul during a down in which time expires requires that the period be extended by an untimed down. 3-3-3b. The down would be replayed at the previous spot.

If you go back and look, #16 does go after the ball, with no helmet at that. That in itself is illegal participation.

These officials definitely nailed this one. I believe the rule in high school is different for players coming on the field as we could get them for illegal participation or unsportsmanlike conduct, officials discretion. If we go with unsportsmanlike conduct, it is administered as a dead ball foul, thus ending the game even if Western Michigan is stopped short. If we have illegal participation, there would be one un-timed down if they were stopped short of the endzone. Of course, the illegal forward pass negates any of that because even with illegal participation, they offset. This again, would end the game.

Of course, I could be wrong. I am a licensed official and am obviously usually wrong. 😜

4 hours ago, oldtimeqb said:

Just sickening.

Now that I have seen this clip which is longer than the ones posted last night on Twitter I have a question. 

The coach escorting the player off initially - blue shirt, dark sock hat, white mask.  Is he the same coach that is charging down the 45 yard line towards the other team as the player is charging the referee?  What is the story behind that?  If it is the same coach, his actions seem really off to me.   

It definitely looks bad at first, but I believe he is going out to help break it up. 22 from blue is coming in hot but I think he realized late that 22 was really trying to get to 88. It just blows my mind still and I have watched it numerous times.

1 minute ago, SL816 said:

He didn't do anything to make him an illegal participant, even if he went out on his own. He didn't touch the ball or block. 

That was going to be a tough catch. The defender was in good position until he started forcing him off his route. No problem with the call. A non-call decides the game also.........

What some do not understand is that there is no such thing as uncatchable in high school. 

2 minutes ago, PHJIrish said:

So illegal participation doesn't really matter in your scenario, is that what you're saying?  

Only illegal if he catches the ball or makes a block. @Bobref would be better at this explination.

1 minute ago, javaswat01 said:

lol go back and rewatch that play. the replay shown in the ihsaatv broadcast showed him stepping out of bounds twice while running down the sideline, neither time as a result of contact

 

I have no dog in this fight so don't care either way but your comments are factually incorrect

Even if he steps out of bounds, you can not prevent the receiver from making a play on the ball.  The defender does this DPI, no matter what

Just now, PHJIrish said:

So the rule must have changed.  If the receiver steps out of bounds he should be an ineligible receiver.

This is incorrect and he is not an ineligible receiver. He becomes an illegal participant if he catches the ball or make a block I do believe. Had been that way since I became an official.

1 minute ago, scarab527 said:

Defender was playing the ball all the way. The Dunning-Kruger Effect makes me laugh.

He was impeding the receiver from making a play on the ball. Get a rule book and show me anything different. 

Just now, PHJIrish said:

Have you seen the replay Bob?

Replay doesn't matter. He impeded the receiver from coming back to try and make a play. You can not do that regardless of the receiver being out of bounds.