|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 24, 2016 20:19:51 GMT -6
Did anyone just see the touchdown by LSU after the strip? The guy that stripped it clearly was down. And then he got up and ran in for a TD. These are seven NCAA SEC refs. They are paid a lot of money and have received a lot of training and have been evaluated and rated to call a game at this level. It was an abysmal call. The guy literally got up off the ground and ran in for a TD. It was overturned. The strip stood, but the guy was rules down - duh. This wasn't even close. But yet, there is no way 5 high school refs could ever make a mistake like this. Especially the ones who already messed up a playoff game and ended some hard working seniors careers. They would never mess up and get a judgement call wrong. Only an enforcement of penalty of a play that was already a highly publized mistake this year. I am not sure what you are ranting about here. The coach's decision to throw it out of bounds? That coaches need to take into consideration the potential of an official blowing a call when they make certain decisions? That refs are all horrible and should be deported? Actually the ball was not thrown out of bounds it was thrown downfield in play. |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 24, 2016 20:30:02 GMT -6
I agree, but I think that change must occur after the season so as to avoid constant appeal and legal action. Again, JMO. For clarity, are you saying that there should be no rule written like that THIS year..but can be written after the season? Or are you saying that NO application of a rule like that should be done. I agree that you couldnt make a change now. But you could amend the rules so that if this happened NEXT year, you had a new plan in place. Actually I don't think the situation calls for a rule change at all. The rules are fine. The rule is a game cannot end on a defensive penalty but it can end on an offensive penalty. This rule is in place so that if the offense turned over the ball mid play or something like that, the offense can't purposely commit a penalty to try and extend the game for another shot at a possession. That rule is fine. What happened was that the officials did not know that rule. What I think needs to happen in situations like this state associations need to set up an overseer of sorts much like higher level football does to make sure they get it right. For example, the IHSA has a supervisory official who is not on the field but rather in the booth with a rule book and access to other state officials that when something occurs on the field like this they can appeal to him and he can check the official rule book or contact the association and call down to the field officials to make sure all rules are applied properly. Obviously due to lack of man power, I would see this as a set up for post season games only. Again, the rules did not fail here, it was not knowing the rules that failed here. State associations have to do a better job in making sure something like that does not happen as best they can in huge games such as this. Ideally all games but that is probably not a possibility. JMO. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 24, 2016 20:42:12 GMT -6
For clarity, are you saying that there should be no rule written like that THIS year..but can be written after the season? Or are you saying that NO application of a rule like that should be done. I agree that you couldnt make a change now. But you could amend the rules so that if this happened NEXT year, you had a new plan in place. Actually I don't think the situation calls for a rule change at all. The rules are fine. The rule is a game cannot end on a defensive penalty but it can end on an offensive penalty. This rule is in place so that if the offense turned over the ball mid play or something like that, the offense can't purposely commit a penalty to try and extend the game for another shot at a possession. That rule is fine. What happened was that the officials did not know that rule. What I think needs to happen in situations like this state associations need to set up an overseer of sorts much like higher level football does to make sure they get it right.
For example, the IHSA has a supervisory official who is not on the field but rather in the booth with a rule book and access to other state officials that when something occurs on the field like this they can appeal to him and he can check the official rule book or contact the association and call down to the field officials to make sure all rules are applied properly. Obviously due to lack of man power, I would see this as a set up for post season games only. Again, the rules did not fail here, it was not knowing the rules that failed here. State associations have to do a better job in making sure something like that does not happen as best they can in huge games such as this. Ideally all games but that is probably not a possibility. JMO. I am not talking about the in game rules. I guess I should have said by-laws or statues or whatever. I am suggesting that it might not have horrible unintended consequences if a by-law was in place that allowed for association review and the changing of an outcome in the very specific situation where a misapplication of a rule by an official occured, and the proper application of that rule would have resulted in the end of game. Regarding the highlighted portion..NO level of football has this, as multiple incidences have occurred where governing bodies have issued statements saying "whoops, the officials were wrong..but sorry you still lose" |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 24, 2016 20:58:01 GMT -6
Actually I don't think the situation calls for a rule change at all. The rules are fine. The rule is a game cannot end on a defensive penalty but it can end on an offensive penalty. This rule is in place so that if the offense turned over the ball mid play or something like that, the offense can't purposely commit a penalty to try and extend the game for another shot at a possession. That rule is fine. What happened was that the officials did not know that rule. What I think needs to happen in situations like this state associations need to set up an overseer of sorts much like higher level football does to make sure they get it right.
For example, the IHSA has a supervisory official who is not on the field but rather in the booth with a rule book and access to other state officials that when something occurs on the field like this they can appeal to him and he can check the official rule book or contact the association and call down to the field officials to make sure all rules are applied properly. Obviously due to lack of man power, I would see this as a set up for post season games only. Again, the rules did not fail here, it was not knowing the rules that failed here. State associations have to do a better job in making sure something like that does not happen as best they can in huge games such as this. Ideally all games but that is probably not a possibility. JMO. I am not talking about the in game rules. I guess I should have said by-laws or statues or whatever. I am suggesting that it might not have horrible unintended consequences if a by-law was in place that allowed for association review and the changing of an outcome in the very specific situation where a misapplication of a rule by an official occured, and the proper application of that rule would have resulted in the end of game. Regarding the highlighted portion..NO level of football has this, as multiple incidences have occurred where governing bodies have issued statements saying "whoops, the officials were wrong..but sorry you still lose" Personally, I don't feel that would be a good idea. Yes, in an ideal world getting the results of every game correct is what we all want. But, since many mistakes are made all the time, I see a log jam of appeals filling state association offices week in and week out. Our state has over 600 member schools. Furthermore, what about a grievous error that occurred in the 1st quarter but a team is still making the case that it cost them the win? I just think it would become an entangled nightmare. Who knows how the game would've played out? IMO, the best course of action is to improve the product as best they can while trying to avoid a million appeals. I mean we're talking about rational appeals. God knows every state has several knuckle head coaches who would file an appeal every time they lose a game and many of them would not even be legit. No, I think you over see officials that field officials can confer with during post season play and hopefully this avoids tainted results moving forward. IMO, that would be the most constructive path moving forward, as well as the most manageable and realistic. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 24, 2016 21:18:14 GMT -6
I am not talking about the in game rules. I guess I should have said by-laws or statues or whatever. I am suggesting that it might not have horrible unintended consequences if a by-law was in place that allowed for association review and the changing of an outcome in the very specific situation where a misapplication of a rule by an official occured, and the proper application of that rule would have resulted in the end of game. Regarding the highlighted portion..NO level of football has this, as multiple incidences have occurred where governing bodies have issued statements saying "whoops, the officials were wrong..but sorry you still lose" Personally, I don't feel that would be a good idea. Yes, in an ideal world getting the results of every game correct is what we all want. But, since many mistakes are made all the time, I see a log jam of appeals filling state association offices week in and week out. Our state has over 600 member schools. Furthermore, what about a grievous error that occurred in the 1st quarter but a team is still making the case that it cost them the win? I just think it would become an entangled nightmare. Who knows how the game would've played out? IMO, the best course of action is to improve the product as best they can while trying to avoid a million appeals. I mean we're talking about rational appeals. God knows every state has several knuckle head coaches who would file an appeal every time they lose a game and many of them would not even be legit. No, I think you over see officials that field officials can confer with during post season play and hopefully this avoids tainted results moving forward. IMO, that would be the most constructive path moving forward, as well as the most manageable and realistic. My provision was EXTREMELY SPECIFIC--and not intended to right all wrongs. Did you even read it? Just very specific wrongs such as this one. Not an attempt to get the result of every game correct. Not an provision allowing appeals for differences in opinions. The provision was simply allowing for review in the very specific circumstance where the misapplication of a rule occured, and the proper application would have ended the game (with a different outcome obviously). So nothing about protesting a bad call in the 1st quarter. Not even anything about protesting a clearly bad judgement call (like a missed/made fieldgoal) Officiating is already stretched too thin, and you think the answer is an additional official being at the game, but not managing it? Simply holding a rule book? The White Hat could handle this without anyone extra. |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 24, 2016 21:40:24 GMT -6
Personally, I don't feel that would be a good idea. Yes, in an ideal world getting the results of every game correct is what we all want. But, since many mistakes are made all the time, I see a log jam of appeals filling state association offices week in and week out. Our state has over 600 member schools. Furthermore, what about a grievous error that occurred in the 1st quarter but a team is still making the case that it cost them the win? I just think it would become an entangled nightmare. Who knows how the game would've played out? IMO, the best course of action is to improve the product as best they can while trying to avoid a million appeals. I mean we're talking about rational appeals. God knows every state has several knuckle head coaches who would file an appeal every time they lose a game and many of them would not even be legit. No, I think you over see officials that field officials can confer with during post season play and hopefully this avoids tainted results moving forward. IMO, that would be the most constructive path moving forward, as well as the most manageable and realistic. My provision was EXTREMELY SPECIFIC--and not intended to right all wrongs. Did you even read it? Just very specific wrongs such as this one. Not an attempt to get the result of every game correct. Not an provision allowing appeals for differences in opinions. The provision was simply allowing for review in the very specific circumstance where the misapplication of a rule occured, and the proper application would have ended the game (with a different outcome obviously). So nothing about protesting a bad call in the 1st quarter. Not even anything about protesting a clearly bad judgement call (like a missed/made fieldgoal) Officiating is already stretched too thin, and you think the answer is an additional official being at the game, but not managing it? Simply holding a rule book? The White Hat could handle this without anyone extra. Whoa, Easy big guy. Your reaction is a little aggressive. We have a difference of opinion. Deal with it. No, I don't think changing calls is a good idea. Yes, YOUR "provision" was specific. But... like anything else, boundaries will be pushed. Challenges will be made, etc. Right now the line has been drawn by the associations and frankly I think it should stay that way. As for officiating being too thin, did YOU read MY post? I said an overseer for post season games only. Half as many games in 1st round and significantly less games each round. In this particular case only 16 games even remained at the time of the occurrence. Easily doable. I think it's a slippery slope to change calls when it's open to interpretations as to what call really caused a loss & which did not. This game had a field goal and an overtime in it. Other team got it done and Fenwick did not. What if a call that happened earlier in the game gave Fenwick a break that put them in the position to be up in the first place? That's the silliness that will occur when they start overturning calls. It will never be black and white. But it is now and should stay that way IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by 3rdandlong on Nov 24, 2016 23:27:25 GMT -6
IMO there is a much greater issue at risk here than who should win a game. The issue of entitlement is a problem with American youth. The fact that someone will always be there to save the day for you is a problem. The idea of life not being fair and learning to fight through it is something that is almost lost on society. I am very glad this ruling did not get overturned because we would be opening all kinds of worms if the judge changed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Nov 24, 2016 23:54:05 GMT -6
Did anyone just see the touchdown by LSU after the strip? The guy that stripped it clearly was down. And then he got up and ran in for a TD. These are seven NCAA SEC refs. They are paid a lot of money and have received a lot of training and have been evaluated and rated to call a game at this level. It was an abysmal call. The guy literally got up off the ground and ran in for a TD. It was overturned. The strip stood, but the guy was rules down - duh. This wasn't even close. But yet, there is no way 5 high school refs could ever make a mistake like this. Especially the ones who already messed up a playoff game and ended some hard working seniors careers. They would never mess up and get a judgement call wrong. Only an enforcement of penalty of a play that was already a highly publized mistake this year. I am not sure what you are ranting about here. The coach's decision to throw it out of bounds? That coaches need to take into consideration the potential of an official blowing a call when they make certain decisions? That refs are all horrible and should be deported? Being bored during a couple of days off. Lol My whole post is me trying to be a jerk to blb who doesnt deserve it. In a nutshell, jrk5150 made a point that it is hard to say that the coaches should have done anything differently at the end of the game because if they did it differently, the refs could still have messed up. I agree. Hard to blame yourself as a coach when the refs mess up. It seemed that blb disagreed. I am actually not completely sure of his stance. Not mad at blb, I freely admit to be a smart a$$ here. I took up for jrk5150. blb made the point that refs aren't going (or probably aren't) going to miss a call like taking a knee and then fumbling the ball. So I just witnessed SEC refs making a incredibly terrible error in judgment. It was overruled by replay. High school does not have replay. So I took a jab at blb and made the post showing that if SEC refs can be that bad, then surely high school refs who have already shown they can mess up, could have messed up no matter what the coach decided to do. Which was/is jrk5150 entire point. I was going to let it all cease, but since it is brought back up, lol, blb made the point that he would have just had his punter run back in the endzone to waste time and take the safety to end the game. I wasn't going to bring up the point that a coach lost a game a few weeks ago because his punter fielded a snap with his knee on the ground. But since I am typing this post, I will/did decide to bring that point up. Coaches can lose games by poor decisions. But sometimes no matter the decision, a misfortunate play or a bad call can ruin the good or at least acceptable decisions no matter what. That is my point. Go back read the above posts from all parties to understand fully. Of course that will be a complete waste of time though, because this whole thing is petty and it is petty because of me. I do apologize. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Nov 25, 2016 0:15:51 GMT -6
I actually don't know where I stand on all this. I do know that I think the coach made an acceptable decision and got screwed by the refs. He maybe could have made a better call, but that still could have gone wrong. No matter what. I don't like the idea of another ref in the stands or wherever. There are four main problems there. 1) adding another ref. 2) why do we think he will be any better or know the rules better? 3) What causes him to be confered with anyways? Does a coach throw a red flag? Do the refs asks for help? Or does he decide when to interfere? Is he only used on end game decisions or anytime? 4) is this extra ref actually now the man in charge or is the white hat in charge? I think the fairest thing to do is what coachd5085 suggest. If it is misapplication of rules at the end, then you can change it. While the fairest way, I am not convinced it is the "best" idea. But I don't think I would be opposed to it. There is some precedence found in reversing outcomes in baseball. Teams have to forfeit when someone is found ineligible not only years later, but days later. It happened in Alabama just a few weeks ago. Honestly, the idea that we should just move on and are spoiled because we want the game fair is pissing me off. Look, I get it. Life isn't fair and when you can't do anything about it, let's move on. But if we can correct something that is unfair now or in the future, then let's do it. Isn't that why we have refs? Is t that why we have rule changes? Isn't that why we have instant replay in NCAA now and NFL? Isn't that why we have a 4 team BCS playoff now (which will probably grow to 6-8 at some point)? The point about the game ending or not ending on an offensive penalty. Shouldn't we just leave that up to the defense on whether or not that happens? Why is that not a rule? I will tell you why. Because rulemakers do not think of all the situations. I have plenty of examples here. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 25, 2016 9:13:32 GMT -6
My provision was EXTREMELY SPECIFIC--and not intended to right all wrongs. Did you even read it? Just very specific wrongs such as this one. Not an attempt to get the result of every game correct. Not an provision allowing appeals for differences in opinions. The provision was simply allowing for review in the very specific circumstance where the misapplication of a rule occured, and the proper application would have ended the game (with a different outcome obviously). So nothing about protesting a bad call in the 1st quarter. Not even anything about protesting a clearly bad judgement call (like a missed/made fieldgoal) Officiating is already stretched too thin, and you think the answer is an additional official being at the game, but not managing it? Simply holding a rule book? The White Hat could handle this without anyone extra. Whoa, Easy big guy. Your reaction is a little aggressive. We have a difference of opinion. Deal with it. No, I don't think changing calls is a good idea. Yes, YOUR "provision" was specific. But... like anything else, boundaries will be pushed. Challenges will be made, etc. Right now the line has been drawn by the associations and frankly I think it should stay that way. As for officiating being too thin, did YOU read MY post? I said an overseer for post season games only. Half as many games in 1st round and significantly less games each round. In this particular case only 16 games even remained at the time of the occurrence. Easily doable. I think it's a slippery slope to change calls when it's open to interpretations as to what call really caused a loss & which did not. This game had a field goal and an overtime in it. Other team got it done and Fenwick did not. What if a call that happened earlier in the game gave Fenwick a break that put them in the position to be up in the first place? That's the silliness that will occur when they start overturning calls. It will never be black and white. But it is now and should stay that way IMO. I think some of that "aggression" just comes from having to endure a plethora of discussions that turn into echo chamber arguments during this recent election cycle. Unfortunately, your post kind of followed the same track-- as I clearly outlined the ONLY situation I was proposing for review, and you kind of went "Straw man" and listed a bunch of instances where it wouldn't apply, and then said "I don't think this is a good idea". You say : I agree. But (and this is where that possible aggression comes in) that is categorically not what I was suggesting. I made no suggestion about "calls" yet you referenced changed calls and overturning calls 3 times. I made a suggestion about a situation where a rule was misapplied. No human judgement. Not only that, the suggestion was that such a board review and outcome change could be made when rules were misapplied such that the game should have ended. In such an instance, there is no example of human judgement to be made. Would such a bylaw be used often? Probably not, because the it is a very specific situation and as such I don't foresee a litany of unintended consequences. I am sure there are some (there always are), but they don't seem obvious or intrusive. Heck, prior to the two occasions this year, when was the last time this situation (misapplication of a rule extending the game and that extension creating a change in result) occurred? Contrast that to your idea about an official. You are suggesting that we take (presumably) qualified and experienced officials OFF of the field where their experience would presumably lead to a better officiated 48 minutes and put them in a booth with a rule book? I don't understand how that makes this better, when in theory the white hat should have 1) known the rule or 2) been able to look up the rule all on his own, without having to consult someone who then consulted someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 25, 2016 10:56:26 GMT -6
Whoa, Easy big guy. Your reaction is a little aggressive. We have a difference of opinion. Deal with it. No, I don't think changing calls is a good idea. Yes, YOUR "provision" was specific. But... like anything else, boundaries will be pushed. Challenges will be made, etc. Right now the line has been drawn by the associations and frankly I think it should stay that way. As for officiating being too thin, did YOU read MY post? I said an overseer for post season games only. Half as many games in 1st round and significantly less games each round. In this particular case only 16 games even remained at the time of the occurrence. Easily doable. I think it's a slippery slope to change calls when it's open to interpretations as to what call really caused a loss & which did not. This game had a field goal and an overtime in it. Other team got it done and Fenwick did not. What if a call that happened earlier in the game gave Fenwick a break that put them in the position to be up in the first place? That's the silliness that will occur when they start overturning calls. It will never be black and white. But it is now and should stay that way IMO. I think some of that "aggression" just comes from having to endure a plethora of discussions that turn into echo chamber arguments during this recent election cycle. Unfortunately, your post kind of followed the same track-- as I clearly outlined the ONLY situation I was proposing for review, and you kind of went "Straw man" and listed a bunch of instances where it wouldn't apply, and then said "I don't think this is a good idea". You say : I agree. But (and this is where that possible aggression comes in) that is categorically not what I was suggesting. I made no suggestion about "calls" yet you referenced changed calls and overturning calls 3 times. I made a suggestion about a situation where a rule was misapplied. No human judgement. Not only that, the suggestion was that such a board review and outcome change could be made when rules were misapplied such that the game should have ended. In such an instance, there is no example of human judgement to be made. Would such a bylaw be used often? Probably not, because the it is a very specific situation and as such I don't foresee a litany of unintended consequences. I am sure there are some (there always are), but they don't seem obvious or intrusive. Heck, prior to the two occasions this year, when was the last time this situation (misapplication of a rule extending the game and that extension creating a change in result) occurred? Contrast that to your idea about an official. You are suggesting that we take (presumably) qualified and experienced officials OFF of the field where their experience would presumably lead to a better officiated 48 minutes and put them in a booth with a rule book? I don't understand how that makes this better, when in theory the white hat should have 1) known the rule or 2) been able to look up the rule all on his own, without having to consult someone who then consulted someone else. I'm not saying you don't make good points. What I am saying is I'm very skeptical about making that concession not leading to more push for more concessions and then you have a circus on your hands. The game in question for example, yes the rule was misapplied. However, as I always tell my players, it's our job as players and coaches to not allow the refs to decide the game b/c you never know which way that goes. I have seen a replay of the game & it has convinced me not to set up a situation to over turn calls. First, PN scored w/ about 3 minutes left before all of this stuff happened & that was called back. Hard to tell if it was a good call or not, I'm sure that could've become a HUGE point of contention had the judge overturned the game. Everybody always remembers "the call" but nobody remembers "the call before the call". Yes, I understand you don't want it to be about a call only when the game is decided by a call. MY POINT is none of that happens in a vacuum. Certain chains of events lead to other chains of events, etc. Secondly, & I HATE 2nd guessing coaches but the facts are the facts, the Fenwick coach started kneeing the ball too early & could not effectively run out the clock. NOBODY is talking about this. All he had to do was run 1 play, the time differential of getting off the pile and spotting the ball would've made up for the 3 second discrepancy and the game would've been over. He has responsibility in this. MY point in all of this is that a FB game is NEVER about 1 play and it's never about 1 call ever. No matter the appearance it just isn't. Like you said above this is a rare circumstance, I rebut that with IT IS a rare occurrence. No need for change. If their was a better way to do it I'm sure they would've have thought of it by now. I'm sure they've already identified all the pitfalls to overturning a games outcome that we haven't even thought of & have solid reasons for not doing so. Leave the game alone. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 25, 2016 12:26:27 GMT -6
I think some of that "aggression" just comes from having to endure a plethora of discussions that turn into echo chamber arguments during this recent election cycle. Unfortunately, your post kind of followed the same track-- as I clearly outlined the ONLY situation I was proposing for review, and you kind of went "Straw man" and listed a bunch of instances where it wouldn't apply, and then said "I don't think this is a good idea". You say : I agree. But (and this is where that possible aggression comes in) that is categorically not what I was suggesting. I made no suggestion about "calls" yet you referenced changed calls and overturning calls 3 times. I made a suggestion about a situation where a rule was misapplied. No human judgement. Not only that, the suggestion was that such a board review and outcome change could be made when rules were misapplied such that the game should have ended. In such an instance, there is no example of human judgement to be made. Would such a bylaw be used often? Probably not, because the it is a very specific situation and as such I don't foresee a litany of unintended consequences. I am sure there are some (there always are), but they don't seem obvious or intrusive. Heck, prior to the two occasions this year, when was the last time this situation (misapplication of a rule extending the game and that extension creating a change in result) occurred? Contrast that to your idea about an official. You are suggesting that we take (presumably) qualified and experienced officials OFF of the field where their experience would presumably lead to a better officiated 48 minutes and put them in a booth with a rule book? I don't understand how that makes this better, when in theory the white hat should have 1) known the rule or 2) been able to look up the rule all on his own, without having to consult someone who then consulted someone else. I'm not saying you don't make good points. What I am saying is I'm very skeptical about making that concession not leading to more push for more concessions and then you have a circus on your hands. The game in question for example, yes the rule was misapplied. However, as I always tell my players, it's our job as players and coaches to not allow the refs to decide the game b/c you never know which way that goes. I have seen a replay of the game & it has convinced me not to set up a situation to over turn calls. First, PN scored w/ about 3 minutes left before all of this stuff happened & that was called back. Hard to tell if it was a good call or not, I'm sure that could've become a HUGE point of contention had the judge overturned the game. Everybody always remembers "the call" but nobody remembers "the call before the call". Yes, I understand you don't want it to be about a call only when the game is decided by a call. MY POINT is none of that happens in a vacuum. Certain chains of events lead to other chains of events, etc. Secondly, & I HATE 2nd guessing coaches but the facts are the facts, the Fenwick coach started kneeing the ball too early & could not effectively run out the clock. NOBODY is talking about this. All he had to do was run 1 play, the time differential of getting off the pile and spotting the ball would've made up for the 3 second discrepancy and the game would've been over. He has responsibility in this. MY point in all of this is that a FB game is NEVER about 1 play and it's never about 1 call ever. No matter the appearance it just isn't. Like you said above this is a rare circumstance, I rebut that with IT IS a rare occurrence. No need for change. If their was a better way to do it I'm sure they would've have thought of it by now. I'm sure they've already identified all the pitfalls to overturning a games outcome that we haven't even thought of & have solid reasons for not doing so. Leave the game alone. We will have to disagree about the ensuing circus. From my perspective, it seems just as cut and dry. 1) Was it a misapplication of a rule and not a discrepancy in judgement? 2) Did this misapplication of the rule continue a game that should have been ended, and during that continuation a change in the outcome? I don't see how that creates a circus. I agree with some aspects of your comments about things not happening in a vacuum. Anyone who has read any of my posts on helmet stickers can see that, but that does not mean that the results of one play does not change the outcome. Because things don't happen in a vacuum, you can't logically point to a single play and say "that cost us the game" or "that won us the game". However, the results of a play certainly can change the result. Saying that "they" (whoever "they" is) would have thought of something does not seem like a reason for inaction. |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 25, 2016 13:01:10 GMT -6
I'm not saying you don't make good points. What I am saying is I'm very skeptical about making that concession not leading to more push for more concessions and then you have a circus on your hands. The game in question for example, yes the rule was misapplied. However, as I always tell my players, it's our job as players and coaches to not allow the refs to decide the game b/c you never know which way that goes. I have seen a replay of the game & it has convinced me not to set up a situation to over turn calls. First, PN scored w/ about 3 minutes left before all of this stuff happened & that was called back. Hard to tell if it was a good call or not, I'm sure that could've become a HUGE point of contention had the judge overturned the game. Everybody always remembers "the call" but nobody remembers "the call before the call". Yes, I understand you don't want it to be about a call only when the game is decided by a call. MY POINT is none of that happens in a vacuum. Certain chains of events lead to other chains of events, etc. Secondly, & I HATE 2nd guessing coaches but the facts are the facts, the Fenwick coach started kneeing the ball too early & could not effectively run out the clock. NOBODY is talking about this. All he had to do was run 1 play, the time differential of getting off the pile and spotting the ball would've made up for the 3 second discrepancy and the game would've been over. He has responsibility in this. MY point in all of this is that a FB game is NEVER about 1 play and it's never about 1 call ever. No matter the appearance it just isn't. Like you said above this is a rare circumstance, I rebut that with IT IS a rare occurrence. No need for change. If their was a better way to do it I'm sure they would've have thought of it by now. I'm sure they've already identified all the pitfalls to overturning a games outcome that we haven't even thought of & have solid reasons for not doing so. Leave the game alone. We will have to disagree about the ensuing circus. From my perspective, it seems just as cut and dry. 1) Was it a misapplication of a rule and not a discrepancy in judgement? 2) Did this misapplication of the rule continue a game that should have been ended, and during that continuation a change in the outcome? I don't see how that creates a circus. I agree with some aspects of your comments about things not happening in a vacuum. Anyone who has read any of my posts on helmet stickers can see that, but that does not mean that the results of one play does not change the outcome. Because things don't happen in a vacuum, you can't logically point to a single play and say "that cost us the game" or "that won us the game". However, the results of a play certainly can change the result. Saying that "they" (whoever "they" is) would have thought of something does not seem like a reason for inaction. Alright dude, agree to disagree. This will be my last post on this b/c it's getting very "who gets the last word" kind of thing. So I will go another direction & give another reason why I think this should not be a concern, at least presently. I'm now going to most likely pi$$ off 75% of the board but here goes. This whole thing we keep talking about is by both of our concessions extremely rare. Let's talk about something that is extremely common - RPO's. You want to talk about a misapplication, non application or flat out disregard for the rules, there you go. I've seen hundreds of posts on here about guys saying, don't worry about it, man downfield never gets called. And you know what? They're right. Lost a game last year that almost cost us our play off berth b/c my DB saw the guard come downfield & block our backer so he came up and gave up a TD on a post right behind him. My point in all of this? Let's take care of the common issues before we worry about he extremely uncommon ones. I'm an UC running guy whose at a disadvantage (b/c running an RPO UC is almost impossible) b/c other guys are willing to take advantage of the inability to enforce an EXTREMELY enforceable rule. This non application has unfairly I would argue, determined hundreds of outcomes of games annually all across the country at multiple levels of football. While the issue that has taken 3 pages of discussion now almost never happens. That's it. I'm out. Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves. I believe we have WAY BIGGER fish to fry than the game in question & clearly they can't fix both right now b/c they can't even seem to fix one of these issues. In fact, in regards to RPO's I haven't even heard anybody say any fixing is needed. It's almost like, yeah they can't keep up with it so do it. Who cares about the rules? Let's see the forest first before we worry about one tree. A sapling at that. As always, JMO. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 25, 2016 13:22:10 GMT -6
We will have to disagree about the ensuing circus. From my perspective, it seems just as cut and dry. 1) Was it a misapplication of a rule and not a discrepancy in judgement? 2) Did this misapplication of the rule continue a game that should have been ended, and during that continuation a change in the outcome? I don't see how that creates a circus. I agree with some aspects of your comments about things not happening in a vacuum. Anyone who has read any of my posts on helmet stickers can see that, but that does not mean that the results of one play does not change the outcome. Because things don't happen in a vacuum, you can't logically point to a single play and say "that cost us the game" or "that won us the game". However, the results of a play certainly can change the result. Saying that "they" (whoever "they" is) would have thought of something does not seem like a reason for inaction. Alright dude, agree to disagree. This will be my last post on this b/c it's getting very "who gets the last word" kind of thing. So I will go another direction & give another reason why I think this should not be a concern, at least presently. I'm now going to most likely pi$$ off 75% of the board but here goes. This whole thing we keep talking about is by both of our concessions extremely rare. Let's talk about something that is extremely common - RPO's. You want to talk about a misapplication, non application or flat out disregard for the rules, there you go. I've seen hundreds of posts on here about guys saying, don't worry about it, man downfield never gets called. And you know what? They're right. Lost a game last year that almost cost us our play off berth b/c my DB saw the guard come downfield & block our backer so he came up and gave up a TD on a post right behind him. My point in all of this? Let's take care of the common issues before we worry about he extremely uncommon ones. I'm an UC running guy whose at a disadvantage (b/c running an RPO UC is almost impossible) b/c other guys are willing to take advantage of the inability to enforce an EXTREMELY enforceable rule. This non application has unfairly I would argue, determined hundreds of outcomes of games annually all across the country at multiple levels of football. While the issue that has taken 3 pages of discussion now almost never happens. That's it. I'm out. Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves. I believe we have WAY BIGGER fish to fry than the game in question & clearly they can't fix both right now b/c they can't even seem to fix one of these issues. In fact, in regards to RPO's I haven't even heard anybody say any fixing is needed. It's almost like, yeah they can't keep up with it so do it. Who cares about the rules? Let's see the forest first before we worry about one tree. A sapling at that. As always, JMO. Coach, the only reason it is "last word" is because with each successive post you bring up things that are not part of the discussion.I am obviously failing to convey the difference between a misapplication of the rule and a judgement made by the official. Here again, you are talking about RPOs. A ref not calling an RPO is not a misapplication of the rule. That is the official either not seeing the penalty or seeing the play and making a judgement that it is not a penalty. Those are judgements. Not calling illegal man downfield is the same as complete/incomplete, inbounds out of bounds, spotting the ball, holding, not holding, made/missed kick etc. The type of situation being discussed here would be akin to your opponent scoring a touchdown, being awarded 12 points instead of 6. As ridiculous as it sounds, that is more closely related to what happened in this case than someone missing lineman downfield on an RPO. I can respect anyone's opinion to say the idea is a good one or a poor one. Nothing wrong with that. I just think you have done a poor job explaining why, since in every example you have provided you have supported your points with things that don't apply. As for the forest/trees I think that is precisely why it could be easily written into various state association and NCAA by laws. It is very specific, it is not overarching , and very simple to enforce. |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 25, 2016 13:32:54 GMT -6
Alright dude, agree to disagree. This will be my last post on this b/c it's getting very "who gets the last word" kind of thing. So I will go another direction & give another reason why I think this should not be a concern, at least presently. I'm now going to most likely pi$$ off 75% of the board but here goes. This whole thing we keep talking about is by both of our concessions extremely rare. Let's talk about something that is extremely common - RPO's. You want to talk about a misapplication, non application or flat out disregard for the rules, there you go. I've seen hundreds of posts on here about guys saying, don't worry about it, man downfield never gets called. And you know what? They're right. Lost a game last year that almost cost us our play off berth b/c my DB saw the guard come downfield & block our backer so he came up and gave up a TD on a post right behind him. My point in all of this? Let's take care of the common issues before we worry about he extremely uncommon ones. I'm an UC running guy whose at a disadvantage (b/c running an RPO UC is almost impossible) b/c other guys are willing to take advantage of the inability to enforce an EXTREMELY enforceable rule. This non application has unfairly I would argue, determined hundreds of outcomes of games annually all across the country at multiple levels of football. While the issue that has taken 3 pages of discussion now almost never happens. That's it. I'm out. Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves. I believe we have WAY BIGGER fish to fry than the game in question & clearly they can't fix both right now b/c they can't even seem to fix one of these issues. In fact, in regards to RPO's I haven't even heard anybody say any fixing is needed. It's almost like, yeah they can't keep up with it so do it. Who cares about the rules? Let's see the forest first before we worry about one tree. A sapling at that. As always, JMO. Coach, the only reason it is "last word" is because with each successive post you bring up things that are not part of the discussion.I am obviously failing to convey the difference between a misapplication of the rule and a judgement made by the official. Here again, you are talking about RPOs. A ref not calling an RPO is not a misapplication of the rule. That is the official either not seeing the penalty or seeing the play and making a judgement that it is not a penalty. Those are judgements. Not calling illegal man downfield is the same as complete/incomplete, inbounds out of bounds, spotting the ball, holding, not holding, made/missed kick etc. The type of situation being discussed here would be akin to your opponent scoring a touchdown, being awarded 12 points instead of 6. As ridiculous as it sounds, that is more closely related to what happened in this case than someone missing lineman downfield on an RPO. I can respect anyone's opinion to say the idea is a good one or a poor one. Nothing wrong with that. I just think you have done a poor job explaining why, since in every example you have provided you have supported your points with things that don't apply. As for the forest/trees I think that is precisely why it could be easily written into various state association and NCAA by laws. It is very specific, it is not overarching , and very simple to enforce. fighting........urge.........to.......reply.........must .......step......away.......from......key......board.......d@mn you......5085.......must....fight urge to.......get........last.....word.........closing.......computer.......now..... |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Nov 25, 2016 18:12:17 GMT -6
No need for change. If their was a better way to do it I'm sure they would've have thought of it by now. I'm sure they've already identified all the pitfalls to overturning a games outcome that we haven't even thought of & have solid reasons for not doing so. Leave the game alone. First, loved your must resist post. As a stated before, I think coachd5085 way is the fairest, but not convinced it is the "best" idea. But I would not have a problem with it. I do respect your position and your views on it. But the above highlighted I do have a problem with. Are you completely against change? Do you honestly think "they" have thought of everything? That seems either closed minded or too trusting to me. And then you contradict yourself later with the RPO post. I agree with you on RPO's (and GPO's - haha - inside joke on me). Enforce the rule or fix it or figure out how to enforce it. But I do disagree that just because one issue is bigger means that we can't try and fix another issue. |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 25, 2016 18:22:20 GMT -6
No need for change. If their was a better way to do it I'm sure they would've have thought of it by now. I'm sure they've already identified all the pitfalls to overturning a games outcome that we haven't even thought of & have solid reasons for not doing so. Leave the game alone. First, loved your must resist post. As a stated before, I think coachd5085 way is the fairest, but not convinced it is the "best" idea. But I would not have a problem with it. I do respect your position and your views on it. But the above highlighted I do have a problem with. Are you completely against change? Do you honestly think "they" have thought of everything? That seems either closed minded or too trusting to me. And then you contradict yourself later with the RPO post. I agree with you on RPO's (and GPO's - haha - inside joke on me). Enforce the rule or fix it or figure out how to enforce it. But I do disagree that just because one issue is bigger means that we can't try and fix another issue. "Just when you think you're out they pull you back in". No Silky, I am not totally opposed to change. However, I truly believe that if we extend the current set boundary it will only lead to pushing more boundaries. For example, some team gets screwed at half time and that becomes the point differential in the game. Now they want to appeal the game. It's just human nature. We cannot help ourselves. We just can't. Someone will always want to make another change. Also, as I explained above, I think that 1 play/call NEVER decides a game. Hence, I think its's best to leave well enough alone. JMO. |
|
|
|
Post by bignose on Nov 27, 2016 15:25:41 GMT -6
The very situation described above happened today in a Pro game, with a very different outcome.
With 11 seconds left in the game, and ahead 19-12 the Ravens lined up to punt the ball from their own 22 yard line.
The entire front line tackled the nearest rushing defender on the snap, (in the description of the official, there were "multiple" holding penalties.LOL).
The punter ran around in the end zone until time expired and then stepped out of the back, avoiding contact.
Since the game can end on the offensive penalty, there can not be an penalty enforcement.
As a result, the time ran out and the final score after assessment of the safety was 19-14.
Game over.
|
|
|
|
Post by PIGSKIN11 on Nov 27, 2016 16:22:34 GMT -6
The very situation described above happened today in a Pro game, with a very different outcome. With 11 seconds left in the game, and ahead 19-12 the Ravens lined up to punt the ball from their own 22 yard line. The entire front line tackled the nearest rushing defender on the snap, (in the description of the official, there were "multiple" holding penalties.LOL). The punter ran around in the end zone until time expired and then stepped out of the back, avoiding contact. Since the game can end on the offensive penalty, there can not be an penalty enforcement. As a result, the time ran out and the final score after assessment of the safety was 19-14. Game over. We practice this every Thursday |
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Nov 27, 2016 17:32:40 GMT -6
I am not talking about the in game rules. I guess I should have said by-laws or statues or whatever. I am suggesting that it might not have horrible unintended consequences if a by-law was in place that allowed for association review and the changing of an outcome in the very specific situation where a misapplication of a rule by an official occured, and the proper application of that rule would have resulted in the end of game. Regarding the highlighted portion..NO level of football has this, as multiple incidences have occurred where governing bodies have issued statements saying "whoops, the officials were wrong..but sorry you still lose" Personally, I don't feel that would be a good idea. Yes, in an ideal world getting the results of every game correct is what we all want. But, since many mistakes are made all the time, I see a log jam of appeals filling state association offices week in and week out. Our state has over 600 member schools. Furthermore, what about a grievous error that occurred in the 1st quarter but a team is still making the case that it cost them the win? I just think it would become an entangled nightmare. Who knows how the game would've played out? IMO, the best course of action is to improve the product as best they can while trying to avoid a million appeals. I mean we're talking about rational appeals. God knows every state has several knuckle head coaches who would file an appeal every time they lose a game and many of them would not even be legit. No, I think you over see officials that field officials can confer with during post season play and hopefully this avoids tainted results moving forward. IMO, that would be the most constructive path moving forward, as well as the most manageable and realistic. There wouldn't be a log jam. You seem to think every call would be scrutinized. That's not what we are saying at all. We are saying, just like in baseball, a team could protest that a rule was not followed, that's it. Judgement calls are not protestable. I've coached baseball for 12 years and have protested 1 game. A Ref is going to mess up on judgment calls. They should never screw up a book rule. Hence the reason there are protests in baseball. I imagine there aren't protests in football because of the problems a reversal would cause. The teams would have to finish the game at the point of the screw up. However, in a game like this where it happened at the very end of the game and had a direct impact on the outcome, protests in football would work for this exact circumstance. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Nov 27, 2016 18:22:21 GMT -6
Appeals and protests could also carry a $1000 or more fee. Lose the protest, lose the money.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Nov 27, 2016 18:22:41 GMT -6
double post
|
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 27, 2016 19:09:55 GMT -6
Personally, I don't feel that would be a good idea. Yes, in an ideal world getting the results of every game correct is what we all want. But, since many mistakes are made all the time, I see a log jam of appeals filling state association offices week in and week out. Our state has over 600 member schools. Furthermore, what about a grievous error that occurred in the 1st quarter but a team is still making the case that it cost them the win? I just think it would become an entangled nightmare. Who knows how the game would've played out? IMO, the best course of action is to improve the product as best they can while trying to avoid a million appeals. I mean we're talking about rational appeals. God knows every state has several knuckle head coaches who would file an appeal every time they lose a game and many of them would not even be legit. No, I think you over see officials that field officials can confer with during post season play and hopefully this avoids tainted results moving forward. IMO, that would be the most constructive path moving forward, as well as the most manageable and realistic. There wouldn't be a log jam. You seem to think every call would be scrutinized. That's not what we are saying at all. We are saying, just like in baseball, a team could protest that a rule was not followed, that's it. Judgement calls are not protestable. I've coached baseball for 12 years and have protested 1 game. A Ref is going to mess up on judgment calls. They should never screw up a book rule. Hence the reason there are protests in baseball. I imagine there aren't protests in football because of the problems a reversal would cause. The teams would have to finish the game at the point of the screw up. However, in a game like this where it happened at the very end of the game and had a direct impact on the outcome, protests in football would work for this exact circumstance. Spos, thank you for telling me what I think. Sorry that was a bit sarcastic, but I am losing my patience with the fact that some of you think you can argue me to your point. I have not tried to sway any of you. Have simply said I don't agree with the idea of the change. Like I have said multiple times.....I believe once this boundary comes down, people will push for more. That's my opinion. Furthermore, FB is not the only sport played in this country. You change this boundary for one sport you should probably change it for all of them. I could see that getting hairy. Again, JMO which I believe I'm entitled to. I think this board should be about differing opinions and viewpoints. I believe my is reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Nov 28, 2016 7:41:01 GMT -6
There wouldn't be a log jam. You seem to think every call would be scrutinized. That's not what we are saying at all. We are saying, just like in baseball, a team could protest that a rule was not followed, that's it. Judgement calls are not protestable. I've coached baseball for 12 years and have protested 1 game. A Ref is going to mess up on judgment calls. They should never screw up a book rule. Hence the reason there are protests in baseball. I imagine there aren't protests in football because of the problems a reversal would cause. The teams would have to finish the game at the point of the screw up. However, in a game like this where it happened at the very end of the game and had a direct impact on the outcome, protests in football would work for this exact circumstance. Spos, thank you for telling me what I think. Sorry that was a bit sarcastic, but I am losing my patience with the fact that some of you think you can argue me to your point. I have not tried to sway any of you. Have simply said I don't agree with the idea of the change. Like I have said multiple times.....I believe once this boundary comes down, people will push for more. That's my opinion. Furthermore, FB is not the only sport played in this country. You change this boundary for one sport you should probably change it for all of them. I could see that getting hairy. Again, JMO which I believe I'm entitled to. I think this board should be about differing opinions and viewpoints. I believe my is reasonable. I'm not trying to sway anyone. You seem to not understand what we are saying. You say you think people will push for more....why do you think that? You talk like protesting a game is some new thing. For the 3rd time....baseball allows protests and guess what....no one tries to push for more protestable things. If a book rule is not followed you can protest, that's all. You CANNOT protest a judgment call so I don't understand how this would snowball. Just let me say that the one big logistical problem for allowing protests in football is having to replay the game at the point the screw up occured. This is easy in baseball, but football it's hard to reschedule, let's say a whole 4th quarter in the middle of the week then have to play again on Friday night for a regularly scheduled game. That will never happen because of contact rules. That's got to be the main reason there's no protests in football. However, in a case like this where it happens at the very end of the game and no make up game is needed, then I don't know why a protest rule for this exact situation wouldn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 28, 2016 9:42:34 GMT -6
Spos, thank you for telling me what I think. Sorry that was a bit sarcastic, but I am losing my patience with the fact that some of you think you can argue me to your point. I have not tried to sway any of you. Have simply said I don't agree with the idea of the change. Like I have said multiple times.....I believe once this boundary comes down, people will push for more. That's my opinion. Furthermore, FB is not the only sport played in this country. You change this boundary for one sport you should probably change it for all of them. I could see that getting hairy. Again, JMO which I believe I'm entitled to. I think this board should be about differing opinions and viewpoints. I believe my is reasonable. I'm not trying to sway anyone. You seem to not understand what we are saying. You say you think people will push for more....why do you think that? You talk like protesting a game is some new thing. For the 3rd time....baseball allows protests and guess what....no one tries to push for more protestable things. If a book rule is not followed you can protest, that's all. You CANNOT protest a judgment call so I don't understand how this would snowball. Just let me say that the one big logistical problem for allowing protests in football is having to replay the game at the point the screw up occured. This is easy in baseball, but football it's hard to reschedule, let's say a whole 4th quarter in the middle of the week then have to play again on Friday night for a regularly scheduled game. That will never happen because of contact rules. That's got to be the main reason there's no protests in football. However, in a case like this where it happens at the very end of the game and no make up game is needed, then I don't know why a protest rule for this exact situation wouldn't work. Dude, Give it a freakin' rest already. I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU"RE SAYING. I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU. Why do I think people will continue to push the limits/ boundaries? Hmmmm, let's see, hmmm why do I think that? Hmmmmm, I don't know, because I'm a parent, because I work with teenagers, because I work with parents, b/c I am HUMAN! That's what people do. Change a rule at school for more leniency and they all want a little more. Open your program to a couple of parents, and they all want a little more. Allow a coach some slack and they will push for a little more. I don't know, have you watched any of the political landscape in this country? People always want to get away with a little more. You guys arguing for change right now is an example of expanding a boundary......or dare I say it....."wanting a little more". Some like me think it's not necessary, some like you will think it's fine and others will think it doesn't go far enough. Not everyone will agree 100% with your change. Like I said, it's human nature and always will be. Not sure how much clearer I can be. |
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Nov 28, 2016 10:06:22 GMT -6
I can't believe this has gone on for 3 pages
|
|
|
|
Post by PIGSKIN11 on Nov 28, 2016 22:08:09 GMT -6
I can't believe this has gone on for 3 pages Can we get to 4??? |
|
