offside

Oh, he's been caught. Regional final against Trinity 4 or 5 years ago. Our line judge called it against them and he bet us a steak from Ruth's Chris that it wouldn't be on the film. Of course, he never sent us a copy of the film--or bought the steaks. Like I said, rascal.

I rather doubt that Coach Redman knew that it was an illegal play as he drew it up. Heck, he probably thought it was a brilliant idea. So I don't think it's cheating in any way. It's up to the officials to penalize fouls; they just missed a couple on this play:ohbrother:. And the aw-shucks, shoulder shrug description of the play is hilarious. He's a classic rascal; one of my all-time favorites.

Of course I understand he's not lying about his own involvement--he came clean BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT. It's the accusations he's making about other refs that I don't believe--because he's offered no proof to back it up.

He doesn't offer a shred of proof to back up his elaborate stories.

He's casting aspersions at other refs in order to deflect blame from himself, trying to drag well respected men down into the muck with him. In addition to libel or slander, that's called being a whiny, sissy-boy coward. How could you presume he's telling the truth about anything? He's a cheat, a whining sissy, a coward and a liar. And a steaming sack of dung.

They work in crews for conference games, sometimes they have a couple supplemental staff members for non-conference games. I don't buy it that an entire crew of seven officials could ever be in on a fix. First, every play is on film and is graded by the league supervisor of officials, not to mention that every bad call is first exposed in the media. You'd be one game and done forever. Second, you can't get to that level if you've ever had a character issue or ever had your integrity questioned. Yes, they absolutely do background checks. Additionally, there would undoubtedly be at least one member of the crew who would rat you out in a heartbeat.

I cannot express the level of contempt I have for this scumbag. And I don't believe a word of any implication of malfeasance among other referees. He's simply trying to cast blame and suspicion to mitigate his own bad decisions. I don't know a thing about reffing basketball, especially the NBA, but I do know a little about officiating in major college football. There is no tolerance for uttering so much as a joke about gambling or point spreads in our locker rooms. A joke can get you fired. That's why I cannot believe the allegations of widespread collusion in any major sports league. Integrity is our stock in trade. Now, because this turd cannot admit his own guilt and take his punishment like a man, every one of us who wears stripes (from professional to pee-wee) is now subject to having our integrity questioned on every call we make. The damage this guy has single-handedly done to sports officiating is enormous. Shame on you if you buy his book or even believe a word of his lies.

YES! 7-2-4...A snap shall be such that the ball immediately leaves the hand or hands of the snapper and touches a backfield player or the ground before it touches an A lineman. That was not a legal snap.

That is not in the rules book.

For a snap to be legal, the ball must touch a backfield player or the ground before it is touched by a lineman. Otherwise, it's an illegal snap, dead ball foul.

I'd sure like to see this play on film! Did a backfield player (QB or RB) ever touch the ball? Did the ball ever touch the ground? If either of those 2 things happened, it was a legal play. But then...since the snapper was wearing #87, were there 5 other linemen numbered 50 - 79? And as always, it's pretty easy for me to ref a game sitting at my keyboard. It's a tad more difficult in real time.

We're working on it, one meeting at a time.

Here's my philosophy: It is LEGAL for offensive linemen to use his hands or arms to hook, lock, clamp, grasp, encircle or hold an opponent, so long as there is no RESTRICTION of the opponent. You can see a "hook, lock, clamp, grasp, encircle or hold" on every play. That's just part of blocking. It's the RESTRICTION that the officials need to do a better job of judging. If the restriction is slight, it's nothing. Only if the restriction keeps the defender from directly making a tackle should holding be considered. The problem, as we all know, is there are a few refs out there (at all levels) who like to sling a flag at the sight of a little jersey grabbing. THAT makes us inconsistent.

I read a lot of game threads with "they missed a lot of holding calls" comments. Those people don't realize it, but what they're really saying is "our guys were getting blocked and we're sore that the ref's didn't give us some charity flags". Thanks for the kind words, by the way.

Restriction and proximity to the ball carrier are the two important elements of holding. If a defender is "grabbed", the ball carrier must be in the immidiate vicinity of the defender, and that grabbing must be so restrictive that it prevents the defender from making a tackle for the action to be deemed holding. Otherwise, it's just grabbing (which is not a foul). I've called holding 5 times in 15 years.

There is no specific rules book coverage. The referee will ask game management to fix the problem, if possible.

It's a correct enforcement. And you've got the rest of it backwards, too. Rule 8-2-2...If during a touchdown-scoring play, the opponent of the scoring team commits a foul other than unsportsmanlike, the scoring team may accept the results of the play and have a penalty enforced from the succeeding spot or may choose to have foul enforced on the subsequent kickoff.

Incidental grasping of the facemask is still a 5 yard penalty in HS football. Grasping and turning, pulling or twisting the facemask is a 15 yard penalty. (There is no longer a 5 yard FM foul in college football.)

Wrong. It's enforced as a dead ball foul from the succeeding spot, which would have been the spot where Alabama next snapped the ball. They didn't call it because the game was over.

Here's what the phrase really means: "The phrase has a very long history covering most of the time that muskets have been in use up to the present. The wad is a piece of paper put in the muzzle along with the projectile and gun powder. If the shooter is too hasty -- say in a tense battle -- they may not include the projectile. The result is a fire without the intended bullet; only the wad will fly out...a wasted shot. Hence, "shooting your wad" can mean expending your energy fruitlessly." But it was still funny the way they reacted.

No. Fouls that are reviewable include: Illegal forward pass beyond NZ, Illegal kick beyond NZ, Illegal participation/substitution.

I know you didn't dream up any conspiracy, you're one of the reasonable people I was talking about. But my point remains that the technology exists to correct ALL "obviously erroneous calls" with video review. It is not being utilized because the television networks don't want it--no other reason. And they're making officials look like big-time wrestling villains because it's good for business.

That former NBA official should have been hanged. Because now, with every bad call in every sport at every level, that jerk is the poster boy for validation of ridiculous conspiracy claims. And reasonable people now believe all officials are on the take. You want the real conspiracy? Television networks. Video review is available on every play. But the television networks want the games to fit into a prescribed time slot, and are heavily resistant to doing anything that causes games to drag on and viewers to lose interest. That's why the rules are written to limit video review. Controversy also creates publicity, don't discount that angle either. Officials don't want to look bad on national TV. But it's good for the ratings.:madman:

Game fee and per diem, about $1200 - 1500 a game.

It's negotiated in the contract. If the visiting team is from a major conference, they will stipulate having their own conference officials. Depends on how much negotiating leverage the visiting team has.