offside

I always have fun with the boys, Vanny-G. Without the chain crew I'd have never: Got shot by a cannon. or Found out how to mix a cajun martini on a tailgate. (Evidently, a potent recipe). or Broke my arm. or Learned to say first down in Spanish. I know it's gonna be a good game if I have a good chain crew. And I know it's gonna be a fun game if I have some characters behind me.

Rule 9-1, Helping the Runner: An offensive player shall not push, pull or lift the runner to assist his forward progress. 5 yard penalty. It's gonna need to be egregious to get called. I kind of agree with the ND/USC "no call". (It looked pretty bad on replay, though...)

Vanny-G's got his dander up again :laugh:. But I agree that CoachBucket is incorrect in his assessment. As Vangelis and Old Ref previously stated, an immediate "cut block" by an offensive lineman, even when the ball is snapped from "shotgun", is legal provided it's against a defender who's intial position was inside the free blocking zone. There is an interesting discussion about this on another thread: High School Football Rules started by Frank329. BBW is a rules difference between college and high school rules. Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if the NCAA rule was adopted in NFHS?

Granville coach Mike Hensley said, "The penalty for holding seems a little harsh to me, especially since the interpretation of holding is so inconsistent from one ref to another." I agree wholeheartedly. I would also take it a step further and suggest that the Defiinition of Blocking (Rule 2-3) is either rewritten in a manner that is not subject to inconsistent interpretation or simply include a definition of Holding in the Rules Book.

I wasn't there and I haven't seen the film. But officials have a saying: "it takes two to tango". Sometimes officials will catch the initiator of unsportsmanlike condiuct or a personal foul, and sometimes we catch the retaliator. We don't really care who "started it". Coaches and fans don't generally like that explaination, but that's the way it is.

Gentlemen, I don't officiate games in your region and don't know any officials who do. Furthermore, I haven't seen the game film and don't expect to. But I have to chime in on this thread: The guys in stripes who officiated this game may (or may not) have been qualified to work the Sugar Bowl, but I GUARANTEE you that they couldn't care less who won or lost. Your criticism of individual calls may (or may not) be accurate but your accusations of widespread oficiating malfeasance are irresponsible. Please teach your children and their peers to have class and overcome adversity despite the perceived disadvantages that may be standing in their way. Please win with grace and lose with respect. Boo an official's call if you must, but please teach your children to respect us.

That's also what made him a great football official. One of my all time favorites.

Can you imagine the uproar on BGP if I were to make a call like that in my next game? While technically correct, it would probably be counter-productive.

Dude, you're a coach who knows how to look up a rule? We need to have a beer together and I'm buying! Please Pm me...

Nope. But it's there.

Would you be surprised if I told you that intentional pass interference carries an additonal 15 yards? (Rule 7-5-10, listed under penalty assessments on page 62, 2007 NFHS Fooball Rules.)

Outlaw has a valid point; linebackers are held to a different "sniff test" than DBs because they are conditioned to be wary of TEs blocking down on them. Officials are not going to call a "touch foul" against a linebacker in this situation. And CSHS81 hit the nail on the head when he used the term "obvious". Officials are only going to call the illegal block foul on the linebacker if it's so "big and obvious" that we have no choice. The bottom line is that sometimes the linebacker hit on the drag pattern is missed, sometimes it's ignored, and it's always subject to being called.

True, ineligible downfield only applies to passes that cross the neutral zone.

If the pass crossed the line of scrimmage, the neutral zone is expanded to 2 yards beyond the LOS and linemen can maintain their blocks within this expanded zone. If they push their opponent beyond the expanded neutral zone, they have committed the ineligible receiver downfield foul. Your coaches told you to hit the dirt so you would be less likely to be seen by the officials. And that's pretty savvy coaching. This is a lot more fun than trying to convince somebody that a controversial call was probably correct, especially when they really don't want to hear that. So thanks for all participating!

As a future coach you need to know that this is how this situation is going to be called whether it's your defense that gets the flag, or it's your offense that benefits from the call: If the defender is not playing the ball, he's a suspect. When the ball hit him in the back of the helmet while he was initiating contact with the intended receiver, he interfered with the receiver's ability to "move toward, catch or bat the pass". Even though the defender may have timed it perfectly, we are going to call interference on him because he was not looking to make a play on the ball. In the future, please coach your players to a) not let defenders get behind them , and b) look for the ball in the air.

Definitely not faceguarding, but an excellent example of the defender "not making a bona fide attempt to catch or bat the pass". He was called for interference because he was playing the receiver (getting in position to make a tackle) and not playing the ball.

He can be hit. And a flag can be thrown.

True, defensive pass interference restrictions do not begin until the ball leaves the passer's hand. But your description of "jamming the receiver" is suspect and may lead to a defensive holding call or an illegal block by the defense. See Vangelis' post earlier in this thread.

Definitely a unique situation, but yes it's possible. Just a guess (I wasn't there) but it was probably a situation where there was illegal contact and then some retaliation. Offsetting penalties may have been the most equitable solution to tell all involved to "knock it off".

See my post above (I got caught up in editing while a few posts were being made, you probably haven't seen it yet). If the defender is not looking at the ball and is not attempting to make a play, it's faceguarding if he raises his hands in an attempt to hinder the receiver's vision.

That's correct, there is no distinction for an uncatchable pass in HS. Another difference is that there is no faceguarding rule in college; pass interference requires contact in NCAA rules. In both codes, interference is defined as "interfering with an eligible opponent's opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass." That's the easy call the grandma in the 5th row can make, but there's more to it than that... It's probably most important to understand what is NOT pass interference: "Unavoidable contact when two or more eligibles are making a simultaneous, bona fide attempt to move toward, catch or bat the pass." Quite often, it's activity that fits this second description that leads to disagreement with an official's judgement. Some examples include two opponent's getting their feet inadvertently tangled and tripped-up, minor contact with the hands to "feel" the position of the opponent, and the obvious contact while making the "bonafide" attempt to catch or bat the ball. So, just because contact occurs, it doesn't always mean that the contact warrants a pass interference foul. And sometimes interference occurs during what appears to be a great play. More than any other call, PI usually boils down to an official's judgement. A rule of thumb that officials use to determine pass interference is if the "suspect" opponent who initiates the contact is both looking toward the ball and is actually in position to make a play. If that's the case, no foul. Faceguarding and the illegal block by the linebacker on the receiver in the drag pattern are covered under specific rules: Faceguarding: "A player shall not hinder an opponent's vision without making an attempt to catch, intercept or bat the ball, even though no contact was made." Illegal block: "A defensive player shall not contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker." See Vangelis' previous post on this thread.

Don't be seduced by Vanny-G's overtures, SM32. The only benefit to being an official is that the vertical stripes make us look taller. Or maybe slimmer? Would you buy smarter or more popular? Okay, you got me. There ain't much glamour in it. Thanks for having an objective view of the game administration for this contest. In return, we're always happy to answer or clarify any rules questions you might have. All anybody has to do is ask.

okay.

I guess I don't really have a reply to that. offside

This is really why I made my earlier post. I wasn't there, but I can assure you that your observation is off base despite how many 'experts' in the stands might have collaborated the opinion. I'll even explain the rules to you if you merely ask. Jumping to the conclusion that officials are biased or don't know the rules is what makes me bristle. offside