Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Class 4A (Fall)' started by Scout1817, Sep 9, 2017.
Round is a shape...LOLOLOLOL
A little late to the party, but I just want to clear some misconceptions. Keep in mind, I'm completely neutral to this discussion and I'm not looking for any push back or stirring anything back up. Just dropping some rules knowledge.
1. Inadvertent whistle during a fumble: the team last in possession has the option to put the ball in play where they lost possession or replay the down (i.e., rekick). Depending on the spot where the run ended, it could have potentially been miscommunicated about taking the ball at the spot of last possession. The point is, there is an option to rekick. Cite: NFHS Rule 4-2-3b
2. If there is an inadvertent whistle, time does not get added back to the clock. This is true for all levels of football. The only time related aspect of IWs is if there is an IW during a down in which time expires, the period is extended and there will be an untimed down. No time added back. Cite: NFHS Rule 3-3-3c
3. In regards to the clock, I've found that a perpetual clock problem is most often an electrical / mechanical issue rather than a personnel issue (as in, not stopping/starting when it is supposed to do so). Just one's opinion on a possibility that wasn't thought of.
I know officials in this association and some on this game. These individuals are great people. Not only that, they do it for the love of the kids and the game. These guys put in countless hours throughout the season (and off-season) away from their families for minimal pay, and many take a loss overall with expenses. Their integrity is of the highest caliber. To insinuate that any kind of cheating ever took place is a disservice not only to their character but to your own as well. These are good people who are capable of genuine mistakes and differences in judgment than the fans in the stands, just as we are when we think we know the rules book. Their judgment just so happens to be rooted in hundreds of hours of rules study and film review. They're not perfect, but if there's a disagreement between an official's judgment and a non-official, 90+% of the time the official is going to be right by the book.
This was an awesome game to see live. It was well worth the trip and as said previously, I would've paid much more than I did just to see it again! Congrats to both Dinwiddie and Salem on one of the best games I've ever seen.
Good stuff lunchpail and yes it was a great game. Since you clearly have a grasp of the rules and did a sound job explaining things why in the world would the ref have blown the whistle? I have reviewed the play a hundred times and there was no reason for it. What would have happened if Ramsey had not fumbled broken free and scored? It is my understanding that this play is considered a muffed kick; therefore, the re-kick; however, there was clearly a change in possession. I just can't fathom how the rules reward the offending team (fumble) for their miscue. Since you know some of the crew, has anyone explained to you why this even happened? I am a crew chief in another sport and I can tell you it looked like they kicked the pooch (Not any doing of the Salem Team) and tried to cover it up by using the inadvertent whistle rule. Kind of like umpires jeopardy in baseball/softball. Yes, all officials make mistakes (No the officials did not attempt to cheat), but the crew compounded the problem by huddling for five minutes. The crew chief surely knows the rules or he would not be a white hat. I have been there and although it sucks you can't, as officials say "psitg" (put shit in the game) to cover your anatomy. Sometimes you have to use common sense, eat it and play ball. I will not question these officials integrity and will only chalk it up to mismanagement which rest solely on the white hat and assigner. Being an official is a thankless job and as an evaluator/crew chief I can accept missed calls. I cannot and never will accept an official giving another team an unfair advantage by manipulating (intentionally or unintentionally) the rules I say this only because, you stated "depending on the spot where the run ended, it could have potentially been miscommunicated about taking the ball at the spot of last possession". My guess is the never offered it, because they tried to smooth it over with both sides. Unfortunately, I have to call it like it is. If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck its a damn duck...... .
I'm an official in another sport as well. Always nice to meet other officials. I haven't spoken to the ones I know and I probably won't as they are beating themselves up enough about it. There's no reason to kick someone when they're down by talking about it, unless they bring it up. Every official I know don't take mistakes lightly. The reason the whistle was blown was because the covering official probably thought the player with the ball was down and didn't see the ball fumbled. You always have to see the ball in possession with the player on the ground before blowing the whistle. It was a short lapse in judgment that resulted in a huge error.
This isn't a muffed kick, though. A muff occurs on a loose ball (pass, kick, fumble, etc.) and is an unsuccessful attempt to possess the ball. Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm going off of memory, but this ball was clearly in possession and then fumbled. There was no cover up here, I heard the inadvertent whistle myself. I'm 100% certain there was an inadvertent whistle. I'm sure the huddle was to decide when the IW occurred, and that requires a lot of input as all of this happened within a split second. When the IW occurs is extremely important because that's what dictates who gets the options.
I can say with 100% certainty there was no intentional manipulation as you said above. IWs are rare, and especially rare in big games. Rarities do not get as much attention in rules discussions as more common plays do, although they are discussed and most officials do know this rule for IWs. I think this may have just been an unfortunate circumstance where the officials did not remember the rule. If the option for Salem to take the ball at the spot of the fumble was not offered, it was a lapse in memory, not an intentional act. They would not compromise the integrity of the game or themselves by intentionally manipulating the rules of the game. That is an impossibility with these folks. Even the most experienced officials have lapses in memory. It's a shame and I know they feel horrible.
Now as for why the rule is written this way to allow the team that fumbles to have these options, it's because once a whistle is blown the play is dead by rule. Anything that happens after the whistle means absolutely nothing. No recovery, no continuation. The team who last had possession gained their yards legally, so they have a right to keep those yards. This is just the most fair result of an awful situation (and mistake) to be caught in.
To answer your other question, if Salem had not fumbled, it would have been an IW during a run which means Salem can take the ball at the spot of last possession (just prior to the IW) or replay the down (rekick).
Thank you sir. I will take your word as a fellow official. Yeah I beat myself up too. I still have no idea why the guy tooted his whistle. Must have coughed. Lol
Her name was Pat
Mind if I ask where you saw the replay of the game? I for sure will want to watch it again at some point this week.
I have video of the fumble that was forwarded to me and I watched the entire replay of the game on gameday. Here is the link:http://mvp.gamedaymagazine.com/.
Don't blame government teachers. We teach it just fine. Whoever said it probably never made it to senior year where government is taught anyway.
WOW, that's all I got...just WOW
Forgive me gwb16. its been a long day and I don't have a clue about what you are referring to. Help me out a little bit. Confused!
If you tell someone ten things, and they only remember five, they will be the five that they wanted to hear. Basic human nature.
A good analogy is football rules. Ask someone about a controversial call and they will give you an explanation that supports their desires.
I don't know how much any of us remember about how our constitution reads, but we will all argue what we want to believe it says.
But then again, the greatest minds in the judiciary have been trying to answer the question of what the constitution says and means..., since the day it was written.
The game replay, knucklehead!
The video and the "call"....just WOW!
Ramsey is "THE REAL DEAL"...impressive.
I have a question. ..why did this thread become a "sticky?"
I thought I had somehow moved it on my iPad. At least it wasn't my ineptitude this time. My guess is if gives Matt a better shot at monitoring the post.
My hats off to everyone. We have kept it civil. It's a topic that could have gone haywire in a hurry.
You are right DP. It could have gained momentum in the wrong direction. I think we all agreed on the IW and the fact that Salem could of benefited from a little pine tar.
Even though we came up short I thoroughly enjoyed the game. The image of both teams having prayer together is heartwarming. We even got a picture of the two kickers together. They have participated in the same camps and are friends.
Hopefully, we will meet again in December!
I think it's best that people not allow ONE CALL to define a tremendous game. I watched most of it last night. Amazing football game by two very fine teams. This could easily be a primer for a December showdown. I'll see the next game in person...good Lord willing.
I wouldn't think Salem or any other school or Staff would cheat. They'd be fired real fast and in a hurry!
BUT.... sometimes, the field officials seem blind or just can't see! OR guess at what they saw! OR could they have maybe a little favoritism "home cooking" going on?
For the most part I agree that our teachers do a great job...but...there has been a recent trend by some to teach ideology instead of presenting the facts...especially the Constitution and government.
Well, that is vague and without support. My personal experience of teaching Civics/Government over the last 19 years is that there is less free-wheeling now than at any time before. Standards, benchmark testing, observations, all focus teachers teaching the same thing. Talk radio people from many sides talk about indoctrinating, but every psychological study shows kids do not pick up the leanings of their teachers. They mostly care about leanings of their peers.
Wasted time on a ludacris subject. Move on
As an educator myself, I would disagree with your statements "that there is less free-wheeling now than at any time before" and "every psychological study shows kids do not pick up the leanings of their teachers ". But this discussion should be reserved for a different forum.
I meant high school age kids, when talking about the study, but I will let it go. I wasn't the person who started this by criticizing government teachers on what was already a pointless thread.