What God-Awful Refereeing Today

[andrew]

This also shows the difficulty officials have in pleasing fans. They have a choice between making the correct call, which 99.99% of fans won't realize is correct and will use as proof that the game is obviously rigged, or they can make what the vast majority of people think is the correct call or want to be the correct call, which will make everyone happy but actually would be rigging the game.

 

[The Champ]

The replay officials' interpretation of this play was correct. And while you have no reason to trust me, I actually did look up this rule earlier in the season so I already knew about it.

The rule is the ball gets spotted either where it went out of bounds only if the player is airborne. Otherwise it is spotted with forward progress regardless of where it crossed the sideline.

Normally, when a player is going out of bounds in a situation like this, they dive with their whole body off the ground and the ball is spotted where it went out. However, in this case, Bowers had a hand down in the field of play so the ball is spotted at its forwardmost point, even though the ball had already crossed the sideline.

Here is the relevant rule from the rulebook:



Note that it specifies the ball is spotted where it crosses the sideline only if the runner is airborne. That is stated as an exception in contrast to how it is spotted if the player is not airborne.

Now here is Bowers on that play. Note that his hand is down in the field of play, so he is not airbone and thus the ball is not spotted where it was when it crosses the sideline.

Exactly

 

[gambler]

The replay officials' interpretation of this play was correct. And while you have no reason to trust me, I actually did look up this rule earlier in the season so I already knew about it.

The rule is the ball gets spotted either where it went out of bounds only if the player is airborne. Otherwise it is spotted with forward progress regardless of where it crossed the sideline.

Normally, when a player is going out of bounds in a situation like this, they dive with their whole body off the ground and the ball is spotted where it went out. However, in this case, Bowers had a hand down in the field of play so the ball is spotted at its forwardmost point, even though the ball had already crossed the sideline.

Here is the relevant rule from the rulebook:



Note that it specifies the ball is spotted where it crosses the sideline only if the runner is airborne. That is stated as an exception in contrast to how it is spotted if the player is not airborne.

Now here is Bowers on that play. Note that his hand is down in the field of play, so he is not airbone and thus the ball is not spotted where it was when it crosses the sideline.

It's yours and someone else's interpretation anyway and it completely changes the way the game is played and officiated which is the problem.

The rule states ".. including a striding runner.." so airborne is airborne unless it's a striding runner in which case it's not airborne but is also considered out at the spot of ball crossing the sideline. So it's out at the spot it crosses unless you're on the ground in which case the play is dead which is the point of the rule.

They're clearly saying you can not leap or stride or lunge or any of that to gain extra forward progress with the ball out of bounds. This is much the same reason as a ball being required inside the pylon for a dive into the endzone.

If they're going to start officiating by your interpretation, every school is going to start teaching ball runners to put one hand on the ground then leap out of bounds on the sideline for an extra 2-3 yards on every play. No other officials have called this way all year.

This is clearly bullshit by any metric despite how my bias leans.

 

[andrew]

It's yours and someone else's interpretation anyway and it completely changes the way the game is played and officiated which is the problem.

The rule states ".. including a striding runner.." so airborne is airborne unless it's a striding runner in which case it's not airborne but is also considered out at the spot of ball crossing the sideline. So it's out at the spot it crosses unless you're on the ground in which case the play is dead which is the point of the rule.

They're clearly saying you can not leap or stride or lunge or any of that to gain extra forward progress with the ball out of bounds. This is much the same reason as a ball being required inside the pylon for a dive into the endzone.

If they're going to start officiating by your interpretation, every school is going to start teaching ball runners to put one hand on the ground then leap out of bounds on the sideline for an extra 2-3 yards on every play. No other officials have called this way all year.

This is clearly bullshit by any metric despite how my bias leans.

At least one other official definitely called it this way, that's why I knew the rule from looking it up.

Let me ask you a legitimate question. The exception states that the ball is spotted where it went out if the runner is airborne or striding. We know that if the body is completely in the air the runner is obviously airborne and the exception is . It's safe to assume also that if the runner is on his feet then he is striding, so the exception also applies.

You are saying that if the player has his hand down in bounds, that also counts as striding so the exception applies.

My question is this: in your interpretation, what's a situation where the exception doesn't apply and the ball isn't spotted where it is when it crosses the sideline?

 

[andrew]

They're clearly saying you can not leap or stride or lunge or any of that to gain extra forward progress with the ball out of bounds. This is much the same reason as a ball being required inside the pylon for a dive into the endzone.

But the rulebook differentiates between going for the endzone and between the goal lines. Note the rule I quoted above specifically notes that it only applies between the goal lines. There is a separate rule for touchdowns, which is as you say:

A touchdown is scored if the ball is inbounds and has broken the plane of the goal line (Rule 2-12-2) before or simultaneous to the ball carrier going out of bounds.

 

[Vespidie]

It's yours and someone else's interpretation anyway and it completely changes the way the game is played and officiated which is the problem.

This subjectivity of referee decisions (good and bad) have been compounded by technology. It’s one thing to use instant replay to determine the validity of an on field call, but it’s another to rely on anonymous replay booth decisions that turn out to be incorrect also.

 

[gambler]

At least one other official definitely called it this way, that's why I knew the rule from looking it up.

Let me ask you a legitimate question. The exception states that the ball is spotted where it went out if the runner is airborne or striding. We know that if the body is completely in the air the runner is obviously airborne and the exception is . It's safe to assume also that if the runner is on his feet then he is striding, so the exception also applies.

You are saying that if the player has his hand down in bounds, that also counts as striding so the exception applies.

My question is this: in your interpretation, what's a situation where the exception doesn't apply and the ball isn't spotted where it is when it crosses the sideline?

That is my point, there is no exception really. The best example I could think of is a fumble being recovered from the ground by a player falling toward the sideline from their knees or a tumble or something like that which carries them out of bounds but where possession is only granted when the player has control of the ball.

Otherwise they don't want teams gaining "free yardage" in this manner.

 

[andrew]

That is my point, there is no exception really. The best example I could think of is a fumble being recovered from the ground by a player falling toward the sideline from their knees or a tumble or something like that which carries them out of bounds but where possession is only granted when the player has control of the ball.

Otherwise they don't want teams gaining "free yardage" in this manner.

But the rulebook says that placing the ball out when it crosses the sideline is an exception to the rule. So your point is that the normal rule as written never applies, and the exception always applies?

 

[gambler]

But the rulebook differentiates between going for the endzone and between the goal lines. Note the rule I quoted above specifically notes that it only applies between the goal lines. There is a separate rule for touchdowns, which is as you say:

It's still apples to apples, "...the ball is inbounds.." When running for a first down to say, the right sideline, a player may extend the ball forward with their left hand while stepping out out 1 yard further back and the ball is spotted at forward progress where it crossed the sideline.

In this case, the ball was out of bounds clearly. Portions of the player were out of bounds, but the play wasn't considered "dead" because his body wasn't touching the ground? What other definition of airborne or striding do they want?

The only other way to have the ball out of bounds and still in play while in possession is if you are holding it over the sideline while running. In that case you aren't moving toward the sideline or gaining free yardage which is what they are avoiding.

 

[gambler]

But the rulebook says that placing the ball out when it crosses the sideline is an exception to the rule. So your point is that the normal rule as written never applies, and the exception always applies?

See running down sideline above, I would say running is the normal mode not falling or leaping, jumping, etc.

 

[gambler]

This subjectivity of referee decisions (good and bad) have been compounded by technology. It’s one thing to use instant replay to determine the validity of an on field call, but it’s another to rely on anonymous replay booth decisions that turn out to be incorrect also.

That's what causes these problems, semantics and poorly written or easily misinterpreted language. We already discussed the same problem with the targeting call.

About the only thing that wasn't jacked up by officiating in that comeback was the slipped cornerback on the long TD pass. Otherwise I would say the game was fully decided by the refs.

 

[Walton]

1) It seems that was targeting by the definition for defenseless player but “everyone” has decided targeting is only crown of the helmet contact with the other player’s helmet. And that is basically how they called it this year.

2) for ejecting a player I think that is a good standard but probably not for a roughing penalty.

3) It is funny that the player got a concussion but everyone is like: but it wasn’t a penalty so move along.

4) that is exactly the type of hit that started us down the path to targeting. The NFL was trying to protect WRs from getting killed when they were in the air and couldn’t protect themselves. To begin with, I think it didn’t matter where you hit the WR, you basically had to allow him to take a step before contact. Over time they emphasized high hits and then when they introduced targeting they forgot about the originally purpose of the rule to protect WR.

5) so it is currently illegal to make minor block against a defender from the “side” but you can killed the WR as long as you don’t “target” him

 

[Walton]

On the out of bounds play, it does make sense. I guess I’ve heard announcers talk about it being out where it crosses the sideline but that isn’t technically correct.

Think about you running down the sideline with your feet inbounds the whole way but the ball in your elbow is out of bounds. No one thinks that is out of bounds. Only when a body part hits the white does the ball get marked where it is.

The rule is a little different at the goal line.

 

[andrew]

I'll make one more reply and then let you have the last word if you want since otherwise this will go on all day.

Also let me note that I'm not arguing that the rule is good, only that it was applied correctly.

It's still apples to apples, "...the ball is inbounds.." When running for a first down to say, the right sideline, a player may extend the ball forward with their left hand while stepping out out 1 yard further back and the ball is spotted at forward progress where it crossed the sideline.

Right, I would say that running falls under the definition of "striding", so the exception is applied and the ball is spotted where it crossed the line once the play is dead. Note that the ball crossing the sideline doesn't cause the play to be dead -- he still has to touch out of bounds and then the play is dead and the ball is spotted back where it crossed the line.

In this case, the ball was out of bounds clearly. Portions of the player were out of bounds, but the play wasn't considered "dead" because his body wasn't touching the ground? What other definition of airborne or striding do they want?

Out of bounds is the ground on or past the sideline. A player's body or the ball being over the ground outside the sideline definitely doesn't count as the play being dead or out of bounds. That's why plays where the receiver is diving for the ball and manages to get his feet down before his body touches out count. You are not out of bounds and the play is not dead until a part of your body or the ball physically touches out.

As for definitions of airborne and striding, I would say that if a player is not touching the ground then he is airborne. And I would say striding is running, one foot after the other. If you have your hand down in bounds, I would say you are definitely not "airborne", and I would also say that diving forward with both legs off the ground and a hand on the ground is not "striding" by any definition I've ever seen.

Your argument seems to boil down to two things:

1: Although the rulebook has separate rules for how this is handled in the endzone and between the goal lines, it's apples to apples and the endzone rule should apply in both places.

2: Although the rulebook states that in between the goal lines the ball is only marked out of bounds where it crossed the sideline as the exception to the rule, it means that should always be the case and the normal rule should never apply.

Neither of those arguments hold water to me.

 

[Supersize that order mutt]

Have we mentioned the timeout that was called after the ball was snapped?

Do you know that to be a fact? They never showed Kirby calling the TO and the players on the field simultaneously, so we don't have TV to prove it one way or another. I suspect he did call it after the snap and got away with it, but I would love to see some proof of it.

 

[Supersize that order mutt]

The not-actually-targeting call and explanation reminds me of the 1961 game between Tech and Bama, when Darwin Holt intentionally hit Tech's Chick Granning in the face, resulting in a shattered jaw. I can't remember now if a penalty was called or not, although one definitely should have been, but I do remember that Bear Bryant never apologized for the hit nor punish Holt for delivering it, one of the reasons that Dodd decided to leave the SEC.

 

[GTCrew4b]

The replay officials' interpretation of this play was correct. And while you have no reason to trust me, I actually did look up this rule earlier in the season so I already knew about it.

The rule is the ball gets spotted either where it went out of bounds only if the player is airborne. Otherwise it is spotted with forward progress regardless of where it crossed the sideline.

Normally, when a player is going out of bounds in a situation like this, they dive with their whole body off the ground and the ball is spotted where it went out. However, in this case, Bowers had a hand down in the field of play so the ball is spotted at its forwardmost point, even though the ball had already crossed the sideline.

Here is the relevant rule from the rulebook:



Note that it specifies the ball is spotted where it crosses the sideline only if the runner is airborne. That is stated as an exception in contrast to how it is spotted if the player is not airborne.

Now here is Bowers on that play. Note that his hand is down in the field of play, so he is not airbone and thus the ball is not spotted where it was when it crosses the sideline.

When did his hand come down?

 

[Supersize that order mutt]

When did his hand come down?

Seems I remember that it was after the ball was outside the plane of the sideline.

 

[GTCrew4b]

Seems I remember that it was after the ball was outside the plane of the sideline.

Watching the replay after I posted it looked like the hand came down as his feet slid out for the dive. I think that does make it at least more acceptable of an interpretation for why it was a first down. I still do not believe this is what the rule is supposed to allow, and it was misapplied. To interpret this way would mean a diving player could drag their hand along the sideline inbounds to gain more yards. Clearly not what the rule is trying to allow. To interpret rules this way in the spirit of competition is not correct. Rules are written to attempt to explain all situations. Sometimes they cannot and we have to use our brains to determine what the outcome should be in the spirit of fair competition. No one would complain if the call on the field stood. They would maybe have a discussion to change the wording to ensure this situation doesn’t come up again.

 

[GTRules]

This thread: