The Sports Officials Thread

[Color Me Badd Fan]

So this happened at a local high school. The district has suspended the kids

Those kids took exceptionally poor angles to the ball carrier.

[falafel]

More Texas player-on-ref violence.

Embedded Tweet

[Omaha 680]

I got a call to get observed at my JV game in two weeks in order to possibly move up to Varsity for the rest of the season. I feel like I'm doing very well so far, but I'm not too arrogant to realize that this is mostly a function of a semi-severe shortage of experienced HS football officials in NYC right now.

[Shaka]

Cool. Just relax and do your best.

[Paperback Writer]

Maybe this belongs in an officiating thread, if one exists, but something interesting happened in the Nebraska-Illinois game last week. Officials robbed Illinois of a down and awarded the ball to Nebraska. Both teams thought a play was 3rd down until the officials called a TO, had replay review, conferred for about five minutes, and then awarded the ball to Nebraska. It was bizarre and hard to believe that officials could get it wrong even after replay review. How hard is it to count to four? Here's the sequence:
Pass play for 9 yards:
(Here's where things go wrong, I don't recall seeing a first down indication by officials; Illinois is in hurry-up mode on offense).
Run play for gain of 3 yards: Everyone thinks this is now first down-it's really 2nd down.
Run play for gain 6 yards: supposedly 2nd and 4; really 3rd and 1
Run Play for loss of 2 yards: supposedly 3rd and 6; really 4th and 3
Pass Play for gain of 2 yards.

Ball is close to midfield. This is where things get really weird. Illinois' punt team starts to take the field when the officials huddle. Then they measure for first down distance. Illinois is a foot short. I think Illinois got a generous spot. Sometimes that happens with forward progress; still find it hard to believe the receiver got an extra three yards. Now I'm worried that Illinois is going to go for it on 4th and short. They have already done it once earlier in the game. The official announces a TO to certify the spot. So I think, Illinois is going to lose those "extra" three yards and have to punt. The TV announcers don't know what's going on and start talking about one down maker on one side of the field has 4th down and one on the other side of the field has 1st down. Then the officials trot out onto the field, re-spots the ball and measures again. It's still a foot short! I'm relieved when I see the Illinois punting team start to take the field. Then the TV announcers mention that part of the review was to count the downs. Suddenly, Nebraska's offense takes the field. What? Despite Mike Riley being a poor coach, he recognizes a gift once it's been wrapped. Nobody but perhaps some of the officials thought a first down was gained on the first play of the sequence. The TV crew certainly didn't; no build up to Illinois going for it at midfield on 4th and 3. And the Illinois head coach certainly didn't know he was going for it on 4th and 3. If only Bo Pelini were the coach of Illinois - the moment would have been priceless.

Apparently, there is some review committee and today they stated that the officials along with the review booth got it wrong. Theoretically, it is still possible for another 5th down ala 1990 Colorado-Missouri despite have replay booth review.

This does belong in the officiating thread!

I didn't catch this sequence but it's amazing they got it wrong if it's as you say. All officials on the field (what is a college crew now, 8?l) have their own down indicator on their wrist that they are updating. It's hard to imagine all the officials and the chain crew messed up and even harder to understand how the replay official missed it.

Now I don't know what the replay rules are in college and how far back the officials can make a correction. In high school, the referee has authority to correct the down number until the ball becomes live on a new series (i.e. once the offense snaps the ball on first down after reaching the line to gain or after a turnover it is too late to correct the down error in the last series). But even if this is the same rule in college, they should have been able to correct the mistake because Nebraska hadn't snapped the ball yet on first down. Sounds really weird and it makes sense if the review committee said they got it wrong.

So what is the proper way to handle this given the facts as I understand them?
First play is a gain of 9 or 10 yards. To the TV viewer, the receiver was out-of-bounds before reaching the first down stick. But it was close. TV announcers and the audience understood it as 2nd-down and 1. The official goes to spot the ball on the hash and the offense wants to snap ASAP because they are in hurry-up mode. Can the official require a measurement? Or is that up to the HC of the team on offense? Because that is where the mishap occurred. Everyone thought it was second down except maybe the officials. I don't recall an official indicating a first down by pointing his arm. Also, it seems that one chain gang had first down while another had second down - the TV announcers mentioned a difference after the critical 4th down play while the officials were huddling. Maybe the fault is with the chain gang, if indeed a first down was reached on the first play. Adding to the difficulty, is that the Illinois offense was snapping as quickly as possible after each play so it would have been challenging to spot any discrepancy between the chain gang down markers and what the officials had in their hand. If there was a breakdown, that probably was it.

Here's another question. After 3rd/4th down can the replay officials review if a first down was reached on the first play of the sequence? Perhaps they can't. What I think might have occurred is that the officials marked it as a first down while the offense had no interest in a measurement. Most everyone but the officials seemed to think it was not a first down. But with the quick snap, the game keep going. Not sure that is reviewable when 4 plays later they are trying to determine the correct spot. In other words, not sure if the officials can go back and say, "Looks like per the tape, that wasn't a first down after all 4 plays back". Maybe the takeaway is that if your going to run a hurray up offense that's not at the close of the half or the game, you assume the risk if you won't allow for a measurement.

[Shaka]

Here's another question. After 3rd/4th down can the replay officials review if a first down was reached on the first play of the sequence? Perhaps they can't. What I think might have occurred is that the officials marked it as a first down while the offense had no interest in a measurement. Most everyone but the officials seemed to think it was not a first down. But with the quick snap, the game keep going. Not sure that is reviewable when 4 plays later they are trying to determine the correct spot. In other words, not sure if the officials can go back and say, "Looks like per the tape, that wasn't a first down after all 4 plays back". Maybe the takeaway is that if your going to run a hurray up offense that's not at the close of the half or the game, you assume the risk if you won't allow for a measurement.

Typically not. They have until the next snap to fix an error. If they don't fix it the error stands. Maybe there's some leeway I don't know about regarding replay but I doubt it.

[Omaha 680]

So what is the proper way to handle this given the facts as I understand them?
First play is a gain of 9 or 10 yards. To the TV viewer, the receiver was out-of-bounds before reaching the first down stick. But it was close. TV announcers and the audience understood it as 2nd-down and 1. The official goes to spot the ball on the hash and the offense wants to snap ASAP because they are in hurry-up mode. Can the official require a measurement? Or is that up to the HC of the team on offense? Because that is where the mishap occurred. Everyone thought it was second down except maybe the officials. I don't recall an official indicating a first down by pointing his arm. Also, it seems that one chain gang had first down while another had second down - the TV announcers mentioned a difference after the critical 4th down play while the officials were huddling. Maybe the fault is with the chain gang, if indeed a first down was reached on the first play. Adding to the difficulty, is that the Illinois offense was snapping as quickly as possible after each play so it would have been challenging to spot any discrepancy between the chain gang down markers and what the officials had in their hand. If there was a breakdown, that probably was it.

In the event that a first down is not obvious, the referee can call for a measurement any time he thinks it is necessary. In high school, the captains of either team can also request a measurement at any time, but the referee does not have to grant the request (I am assuming college is similar). If the referee was calling a first down after the initial play, he should have clearly signaled and the umpire should have stood over the ball and not allowed it to be snapped until the box (down indicator) was placed at the new line of scrimmage. They chains can follow during the play but even hurry up offenses have to wait until the ball and LOS are set. I haven't watched the sequence but it sounds like the likely errors were the referee not clearly signaling the first down and the umpire not holding the snap until the box was set.

Here's another question. After 3rd/4th down can the replay officials review if a first down was reached on the first play of the sequence? Perhaps they can't. What I think might have occurred is that the officials marked it as a first down while the offense had no interest in a measurement. Most everyone but the officials seemed to think it was not a first down. But with the quick snap, the game keep going. Not sure that is reviewable when 4 plays later they are trying to determine the correct spot. In other words, not sure if the officials can go back and say, "Looks like per the tape, that wasn't a first down after all 4 plays back". Maybe the takeaway is that if your going to run a hurray up offense that's not at the close of the half or the game, you assume the risk if you won't allow for a measurement.

I believe the rules are replay can correct only the previous play before the ball becomes live again. The referee should have authority to correct the down number before the ball becomes live on a new series as I stated above. Perhaps this is why it wasn't corrected. If the first down was incorrectly given, a new series has begun and the referee can't go back and fix the down number because he would be correcting something from the previous series. I didn't read the statement from the Big Ten. Did they say the replay officials screwed up in not fixing it, or just that the officials screwed up initially by granting a first down and then showing conflicting down indications (1st/2nd) on the following down?

[Omaha 680]

There was another very public officiating error at the end of the Seattle/Detroit game on Monday night. After Calvin Johnson fumbled into the end zone trying for the winning touchdown, the defender intentionally batted the ball out for a touchback. Seattle should have been flagged for intentional batting, with the penalty enforced half the distance to the goal from the end of the run (the spot of the fumble). This would have resulted in a first down for Detroit inches from the winning TD. I recognized the error as I was watching live in my hotel, but I didn't post it so no swish for me.

[The_Douger]

I wish they'd have caught that error. The Seahags being 1-3 would be quite sweet.

[Paperback Writer]

I believe the rules are replay can correct only the previous play before the ball becomes live again. The referee should have authority to correct the down number before the ball becomes live on a new series as I stated above. Perhaps this is why it wasn't corrected. If the first down was incorrectly given, a new series has begun and the referee can't go back and fix the down number because he would be correcting something from the previous series. I didn't read the statement from the Big Ten. Did they say the replay officials screwed up in not fixing it, or just that the officials screwed up initially by granting a first down and then showing conflicting down indications (1st/2nd) on the following down?

The officials organization stated that the officials erred by not fixing it upon replay review. The chains moved, not sure about the down marker or the officials' personal down indicators. What should have happened is that the officials should have held the ball until the chain gang and officials were on the same page. But I remember the Illinois OL lining up and almost taking the ball from the official in order to do a quick snap in their hurray up offense. Illinois had just started their hurry-up offense after what had been to that point a somewhat slow, methodical pace for both teams. So it was the worst time for uncertainty about the first down (after the first play) to occur. So maybe the question is, can the officials change the down marker a few plays later after not catching that they advanced for a first down that wasn't? I question if they can. Illinois argues that it was really only third down. But Nebraska could argue that the chains moved and played as if it were 4th down. The officials huddled for about 5 minutes and measured for spot twice (once initially, and again after getting replay review for the spot). I think in the hope that Illinois had gained a first down and that would settle the matter. But they were a foot short on both measurements. What was really bad, is that it appeared both teams played as if it were 3rd down and the TV commentators and most likely the entire TV audience as well as spectators all thought it was 3rd down. The "right" thing to do was to probably give Illinois another down but I question if the rule book allows it.

Here's a copy of statement:

ROSEMONT, Ill. (AP) — The Big Ten officials' organization says a third-quarter officiating mistake cost Illinois a down in its 14-13 win Saturday over Nebraska

Collegiate Officiating Consortium Coordinator of Officials Bill Carollo said Monday that replay officials should have given Illinois another down when they reviewed a situation in which field officials lost track of the down and distance.

Instead the play that Illinois thought was third down was judged to be fourth down. Illinois had to turn over the ball at its own 44-yard line.

Carollo said "errors of this nature have a significant impact on game assignments, bowl assignments and overall year end status

[Walter Sobchak]

I wish they'd have caught that error. The Seahags being 1-3 would be quite sweet.

Is OK my friend, karma will catch up to them in the Superbowl next February.

[Omaha 680]

I'm starting to realize how navigating the politics of your local officials' association can be a huge effort. You obviously have to be good, but after that moving up is based a lot on who you know, making sure the right people are observing you, and making sure you are aware of all the latest pet mechanics items of the association and execute those flawlessly while being observed. There also seems to be a good amount of jaded officials who have put in 20+ years but aren't ranked as highly or don't get the assignments they think they deserve.

[BigPiney]

I have been reffing high school soccer the last 2 years. Because of the remote are that I live in (2 high schools within 100 miles of my house have programs) I don't get to do many games, but it has been fun. I guess we are supposed to do 16 hours of training every year, but since that is more hours than I will actually be on the field, they tend to cut it short for us. We did 1 1/2 hours on saturday to go over all the rule changes and points of emphasis for this year. Next week we will spend an hour on the field going over mechanics and we will be ready to go.

[Shaka]

I'm starting to realize how navigating the politics of your local officials' association can be a huge effort. You obviously have to be good, but after that moving up is based a lot on who you know, making sure the right people are observing you, and making sure you are aware of all the latest pet mechanics items of the association and execute those flawlessly while being observed. There also seems to be a good amount of jaded officials who have put in 20+ years but aren't ranked as highly or don't get the assignments they think they deserve.

It's a major issue and one I personally don't like to deal with. It's a factor in why I decided to retire from officiating. I deal with enough political stuff at work and I always hated having to deal with it in an avocation because it takes the fun out of it.

[Omaha 680]

It's a major issue and one I personally don't like to deal with. It's a factor in why I decided to retire from officiating. I deal with enough political stuff at work and I always hated having to deal with it in an avocation because it takes the fun out of it.

I can certainly understand that. I guess I'm just recognizing that like in any profession, just doing your job very well is usually not enough to get noticed and rewarded. There is a certain amount of self-promotion that is required that I'm not always comfortable with. I will play the game for now because I enjoy officiating enough that I'd like to move up and eventually do college games. We'll see if I feel the same way in a couple years.