The Pigskin
Page
2013 Post-Season Week 1 Clips
TECHNICAL NOTE: For those not aware, when viewing these videos in the You Tube window, you can adjust the resolution for a sharper view. Notice in the lower right hand corner of the video player window a setting icon that looks like a gear. Click on that and you can adjust the setting up to 360p, 480p or even 720p in some cases. This will give you a sharper image.
The video page will continue bringing you clips each week which are good teaching material as we all work together to understand and enforce the sometimes complicated NCAA football rules. The videos are not meant to demean or belittle any official. They are used so that ALL officials can learn from the situations and issues other officials encounter in their games. No official has ever completed a career error-free. But by sharing our errors with others we help them avoid the same pitfalls. NCAA football officials at all levels exhibit incredible rule knowledge week in and week out. We can always get better and this page hopes to serve in that effort.
Last week we posted a poll play that was hoped could bring us all together. It seems to have worked. 83% of you agreed last week that the play had a facemask foul on the offense and on the defense, although that is not how it was called in the game. We still do not know why, after an extended discussion, the foul was only on the defense. That was especially perplexing since the calling official even signaled the foul against the offense as he was reporting it. Perhaps this is a good example of why we should not be giving these obvious preliminary signals as we run to the Referee.
Targeting Foul ? This season's continuing issue has been the targeting foul. Seemed a week did not go by that an act in one game was called targeting while the same or similar act in another was not. Instant Replay officials also seemed to be singing from a different hymnal at times. There were allegations that some conferences told their crews to simply call anything that was close to targeting a foul and then rely on the Replay Official to at least take away the disqualification portion of the penalty. There was so much emphasis on this act that we even saw examples where some hits were flagged because they looked bad although they actually violated no rule at all. Please view this play video and take the poll. (Please remember to scroll down and click on the DONE button after making your choice.)
Type 1 Targeting The most dangerous of targeting fouls is usually the "Type 1 Targeting", a player using the crown of his helmet to initiate contact on an opponent. These hits place both the hitter and hittee at risk of significant injury. This is the type of hit that has been illegal since long before the word "target" made it into the NCAA rulebook. Even the most ardent opponent of the targeting rule as it is today will find a hit like this one offensive and flagrant.
Sidelines and the Restricted Area In the past several years, increasing attention to the sidelines and keeping them clear for officials has worked to a large degree. In some places like Texas, tragic situations (the death of a coach and an extended lawsuit) made officials and coaches even more sensitive to the dangers inherent on the sidelines. It also appears most conferences are supporting their officials when they try to enforce the rules related to the restricted area, which is that area 6 feet wide, directly outside the sideline. During play, NOBODY should be in the area (9-2-5). Violations of this rule are enforced under the "5, 5 and 15" principle. A few years ago another rule was tweaked to give us the ability to use it in these scenarios also. Under 9-2-3, while the ball is in play, if any person other than a player or an officials interferes in any way with the ball, player, or an official they commit a foul punishable by the most severe penalty in the book..."any action the Referee considers equitable." From this seat high above the field, it sure looks like the Side Judge was significantly interfered with and placed in serious physical danger. Officials can watch this clip and guess for themselves at what transpired in the crew conference but it certainly appears the Head Linesman gave information, perhaps faulty, that caused the Side Judge to tell the Referee there was no foul after all. The Side Judge was veering somewhat towards the back of the restricted area so perhaps the Head Linesman reported the contact occurred with someone who was in the green and not the white. Of course, the Head Linesman's own view of events appeared to be obstructed by yet another person who was illegally in the white in front of him as he tried to pursue the play.
False Start and Zap-10 Some officials will ignore those flinches and sharp movements before the snap when a wide receiver does them although they would normally flag if the tight end did the same. This is incorrect and those pre-snap movements by Team A players which indicate they have missed the snap count are false starts. This crew caught one such example of this. Since there was less than a minute remaining in the half, the "Zap 10" possibility also had to be dealt with. The crew seemed to quickly get the options from the teams and awarded the timeout to Team A so they could avoid the 10 second subtraction.
Intentional Grounding Another rule that has experienced some major modification in recent years is the rule related to intentional grounding. Nowadays, if there is an eligible receiver in the same zip code of the passer, referees do not judge a pass to be intentional grounding. This places the defense at a severe competitive disadvantage. They work hard to battle past a blocker who already is given great latitude with how he can block and when they do get past him, the QB is often able to easily unload the ball to avoid a sack and no flag is thrown. Even with all the liberalization of the rule that has gone on, it is hard to understand how this pass was not ruled intentional grounding. Perhaps, the amount of QB movement pre-pass made the Referee think he had left the tackle box.
Appearances Are Important The officiating crew is the only entity on a football field expected to be emotionless. No matter what is going on around us, we remain cool, calm, and collected. Coaches get excited and animated and they are said to be "into the game." Players get fired up and aggressive and "they came to play." If an official demonstrates emotion, it is generally perceived to be inappropriate, even if the call they are making at that moment is absolutely correct. That is why we teach young officials never to throw a flag in anger because it is so easily apparent he has lost emotional control.
Man Bites Dog Umpires take a beating on a weekly basis. They are in the thick of the action and often are some of the slowest movers on the crew. It is no accident we like to put big fellows in there. They are run into, hit with passes, knocked over, clipped, and just generally abused. But, every once in awhile, the Umpire gets the long end of the stick. Of course this Umpire was merely reacting in self-defense and not initiating contact. Looks like that self-defense training he got from J. Edgar Hoover may have paid off.
As if we do not have enough to deal with already !!! Cheerleaders are "persons subject to the rules" (1-1-6) Are we going to have to start watching them. Maybe not a bad assignment depending on who you are watching but not so nice if we have to focus on dudes like this big lunk in the sweatsuit along the end line: Clip 1 Since the act happened after the expiration of time, there is nothing the crew can do. In this case, both his school and his Conference have acted quickly to address the misconduct. We have a rule that prohibits the band from making noise that prevent a team from hearing its signals (9-2-1-b-5). But, what about other actions that interfere with a team, like the action here ? Clip 2 The Referee did all he could do. All he was missing was the offender's aisle and seat number. These devices are obtained relatively cheaply and have significant range, as shown in this clip. Luckily they are not likely to be dangerous to participants at this range but can be dangerous to those in close proximity to the user.