NCAA Foootball 2017

[Berkut]

My objection, which started this whole stupid sub topic, was to Berkut saying that in the hypothetical situation that he laid out -conditioned by those "ifs" - that he would a) tell the defense, b) tell the QB what to do, c) blow the play dead, d) assess a penalty. I objected to that, as in the hypothetical situation he laid out, he would be acting beyond the scope of the rule book.

I have never played football, but in basketball the bad refs are the ones who do not communicate with the players on the court.  There is no rule in the rule book which states the circumstances in which a ref will talk to the players.  But the good ones talk to the players throughout the game. Berkut's hypothetical sounds exactly like the type of communication a player would want to have from the ref.

Note that a, b, c, and d all follow pretty much inevitably from the offense telling us they are taking a knee.

The only point he has is that perhaps that should never happen. It's not a bad point, and we've had that exact discussion amongst ourselves and with our assignor. It is the officials interjecting themselves into a play in a manner they certainly never would under any other circumstances.

But it's not OUR choice - that is what the coaches want, not what we want. If they don't want that, they simply don't tell us, in which case the play just runs like any other play.

This isn't in any way about what the officials want to do, it is what we are instructed to do in this circumstance. If the coach doesn't want it called that way, they simply don't tell us.

What they cannot do however, is ask that this exception be made for the safety of the players and the good of the game, and THEN use that to "fool" the defense.

[Berkut]

LOLZOR.

Brohm is being talked about as a potential replacement at Arizona....

[alfred russel]

My objection, which started this whole stupid sub topic, was to Berkut saying that in the hypothetical situation that he laid out -conditioned by those "ifs" - that he would a) tell the defense, b) tell the QB what to do, c) blow the play dead, d) assess a penalty. I objected to that, as in the hypothetical situation he laid out, he would be acting beyond the scope of the rule book.

I have never played football, but in basketball the bad refs are the ones who do not communicate with the players on the court.  There is no rule in the rule book which states the circumstances in which a ref will talk to the players.  But the good ones talk to the players throughout the game. Berkut's hypothetical sounds exactly like the type of communication a player would want to have from the ref.

Note that a, b, c, and d all follow pretty much inevitably from the offense telling us they are taking a knee.

The only point he has is that perhaps that should never happen. It's not a bad point, and we've had that exact discussion amongst ourselves and with our assignor. It is the officials interjecting themselves into a play in a manner they certainly never would under any other circumstances.

But it's not OUR choice - that is what the coaches want, not what we want. If they don't want that, they simply don't tell us, in which case the play just runs like any other play.

This isn't in any way about what the officials want to do, it is what we are instructed to do in this circumstance. If the coach doesn't want it called that way, they simply don't tell us.

What they cannot do however, is ask that this exception be made for the safety of the players and the good of the game, and THEN use that to "fool" the defense.

Putting aside the completely absurd side discussion whether something can be communicated by yelling or not, I don't think b, c, and d logically follow from a.

The rule book doesn't state that the play should be dead and there should be a false start or any other penalty in such an instance. The rule book describes when the ball is dead and when penalties should be enforced, and those aren't the situations.

You - as a referee - are essentially eliminating the kneel down from the game. Whether the coaches want that is not the point. you aren't supposed to just do what the coaches want. The rule makers have not removed it.

[alfred russel]

There are some situations where I would not be willing to do this - a close game where the defense might want the chance to force a fumble, for example. Then you can take a knee, and we will penalize any cheap shot on the QB once he goes down, but the defense will get to hard rush in the vain hope of the QB muffing the snap or something.

Wait, so you wouldn't even be willing to do this? It was the first half of a two score game...

[Berkut]

My objection, which started this whole stupid sub topic, was to Berkut saying that in the hypothetical situation that he laid out -conditioned by those "ifs" - that he would a) tell the defense, b) tell the QB what to do, c) blow the play dead, d) assess a penalty. I objected to that, as in the hypothetical situation he laid out, he would be acting beyond the scope of the rule book.

I have never played football, but in basketball the bad refs are the ones who do not communicate with the players on the court.  There is no rule in the rule book which states the circumstances in which a ref will talk to the players.  But the good ones talk to the players throughout the game. Berkut's hypothetical sounds exactly like the type of communication a player would want to have from the ref.

Note that a, b, c, and d all follow pretty much inevitably from the offense telling us they are taking a knee.

The only point he has is that perhaps that should never happen. It's not a bad point, and we've had that exact discussion amongst ourselves and with our assignor. It is the officials interjecting themselves into a play in a manner they certainly never would under any other circumstances.

But it's not OUR choice - that is what the coaches want, not what we want. If they don't want that, they simply don't tell us, in which case the play just runs like any other play.

This isn't in any way about what the officials want to do, it is what we are instructed to do in this circumstance. If the coach doesn't want it called that way, they simply don't tell us.

What they cannot do however, is ask that this exception be made for the safety of the players and the good of the game, and THEN use that to "fool" the defense.

Putting aside the completely absurd side discussion whether something can be communicated by yelling or not, I don't think b, c, and d logically follow from a.

There isn't any point to any of it if b+ doesn't follow from a, or if a doesn't follow from being told the offense wants to take a knee. Which is the only point of disagreement.

As far as the rules are concerned, this is trivilially covered in the rule that allows the referee to take any action they deem necessary to correct an obviously unfair act.

And asking the officials to tell the defense not to rush so you can run a "trick" play using a specific exception to the normal procedures designed to ensure player safety qualifies.

How any of this could "take the kneel out of the game" is rather beyond me since this is how its been officiatied for years, and yet, the kneel is still in the game.

You know what isn't in the game, until this singularly stupid example? Telling the officials you are going to take a knee, then running a play.

[grumbler]

You - as a referee - are essentially eliminating the kneel down from the game. Whether the coaches want that is not the point. you aren't supposed to just do what the coaches want. The rule makers have not removed it.

What "rule makers" made a kneel-down rule and have not removed it?  Where can I find this rule?

[Berkut]

There are some situations where I would not be willing to do this - a close game where the defense might want the chance to force a fumble, for example. Then you can take a knee, and we will penalize any cheap shot on the QB once he goes down, but the defense will get to hard rush in the vain hope of the QB muffing the snap or something.

Wait, so you wouldn't even be willing to do this? It was the first half of a two score game...

If the defense indicated they were not interested in the play off, then of course I would tell the offense that the rush is live, and to play accordingly.

In this case, it was clear Arizona was content to end the half.

[crazy canuck]

My objection, which started this whole stupid sub topic, was to Berkut saying that in the hypothetical situation that he laid out -conditioned by those "ifs" - that he would a) tell the defense, b) tell the QB what to do, c) blow the play dead, d) assess a penalty. I objected to that, as in the hypothetical situation he laid out, he would be acting beyond the scope of the rule book.

I have never played football, but in basketball the bad refs are the ones who do not communicate with the players on the court.  There is no rule in the rule book which states the circumstances in which a ref will talk to the players.  But the good ones talk to the players throughout the game. Berkut's hypothetical sounds exactly like the type of communication a player would want to have from the ref.

Note that a, b, c, and d all follow pretty much inevitably from the offense telling us they are taking a knee.

The only point he has is that perhaps that should never happen. It's not a bad point, and we've had that exact discussion amongst ourselves and with our assignor. It is the officials interjecting themselves into a play in a manner they certainly never would under any other circumstances.

But it's not OUR choice - that is what the coaches want, not what we want. If they don't want that, they simply don't tell us, in which case the play just runs like any other play.

This isn't in any way about what the officials want to do, it is what we are instructed to do in this circumstance. If the coach doesn't want it called that way, they simply don't tell us.

What they cannot do however, is ask that this exception be made for the safety of the players and the good of the game, and THEN use that to "fool" the defense.

Its not unlike a basketball coach telling a ref near the end of the game that they are going to foul.  The ref is then likely going to call weak contact to protect the offensive player rather than force the defender to commit a more forceful foul.  But I guess the big difference is there is no way for the defensive team to exploit that trade off by not doing what they told the ref they are going to do and much to lose if a more forceful foul is still committed.

[Barrister]

Its not unlike a basketball coach telling a ref near the end of the game that they are going to foul.  The ref is then likely going to call weak contact to protect the offensive player rather than force the defender to commit a more forceful foul.  But I guess the big difference is there is no way for the defensive team to exploit that trade off by not doing what they told the ref they are going to do and much to lose if a more forceful foul is still committed.

I don't know a ton about basketball: why would a team intentionally foul?

[katmai]

Its not unlike a basketball coach telling a ref near the end of the game that they are going to foul.  The ref is then likely going to call weak contact to protect the offensive player rather than force the defender to commit a more forceful foul.  But I guess the big difference is there is no way for the defensive team to exploit that trade off by not doing what they told the ref they are going to do and much to lose if a more forceful foul is still committed.

I don't know a ton about basketball: why would a team intentionally foul?

You are out of your element Beeb, ffs.

[Valmy]

I don't know a ton about basketball: why would a team intentionally foul?

Really?

Ok then: to stop the clock and get the ball back. This happens almost every single game BB 

[katmai]

Jesus, Valmy needs to stick to football too.

[frunk]

I don't know a ton about basketball: why would a team intentionally foul?

When a team is down and the clock is tight.

[Valmy]

Jesus, Valmy needs to stick to football too.

Oh so people foul when they are behind late in the game in order to run the clock and give the ball back? Genius! Thanks Kat!

[Eddie Teach]

Jesus, Valmy needs to stick to football too.

Eh, he's essentially correct. It's done so the opposing team can't burn time off the clock. Or are you keying on the word "intentional"?