Dear Doug---Big Sky Officiating is a Problem

[cpalum]

Calls go both ways...this is not meant to be a whining post. With that said, the officiating in in the Big Sky is horrible, awful and needs to be addressed. I've seen it as casual fan for years but now that Cal Poly is in the Big Sky I see it every week. I'm sure fans of every team can share their list of bad calls. I've read the rule about showboating and I really don't think this fits the definition?

With the score tied (14-14) at the end of the 1st half Cal Poly goes on 4th and short..a pitch to Kori Garcia who scores the TD. The TD was taken away for "showboating". This results in minus 15 yards from the point of the "foul". Instead of the TD (21-14) Cal Poly gets the ball 4th and 18, they fail to convert and MSU goes down and kicks the FG as time expires (14-17).

I don't like showboating/taunting, especially from players who represent my school but I saw nothing egregious in what Garcia did....

Is there anyone here (even MSU fans) who think this should result in 7 points being taken off the board?

You tell me

http://www.ksby.com/news/cal-poly-earns-fifth-straight-victory-with-35-27-upset-of-no-8-9-montana-state/

[tomq04]

It was a spot of the foul penalty as well, should have been 1st and 15 as a worst case, I'm quite certain he got the 1st down.

[CasualFan]

That's a good call, in my opinion.

[Rjones61]

Terrible call and terrible rule. Touchdowns should only be erased if the scoring team made an illegal move that gave them an unfair advantage. We can't sit here and change the result of games simply because players acted human. Thankfully, Cal Poly still ended up on top.

[RabidRabbit]

Watched the game. Thought it was a ridiculous, horrible call when made, and nothing has come up to change that.

Had an earlier conversation about "Vegas" games. This is one where ref's calls influence the point spread. This Cal Poly/MT St game definitely qualified. The 7 point scored should have remained. If a penalty needed to be assessed (don't think the behavior warranted the call), assess it on the kick-off.

[TypicalTribe]

I love the 4th down guts from Cal Poly all game. As for the penalty, it's pretty ridiculous and in no way should those kind of penalties change the outcome of plays. He almost paid the price by not getting into the end zone. Pretty sure his coach would have given him plenty of grief about it without the penalty being called.

[Nova09]

That's an atrociously bad call. I think the rule is stupid, but I'm a proponent of enforcing stupid rules more strictly, not less, to draw attention to how stupid they are and get them changed. But even with that in mind, this play simply wasn't the penalty called. He dragged his feet to be able to change direction if need be, so that he would slow down and have the option of continuing outside (as he did) or cutting back inside if the defender overran. I actually don't think he would have even scored without doing that, as if he continued full speed to the pylon the defender also continues full speed and I think the defender had an angle. It was the foot drag that slowed down the defender.

[Wallace]

... If a penalty needed to be assessed ... assess it on the kick-off.
THIS

[Nova09]

Terrible call and terrible rule. Touchdowns should only be erased if the scoring team made an illegal move that gave them an unfair advantage. We can't sit here and change the result of games simply because players acted human. Thankfully, Cal Poly still ended up on top.


Watched the game. Thought it was a ridiculous, horrible call when made, and nothing has come up to change that.

If a penalty needed to be assessed (don't think the behavior warranted the call), assess it on the kick-off.


THIS

What you all seem to be willfully ignoring is the rule the NCAA put in the book. And I don't disagree with you, I just don't think it's a fair stance to say "the official should have called the play differently than the way his boss's decided the play should be called"

[BISON Thunder]

What you all seem to be willfully ignoring is the rule the NCAA put in the book. And I don't disagree with you, I just don't think it's a fair stance to say "the official should have called the play differently than the way his boss's decided the play should be called"
I would hate to be put in the position of deciding "what is" and "what isn't". For instance, I thought John Crockett was going to catch a flag too after waving to the crowd after one of his touchdowns. In a perfect world, as much judgement as possible would be taken out of the equation. I would suggest a team first receives a warning (similar to the sideline foul thing) for "showing up" their opponent and then penalize on the second offense. This places the onus on the coaches and players to "correct" their behavior rather than the officials. Very difficult, in my mind, to take points off the board.

That being said, I agree...the official was just doing his job.

[Wallace]

no disrespect to officials, they have a job to do

[tingly]

official NCAA interpretation of the rule: "Third and 15 at the B-20. Eligible A88 catches a pass at the B-18 and heads for the goal line. At the B-10 he goes into a “goose step” and continues this action as he crosses the goal line.
RULING: Live-ball foul for unsportsmanlike conduct. Fifteen-yard penalty enforced at the spot of the foul, which is the B-10, and repeat third down. Third and 20 at the B-25."

He was flagged at the 3. The ball was placed on the 18. The refs unquestionably got it right except maybe he should have been flagged on the 4 or 5. As for the rule/penalty being appropriate, the debate goes on.

[BEAR]

The SLC has video replay this year..and still fail on critical calls..for and against teams. They missed one we got away with this year..maybe two. But they missed some that went for an opponent also. Guess the video replay pretty much is useless. Come watch an SLC game sometime when you can... horrible doesn't describe it.

[JSUBison]

It was a **** call. This is taunting? If you are going to call a penalty for showboating/excessive celebration or taunting, it better be a pretty egregious action on the part of the player. That action did not rise to the level of a penalty. If you have to debate yourself whether or not to throw the flag, that should tell you something. Throat slashing, spiking the ball, or getting in the face of an opponent would have been worth a flag, not this. This all hinges of course on conversations if any the refs have had with the players prior to this. If the refs had given warnings because it was starting to get out of hand and Poly didn't heed this, then it was a good call.

[cpalum]

official NCAA interpretation of the rule: "Third and 15 at the B-20. Eligible A88 catches a pass at the B-18 and heads for the goal line. At the B-10 he goes into a “goose step” and continues this action as he crosses the goal line.
RULING: Live-ball foul for unsportsmanlike conduct. Fifteen-yard penalty enforced at the spot of the foul, which is the B-10, and repeat third down. Third and 20 at the B-25."

He was flagged at the 3. The ball was placed on the 18. The refs unquestionably got it right except maybe he should have been flagged on the 4 or 5. As for the rule/penalty being appropriate, the debate goes on.

I don't think the official got it right even if you go by the rule...the action (high stepping) isn't egregious in mind but even then ...Why wasn't it a first down? The action came well after the 2 yards that Cal Poly needed for a 1st down?

[tingly]

The rule interpretation says mere highstepping rates the flag and 15-yard penalty.

[cpalum]

The rule interpretation says mere highstepping rates the flag and 15-yard penalty.

so why wasn't it a first down?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Bad call

[tingly]

It wasn't a first down because it is a live ball penalty and the ball ended up on the 18.

[clenz]

so why wasn't it a first down?
I don't think the result of the play stands. It reverts back to what it was - unlike a holding/black in the back.

I have no idea though.

I think the rule is stupid, BUT it was interpreted correctly based on how the rule is written

[lionsrking2]

That's a good call, in my opinion.

That was an awful call. I get the rule but the officials need to use better discretion as to when to throw a flag. A couple of high steps shouldn't be considered taunting, especially when it's used as means to juke a defender, which could easily be argued on the replay I saw. Walter Payton used to do it all the time. A taunting flag should be reserved for the clear TD where the runner turns around and points, or clearly showboats. I don't think a case for obvious showboating can be made here. If we get to the point where a high step is flagged for something like that, we need to shut the game down altogether. It's ridiculous in my opinion.

[clenz]

That's an atrociously bad call. I think the rule is stupid, but I'm a proponent of enforcing stupid rules more strictly, not less, to draw attention to how stupid they are and get them changed. But even with that in mind, this play simply wasn't the penalty called. He dragged his feet to be able to change direction if need be, so that he would slow down and have the option of continuing outside (as he did) or cutting back inside if the defender overran. I actually don't think he would have even scored without doing that, as if he continued full speed to the pylon the defender also continues full speed and I think the defender had an angle. It was the foot drag that slowed down the defender.Wait...you honestly believe that?

That was a Deon Sanders high step if I've ever seen one.

[lionsrking2]

Wait...you honestly believe that?

That was a Deon Sanders high step if I've ever seen one.

What's wrong with it? Runners use it all the time to juke a defender. If that's a penalty, we need to shut the game down. It's an awful call.

[clenz]

What's wrong with it? Runners use it all the time to juke a defender. If that's a penalty, we need to shut the game down. It's an awful call.
That was not a juke move stutter.

Not even close.

[Nova09]

Wait...you honestly believe that?

That was a Deon Sanders high step if I've ever seen one.


That was not a juke move stutter.

Not even close.

It wouldn't make any sense to be a celebratory step as he hadn't beaten the defender so nothing to celebrate yet. He used the move to beat the defender, not celebrate that he had beaten the defender.

[tingly]

A taunting flag should be reserved for the clear TD where the runner turns around and points, or clearly showboats.

Maybe it should be, but that isn't how the rule is written or enforced these days. When it's that obvious, the refs will toss flags everytime. "Really? Really?!? *toss*"

And then there is stepping before you know you're gonna score like he did. Sadly, there isn't a violation for stupidity. Funny thing is had he subsequenty fumbled on the 2 and Montana State's defense ran a TD on the recovery, it'd have been called back, Poly 4th down.

[clenz]

Maybe it should be, but that isn't how the rule is written or enforced these days. When it's that obvious, the refs will toss flags everytime. "Really? Really?!? *toss*"

And then there is stepping before you know you're gonna score like he did. Sadly, there isn't a violation for stupidity. Funny thing is had he subsequenty fumbled on the 2 and Montana State's defense ran a TD on the recovery, it'd have been called back, Poly 4th down.MSU could have declined it, no?

[tingly]

Oh yeah, true. *erase*

[lionsrking2]

That was not a juke move stutter.

Not even close.

He doesn't have to make a juke or stutter move. A high step is a means to slow down to put yourself in position to make a cut or change direction, and also be able to speed back up and continue in same direction. Officials need to understand the game better and use better discretion ... unfortunately for CP, these guys were trigger happy on the flag. Bad call.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

tingly nails it as far as I can see.

Let's stop lying and defending what happened first of all.

He was goose stepping, it was not being used as a "football move" or whatever you want to call it.

The refs seemed to interpret the rule correctly from what i can see. Discretion could be used...sure it could be but discretion could also be used on holding calls, or any calls for that matter.

Now is the rule correct. Hell no.

So in summary:
He did it.
The ref called it right.
The rule is bull****.

He, and many others will not do it again...at least until this idiotic rule is changed.

[lionsrking2]

Maybe it should be, but that isn't how the rule is written or enforced these days. When it's that obvious, the refs will toss flags everytime. "Really? Really?!? *toss*"

And then there is stepping before you know you're gonna score like he did. Sadly, there isn't a violation for stupidity. Funny thing is had he subsequenty fumbled on the 2 and Montana State's defense ran a TD on the recovery, it'd have been called back, Poly 4th down.

The flag for stupidity should be for the official who threw the flag and the head referee who didn't talk him out of it.

[BEAR]

I don't think the result of the play stands. It reverts back to what it was - unlike a holding/black in the back.

I have no idea though.

I think the rule is stupid, BUT it was interpreted correctly based on how the rule is written

WTH????? xeyebrowxxlolx

[bojeta]

That was an awful call. I get the rule but the officials need to use better discretion as to when to throw a flag. A couple of high steps shouldn't be considered taunting, especially when it's used as means to juke a defender, which could easily be argued on the replay I saw. Walter Payton used to do it all the time. A taunting flag should be reserved for the clear TD where the runner turns around and points, or clearly showboats. I don't think a case for obvious showboating can be made here. If we get to the point where a high step is flagged for something like that, we need to shut the game down altogether. It's ridiculous in my opinion.

EXACTLY!! Walter Payton came to mind for me as well. Players often use this kind of move to throw a defender off. Most ridiculous penalty of the year award for sure!!

[tingly]

A high step is a means to slow down to put yourself in position to make a cut or change direction, and also be able to speed back up and continue in same direction. Officials need to understand the game better and use better discretion

The refs understand just fine. Nobody on defense was positioned where either possibility could be the case. All he had to do was keep running in open space for an easy TD.

[Catbooster]

tingly nails it as far as I can see.

Let's stop lying and defending what happened first of all.

He was goose stepping, it was not being used as a "football move" or whatever you want to call it.

The refs seemed to interpret the rule correctly from what i can see. Discretion could be used...sure it could be but discretion could also be used on holding calls, or any calls for that matter.

Now is the rule correct. Hell no.

So in summary:
He did it.
The ref called it right.
The rule is bull****.

He, and many others will not do it again...at least until this idiotic rule is changed.
^^^My thoughts as well. When it happened, my thought was that I don't want my team to win because of call like that. Turns out I didn't need to be concerned about that. xsmhx

But I agree with the thread title - Big Sky officiating is a problem. I just don't think this is a good example of bad officiating, but a bad rule.

[Silenoz]

I have nothing else to add, other than that was 100% a celebration. He had a clear line to the endzone, who was he trying to "juke"? xlolx

[Grizalltheway]

Any Griz fans see the block in the back call against us when we were kicking off to Sac in the first half? I didn't really catch it, but for the life of my I can't figure why the team that's kicking off would be blocking anybody.xeyebrowx

[Nova09]

I have nothing else to add, other than that was 100% a celebration. He had a clear line to the endzone, who was he trying to "juke"? xlolx

#12, who changed his angle noticeably in obvious reaction to the move, allowing the ball carrier to beat him to the corner when otherwise he would have made the tackle

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

He doesn't have to make a juke or stutter move. A high step is a means to slow down to put yourself in position to make a cut or change direction, and also be able to speed back up and continue in same direction. Officials need to understand the game better and use better discretion ... unfortunately for CP, these guys were trigger happy on the flag. Bad call.

Totally agree with everything you said

[ElCid]

I watched it maybe 10 times. There is no way the defender stops him if he just keeps going at full speed. He high stepped, no doubt. Why? Showboat. You can like it the rule or hate it. Still a rule. Personally I like it, it is a team sport. Drawing attention to yourself says a lot about a player. And it isn't good. Why do it? To show off to the other team. That is taunting and the reason why it is a rule. To show off to your own teammates or fans. Why? Think they don't share your joy already? Or is it to highlight you? Become a tennis star or golfer if you like to highlight yourself. Must be a "me generation thing." As I mentioned in another thread, we got burned by an unsportsmanlike penalty against Mercer after a crucial sack on 3rd down late in the game. Could have been 4 and 17 instead of 1st and 10 after 15 yards, and they almost came back and tied it in part due to a silly jester, that may have also been questionable. http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?163487-2014-Southern-Conference-Power-Rankings-Predictions-Week-11&p=2171211&viewfull=1#post2171211 But why even give the refs a reason to use their judgment? Jump up and down hug and pat your teammates all you want AFTER you score or on the sidelines. As it is I would have run over a hugged #13 for the block that clear my path instead of high stepping.

Well, I am sure some will disagree, and I am probably old fashion, but think about it.

[lionsrking2]

I watched it maybe 10 times. There is no way the defender stops him if he just keeps going at full speed. He high stepped, no doubt. Why? Showboat. You can like it the rule or hate it. Still a rule. Personally I like it, it is a team sport. Drawing attention to yourself says a lot about a player. And it isn't good. Why do it? To show off to the other team. That is taunting and the reason why it is a rule. To show off to your own teammates or fans. Why? Think they don't share your joy already? Or is it to highlight you? Become a tennis star or golfer if you like to highlight yourself. Must be a "me generation thing." As I mentioned in another thread, we got burned by an unsportsmanlike penalty against Mercer after a crucial sack on 3rd down late in the game. Could have been 4 and 17 instead of 1st and 10 after 15 yards, and they almost came back and tied it in part due to a silly jester, that may have also been questionable. http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?163487-2014-Southern-Conference-Power-Rankings-Predictions-Week-11&p=2171211&viewfull=1#post2171211 But why even give the refs a reason to use their judgment? Jump up and down hug and pat your teammates all you want AFTER you score or on the sidelines. As it is I would have run over a hugged #13 for the block that clear my path instead of high stepping.

Well, I am sure some will disagree, and I am probably old fashion, but think about it.
It was an awful call ... period.

[HailSzczur]

Personally to me it looks like he made "the move" and then started running again. I don't think it was a juke, I think it was a player being cocky going "oh sh%t, #12 is closer than I thought" and running to the pylon.

I don't understand the rationale behind calling the touchdown back for this. IMO a TD should be called back if the player gains some unfair advantage, ie. a hold, OPI, false start, etc. His high stepping did nothing to help he get in the endzone. Flag him for excessive celebration or unsportsman like conduct. The punishment doesn't fit the crime

[clenz]

Personally to me it looks like he made "the move" and then started running again. I don't think it was a juke, I think it was a player being cocky going "oh sh%t, #12 is closer than I thought" and running to the pylon.

I don't understand the rationale behind calling the touchdown back for this. IMO a TD should be called back if the player gains some unfair advantage, ie. a hold, OPI, false start, etc. His high stepping did nothing to help he get in the endzone. Flag him for excessive celebration or unsportsman like conduct. The punishment doesn't fit the crime
The penalty happens during live play.

You can't enforce a live ball penalty as a dead ball foul

[HailSzczur]

The penalty happens during live play.

You can't enforce a live ball penalty as a dead ball foul

True, but the penalty still doesn't seem to fit the crime. I can't think of 1 other live ball penalty for which you aren't gaining some sort of competitive advantage on the play, or using excessive or malicious force

[clenz]

True, but the penalty still doesn't seem to fit the crime. I can't think of 1 other live ball penalty for which you aren't gaining some sort of competitive advantage on the play, or using excessive or malicious force
I'm not saying I agree with the rule/penalty/punishment...I'm not saying I don't agree with the rule/penalty/punishment.

The fact, though, remains that it is a live ball penalty and should be enforced as such.

[tingly]

The only fixes that I'd call realistic are either to strike the rule or to lessen the yards stepped off (bring the ball back to the spot or penalize less yardage -- 5 yards would have been a 1st down in this case). I don't see an exception to how live ball violations work as being realistic.

Here is a part of the rule that I don't like. "Ball carrier A33 breaks out into the open and has a clear path to the goal line. At the B-2 he suddenly makes a sharp left turn and trots along the B-2 as the Team B players begin to catch up to him. He then carries the ball into the end zone." It doesn't say that the reason for the left turn matters. Strategically running the clock by running along the goal line is something I'd want not to be unsportsmanlike conduct. Maybe it isn't.

[HailSzczur]

The only fixes that I'd call realistic are either to strike the rule or to lessen the yards stepped off (bring the ball back to the spot or penalize less yardage -- 5 yards would have been a 1st down in this case). I don't see an exception to how live ball violations work as being realistic.

Here is a part of the rule that I don't like. "Ball carrier A33 breaks out into the open and has a clear path to the goal line. At the B-2 he suddenly makes a sharp left turn and trots along the B-2 as the Team B players begin to catch up to him. He then carries the ball into the end zone." It doesn't say that the reason for the left turn matters. Strategically running the clock by running along the goal line is something I'd want not to be unsportsmanlike conduct. Maybe it isn't.

That's not a bad idea honestly, whistle the play dead as at the time time of the show boating. You could say when he stopped making "a football like move" he gave up his forward progress?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Just like hate crime legislation nobody knows what that individual was thinking at the time. It could have been a juke move only the runner knows for sure. The refs, fans and people watching the game may all have opinions on the subject but its just that.

When Shawn Johnson broke through the line earlier in the game, he broke his stride running down the left side of the field. Then he just acted like it was a hamstring injury...............clever cover up if you ask me.

[PAllen]

MSU could have declined it, no?

Still wouldn't have been a TD. MSU can decline the yardage assessment, but not the penalty itself. Ball would be placed at the spot of the foul (on the three). I'm OK with this penalty when and only when applied to egregious circumstances. Although, there are other ways of handling it. Years ago in a Towson game (I think against Albany) the QB runs in on a draw, high stepping with his arms out from about the five. Five yds into the endzone, he is met and decleated by both safeties. Coach is pissed, but the officials just shrug. No more high stepping that game.

[daneboy]

The main problem with the celebration penalty is the same problem as the holding penalty. An argument can be made that holding occurs on every play, but it is not called on every play. It is a subjective decision on the part of the official. While there are guidelines as to what is or is not a penalty, it still centers on what the ref believes. Further, it would seem that excessive celebration occurs many times throughout a game but it is rarely called. In any case, I've been going to BCS/ Div AA games for over 30 years and it does seem like the quality of the officiating has deteriorated. While I don't know the reason, I kind of feel like the refs are making themselves the center of the game, not the players. In a sense, I guess one might say they are excessively celebrating their own calls.............
I do take solice in that while they have training and experience, if they were among the best, they would be working on Sundays...

[F'N Hawks]

You want bad officiating? Read the scenario for the picture in the following post by the SFI guys:

"We tweeted about the offsides call on UND OLB Brian Labat at the end of the game. He wasn't offsides, at all. So what happens? Well, the line judge on the OTHER side of the field calls him offsides, the same guy who threw three flags on that last drive. On tape, Labat clearly OK's his alignment with the line judge on his side. BTW, Portland State had a bad snap on that play and lost 10 yards. They would have been back around the 17 yard line on fourth down. Instead, they were at the 4 yard line on third down. Here is a picture to illustrate the play (the ball was just snapped)":

http://siouxfb.areavoices.com/2014/10/13/coming-off-a-w-headin-into-a-bye/

19987 (clearer picture in the link above)

This was a HUGE call and basically turned 4th and goal from the 17 into 3rd and goal from the 4 yard line. Oh, with 9 secs left in the game to tie it.

[Catamount87]

This type of BS call is running rampant throughout sports. Players are being flagged for even the silliest of things and this is a perfect example of it. I've watch it 6 times now and he's clearly stutter stepping, not high stepping or goose stepping.

BTW, the SoCon has it's share of horrid calls this season too. In the WCU/Citadel game, score 8-7 Citadel late in the first. Our WR turns a near tackle for a loss into a 27 yard gain to the Citadel 34 yard line. Excitedly he makes the first down sign which immediately draws a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct and a 15 yard penalty which pushes us back to the 49. The kids was excited, he didn't direct the sign at any player or get in anyone's face to taunt them. So, why is that a penalty? How is that any different than a fist pump or holding up your arms after a score? How often do defensive players make the bicep flex move after a great play but don't get flagged? Shoot, there's that in the video you posted.

[Nova09]

You want bad officiating? Read the scenario for the picture in the following post by the SFI guys:

"We tweeted about the offsides call on UND OLB Brian Labat at the end of the game. He wasn't offsides, at all. So what happens? Well, the line judge on the OTHER side of the field calls him offsides, the same guy who threw three flags on that last drive. On tape, Labat clearly OK's his alignment with the line judge on his side. BTW, Portland State had a bad snap on that play and lost 10 yards. They would have been back around the 17 yard line on fourth down. Instead, they were at the 4 yard line on third down. Here is a picture to illustrate the play (the ball was just snapped)":

http://siouxfb.areavoices.com/2014/10/13/coming-off-a-w-headin-into-a-bye/

19987 (clearer picture in the link above)

This was a HUGE call and basically turned 4th and goal from the 17 into 3rd and goal from the 4 yard line. Oh, with 9 secs left in the game to tie it.

I'm guessing they announced the wrong number and it was called on the down lineman. I have no idea if he was offside or not (looks like prob not but can't tell from the angle), but he is definitely lined up a full foot or maybe even 2 beyond every other defensive player, which is sure to draw attention to oneself.

[citdog]

Please don't get me started on the poor officiating in the Southern Conference.

[citdog]

This type of BS call is running rampant throughout sports. Players are being flagged for even the silliest of things and this is a perfect example of it. I've watch it 6 times now and he's clearly stutter stepping, not high stepping or goose stepping.

BTW, the SoCon has it's share of horrid calls this season too. In the WCU/Citadel game, score 8-7 Citadel late in the first. Our WR turns a near tackle for a loss into a 27 yard gain to the Citadel 34 yard line. Excitedly he makes the first down sign which immediately draws a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct and a 15 yard penalty which pushes us back to the 49. The kids was excited, he didn't direct the sign at any player or get in anyone's face to taunt them. So, why is that a penalty? How is that any different than a fist pump or holding up your arms after a score? How often do defensive players make the bicep flex move after a great play but don't get flagged? Shoot, there's that in the video you posted.

Have the wcu players ever heard of acting like you've been there before? Y'all certinly fired up chattanooga with the **** talking before the game. Got your asses embarrassed too.

[PAllen]

I'm guessing they announced the wrong number and it was called on the down lineman. I have no idea if he was offside or not (looks like prob not but can't tell from the angle), but he is definitely lined up a full foot or maybe even 2 beyond every other defensive player, which is sure to draw attention to oneself.

Agreed, probably on the DL, but still a chicken s$%t call. You don't make that call unless he's lined up way across the ball or you've given him multiple warnings during the night. Even then, if you're going to throw a flag for that, you damn well better be sure that you communicate with the HL/LJ on the other side and you both throw at the same time.

[PAllen]

The penalty happens during live play.

You can't enforce a live ball penalty as a dead ball foul

Except that every other unsportsman like conduct penalty during play is a live ball foul enforced as a dead ball foul.

[tingly]

Several UC live ball fouls can get the live ball penalty. They're dead ball if someone on the sidelines commits it.

[lionsrking2]

Except that every other unsportsman like conduct penalty during play is a live ball foul enforced as a dead ball foul.

Correct. For example, a penalty for sideline interference, during a play, would be administered as a dead ball foul.

[JALMOND]

The perception of officiating is that it is bad everywhere.

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2014/10/canzano_pac-12_officiating_deb.html#incart_river

[clenz]

You want bad officiating? Read the scenario for the picture in the following post by the SFI guys:

"We tweeted about the offsides call on UND OLB Brian Labat at the end of the game. He wasn't offsides, at all. So what happens? Well, the line judge on the OTHER side of the field calls him offsides, the same guy who threw three flags on that last drive. On tape, Labat clearly OK's his alignment with the line judge on his side. BTW, Portland State had a bad snap on that play and lost 10 yards. They would have been back around the 17 yard line on fourth down. Instead, they were at the 4 yard line on third down. Here is a picture to illustrate the play (the ball was just snapped)":

http://siouxfb.areavoices.com/2014/10/13/coming-off-a-w-headin-into-a-bye/

19987 (clearer picture in the link above)

This was a HUGE call and basically turned 4th and goal from the 17 into 3rd and goal from the 4 yard line. Oh, with 9 secs left in the game to tie it. 1 - that's a terrible angle to judge a lined up in the neutral zone penalty...

2. The shot as taken after the ball was snapped? So the ball is no longer on the ground and thus no reference point to what the official would have been looking at.

3. CLEARLY an issue of right call but called on wrong number. In the photo that you supplied I looked at a couple things - namely where the official has his foot to mark the the "official" LOS and where the defenders were in relation to that. As you'll see the by blue boxes I added to your photo the absolute correct. The blue box at the official shows he is marking the ball at the middle of the 12 yard line. Now, go check your LDE that I circled. Where is he lined up (with his hand still on the ground)? What's that? His hand is well past the 12 yard line and it's plain as ****ing day? That would also mean his head and left hand are in the neutral zone as his head and left hand are directly over his right hand.

4. On a neutral zone/offside/encroachment call it doesn't matter which LJ calls it. They are both looking right down the LOS. Would it have been better for the other side to throw it? Sure. The fact is it was WITHOUT A DOUBT the correct call

[F'N Hawks]

1 - that's a terrible angle to judge a lined up in the neutral zone penalty...

2. The shot as taken after the ball was snapped? So the ball is no longer on the ground and thus no reference point to what the official would have been looking at.

3. CLEARLY an issue of right call but called on wrong number. In the photo that you supplied I looked at a couple things - namely where the official has his foot to mark the the "official" LOS and where the defenders were in relation to that. As you'll see the by blue boxes I added to your photo the absolute correct. The blue box at the official shows he is marking the ball at the middle of the 12 yard line. Now, go check your LDE that I circled. Where is he lined up (with his hand still on the ground)? What's that? His hand is well past the 12 yard line and it's plain as ****ing day? That would also mean his head and left hand are in the neutral zone as his head and left hand are directly over his right hand.

4. On a neutral zone/offside/encroachment call it doesn't matter which LJ calls it. They are both looking right down the LOS. Would it have been better for the other side to throw it? Sure. The fact is it was WITHOUT A DOUBT the correct call

No, no, no. The ball is at the 8 yard line. The defenders have not moved yet, apparently, because they are still standing there. The explanation says that the ball was just snapped. Go look at the stick on the top of the picture. It is at the 8 yard line. Now go look at the LDE's hand. It is at the 7 yard line. The LJ's right foot and the stick are together on top of the picture.

[F'N Hawks]

Clenz,

I am bored at work so I went and found the VOD of the game at Watch Big Sky. Think I found the shot right before the center grabbed the ball. The ball is at the 7 1/2 yard line:

19993

Now reference the previous picture and you will see every defender is behind the ball. Point is, that was a big play in the game and you better be damn sure if you are going to call it. He was completely wrong.

[tingly]

I took a shot at drawing the neutral zone line and can't say if 2 guys encroached or not. It's too blurry to say precisely where the ball, foot, and hand are. The guy by the far sideline is the foot in question. For me it's a case of "you had to be there."

[F'N Hawks]

I took a shot at drawing the neutral zone line and can't say if 2 guys encroached or not. It's too blurry to say precisely where the ball, foot, and hand are. The guy by the far sideline is the foot in question. For me it's a case of "you had to be there."

I suppose. My point is you couldn't tell, correct? So why make that call with 14 secs left in the game. Whatever. Done bitching. Felt good. xdrunkyx

[clenz]

I suppose. My point is you couldn't tell, correct? So why make that call with 14 secs left in the game. Whatever. Done bitching. Felt good. xdrunkyx
To say that because we can't definititively tell from a camera shot from the top of the stadium, that was 10-15 yards behind the ball, and is grainy as hell does not mean a guy standing straight on the LOS isn't able too.

Why make a penalty call with 14 seconds left? Why not? A penalty is a penalty no matter the time of game.

Is murder not murder just because a guy has stage 4 lung cancer and has stopped taking chemo?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

To say that because we can't definititively tell from a camera shot from the top of the stadium, that was 10-15 yards behind the ball, and is grainy as hell does not mean a guy standing straight on the LOS isn't able too.

Why make a penalty call with 14 seconds left? Why not? A penalty is a penalty no matter the time of game.

Is murder not murder just because a guy has stage 4 lung cancer and has stopped taking chemo?

Ah, excellent. We are completely simpatico on this one clenzy! Well said.

[veinup]

Is murder not murder just because a guy has stage 4 lung cancer and has stopped taking chemo?

i'll have to think this one over..xeyebrowx

[JALMOND]

Clenz,

I am bored at work so I went and found the VOD of the game at Watch Big Sky. Think I found the shot right before the center grabbed the ball. The ball is at the 7 1/2 yard line:

19993

Now reference the previous picture and you will see every defender is behind the ball. Point is, that was a big play in the game and you better be damn sure if you are going to call it. He was completely wrong.

This is what you're complaining about???!!! Tell me again who won the game. I seem to have forgotten. xsmhx

[SeattleGriz]

My favorite call was when NAU kicked off to Montana and the kick returner caught the ball at the back of the end zone and his momentum carried him out the back and the refs called it a safety!

[Sycamore62]

My favorite call was when NAU kicked off to Montana and the kick returner caught the ball at the back of the end zone and his momentum carried him out the back and the refs called it a safety!

Did they fix it? We're there ANY zither circumstances?

i might chime in a little about this topic after bit. Got some relevant info.

[Hammerhead]

Even if he was goose-stepping, which I don't think he was, he clearly didn't continue the action as he crossed the goal line.


official NCAA interpretation of the rule: "Third and 15 at the B-20. Eligible A88 catches a pass at the B-18 and heads for the goal line. At the B-10 he goes into a “goose step” and continues this action as he crosses the goal line.
RULING: Live-ball foul for unsportsmanlike conduct. Fifteen-yard penalty enforced at the spot of the foul, which is the B-10, and repeat third down. Third and 20 at the B-25."

He was flagged at the 3. The ball was placed on the 18. The refs unquestionably got it right except maybe he should have been flagged on the 4 or 5. As for the rule/penalty being appropriate, the debate goes on.

[tingly]

Sorry about that, I should have put a [...] for the red part. I cut it because it didn't matter. The rule is "An unopposed ball carrier obviously altering stride as he approaches the opponent’s goal line or diving into the end zone." He did the "approaches" part. Refs judge the intent and flag it if warranted.

He had to have seen that there was nobody in range in front of him. Nobody could have been behind him. He could see nobody was gonna get him from either side. If he wasn't goose stepping, who was he juking? Even Poly's play-by-play guy said right away that he was stepping.

[dudeitsaid]

Big Sky officiating has gone downhill big time since it's high point in 2010!

[clenz]

Correct. For example, a penalty for sideline interference, during a play, would be administered as a dead ball foul.
Right...but that penalty didn't happen against someone in live action. It was off the field.

Different situation.

[clenz]

Clenz,

I am bored at work so I went and found the VOD of the game at Watch Big Sky. Think I found the shot right before the center grabbed the ball. The ball is at the 7 1/2 yard line:

19993

Now reference the previous picture and you will see every defender is behind the ball. Point is, that was a big play in the game and you better be damn sure if you are going to call it. He was completely wrong.
False.

You can't tell from that angle...period.

BUT if you want to play that game....

http://i348.photobucket.com/albums/q340/unipanthers10/264_zps88775993.jpg

The purple line is the LOS. I made sure it ran from the 7.5 on the far side to the 7.5 on the near side. From that, you can clearly see the right hand of the LDE (blue circle) is on/in/crossing that line. That instantly means he’s in the neutral zone. The argument “You don’t call it at that point in the game” is stupid and I won’t listen to it. The argument of “Don’t call it unless you’ve warned him” I might listen too. Do you have proof he, or any other player, did not get warned during the game at any point? If any warning was given than there goes that argument. Should all penalties only be subject to a warning? Is the first roughing the passing/kicker/returner not a penalty? Shouldn’t that just be a “warning”? What about pass interference? First time it happens it’s a warning, right? If player A got given a warning on it should player B also need a warning or should player A’s also count for player B? You can also see. From that angle you can’t see where the head/left hand of the LDE are. His head/hand are clearly a head of the other DL – is that only because of the angle or because he was offside?

Let’s go with a penalty that should have been called, based on the angle of the photo. The WRs in the yellow circles are supposed to be on the LOS. Well, if the purple line is the LOS and the yellow are supposed to be on the LOS they are either too far off the LOS to be considered on (by using their feet) as they are clearly behind the 8 yard line (or a half yard off the LOS) OR they are too far forward and should be called as lined up in the neutral zone as their heads/shoulders on a head of the LOS.
Also, the bottom orange circle appears to be almost even with the yellow, which could/should make him on the LOS right? Wouldn’t that make him an ineligible receiver down field/illegal formation?
Do you agree with that?
Of course you don’t – or shouldn’t. The angle makes it impossible to tell – other than the fact that the feet of the WR on the LOS are clearly a half yard behind the actual LOS.
If you want to play that game...



FWIW, here's an official diagram of the LOS/neutral zone. Sure looks like, based on where the hand is relative to the LOS that it was in the neutral zone and should have been called. If ANY body part (even his other hand which he is holding up in the air) is in that zone it's a penalty.
http://www.firstbasesports.com/images/football_fig7.gif

[SeattleGriz]

Did they fix it? We're there ANY zither circumstances?

i might chime in a little about this topic after bit. Got some relevant info.

No, the points were never taken off the board, but the refs did get reprimanded by the Big Sky.

[Red & Black]

No, the points were never taken off the board, but the refs did get reprimanded by the Big Sky.

Similiar to the 2009 EWU/UM game in Missoula where the BSC reprimanded the refs for a plethora of bad calls that influenced the outcome of the game. Big Sky refs are pretty bad and sometimes you have to be good enough to beat the other team AND the refs.

"Several plays were reviewed by the conference, its director of football officials Doug Toole, and independent observers. The league found two calls against Eastern Washington particularly troubling. In the fourth quarter, an Eastern Washington player was called for a late hit out of bounds. The penalized player, however, was illegally blocked in the back by a Montana player, propelling him in to a Montana player out of bounds.
Late in the third quarter an Eastern Washington wide receiver was called for unsportsmanlike conduct as he slowed down on his way to the end zone. His actions, however, did not warrant the penalty."

http://www.bigskyconf.com/News/football/2009/10/20/EWUUMOFFICIATING102009.asp?path=general

[veinup]

cannot wait for replay next season, JESUS.

[Grizalltheway]

cannot wait for replay next season, JESUS.

No kidding. I won't blame the loss entirely on the blown TD call, but that was such a clear-cut call there's really no excuse for blowing it.

[Sycamore62]

Ok so bad calls are one thing, like hold/no hold or missed a knee down on a fumble BUT as an official myself the things that make me most angry are misapplication of the rules like this safety. I don't understand how you could blow that. It's like day 2 or 3 stuff.

Id like to make a big post as to my opinion why it is so bad but I'll probably just throw some stuff out there every so often.

officiating will continue to get worse however I think it's mostly perception. Back in the day we didn't get to watch every game and then talk about it indefinitely on the Internet then have 4 stations showing it 1 time per hour until everyone has seen the bad call...

[clawman]

cannot wait for replay next season, JESUS.

Griz fans better be careful what they wish for.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Griz fans better be careful what they wish for.

Why?

[mvemjsunpx]

Why?

Because the Griz only won all those conference titles due to biased refs, dontch'ya know?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Because the Griz only won all those conference titles due to biased refs, dontch'ya know?

That's what I'm wondering is if this is where he was going? We all have **** get called or go against us. It's pretty even and random when it's wrong so I was wondering if he was trying to be that kind of asshole or what the deal is. Of course I've never been one to hang things against us on reffing like I've seen another fan base or two do though so I guess it's par for the course maybe.

[Walkon79]

tingly nails it as far as I can see.

Let's stop lying and defending what happened first of all.

He was goose stepping, it was not being used as a "football move" or whatever you want to call it.

The refs seemed to interpret the rule correctly from what i can see. Discretion could be used...sure it could be but discretion could also be used on holding calls, or any calls for that matter.

Now is the rule correct. Hell no.

So in summary:
He did it.
The ref called it right.
The rule is bull****.

He, and many others will not do it again...at least until this idiotic rule is changed.

I agree. I don't think he even saw the defender until he caught up with him at the goal line


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[GetEmGriz]

Because the Griz only won all those conference titles due to biased refs, dontch'ya know?

Yep. Even as a Griz fan, I want the correct call to be made for both teams, especially when they're big momentum changers like touchdowns. I'd feel like Sh%T even as a Griz fan if a ref blew a clear touchdown call for an opponent. Replay can't get here soon enough.

[dudeitsaid]

Yep. Even as a Griz fan, I want the correct call to be made for both teams, especially when they're big momentum changers like touchdowns. I'd feel like Sh%T even as a Griz fan if a ref blew a clear touchdown call for an opponent. Replay can't get here soon enough.

This!

[dudeitsaid]

I agree. I don't think he even saw the defender until he caught up with him at the goal line


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Interestingly, Shaq Hill had a similar run against the Griz where he did almost the same goose step to adjust to a defender. It just wasn't into the end zone. It wasn't called because it obviously was a football move. But it was eerily similar. I don't think the Cal Poly TD was clear enough or egregious enough to merit that penalty.

But like many have said, these thinks seem to happen in many, if not most games.

[Sycamore62]

here's another installment of my 2 cents.

I think all the people able to coach now since being a teacher is not a requirement and probably so much JFL is not helping.

I know guys that Ive worked with that quit early on because they dont want to deal with the fans. As crazy as any screaming fan is at a NCAA game, JFL fans are much closer and between you and your cars. They are regularly idiots who think you are ruining their 11yo's shot at the NFL. If these guys stuck it out and got some confidence you never know how good they would have been.

The guys that have been around for a while are also very stingy with games and schools pay is **** (at least around here in Illinois). I have a crew (of 5) and if I needed to replace a guy on a Friday night, I have a hard time finding someone.

It might also help to add enough officials that every eligible receiver has an official that can key on them only and keep LOS guys only needing to get spots.

thats all for now