Ask The Ref?

CedarBuck92 said:
Isn't the head coach the one allowed to go attend to the player? Or is it any coach? (At least for most injuries).
Click to expand...
Coach and trainer are common, and I know of no restriction concerning which coach. Any team personnel may help an injured player off the field. If necessary, the squad will come out onto the field.

The objective is to remove the injured player safely from the field as quickly as possible and resume play. If that takes 9 people, so be it.
 
maven said:
Coach and trainer are common, and I know of no restriction concerning which coach. Any team personnel may help an injured player off the field. If necessary, the squad will come out onto the field.

The objective is to remove the injured player safely from the field as quickly as possible and resume play. If that takes 9 people, so be it.
Click to expand...
For reference, the incident I was asking about, the coach we definitely not going out to assist a player.
 
chs1971 said:
Because of my early morning error I am serving a self-imposed suspension on answering questions.

However, in a game I attended last night there was a foul with the QB in the pocket (no lateral steps left or right). The QB was grabbed from behind by a defensive player and as he was being pulled to the ground he tossed the ball forward and it landed about half way back to the LOS.

Intentional grounding, 5 yards and loss of down.

Apparently not everyone studies their weekly bulletin.
Click to expand...
If he was being grabbed before the act of trying to throw it, it is grounding in that situation. The contact must be when he is in the act like it always has been. Trying to throw after the hit or grab or pull down and not outside the free blocking zone is still grounding. Now if still in the free blocking zone and the passer is contacted while passing there will be no grounding.
 
Zeta16 said:
If he was being grabbed before the act of trying to throw it, it is grounding in that situation. The contact must be when he is in the act like it always has been. Trying to throw after the hit or grab or pull down and not outside the free blocking zone is still grounding. Now if still in the free blocking zone and the passer is contacted while passing there will be no grounding.
Click to expand...
That is likely correct, but I'm going to need further clarification in writing. Maybe this weeks bulletin?
 
Zeta16 said:
If he was being grabbed before the act of trying to throw it, it is grounding in that situation. The contact must be when he is in the act like it always has been. Trying to throw after the hit or grab or pull down and not outside the free blocking zone is still grounding. Now if still in the free blocking zone and the passer is contacted while passing there will be no grounding.
Click to expand...
That is the NCAA interpretation, as well as the interpretation used in some other states. For them, the timing of the contact matters.

The Ohio interpretation is different: any contact with the passer that occurs at any time during the pass takes off intentional grounding. It doesn't matter whether the passer is in or out of the free blocking zone.

That might be what you're saying, but I wanted to be clear.
 
maven said:
That is the NCAA interpretation, as well as the interpretation used in some other states. For them, the timing of the contact matters.

The Ohio interpretation is different: any contact with the passer that occurs at any time during the pass takes off intentional grounding. It doesn't matter whether the passer is in or out of the free blocking zone.

That might be what you're saying, but I wanted to be clear.
Click to expand...
Exactly....

The question was asked at the clinic.... "if the defender is taking the potential passer who is inside the FBZ to the ground and the ball is thrown into the ground just before he is down by rule, what do we have?"

The answer was, "an incomplete pass".
 
AllSports12 said:
Exactly....

The question was asked at the clinic.... "if the defender is taking the potential passer who is inside the FBZ to the ground and the ball is thrown into the ground just before he is down by rule, what do we have?"

The answer was, "an incomplete pass".
Click to expand...
Having just left a local association meeting I can confirm that there is confusion about Ohio's interpretation, among officials and coaches.
 
AllSports12 said:
Exactly....

The question was asked at the clinic.... "if the defender is taking the potential passer who is inside the FBZ to the ground and the ball is thrown into the ground just before he is down by rule, what do we have?"

The answer was, "an incomplete pass".
Click to expand...
So there will never be a sacks again as all you have to do after being hit is just throw it? I am fine with contact while throwing but if a defender gets you to in the FBZ and you have not started to throw the ball and he goes to tackle the passer, the passer should not get a free pass to just throw it as a way out of a loss.
 
Hit in the act of throwing is different from being hit then throwing it away. The first should use but the second fundamentally changes the game to give the offense a clear advantage.
 
From B. Rugg

Intentional grounding has not changed other than adding the new exception if the player is outside the FBZ and the ball crosses the NZ, it is not grounding. There has always been an exception for contact to the player in the act of passing as to the direction of the ball if the arm is going forward. The new exception is exactly what it states for the passer. Contact to a player in the act of passing is separate from this.

... a player being tackled that “flips” the ball would be intentional grounding.

Doesn't this contradict Bulletin 1 Item 6?
 
Last edited:
In case you don't have Bulletin 1 handy, this is item 6:
  • New ING Rule (7-5-2): When the passer is contacted while they are in the act of passing the ball, the requirement for the ball reaching the NZ & the passer being outside the “tackle box” is moot. This is similar to the note in 2-31-2 on the direction of the pass. There is no ING Foul. If in doubt, the offensive player is in the act of passing.
 
chs1971 said:
From B. Rugg

Intentional grounding has not changed other than adding the new exception if the player is outside the FBZ and the ball crosses the NZ, it is not grounding. There has always been an exception for contact to the player in the act of passing as to the direction of the ball if the arm is going forward. The new exception is exactly what it states for the passer. Contact to a player in the act of passing is separate from this.

... a player being tackled that “flips” the ball would be intentional grounding.

Doesn't this contradict Bulletin 1 Item 6?
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem.
 
AllSports12 said:
@Zeta16

Are you an OHSAA or an NCAA Football Official ?
Click to expand...
OHSAA, I umpire on Friday nights. Last week neither coach asked about the rule and we only had one sack, and no plays that came close to make a call. I am sure this week we might be asked before the game, but have not had a spread team yet and won't this week.

So from everything I have read and heard in meetings and on video, my understanding is that if the passer is in act of throwing and hit all grounding is off. However if a passer is not in the act when contacted and then tries to pass the ball that could still lead to grounding, if the requirements are not meet.

Example a passer roles left and is caught from behind and in the process of being taken to the ground throws the ball out of bounds behind the line before he is down then that should be grounding, that is what I took from Beau Rugg the two times I have been at meeting he spoke. That would have been the called last year, but there is a lot of gray area right now.
 
Last edited:
Zeta16 said:
OHSAA
Click to expand...
Gotcha..... how I respond to officials is different than how I respond to fans. (not disparaging fans, but they won't understand some terminology)

The big problem with the IG issue is that what's been written and what's been verbally communicated has been inconsistent to this point.

I hope they once and for all make it clear what they want. (they can also clear up the sub-varsity punting issue as well)
 
AllSports12 said:
Gotcha..... how I respond to officials is different than how I respond to fans. (not disparaging fans, but they won't understand some terminology)

The big problem with the IG issue is that what's been written and what's been verbally communicated has been inconsistent to this point.

I hope they once and for all make it clear what they want. (they can also clear up the sub-varsity punting issue as well)
Click to expand...

Yes, the punting is a mess and hope no one wants to do the new rule till inside the 40 to 50 is clarified.
 
Zeta16 said:
Yes, the punting is a mess and hope no one wants to do the new rule till inside the 40 to 50 is clarified.
Click to expand...
It has been clarified.

It is the coaches’ decision as to what to do.

Good grief. Why does Columbus create confusion with this too? Just enforce their own rule. Move the ball 35 yards. If that puts it in the EZ it's a touch back. Done.

Instead we are told not to worry because it is "very rare." Of course it is rare. It's a new rule and has never happened before.
 
Last edited:
chs1971 said:
Rock paper, scissors?

You know that could replace the traditional coin toss. Add a little pregame strategy and interest.

Best 2 out of 3?
Click to expand...
Someone would throw dynamite in there and mess it up for everyone.

"Paper smothers dynamite" ... "no dynamite blows up paper"..... ;)
 
hsfan60 said:
If a coach is serving a suspension can they be in the stands at their teams game??
Click to expand...
As Altor noted, not something we will get involved with.....

However, the regulation permits to coach to attend provided they are seated in the stands and have no contact whatsoever with the players or coaches during (including intermission) the contest.

They are not permitted to travel with the squad to an away contest.
 
Question from our game last week. When our team had the ball on a third down there was a flag thrown in the secondary for defensive holding roughly a second before our quarterback was sacked. The officials marked the spot of the sack, then walked off the penalty from there. I know the HS rule doesn't award an automatic first down like higher levels do, but I have to think the penalty should have been marked from the original line of scrimmage and not from the spot of the sack correct? Or was the way it was addressed on the field correct?

Thank you!
 
Flbackyard said:
Question from our game last week. When our team had the ball on a third down there was a flag thrown in the secondary for defensive holding roughly a second before our quarterback was sacked. The officials marked the spot of the sack, then walked off the penalty from there. I know the HS rule doesn't award an automatic first down like higher levels do, but I have to think the penalty should have been marked from the original line of scrimmage and not from the spot of the sack correct? Or was the way it was addressed on the field correct?

Thank you!
Click to expand...
Correct enforcement. Even though the QB might have been planning to pass, no pass was attempted, so this is a running play. The basic spot on this running play is the end of the related run. Defensive penalties are enforced from the basic spot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top