Fenwick / Plainfield

[LWPops]

Great post, Pops. Do you think the crew from that game would breathe a collective sigh of relief if the IHSA did as you suggest relative to doing the right thing?

They all feel horrible I'm sure. It's really a no-win situation.
The refs will have this dark cloud following them for the next few seasons (unless they break up and form a new crew).
PN would lose - even if they are allowed to play.
Fenwick would have to hear all of the usual Public-vs-Private garbage and still be surrounded by controversy.
ESLHS has to be in a contest where the game is taking a back seat to the controversy media circus.

I don't know these guys, but I would have to say that their sense of fairness and love of the game would help them reconcile any decision that corrects a clear-cut rules breach. Only the passing of time and fading of memories will ease the pain. The problem is that the NFHS rules are so clear-cut and don't allow for any other interpretation. I would go farther and say that the NFHS has allowed this terrible rule to exist for decades.

It's a bad rule that has to be changed. Too bad a court has to decide.

 

[LWPops]

IHSA has never even been good, let alone great. Most would consider them a necessary evil. An over compensated bunch as well.

#NotMyStateAthleticAssociation

That may be the case, but this is a rule established by the National Federation of High Schools. It's a rulebook that is used across the nation. Maybe that should be fixed? I hope this happens before the start of the next season.

 

[LWPops]

Pops:

Great insight. I do, however, disagree with your remark over the sight of the officials pawing through the rule book in a semi-final game. Given the consequences of the game, one should reasonably conclude the IHSA would assign one of their better crews to officiate a game of this significance. While I sympathize with the crew for their error, I actually would find comfort with a crew referring to the rule book when a matter such as this emerged.

This was neither an encroachment nor was it a holding penalty: It was a penalty which required conversation among the referees and from what I understand, brought the game to a brief halt by a discussion over what had occurred and how to address it. By ignoring the rule book, we are in a mess and the matter is now thrown into a courtroom.

My problem with the IHSA is it has completely refused to acknowledge its responsibility to govern fairly for all members. This is not the first time a matter such as this has surfaced and the IHSA leadership has refused to institute policies to prevent such incidents from occurring again. Had the IHSA adopted a policy in which an appeal procedure was available to member schools, the affair would have been completely resolved by Sunday afternoon.

By refusing to endorse a policy allowing for an appeal for outcomes to athletic events in which there is substantial and credible evidence of human error, the IHSA is signaling it is uninterested in fulfilling their responsibilities as responsible stewards of equitable athletic competition in this state.

I want to emphasize I am untroubled by the officials' error; I do not lay blame with either the PN or Fenwick football staffs; and I am not using this forum to attack officials, coaches or players.

I blame the IHSA for this horror show.

Fumbling through a rule book by the on-field officials is clumsy at best. My god, how long would the games take while somebody tries to look up every rules question? The IHSA does assign very experienced and distinguished current and former officials to evaluate the crews during all playoff games. I think that would be a more "professional" way to handle that type of situation. No?

 

[linetogain]

Fumbling through a rule book by the on-field officials is clumsy at best. My god, how long would the games take while somebody tries to look up every rules question? The IHSA does assign very experienced and distinguished current and former officials to evaluate the crews during all playoff games. I think that would be a more "professional" way to handle that type of situation. No?

I agree, maybe ONLY during the playoffs since being evaluated each team has a "challenge" where the white-hat would reach out to that source, probably in the press box via a phone or headset to confirm enforcement/rule.

I believe this to be a more professional approach and wouldn't look "clumsy" as stated.

 

[MWittman]

My god, how long would the games take while somebody tries to look up every rules question?

LWPops:

For simple penalties such as encroachment or pass interference, for example, it would never require any disruption and would not lengthen a game. Under this circumstance, a copy of the rule book would have been very helpful and had they referenced it when uncertainty arose, we would not see the court system burdened with a matter the IHSA should have a mechanism to resolve itself.

Ordinary penalties, as you are aware, don't require long consultations. As you and both know, a holding call is commonplace. Near the conclusion of the PN-Fenwick semi-final game, a circumstance arose which caused great confusion among a highly-experienced crew. Given this condition, referencing the rules instead of the officials continuing under mass confusion has led to mayhem.

Worse, it has always been my understanding a penalty flag thrown on the defense at the conclusion of the second quarter and at the end of a game requires an untimed down. On the contrary, a half and a game can end on an offensive penalty.

The only hopeful prospect of this entire sordid tale is it gives me yet another reason to bludgeon the IHSA for its organizational and managerial incompetence.

 

[Chief321]

LWPops:

Worse, it has always been my understanding a penalty flag thrown on the defense at the conclusion of the second quarter and at the end of a game requires an untimed down. On the contrary, a half and a game can end on an offensive penalty.

No half can end on an accepted penalty, offensive or defensive, unless however that foul is on the offense and carries a loss of down provision. You just dont see many accepted fouls on the offense on the last play because unless they score why would you accept the penalty.

 

[KingSportsPhotography]

We live in a litigious society.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/highschool/ct-fenwick-football-lawsuit-met-20161122-story.html

 

[Coalertown44]

I feel for all parties. I feel bad for the Fenwick kids, I would feel bad for the PN kids who now for 4 days think they are in the state finals and get it taken away, I would feel bad for the ESL kids if the 7A game gets cancelled due to litigation.

I think this could of all been avoided if the coach, which I assume almost all other coaches would of done, would of had the QB take the snap, run in to the endzone wasting the last 4 seconds and take the safety. Fenwick wins 10-9 and none of this conversation happens

 

[LHSTigers94]

Because I am not familiar with Ok St/ CM can someone tell me if the game results were overturned?

 

[4Anorth(not4aFan)]

Because I am not familiar with Ok St/ CM can someone tell me if the game results were overturned?

No they were not

 

[LWPops]

Worse, it has always been my understanding a penalty flag thrown on the defense at the conclusion of the second quarter and at the end of a game requires an untimed down. On the contrary, a half and a game can end on an offensive penalty.

Note to @MWittman - To your point about carrying a rule book - you changed my mind. I have this electronic copy on my tablet (and every other mobile device I own). It took me exactly 15 seconds to search and find this rule enforcement clarification.

To give credit where credit is due - @CaravanMan up there quoted this rule already... but I copied and pasted directly from the NFHS Rule Book (source credited below).

SECTION 3 ENDING A PERIOD — HALF
ART. 4 . . . A period shall not be extended by an untimed down if one of the following occurred during a down in which time expires:

b. There was a foul by either team and the penalty is accepted for:
1. unsportsmanlike fouls,
2. nonplayer fouls,
3. fouls that specify a loss of down,
4. fouls that are enforced on the subsequent kickoff as in Rule 8-2-2, 8-2-3, 8-2-4 or 8-2-5; or
5. fouls for which enforcement, by rule, result in a safety.

NFHS (2015-05-26). 2015 NFHS Football Rules Book. NFHS. Kindle Edition.

Intentional grounding is a foul that specifies a loss of down during enforcement. That means the half - was over. No untimed down.

I know what the coaches thought - chucking the ball down field is a no-risk play - and it turns out they were right.

I have a question for all of the second-guessers, and I welcome all responses...
Only one caveat: try to put yourself in the actual on-field game situation. You are wearing the white hat.
You are the head-referee. You are absolutely sure that you are correct on a penalty enforcement. No doubt in your mind. Do you even bother to check the rules as "suggested" by a coach who obviously has a vested interested in the final outcome of the match?

I am not saying this happened - I am posing a hypothetical.

 

[LWPops]

No half can end on an accepted penalty, offensive or defensive, unless however that foul is on the offense and carries a loss of down provision. You just dont see many accepted fouls on the offense on the last play because unless they score why would you accept the penalty.

That isn't always true. That's why we have this controversy now. Check my last post.

 

[Penlight]

I feel for all parties. I feel bad for the Fenwick kids, I would feel bad for the PN kids who now for 4 days think they are in the state finals and get it taken away, I would feel bad for the ESL kids if the 7A game gets cancelled due to litigation.

I think this could of all been avoided if the coach, which I assume almost all other coaches would of done, would of had the QB take the snap, run in to the endzone wasting the last 4 seconds and take the safety. Fenwick wins 10-9 and none of this conversation happens

The coach put his team/school in this position with a boneheaded call.
His time to man-up has long past and this will linger on well after the playoffs.
The school administration had their chance to stand tall and in my opinion, took the low road.
Best of luck to Fenwick in scheduling non-conference in all sports --- I sure hope it is worth it for you.
No dog in the fight other than being a supporter of Catholic education and it is disturbing that Fenwick's decisions will soon blanket all Catholic schools.

 

[linetogain]

Note: @Witt - To your point about carrying a rule book - you changed my mind. I have this electronic copy on my tablet (and every other mobile device I own). It took me exactly 15 seconds to search and find this rule enforcement clarification.

To give credit where credit is due - Somebody up there quoted this rule already... but I copied and pasted directly from the NFHS Rule Book (source credited below).

SECTION 3 ENDING A PERIOD — HALF
ART. 4 . . . A period shall not be extended by an untimed down if one of the following occurred during a down in which time expires:

b. There was a foul by either team and the penalty is accepted for:
1. unsportsmanlike fouls,
2. nonplayer fouls,
3. fouls that specify a loss of down,
4. fouls that are enforced on the subsequent kickoff as in Rule 8-2-2, 8-2-3, 8-2-4 or 8-2-5; or
5. fouls for which enforcement, by rule, result in a safety.

NFHS (2015-05-26). 2015 NFHS Football Rules Book. NFHS. Kindle Edition.

Intentional grounding is a foul that specifies a loss of down during enforcement. That means the half - was over. No untimed down.

I know what the coaches thought - chucking the ball down field is a no-risk play - and it turns out they were right.

I have a question for all of the second-guessers, and I welcome all responses...
Only one caveat: try to put yourself in the actual on-field game situation. You are wearing the white hat.
You are the head-referee. You are absolutely sure that you are correct on a penalty enforcement. No doubt in your mind. Do you even bother to check the rules as "suggested" by a coach who obviously has a vested interested in the final outcome of the match?

I am not saying this happened - I am posing a hypothetical.

This is why I feel the NFHS and IHSA should implement a challenge per half during the state playoffs with so much riding on the line. A headset on the home sideline for the White-hat to confirm with a clinician/official in the pressbox on the enforcement/rule in question.

 

[LWPops]

This is why I feel the NFHS and IHSA should implement a challenge per half during the state playoffs with so much riding on the line. A headset on the home sideline for the White-hat to confirm with a clinician/official in the pressbox on the enforcement/rule in question.

Why not? The ultimate goal of every contest official is to "get it right". I would welcome that input real-time.

 

[RockSoup]

Note: @Witt - To your point about carrying a rule book - you changed my mind. I have this electronic copy on my tablet (and every other mobile device I own). It took me exactly 15 seconds to search and find this rule enforcement clarification.

To give credit where credit is due - Somebody up there quoted this rule already... but I copied and pasted directly from the NFHS Rule Book (source credited below).

SECTION 3 ENDING A PERIOD — HALF
ART. 4 . . . A period shall not be extended by an untimed down if one of the following occurred during a down in which time expires:

b. There was a foul by either team and the penalty is accepted for:
1. unsportsmanlike fouls,
2. nonplayer fouls,
3. fouls that specify a loss of down,
4. fouls that are enforced on the subsequent kickoff as in Rule 8-2-2, 8-2-3, 8-2-4 or 8-2-5; or
5. fouls for which enforcement, by rule, result in a safety.

NFHS (2015-05-26). 2015 NFHS Football Rules Book. NFHS. Kindle Edition.

Intentional grounding is a foul that specifies a loss of down during enforcement. That means the half - was over. No untimed down.

I know what the coaches thought - chucking the ball down field is a no-risk play - and it turns out they were right.

I have a question for all of the second-guessers, and I welcome all responses...
Only one caveat: try to put yourself in the actual on-field game situation. You are wearing the white hat.
You are the head-referee. You are absolutely sure that you are correct on a penalty enforcement. No doubt in your mind. Do you even bother to check the rules as "suggested" by a coach who obviously has a vested interested in the final outcome of the match?

I am not saying this happened - I am posing a hypothetical.

Thanks for your input Pops, your posts are insightful.

And I think you are right about the refs' discussion. I've left plenty meetings saying something my brain thought was certainly correct only to be easily proven wrong later. But dang it if I wasn't 100% sure at the meeting. Unfortunately, brains sometimes work like that.

 

[Chief321]

That isn't always true. That's why we have this controversy now. Check my last post.

The controversy now exists because of a period that was extended by a foul which had a loss of down provision, like I stated in the previous post. There are other exceptions to not extending the period which you stated well, but I didnt see the relevance to them to this situation.