http://www.csnchicago.com/video/highlights-plainfield-north-18-fenwick-17
Again why not just run back and take safety.
Again why not just run back and take safety.
The play in question
- Thread starter flyerforlife
- Start date
Ok lets see cover the ball run the clock take safety game over you win 10-9. There should not be a risk stumbling and dropping the ball you are taugh to always cover ball.
There was no risk involved in what they did. Except for incompetent refs.
Execute snap. Stumble on the way back, lose ball, D scoops it up for 6. A possibility. Small? Sure but still a possibility and lose game.
Or. Execute snap. Throw it to no man's land and win game.
Seems like an easy decision.
Ask Joe Pisarcik, Larry Czonka and Herm Edwards about trying that.
True bad call on ref's but I still would have told the QB to run the ball out of the end zone and keep going like Forrest Gump.
And have the refs rule it a touchdown for PN?
Fenwick knew exactly what they were doing.
And I bet the coaches tried to explain exactly that to the refs.
OK, now I have a question for my fellow refs: Forget enforcement, forget philosophy, my question to you is after seeing this play is this actually a penalty? I would argue no because to me, intentional grounding requires the passer throwing the ball away to avoid a sack. I don't see a PN defender near the QB.
Not a fellow ref but that was my first thought too. If that happens in the 2nd quarter on 2nd down, there would be no call. The QB read the coverage one way and the WR read the coverage another way and they were not on the same page. That's why you might see very errant passes sometimes but certainly not a penalty.
But in this case it was intentional grounding. Even though the QB was not under duress, the play was designed so that the ball was out of the QBs hand as fast as possible so that there is no chance for a defender to touch him and the flight of the ball ticks the last second off and not a player carrying the ball. It's a really smart play but it sole purpose used was to avoid a possibility of a strip sack by passing to no one. I would rule intentional grounding. The Ref got the call right and the enforcement completely wrong.
Last edited:
it should not matter if the qb is under pressure or not.
if there is no receiver down field. the call should be intentional grounding.
what is the difference of throwing it out of bounds or down field?
and in high school football, there is no if you throw it over the line scrimmage you can be within the tackle box, and there is no even if you get out of the tackle box you can throw it away.
it is still intentional grounding. unless they changed that rule. because I was always told in high school, the qb has to have control and cannot throw it away. does not make sense to me why that would be but I dont make the rules. please correct me if I am wrong.
but, time ran out on that play? or was the clock stopped with 1sec left? on the refs time not the score board. if no time game should have been over because it was an offensive play. just cannot end on a defensive penalty is how I understand it.
The other risk in doing what Fenwick did is if you throw the ball and it hits the turf before the clock hits 0. I thought this play was very close to having that happen.
My other question to the refs on the board is this. Why does this exception in the rule exist. The game can not end on a penalty unless that penalty includes a loss of down.
Perhaps the reason why these refs missed it and the refs in the Ok State/CMU game missed it is that its an exception to a rule for no real purpose and easy to miss. If there is no benefit to the rule, then perhaps the rule should be changed to the more intuitive call.
Also, the other major error that was made in the Fenwick/PN game was on the illegal participation play that took the PN go ahead TD off the board. The call was correct, but the penalty was enforced as 15 yards from the previous spot which effectively killed the PN drive. It should have been 15 yards from where the receiver returned to the field of play. Not sure where that was exactly, but would have been a much more favorable spot for PN.
My other question to the refs on the board is this. Why does this exception in the rule exist. The game can not end on a penalty unless that penalty includes a loss of down.
Perhaps the reason why these refs missed it and the refs in the Ok State/CMU game missed it is that its an exception to a rule for no real purpose and easy to miss. If there is no benefit to the rule, then perhaps the rule should be changed to the more intuitive call.
Also, the other major error that was made in the Fenwick/PN game was on the illegal participation play that took the PN go ahead TD off the board. The call was correct, but the penalty was enforced as 15 yards from the previous spot which effectively killed the PN drive. It should have been 15 yards from where the receiver returned to the field of play. Not sure where that was exactly, but would have been a much more favorable spot for PN.
If he is not under duress and not doing it to conserve yardage or time, it probably should not be ruled intentional grounding. Ive seen plenty of times where we havent thrown on it because a kid cut off a route early or got jammed and QB was just throwing a timing route but he was never in danger of being sacked so we passed. The spirit of the grounding rule is to not let the offense get out of losing yards, or time when they are trying to conserve time, by just throwing the ball away and benefitting by going back to the previous spot with a stopped clock.
You cant end a period on an accepted foul(offensive or defensive), unless said foul carries a loss of down enforcement, in which case the period is over.
You cant end a period on an accepted foul(offensive or defensive), unless said foul carries a loss of down enforcement, in which case the period is over.
To answer your questions:
1. The exception (loss of down foul) not extending the period is there because regardless if the Defense is winning or losing why would they ever want to afford the Offense another opportunity to score? Any other foul, aside the exceptions, if accepted while time expires extends the period with the untimed down and the offense gets another play.
2. The basic spot of enforcement for a "loose ball" play (pass) is always the previous spot. So the illegal participation was enforced correctly. Haven't seen that play but I'm assuming it was in fact a pass to him after he went out of bounds (on his own) and returned.
Do coaches not know enough of the rules. Does there have to be a class say every 2-3 years to refresh them. The more that know the better.
I think this is a case where the rule was so obscure and so uncommonly ruled on that they didn't know. Coach Nudo admitted he didn't know until well after the game
Kind of difficult to remember every detail and coach a game. I don't think he or his staff is at fault for not knowing the rule, however some where saying he called the play simply because he knew the rule and the refs didn't. Based on the article he didn't.
I am a referee and that was absolutely intentional grounding. You don't have to be avoiding a sack to get that call. Now the enforcement was obviously not handled correctly.
This is Jack McInerney's coaching and announcing resume:
JACK MCINERNEY
Jack McInerney has been a color analyst on IHSA football state championship contests for over 20 years and also works as an analyst on several high school football game of the week broadcasts in Chicagoland during the regular-season and playoffs. McInerney coached high school football in Illinois for 36 years, making stops at Carbondale High School, Immaculate Conception, Westmont High School, Lyons Township, Oak Park High School and Downers Grove South High School along the way. The Illinois High School Football Coaches Association Hall of Famer was a part of the Downers Grove South coaching staff in 2001 when the Mustangs claimed the IHSA Class 8A title. The Fenwick graduate played college football at Southern Illinois University and later started the first 7-on-7 passing league in the state in 1984.
Here's a guy that coached for 36 years. He also has called games for over 20 years. Needless to say based on his resume I would consider him a Illinois High School football aficionado / expert.
He never once mentioned the rule in question during the comcast broadcast. And he had several minutes to do so.
JACK MCINERNEY
Jack McInerney has been a color analyst on IHSA football state championship contests for over 20 years and also works as an analyst on several high school football game of the week broadcasts in Chicagoland during the regular-season and playoffs. McInerney coached high school football in Illinois for 36 years, making stops at Carbondale High School, Immaculate Conception, Westmont High School, Lyons Township, Oak Park High School and Downers Grove South High School along the way. The Illinois High School Football Coaches Association Hall of Famer was a part of the Downers Grove South coaching staff in 2001 when the Mustangs claimed the IHSA Class 8A title. The Fenwick graduate played college football at Southern Illinois University and later started the first 7-on-7 passing league in the state in 1984.
Here's a guy that coached for 36 years. He also has called games for over 20 years. Needless to say based on his resume I would consider him a Illinois High School football aficionado / expert.
He never once mentioned the rule in question during the comcast broadcast. And he had several minutes to do so.
On 1, the obvious answer would be when it is 4th down and they can get the ball back with the additional play. In a case where they wouldn't want an additional play they could decline the penalty.
I would have actually agreed with you if CMU/OK ST hadn't happened. That's where most of my anger and most of my problems with this whole thing are coming from.
While it's important for coaches and broadcasters to be conversant with the rules, it's the referees JOB to KNOW the rules.
What's their function? To know, apply and enforce the rules.
Yes this is an obscure rule, yes it hardly ever happens, yes it was a pressure filled atmosphere in a very important game.
BUT that's no excuse for them not to know it, nor for not taking the time to get it right.
Yes refs are human and make mistakes, that's why we have instant replay and a rule book.
It was their responsibility to have taken the time to simply check the rule book.
Fenwick won the game on the field --the refs and the IHSA through incompetence & bureaucracy awarded the game to Plainfield.
SHAMEFUL!
This. I was sitting in the stands thinking this game should be over and telling everyone I was with that, but also that I wasn't 100% sure if the high school rule and college rule were the same. I could forgive this mistake had CMU Okie State not happened two months ago, but the fact that these refs didn't educate themselves after that VERY public and high profile situation really bothers me.
And to be fair to Nudo, he was correct about the rule in that it probably should not have been intentional grounding in the first place, though that is a judgment call open to interpretation, so in that way, the mistake is on him. But procedurally, the refs applied a rule that didn't exist. It's absolutely no different than awarding 4 points for a field goal. The only difference is one rule is commonly applied so everyone knows about it, and this one is rarely needed to be applied.
Every time a ball is snapped there is a chance for error. Certain plays involve a higher probability for error. To say there is less risk involved when a QB heaves a ball downfield to run out the clock vs taking a snap, running around, then taking a knee or taking a safety is not accurate. There is a much higher probability for error, ball slipping while QB loading to throw, ect.., with the pass scenario, and this exposes the team to more risk. Deliberately running out the clock in a manner you know could or would be penalized exposes your team to a plethora of unnecessary variables, such as how will adult humans wearing stripes interpret the play, the rules, ect.. and further increases the chance for error. This all comes down to achieving an intended outcome in the manner with the lowest probability for error that eliminates as many variables as possible. For gosh sakes takes matters into your own hand, keep the refs out of the equation, take the snap, run around, then run out of bounds or take a knee.
I have listened to Jack call games for years.....he never knows what is going on.
But Varsity Officials and above should have known. And should have checked.
There is no instant replay at the high school level. Not even sure why you even bring that up.
Pretty sure it's important for coaches to know all the rules too. As others have said, Coach Nudo could have easily broke out the rule book too and thus brought it to the attention of the refs. Or any of his ten varsity assistants could have done the same thing. Not to mention any other sophomore and freshman coaches that might have been at the game in some capacity.
I have been a ref in other sports. I know IHSA football refs. It's a thankless job that pays close to nothing. I would say the majority of the refs that do IHSA events do it for the love the game and to give back. Mistakes happen. People are human.
I hope all the people that are complaining about the refs take the next step and actually become refs themselves.
It's not about the reffing. Yes, refs make mistakes. But there are harmless mistakes manifested by lack of good judgement, and then there are harmful ones that are manifested by a lack of knowledge about the rules of the game.
At this point, the issue is no longer reffing incompetence. Rather, the issue now is the IHSA and their unwillingness to do the right thing. Standing by the crew's decision to award PN an untimed down (against the rules that the IHSA follows), and everything that occurred after that decision, is not the right thing.
Leave it to the IHSA to take the easy way out and create the perfect lose/lose situation.
Easy to say after the fact. The heat of the game is intense as I am sure you know form experience. I am willing to bet over 50% of the crews would have gotten this wrong.
Similar threads
