[undrdg]

Originally Posted by mrmag911

The player who hung the flag was determined to have an obvious hit, and after the penalty was assessed, there were no live bodies for either team. The swing rule didn't come into play since Uprising had enough live bodies to assess the penalties. Therefore, it was a draw. That was determined on the field before Tom ever set foot on the field.

Hmmm. So the refs where unable to determine when the player got hit. He could have eliminated live players while hit. But still he pulled and hung the flag? So a penalty was assessed but no swing rule because there were enough players to cover the penalty? Is this correct? And you don't see anything wrong with this rule? There was no way to determine this player was hit during the match? Only after? What can be done better here?

[mrmag911]

Yes, that is correct.

I wish we could know the instant every player is hit. It would make our lives much easier and there wouldn't have to be rules to determine this outcome. I don't remember the details of the game well enough to remember where that player was on the field and where he was hit, I just remember the flag judge finding the hit and relaying the message to me (I was the score keeper) and to Dan Perez since he was the head ref on the field at the time.

Variable contribute to this type of scenario, not just a rule. Ref positions, numbers of refs, communication. I don't know where it broke down or how the flag hanger made it to the flag station without a ref noticing he was hit.

[rockinarasta]

The hit was quite hidden it was at the top of his head almost in his mask a very easy hit to miss.

[undrdg]

so was it a 1 for 1 or a 2 for 1 a 3 for 1? From what i understood the game was over and after the game was over there was a ref huddle and the game was OVERTURNED. Also i was told that Frank Connell was out of the dead box arguing the call this whole time. Wouldn't that be a violation of rules? Wouldn't that be a 1 for 1 or direct penalty resulting in uprising winning? Why was this allowed to happen? Why did the refs allow themselves to be intimidated by this player?

[chevota]

Should of be a 3 for 1 hanging the flag with a hit is like playing on which is a 3 for 1

[mrmag911]

It was a 2 for 1 because the flag hanger was determined to have materially changed the outcome of the game. There was the flag hanger and two live players for Uprising. The game was "over" as in the flag ref had called time since the player hung the flag, but it was not "game over" since the player checks were not complete. The ref's did convene because the flag ref wanted to tell the head ref what he had found and what penalty was to be assessed, but there was nothing over-turned.

I wasn't paying attention to Frank and the dead box since I was getting the score from the head ref. Leaving the dead box normally results in player suspensions, not additional 1 for 1's.

And please don't assume that a ref got intimidated by Frank just because he was arguing the call. There is supposed to be a ref watching each dead box at the end of the game, and he easily may not have been there. Unfortunately that is one job that isn't always done properly by the ref assigned to the dead box.

[undrdg]

I assume nothing. It is clear at this point someone wasn't doing their job. The rules failed both teams here. The refs failed to control the situation. A player who is also an employee of the nppl used his influence in one way or another. You do see that could cause some issues from the outside looking in right?

[mrmag911]

Originally Posted by undrdg

so was it a 1 for 1 or a 2 for 1 a 3 for 1? From what i understood the game was over and after the game was over there was a ref huddle and the game was OVERTURNED. Also i was told that Frank Connell was out of the dead box arguing the call this whole time. Wouldn't that be a violation of rules? Wouldn't that be a 1 for 1 or direct penalty resulting in uprising winning? Why was this allowed to happen? Why did the refs allow themselves to be intimidated by this player?

Regardless of whoever left the dead box, an NPPL employee or not, that had nothing to do with the end result of that specific game. The Uprising penalty was assessed at the end of the game without any influence from any player on either team.

[p8ntcheck45]

I didn't make this thread to argue specific calls, especially this one, but since it was brought up I felt I should clear things up.

-Uprising 3 on Avalanche 2, Avalanche has center and snake corner
-center shot out, just Avalanche snake corner
-corner gets shot by Uprising player in their carwash, at the same time, corner comes over the top and shoots down snake and gets shot in the face by snake and potentially shoots Uprisings snake player
-ref calls penalty on Avalanche player for playing on, Avalanche has no live players
-nothing is done
-snake ref in front of Uprising snake calls Uprising player clean (Note he is the only ref in position here)
-ref calls flag carrier and other Uprising player clean
-Avalanche player yells, leaves deadbox, talks from dead box,
-A separate ref calls the snake player hit, due to a hit on his pack (not his head...) and issues a 2 for 1 penalty
-The win turns into a draw

If Avalanche was given a playing on penalty with an obvious hit, when they had zero people alive, and Uprising was given a playing on penalty with an un-obvious hit when they had 3 people alive, why was it a draw?

[undrdg]

there you go. can you explain that systematic breakdown of the rules?

[mrmag911]

If that is the proper sequence, there should have been an automatic pull and hang for Uprising if there were no other Avalanche players to assess a final 1 for 1 on and Uprising would have added one live body on the score sheet.

[undrdg]

Originally Posted by mrmag911

If that is the proper sequence, there should have been an automatic pull and hang for Uprising if there were no other Avalanche players to assess a final 1 for 1 on and Uprising would have added one live body on the score sheet.

As a ref, let me ask this:
Why do you think this all went down? This isn't the first time a situation like this has happened.
How would you break down a possible solution for this scenario?

[mrmag911]

The main reason I feel games end like this, no matter what division, is because of lack of communication on the refs part, not knowing the rulebook properly and/or trying to enforce open-ended rules. For example, if the last Avalanche player did receive a penalty and it has an impact on the end result of the game, the ref who assessed that penalty needs to let the head ref know this. Maybe he did and the head ref didn't hear him, or maybe he didn't. Maybe the ref didn't know that type of penalty would result in automatic pull and hang for the opposite team? Based on the discussion I was in at the end of the game, we had all the bases covered based on what we knew. If there was in fact a penalty on the last Avalanche player, I am just finding that out for the first time today.

Like you've mentioned in prior posts, there are a number of issues right now that produce outcomes like this. The rules and how we are supposed to enforce them, the training we get/don't get, the number of refs we have per field, rules that don't get enforced or are misused, etc. Unfortunately, as a ref, I always felt like I was not part of the leagues "investment" and we just had to make do with what we have. Trust me, we voice our concerns as well.

What I can tell you is that I don't think things like this go down due to any sort of bias. I like to think of myself as an educated, mature person and I know if I was looking at this from a player's perspective, I could see how it may appear that the league may want certain results. But if that is the case, it's happening at higher levels and the refs are just cogs in the machine.

[rockinarasta]

Originally Posted by p8ntcheck45

I didn't make this thread to argue specific calls, especially this one, but since it was brought up I felt I should clear things up.

-Uprising 3 on Avalanche 2, Avalanche has center and snake corner
-center shot out, just Avalanche snake corner
-corner gets shot by Uprising player in their carwash, at the same time, corner comes over the top and shoots down snake and gets shot in the face by snake and potentially shoots Uprisings snake player
-ref calls penalty on Avalanche player for playing on, Avalanche has no live players
-nothing is done
-snake ref in front of Uprising snake calls Uprising player clean (Note he is the only ref in position here)
-ref calls flag carrier and other Uprising player clean
-Avalanche player yells, leaves deadbox, talks from dead box,
-A separate ref calls the snake player hit, due to a hit on his pack (not his head...) and issues a 2 for 1 penalty
-The win turns into a draw

If Avalanche was given a playing on penalty with an obvious hit, when they had zero people alive, and Uprising was given a playing on penalty with an un-obvious hit when they had 3 people alive, why was it a draw?

Sorry your wrong again I was the ref that called the uprising player for a hit on his head not his pack. Please stop assuming you know what happened because it is clear to me you don't.

[undrdg]

Originally Posted by rockinarasta

Sorry your wrong again I was the ref that called the uprising player for a hit on his head not his pack. Please stop assuming you know what happened because it is clear to me you don't.

Ok. Why don't you take us through the entire sequence? Tell us what happened in your words.

[rockinarasta]

He his almost entirely right except for the whole pack hit... I have no idea where he came up with that.

[undrdg]

All right. I can accept that. But, I ask you this, if the avalanche player did indeed play on why was there no penalty assessed?

[mrmag911]

Don't forget, in the NPPL rule book it says a penalty "may take place" in regard to certain infractions. It doesn't say that specific infractions will always result in a penalty. I don't know if the last guy was assessed a penalty, but even if a player "plays on", it is up to the ref's discretion if he/she will assess a penalty.

[undrdg]

Ok there you go. There is your answer change MAY to MUST

[mrmag911]

Yeah, I feel the same way. I mean in other sports, a specific infraction results in a specific penalty. Unfortunately, that wording has been in the rule book since I started in 2006.

[undrdg]

I agree. and that is the problem.
Words like may, could, if, should be replaced by will or must.
No grey area.
Players will adapt to the rules. They have to.
Unobvious hits are unobvious always. Period.
If one ref calls a player clean, nobody else can over turn it. Leave it at that.
Wear communication systems between all refs. that way when one makes a call they all hear it.