![]() |
BAFRA Newsflash |
|---|---|
| Home | About Us Join BAFRA Contact Us |
home > Newsflash Index > Newsflash 45/06 |
||
|---|---|---|
| ISSUE 45/06 | 13 November 2006 |
|---|
DISCIPLINARY CASES
GAME MANAGEMENT REPORTS
GAME MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS IN BCAFLBAFRA has written to BCAFL expressing extreme concern about the extremely poor quality of game management at a minority of their teams. This includes failure to pay the officials, as well as field marking and other facility problems. BAFRA will not hesitate to use the provisions of our Terms & Conditions to protect the interests of our members. Nor do we want to be sending crews to teams with poor records in this regard, when teams with good facilities remain uncovered. This may mean a few late changes of assignments for some officials (for which we apologise in advance), but more we hope it will lead to all teams taking their game management responsibilities seriously. We understand that the BCAFL directors are supporting us in our stand for which we are grateful - see http://www.bsafa.com/bsafaforum/showthread.php?p=959#post959.
Jim Briggs
DECEMBER FLAGDOWNI know its short notice but put the blame on Stangroom as this should have appeared in last week's Newsflash. Colin requires all contributions to Flagdown by 2nd December - preferably in Word format - to be sent to flagdown@bafra.org. UNUSUAL FIELD PROBLEMSouthampton Stags have been in touch with an unusual issue regarding their field. They said "At our new home field we have 2 wires running overhead dividing the field into 3 when curtains are run across, they are between 8 and 9 ft off the ground. Will this effect the playing of the game? The chances of a player or ball hitting them are minimal. If the ball does hit the wire, I assume it is repeat of down regardless of the play's outcome? Are these wires ok or do we have to remove them or find a different field?" My response was: The rules say nothing explicitly about this. If they posed a "hazard", then something would have to be done, but I can't imagine any risk they might pose.
However, it is still possible that the ball might touch them.
Rule 9-1-4-d states "When anything other than persons subject to the rules and those not subject to the rules interferes in any way with a player or the ball in play, it is illegal interference.
Replaying the down would seem an acceptable thing to do. This should be agreed by the referee and both teams before the game." Southampton also raised the issue of what if the away team objected to the wires? My view would be that unless they could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the referee or game management that there was a hazard to players, they would not have any further right of objection.
Jim Briggs
NEW MEMBERS
Please join me in welcoming the following new members to BAFRA:
NEW BAFL TEAMSFrom the BAFL website... The BAFL are delighted to confirm six teams have successfully acquired full members status. Cornish Sharks, Edinburgh Wolves, Hull Hornets, Lancashire Wolverines, Lincolnshire Bombers and Shropshire Revolution have successfully negotiated their Associate membership status and are now eligible to apply for competition in the 2007 regular season. The BAFL would like to offer commiserations to Leicester Falcons and wish them success in future applications. More details to follow soon. A LESSON IN COMMUNICATIONFrom NFL films... http://play.rbn.com/?url=nfl/nfl/open/nflfilms/demand/s2006/presents/w09/small_talk_300k.rm KEITH'S KONTENTIONSFor last week, firstly visit http://www.refstripes.com/ilforpass.wmv. There is a second clip on the play at http://www.refstripes.com/ilforpass2.wmv. Now that Roger has posted such a comprehensive reply you may want to look at the second clip in light of the following.
Rule 7-3-2a states that the forward pass is illegal if thrown by a Team A player who is beyond the neutral zone.
Roger raises another question about coverage Who should call this? The Line Judge and Lines man have both released downfield , the Umpire is blocked out and the Referee is trailing. Something to discuss at local meetings, for those who have them. I have updated the thread on the forum by adding another view to the play. Opinions may change. For this week, see http://www.refstripes.com/blockinback.wmv. How many blocks in the back do you see? If you decide there is/are illegal blocks are they ones that should be called? Do they meet with the mechanics book guidance on when to call penalties?I will start a thread later in the week once you have had a chance to think about the play. In the meantime feel free to email me at intliaison@bafra.org with your views. Keith Wickham #423 JIM'S JOTTINGSMissing Goal PostsWe've had a couple of incident reports recently about fields with goal posts missing - either one or both. It's therefore worth reminding everyone of what the rulebook says about this eventuality (Rule 1-2-5-f): "The following procedure is recommended when one or both goals are missing or have been taken down and the original goals are not available for a try or field goal attempt:
When there is only one goal, I know some people believe it's better to play normally and to move everyone down to the other end of the field when the team playing with the goal behind them wants to attempt a kick. I think that presents a potential major unfairness. Imagine a situation with less than 20 seconds to go and Team A behind by 2 points with no timeouts remaining. They are heading towards the one goal. They rush the field goal unit on to the field, but in haste the kick is no good. On the other hand, if they are heading away from the goal, they notify the referee that they want to attempt a kick. He stops the game while everyone calmly jogs down to the other end of the field and lines up. Unhurried, the kicker slots the kick home and wins the game. Clearly the result of the game has been affected by the direction the team is playing. One could argue that other rules could be made up to obviate some of the unfairness (e.g. only swap ends if Team A has a timeout to burn), but they would still put one team at an advantage over the other. Only the recommendation in the rulebook is completely fair to both teams. I commend it to you! Roughing the PasserRule 9-1-2-r states: "When a team is in scrimmage kick formation, a defensive player may not initiate contact with the snapper until one second has elapsed after the snap." How do we interpret this? The mechanics manual (section 3.2.13) says: "This foul can only occur when it is reasonably obvious that a scrimmage kick will be made. In other words, only on field goal and PAT attempts, or when a team lines up in a punting formation on 4th down. Don't be picky about the one second interval. If the snapper is upright before the one second has elapsed then permit contact, but if he takes longer to recover then allow him more protection. Don't call a foul if a defensive player contacts the snapper after being blocked by an adjacent offensive lineman. Disqualify any player who attempts to punish by contact to the snapper's helmet or spears using the defender's own helmet."
Jim Briggs
ROGER'S RHETORIC
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||