Careful, I think that's exactly what he's saying...
That's not what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with whether or not the other team would accept or decline. It has to do with whether or not the action was part of the play. This is where terms like point of attack and material restriction come into play.
Here is another similar example where rules meet philosophy to effectively manage the game. An offensive player is defined as either a back or a lineman. A lineman is anyone who is breaking the waist of the snapper. A back is anyone (other than the QB under center) who is not breaking the waist of an adjacent lineman. If you can picture that there could be a player that is in no man's land between those two situations. The tackle could be back enough that he's still on the line and the slot could be reaching the tackle's waist but not the snapper. So by definition he's not a lineman, and he's not a back. That is an illegal formation. But it's not called because it's pretty clear to everyone based on number and position that he's an eligible receiver and a back. A similar thing is true when you have two wideouts staggered with one supposed to be on the line and the other a back but the back is breaking the waist of the receiver on the line. As long as there is some stagger you let it go. That's where philosophy meets rule and it works.
I haven't felt directly attacked here. There have been comments that are probably out of line toward officials in general and directed at me indirectly because I'm the messenger. I just see no need in engaging in an argument because that likely won't change the mind of the other person. What I'm attempting to do is share not only what the rules are but also what they mean and how they are applied. These are pretty common types of philosophies across all levels of all sports.
I used to be in the same boat as those making these comments but never realized it until I got into officiating. Once I learned the rules I realized how little I actually knew. Then when I started learning philosophies I realized I knew even less. I like watching a baseball or basketball game with officials from other sports because I learn a lot about how they apply the rules.
One of the biggest challenges is most of us learned the rules by watching games on TV and listening to the announcers. They often don't know or understand the rules and share incorrect information. The best example I can give is there is no foul in basketball called over the back or reaching in. Those actions can lead to fouls if other things happen (I.e. displacement when jumping over someone), but in themselves they are not fouls and there are no fouls with those names. But announcers use them so we all think they exist.
The officials working on the SEC have years of experience and training. They have been through varying levels of scrutiny to get to that level in a very competitive environment. There is a shortage of officials at the high school level and below, but getting into and advancing in college football is very competitive. They'll still make mistakes and there is still judgement involved in some calls but we all try to learn and apply the same philosophies so they are consistent play to play and game to game and we help manage the game without inserting ourselves into the game because nobody came to see us.
So I'm happy to answer questions and try to clarify something you saw, but I'm not going to engage in arguments or attacks.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk