One of the most difficult parts of officiating is deciding what to do when a play is not clearly a foul. Some actions are easy. We see an obvious hold, an illegal hit, or a player clearly knock an opponent to the ground well behind the play, and the flag needs to come out. But many of the decisions we make during a football game are not nearly that black and white. They require judgment, discernment, and an understanding of what is happening in the game around us.
There is a school of thought that says we should officiate every play independently. A foul in the first quarter should also be a foul in the fourth quarter. A foul when the score is 7-7 should also be a foul when the score is 49-0. If we would throw the flag with 30 seconds remaining in a close game, why wouldn’t we throw it for the same action on the opening series?
There is considerable merit to that philosophy. Consistency matters. We should be very uncomfortable saying, “Yes, that was a foul, but I decided not to call it because of the score.” Once we reach that conclusion, we are no longer using judgment to determine whether an act constitutes a foul. We have decided it is a foul and are simply choosing not to enforce it.
This issue becomes even more complicated when our performance is being evaluated. An evaluator reviewing video for rankings or playoff consideration may see an individual play without knowing everything that occurred during the game. The evaluator may not know that the two players involved have been talking to each other for the previous quarter, that the crew has already warned them, or that the temperature of the game has steadily increased. The evaluator sees the play and asks a straightforward question: Was that a foul?
But football is not played as a collection of isolated video clips.
The officials on the field have information that may not be visible on the recording. We have watched the previous 50 plays. We have heard what the players are saying. We know whether players have been helping opponents off the ground or getting in their faces after the whistle. We know whether two players have already been separated multiple times. We know whether the game has been played with outstanding sportsmanship or whether it feels like one unnecessary shove could ignite something much bigger.
That context matters.
Rule 9-4-3b says no player shall “charge into or throw an opponent to the ground after he is obviously out of the play.” Rule 9-4-3g prohibits a player from making contact with an opponent that is deemed “unnecessary or excessive and which incites roughness.” Those provisions require judgment. The rule book cannot tell us precisely how much force constitutes a charge, exactly when contact becomes unnecessary, or when an action is likely to incite roughness.
Imagine a player giving an opponent a hard shove after the play. It is not an obvious cheap shot, but it is enough to get our attention. In one game, the players have demonstrated outstanding sportsmanship. There has been no extracurricular activity, the opponent barely reacts, and both players immediately separate. Our response might be, “77, you’ve been showing great sportsmanship all game. Keep it clean.”
Now imagine essentially the same action in another game. These two players have already been jawing at each other. We separated them a few minutes earlier. Players have been pushing after the whistle, and we can feel the frustration building.
The physical act may look very similar on video, but the circumstances are not the same.
In the first game, our voice might be enough. In the second, the flag may be the best way to communicate, “We’re done with this.”
That is not necessarily inconsistent officiating. It is discernment.
There is, however, a dangerous line we cannot cross. We should never establish a philosophy that every player gets one free warning. “The first one is a warning; the second one is a flag” sounds like good preventive officiating until players figure out what that really means. We may have effectively given everyone one free shot.
If a player clearly commits a personal foul on the first series of the game, flag it. We should not excuse an obvious illegal act simply because the game has just started and everyone has been behaving so far. Sometimes the best game-management decision we can make in the first quarter is to throw the flag because of what that flag communicates about the remaining three quarters.
I was reminded of this recently while watching World Cup soccer. I was amazed by how deliberately some players would knock an opponent to the ground, seemingly confident that they could accumulate warnings before receiving more significant discipline.
Football players sometimes do the same thing.
If players believe officials will always give them a verbal warning before penalizing an illegal act, some will take advantage of that expectation. I have even had coaches complain after a flag by saying, “You didn’t warn him!” But a warning is a game-management tool, not a prerequisite for a flag.
If players learn that we will tolerate increasingly aggressive behavior until someone finally crosses an obvious line, we may unintentionally contribute to the very escalation we are supposed to prevent.
This is also why context is not limited to what has already happened. Good officials are thinking about what is likely to happen next.
When the game is calm, our voice can sometimes extinguish a borderline action before it grows. When tempers are already flaring, the same borderline action may be like lighting a match next to a powder keg. Rule 9-4-3g specifically includes contact that “incites roughness.” We cannot ignore the environment in which that contact occurs.
That does not mean we manufacture a foul because the game is heated. Rather, the circumstances can help us judge the significance of conduct that is already near the boundary.
Not all context deserves equal consideration, either. I am much more comfortable considering player temperament, previous conduct, warnings, retaliation, escalation, and overall game control than I am allowing the scoreboard to determine what constitutes a foul.
Suppose Team A is winning 49-0 and B77 unnecessarily knocks A55 to the ground behind the play. Why should B77 receive a verbal warning because his team is losing by seven touchdowns? Ignoring that action may be more dangerous in a blowout. Frustrated players who believe their opponents are taking cheap shots and the officials are allowing it may eventually decide to handle the problem themselves.
The same caution applies at the other extreme. An action should not suddenly become a verbal warning rather than a foul simply because there are 3 minutes remaining in a tie game. The importance of the moment should make us more focused, not cause us to redefine the rules.
So where does that leave us?
Perhaps the best principle is this: If it is clearly a foul, flag it. If it is clearly not a foul, don’t. Context becomes most important in the space between those two.
That space is where officiating judgment lives.
This is also why “you had to be there” cannot become an excuse for a poor ruling. An official should not watch video of an obvious foul and defend the no-call by saying the game was going well. Context does not erase an obvious foul. Conversely, an evaluator should recognize that an official on the field may possess information that cannot be captured by a ten-second video clip.
No formula can tell us exactly when to use our voice and when to use our flag. If there were, officiating would be much easier. We could simply create a checklist and apply it to every play.
Two excellent officials can watch the same borderline action and reach different conclusions. Officiating is a human endeavor, and we bring different experience, judgment, philosophy, and discernment to the field. Our decisions must remain grounded in the rules, fairness, player safety, and sound officiating principles. But we should also recognize that the rule book cannot anticipate every circumstance we will encounter during a football game.
Our job is to facilitate the game. Sometimes that requires a flag. Sometimes it requires our voice. Sometimes it requires recognizing that something insignificant five minutes ago has become significant because of what has happened since.
Rules tell us where the boundaries are. Judgment helps us navigate the space near those boundaries.
Context matters, but it cannot become an excuse to ignore an obvious foul.
The best official is not the one who throws a flag for every technical violation. Nor is it the official who proudly “lets them play” regardless of what happens. The best official recognizes what requires a flag, what he can handle with his voice, and when an apparently minor act has become significant because of the circumstances surrounding it.
That is judgment.
And that is why we still need human beings wearing striped shirts.
Quiz
Read the quiz stem and then choose the best answer.
3/12 from the A-28. A18 fumbles at the A-24. A77 bats the grounded loose ball at the A-22. B55 recovers the ball at the A-20 and is tackled at the A-6.
- Team B must decline the penalty for A77’s foul to keep the ball
- Enforce the penalty for A77’s foul from the succeeding spot. 1/10 for Team B from the A-3
Review Rules 9-7-2 and 10-4-4a