Making it clear: The officials made the right call on muff

December 7, 2005

By JOHN JACKSON
ARGUS-COURIER SPORTS EDITOR

I received a message last week from an obviously upset local football official who berated me for my criticism of officials in the story about the Petaluma-Maria Carrillo playoff game.

I appreciate the message for a number of reasons. It lets me know what others think about my reporting. Without feedback, I am oblivious to what I am doing right or, in this case, wrong. No one, players, coaches, officials or reporters are above criticism.

I most appreciate that the official had the courage to include his name. Generally, when I get critical messages, the complainant doesn't have the fortitude to leave a name.

In response, let it be known that I have the highest regard for officials. They generally work hard and they take more heat than most people can imagine from coaches, players and others on the sidelines at football games. Fortunately, they can't hear what is being said in the stands. And, mostly they do a job that ranges from good to excellent.

There are two things that bother me about officials in all sports -- being out of position and inserting themselves into the game by making a picky or unnecessary call at a critical point. Fortunately, North Bay football officials are very seldom guilty of these unpardonable sins.

Now, to the matter at hand.

If I did not explain what happened on the muffed punt call in the Maria Carrillo game, I apologize. Let me make it perfectly clear -- the officials got the call right. Everyone agrees.

The correct ruling on a muffed punt that goes into the end zone whether of its own momentum or helped along, as the one in the Petaluma game was, is a touchback. That is the correct call. Period.

The problem is the rule. It is indeed of the "Believe it or Not," variety, but as we all too quickly learn, what is legal and what is fair aren't always the same thing. The officials legally and correctly made the right call. It was unfair to Petaluma, but it was right.

Now, explaining what I think I saw at the end of the game -- think, because like everyone else, I could be mistaken. What I did see when I looked at the clock at the end of Maria Carrillo's third-down play was more than 30 seconds -- 32 according to my notes -- remaining on a running clock.

Maria Carrillo had 25 seconds to get off a play or be penalized for delay of the game and the clock stopped. That meant, by my math, there should have been about seven seconds the Pumas would have had to account for by either punting or scrambling around.

Could I have been mistaken in my glance at the scoreboard? Could there be another explanation for the extra seconds? Absolutely. I reported what I saw, and, after re-reading the story, didn't do a very good job of explaining what had happened.

Would it have made any difference? Probably not. The chances of the game being changed in those final flickering seconds are minuscule.

Some games are better officiated than others. This game was one of those where the officials, on the whole, did a good job. They did what they are supposed to do -- enforce the rule book impartially.

Unfortunately, the rule book needs some revision.

(Contact John Jackson at acsports@arguscourier.com)