Test Yourself: MLB Adopts Home Plate Collision Rule 7.13

MLB adopted a formal rule on home plate collisions meant to decrease violent contact at home plate on plays in which a runner attempts to score and a catcher attempts to tag him out by blocking home plate. After lengthy negotiations, Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association reached an agreement to adopt the new Rule 7.13, which outlines rights and responsibilities for runners and catchers (or other defensive players) on specific plays at home plate that historically have proven susceptible to the traditional home plate collision.

Official Baseball Rule 7.13: Collisions at Home Plate

A runner attempting to score may not deviate from his direct pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner attempting to score initiates contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) in such a manner, the umpire shall declare the runner out (even if the player covering home plate loses possession of the ball). In such circumstances, the umpire shall call the ball dead, and all other baserunners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the collision.

Rule 7.13 comment: The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner's lowering of the shoulder, or the runner's pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of Rule 7.13. If the runner slides into the plate in an appropriate manner, he shall not be adjudged to have violated Rule 7.13. A slide shall be deemed appropriate, in the case of a feet first slide, if the runner's buttocks and legs should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. In the case of a head first slide, a runner shall be deemed to have slid appropriately if his body should hit the ground before contact with the catcher.

Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 7.13 if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable.

This collision looks illegal, but is it? (Yes, it is)

In other words, a runner must attempt to touch home plate rather than initiate contact with the defensive player while the defensive player must concede a path to home plate unless he is in possession of the baseball. Nowhere in the Rule does interference and/or obstruction come into play as the umpire shall simply signal the runner safe if the catcher violates while penalties similar to interference (declared out, other runners back to bases) but not explicitly termed interference will result if the runner violates.

The new Rule 7.13 requires catchers to concede a path to home plate unless they have possession of the ball. The change here concerns timing. Whereas in 2013, a catcher could block the plate from the moment he was in the act of fielding the throw, in 2014, a catcher can only block the plate when he is in physical possession of the ball (after the catch) unless the throw clearly takes him into the path of the runner.

Got it? See below for sample videos of plays at the plate and make the call! Answers are below.

Scenarios 1-26: Compilation of plays at the plate (identified by timestamp in answer key) (Various)

Answer Key - Yellow represents legal play / Red signifies runner's violation / Green = fielder violated
1 (0:10): R2 is out; no violation of Rule 7.13 as runner did not deviate from his direct pathway to plate.
2 (0:23): R3 is out; legal play; runner does not deviate and catcher has possession of the ball.
3 (0:26): R3 is out; potential violation of Rule 7.13 as runner had access to home plate.
4 (0:28): R3 is out; angle prohibits discussion as to legality (did runner have access/catcher poss)?
5 (0:30): R3 is out; legal play; F2 must occupy position in order to field throw, contact unavoidable.
6 (0:32): R3 is safe; F2 violated, blocking pathway without ball possession.
7 (0:35 & 0:42): R3 is out; legal play; F2 must occupy in order to field throw, contact unavoidable.
8 (0:38): R3 is out; illegal because R3 deviates from direct pathway in order to initiate contact with catcher.
9 (0:52): R2 is out; illegal because R3 deviates from direct pathway (see still frame at 0:35).
10 (0:59): R2 is out; potentially illegal due to R2's actions; F2 possessed ball, contact unavoidable.
11 (1:08): R3 is out; illegal because R3 makes no attempt to touch, as in Rule 7.13 comment.
12 (1:16): R2 is out; illegal because R2 deviated by pushing through with upper body; F2 in poss.
13 (1:29): R2 is safe; F2 violated by blocking pathway without possession of the baseball.
14 (1:40): R1 is safe; legal, contact incidental because F2 must occupy position to receive the throw.
15 (1:57): Same Play as 6 (0:32) ("Posey play") - Posey violated by not having possession of the ball.
16 (2:09): R3 is safe; catcher fails to provide runner pathway by blocking plate without the ball.
17 (2:16): R1 is out; illegal because runner pushes through with upper body; initiates contact; F2 poss.
18 (2:30): R2 is safe; catcher occupies base path after failing to field throw in violation of 7.13 comment.
19 (2:46): R1 is safe; contact incidental (runner attempting to score, fielder has possession of ball).
20 (2:52): R3 is out; illegal because runner pushes through with upper body to initiate contact.
21 (3:06): R2 is out; illegal, runner deviated from direct pathway to initiate contact with catcher.
22 (3:24): R3 is out; illegal, runner makes no effort to touch plate; deviates to initiate contact.
23 (3:35): R3 is safe; contact incidental as catcher must occupy position in order to field throw.
24 (3:48): R2 is out; contact incidental as catcher occupies pos to receive throw, runner attempts to score.
25 (4:02): R3 is out; illegal, runner pushes through with upper body to initiate contact on catcher in poss.
26 (4:11): R1 is out; contact incidental as catcher carried up the line to receive the throw from RF.

Close Call of Week: Russia Goal Disallowed v USA Hockey

Our Close Call of the Week flies in from Sochi, Russia's Bolshoy Ice Dome where Team USA knocked off Russia in an epic shootout thriller of men's hockey. At the heart of the matter, however, was an apparent Russian goal late in the third period that was waived off after video instant replay review, allowing the game to proceed to overtime in the first place.

With 4:40 remaining in the third period, Russian skater Fedor Tyutin shot from the upper offensive zone on and in goal for what was then ruled a good goal and 3-2 Russian lead. After referee Brad Meier's initial mechanic of "score the goal"—the referee must make this call when a puck finds its way into the net unless another call (the waive-off) is necessary—all four officials got together before formal video review at the scorer's bench.

This IIHF screenshot release shows the goal net off its
mooring at the time of the disallowed goal (4:40).

Pursuant to International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) Rule 471(a)5, which states "no goal shall be allowed...if the goal net has been displaced from its normal position, or the frame of the goal net is not completely flat on the ice."

After video review, the goal was negated and play resumed from the point of interruption. Replays indicate USA goalkeeper Jonathan Quick appeared to displace the goal net while attempting a routine hockey move. His actions cannot conclusively be classified as deliberate or intentional.

Had the referees deemed Quick deliberately displaced the goal net, no goal would have been awarded to Tyutin for the infraction. Rule 554b states that if the goalkeeper "deliberately displaces the goal frame from its normal position, [he] shall be assessed a minor penalty." As for awarding a goal, Rule 554b(d) states that a goal may be awarded only if a goalkeeper has been removed from the ice when the infraction occurs; otherwise a minor penalty is assessed unless the criteria for a penalty shot are met (last two minutes of game or overtime; opponent in control with no opponent between him and the goalkeeper with a reasonable opportunity to score).

Contrary to popular belief, it was not referee Brad Meier of the USA and NHL who unilaterally ruled "no goal" because as a referee, he did not have access to video instant replay. Instead, that responsibility fell to the video goal judge, who reviewed whether the puck had entered the net prior to the goal frame being displaced, as in IIHF Rule 330(b)2. The goal judges listed for the match include Chris Carlson of Canada and Andre Schrader of Germany; the video goal judge is not included.

Procedural Rule 4 states that in the case of an inconclusive video review, the referee makes the final decision. As evidenced by the attached photograph, visual evidence tends to conclusively indicate the goal frame was dislodged, as in 471(a)5.

IIHF referee supervisor Konstantin Komissarov soon thereafter confirmed the no goal ruling and video review process was proper and correct. Interestingly enough, prior to the Vancouver games of 2010, Komissarov and NHL officiating director Terry Gregson mulled whether to assign and allow Canadian referee Dan O'Halloran and Canadian referee Bill McCrearly and Canadian linesman Jean Morin to officiate the gold medal game between Canada and the United States. At the time, Gregson posed a philosophical question saying, "Will we be using the best or are there political ramifications to our decisions?"

The IIHF and NHL referee supervisors then voted to put three Canadian officials on the Canada-USA game. The fourth—linesman Stefan Fonselius—was from Finland. Canada ultimately won that contest in overtime, 3-2.

A similar IIHF-specific rule concerns the puck on the net itself, which explains why play was not immediately blown dead when the puck deflected onto the netting itself with two seconds remaining in overtime: "When the puck is lodged in the outside netting of the goal net for more than three sec- onds or frozen against the goal net between opposing players, the Referee shall stop the play and face-off the puck" (IIHF Rule 481).

Had this game been played under NHL rules, the goal would have been allowed, as "the goal frame shall be considered in its proper position when at least a portion of the flexible peg(s) are still inside both the goal post and the hole in the ice. The flexible pegs could be bent, but as long at least a portion of the flexib;e peg(s) are still in the hole in the ice and the goal post, the goal frame shall be deemed to be in its proper position. The goal frame could be raised somewhat on one post (or both), but as long as the flexible pegs are still in contact with the holes in the ice and the goal posts, the goal frame shall not be deemed to be displaced" (NHL Rule 78.4).

International Rules also propelled Team USA through the shootout, allowing repeated use of successful winger T.J. Oshie, who ultimately scored the game-winner in the eighth round.

Wrap: United States vs. Russian Federation (XXII Olympic Winter Games Hockey), 2/15/14

Baseball Rules in the Real World: Multiple Mound Visits

UEFL continues its umpiring series "Baseball Rules in the Real World" with Multiple Mound Visits, a look back at two instances (one inadvertent yet not incidental) of a manager visiting the mound twice during the same at-bat, or at-bat intermission.

The first situation is the easier one. LAA-HOU, May 9, 2013: As Angels left-handed batter JB Shuck stood on deck in the top of the 7th inning of a close game, Astros manager Bo Porter relieved his right-handed pitcher, Paul Clemens from the game, replacing him with southpaw Wesley Wright for the coveted lefty-lefty matchup. Anaheim manager Mike Scioscia countered Porter's move by pinch hitting for Shuck with righty Luis Jimenez so as to restore the lefty-righty duel. As a result, Porter revisited the mound and removed Wright from the game, replacing him with the right-handed Hector Ambriz for a righty-righty face-off.

One problem—Wright hadn't thrown a single pitch. As Scioscia stormed out of the visiting dugout to argue with crew chief Fieldin Culbreth, Ambriz warmed up and after umpire discussion, he was allowed to remain in the game. Scioscia's Angels elected to play the game under protest, a game that, had the Angels lost, would have resulted in the first upheld MLB protest in over 20 years.

Here's why: When Wright—whom all sources confirm was not injured or otherwise incapacitated—left the game without pitching to a single batter, the Astros violated OBR Rule 3.05(b), which states, in part, "If the pitcher is replaced, the substitute pitcher shall pitch to the batter then at bat, or any substitute batter, until such batter is put out or reaches first base, or until the offensive team is put out, unless the substitute pitcher sustains injury or illness which, in the umpire-in-chief’s judgment, incapacitates him for further play as a pitcher."

The Comment for this rule addresses a manager (Porter) who attempts to violate Rule 3.05(b): "If a manager attempts to remove a pitcher in violation of Rule 3.05 (c) the umpire shall notify the manager of the offending club that it cannot be done. If, by chance, the umpire-in-chief has, through oversight, announced the incoming improper pitcher, he should still corrrect the situation before the improper pitcher pitches. Once the improper pitcher delivers a pitch he becomes the proper pitcher."

The umpires failed to enforce this rule, which is why the Angels protested and had an excellent case for affirmation—until they expectedly dropped the protest as a result of winning the ballgame, 6-5.

The second situation is trickier, also involves confusion regarding the pitching change rules and the double mound visit and did not result in a protest, which may have come in handy as the offended team ended up losing the game.

MLB: Umpires erred in rule application.

SF-LAD, July 20, 2010: With one out and the bases loaded in a 5-4 ballgame, Dodgers closer Jonathan Broxton received a pep talk in the form of a mound visit by acting skipper Don Mattingly (manager Joe Torre had been ejected earlier in the game as had bench coach Bob Schaefer). At the meeting's seeming conclusion, Mattingly calmly walked down the pitcher's mound and onto the infield grass as first baseman James Loney said something to get the acting manager's attention. To better hear Loney in a Stadium with 53,381 fans, Mattingly stepped back onto the mound to converse with his infield before returning to the Dodgers dugout.

Manager Bruce Bochy then emerged from the Giants' first-base dugout and appealed that Mattingly's false start step-off constituted two mound visits to the same pitcher during the same inning, which meant Broxton had to come out of the ballgame. Crew Chief Tim McClelland agreed and Mattingly was forced to lift Broxton in favor of George Sherrill, who proceeded to surrender a two-RBI double to batter Andres Torres, giving the Giants to take a 6-5 lead before Travis Schlichting allowed run number seven to score. The Giants ultimately won the game, 7-5. No protest was filed.

After the game, league officials confirmed to multiple sources that umpires erred by not allowing Broxton to face Torres, pursuant to Rule 8.06(b) Comment, which states, "In a case where a manager has made his first trip to the mound and then returns the second time to the mound in the same inning with the same pitcher in the game and the same batter at bat, after being warned by the umpire that he cannot return to the mound, the manager shall be removed from the game and the pitcher required to pitch to the batter until he is retired or gets on base. After the batter is retired, or becomes a baserunner, then this pitcher must be removed from the game."

The umpires did not warn Mattingly against visiting Broxton a second time (it happened so quickly), so his removal or ejection would have been unlikely. Still, league officials confirmed the umpires misapplied—failed to apply—Rule 8.06(b) Comment, which qualifies as a rule misinterpretation and protestable offense. Had Mattingly's Dodgers protested the game, because they lost, the contest would have likely been replayed from the point of protest—top of the ninth, one out, bases loaded and Jonathan Broxton facing Andres Torres. At the conclusion of Torres' time at-bat, Broxton would have been removed from the game.

The kicker: in three previous career at-bats against Broxton, Torres was 0-3. (Video: Must C Controversial)
Similar fun fact: Both games featured the same home plate umpire, Adrian Johnson.

Close Call of the Week: NBA Basketball without a Bench

This edition of Close Call of the Week concerns Wednesday evening's NBA matchup between the shorthanded Los Angeles Lakers and Cleveland Cavaliers.

Dressing just eight players for the game, the Lakers lost shooting Guard Nick Young and point guard Jordan Farmar to left injuries, leaving just six eligible players until center Chris Kaman fouled out early in the fourth quarter. With 3:32 remaining in the final period, Lakers center Robert Sacre committed his sixth foul. Had Sacre's sixth foul disqualified him from further participation in the contest, the Lakers would have conceivably been left with just four eligible players with which to finish the game. Instead, NBA Rule 3-I-a came into play.

If a player in the game receives his sixth personal foul and all substitutes have already been disqualified, said player shall remain in the game and shall be charged with a personal and team foul. A technical foul also shall be assessed against his team. All subsequent personal fouls, including offensive fouls, shall be treated similarly. All players who have six or more personal fouls and remain in the game shall be treated similarly.

Accordingly, Sacre was permitted to remain in the contest at the expense of a team technical foul charged to the Lakers. Had Sacre committed any further personal fouls, the Lakers would have been charged with an additional technical foul for each infraction (Sacre did not foul after 3:32). At the time of the invocation of Rule 3-I-a, the Lakers were leading, 111-101. The Lakers ultimately won the contest, 119-108.

It is this rule that enabled Don Otten in 1949 to set an NBA record with eight personal fouls over the course of just one game when his Tri-Cities Blackhawks ran out of subs when he committed his sixth foul.

Test Your Knowledge (Basketball Rules Differences): Had this same scenario occurred at the NCAA college level, the affected team would have lost Sacre's services for the remainder of the contest, as in NCAA Rule 3-1-2: "Each team may continue to play with fewer than five players when all other squad members are not eligible or able to play." If multiple players foul out, the team can continue playing until just one player remains, at which time, "that team shall forfeit unless the referee believes that both teams have an opportunity to win" (3-1-3).

NFHS high school follows the college rule (and clarifies/cleans up the misleading language provided by NCAA Rule 3-1-3: "A team must begin the game with five players, but if it has no substitutes to replace disqualified or injured players, it must continue with fewer than five. When there is only one player participating for a team, the team shall forfeit the game, unless the referee believes that team has an opportunity to win the game" (NFHS Rule 3-1-1 NOTE).

Wrap: Los Angeles Lakers vs. Cleveland Cavaliers, 2/5/14

UEFL Series: Baseball Rules in the Real World (Fourth Out)

MLB fans suffer from lack of rules knowledge, this is no secret—though so do members of the media, players and even managers/coaches. According to a 2013 rules quiz, out of 10 true-or-false questions, fans averaged a score of 3.7 out of 10, the media 4.4, players 5.5, and managers/coaches 6.6. Leading the pack was Brad Ziegler of the Arizona Diamondbacks with a perfect score (10/10), followed closely by David Ross and John Farrell of the Boston Red Sox with a 9/10 score.

At the bottom of the leaderboard was ESPN's Aaron Boone, who somehow managed a one-of-ten score on the 10 question, two-option (true or false) exam.

The Red Sox are one of a small number of MLB teams that consult a rules expert for such matters, which may very well explain their better-than-average scores. Boone allegedly does not reach out.

The 10-question test posed 10 hypothetical scenarios that, for the most part, were not based on reality and did not previously occur during professional games.

Umpires go through much scenario-based training such that when a rare or odd situation occurs, making the proper call is second nature. For instance, Jim Joyce talked about his obstruction call to end a World Series game for the first time in baseball history as completely instinctual. For the fans, perhaps rules education based on specific situations and scenarios would be more appealing if they were actually rooted in reality. The UEFL presents a new series, Baseball Rules in the Real World, that attempts to do just that. We begin with "Failed Fourth Out," featuring a game-changing play from April 12, 2009.

In an effort to persuade clubs and fans alike towards education, the UEFL presents real world concerning plays and situations that did take place in baseball and, at times, cost teams an out, run or even a win entirely because of a lack of rules knowledge or recognition. This Baseball Rules in the Real World series will encompass Ask the UEFL as historically rules-related plays are presented and analyzed. Feel free to comment with plays you would like to see on real world.

R3 Ethier hustles to score as R2 freezes.

For the rules rookies amongst us (welcome and congratulations for choosing to better yourselves!), Team A refers to the offensive team, Team B the defensive team, PU the plate umpire and U1/U2/U3 the first/second/third base umpire. B1 is the batter and/or batter-runner, R1 is the runner that starts the play on first base, R2 at second base and R3 at third base. F1 is the pitcher, F2 the catcher and so on.

Ethier Scores on Double Play to Tie Game at 1 ("Failed Fourth Out," April 12, 2009 [Video]).
Situation: We begin with "Failed Fourth Out." With one out in the top of the 2nd inning of a 1-0 ballgame, R2 Juan Pierre and R3 Andre Ethier, B1 Randy Wolf hit a line drive to F1 Dan Haren. R2 and R3 were running on contact, so as F1 Haren caught the liner for the inning's second out, both runners were far off their respective bases. F1 Haren threw to F5 Felipe Lopez, who casually strolled to R2 Pierre and nonchalantly applied the tag for the third out of the inning. During the interim, and prior to F5's tag of R2, R3 Ethier, who never broke stride, touched home plate. Lopez kept the ball and returned to the Arizona dugout. After the inning's end, Dodgers bench coach Bob Schaefer and manager Joe Torre met with PU Larry Vanover to discuss the play (the scoreboard erroneously showed a 1-0 Arizona lead). After consultation with U3 Charlie Reliford, the Dodgers were credited with a run, the score adjusted to a tie, 1-1.

Ruling: Correct call. R3's run scores because he touched home plate prior to the third out of the inning, because the third out was not a force out (Rule 4.09[a]).* This is a time play. To negate the run, Team B would have had to appeal R3's failure to tag up prior to Team B leaving the field ("For the purpose of this rule, the defensive team has 'left the field' when the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the bench or clubhouse"):

Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent “fourth out.” If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage. (Rule 7.10)

*Rule 2.00 (Force Play) defines such a play "in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base by reason of the batter becoming a runner." OBR goes on to give a very similar example of a play that does not qualify as a force out: "Not a force out. One out. Runner on first and third. Batter flies out. Two out. Runner on third tags up and scores. Runner on first tries to retouch before throw from fielder reaches first baseman, but does not get back in time and is out. Three outs. If, in umpire’s judgment, the runner from third touched home before the ball was held at first base, the run counts." This is what we have here.

The Dodgers went on to win the ballgame, 3-1, which means the failed fourth out may have played a significant role in LA's win.
Umpires: HP: Larry Vanover. 1B: Sam Holbrook. 2B: Dan Iassogna. 3B: Charlie Reliford (crew chief).

Wrap: Los Angeles Dodgers vs. Arizona Diamondbacks, 4/12/09

Ump or Ref? A Fan's Guide to Officiating Titles in Sports

National Championships across all sports tend to bring out greater media coverage, higher energy with charged atmospheres and casual fans, many of whom may not be familiar with the game.

Twitter fans question the existence of a football umpire.

Of course, this has the unintended—yet completely expected—consequence of creating a situation in which fringe fans, for lack of a better term, become confused. I've noticed this trend finds its way into those winner-take-all games at a significantly higher rate than during the less overtly meaningful regular season affairs. (Compare the intensity of fans' reactions to: 2012 NL Wild Card infield fly rule play vs. this 2013 infield fly call that also benefitted the away team.)

At present, we consider the case of NCAA Football's final BCS Championship Game at the Rose Bowl. When ESPN analyst Kirk Herbstreit benignly commented on the actions of the umpire, some fans took issue with the concept of an umpire ever existing in football.

Close Call of the Week section: Herbstreit mentioned the umpire standing over the ball, effectively preventing a snap by the offense. NCAA rules state that the defense shall have a reasonable opportunity to set itself for the next play. For instance, a Rule 3 approved rule interpretation states the defense is not only allowed to match up, it is "allowed to substitute in response to Team A's" personnel moves if A has committed a late or on-the-fly substitution. A ruling added for the 2013-14 season additionally states that if Team B must hurry to respond to Team A's move, "the umpire moves to the ball to prevent the snap until Team B has had a reasonable opportunity to [respond]...The umpire will step away when he judges that the defense has had enough time."

To help the misguided and put misconceptions to rest, Close Call Sports presents "Ump or Ref? A Fan's Guide to Officiating Titles in Sports"

The following lists the positions/titles of officials present in each of the following sports:

Australian Rules Football - officials are not differentiated from each other by uniform marking
Field umpire, goal umpire (equipment: flags), boundary umpire, emergency umpire, interchange stewards.

Baseball/Softball - officials are not differentiated by uniform marking (see HP Umpire equipment below)
Umpire in Chief (Home Plate Umpire; equipment: protectors, mask, ball bags, etc.), Base (Field) Umpires.

Basketball - officials are not differentiated by uniform marking
Referee and Umpire(s) (FIBA, NCAA, NFHS), Crew Chief and Referees (NBA). [Lead/Center (Slot)/Trail]

Cricket - officials are not differentiated from each other by uniform marking
Match Referee (off-field official), Umpires (Bowler's end and Striker's end [optional Third Umpire]).

Field Hockey - on-field officials are not differentiated from each other by uniform marking
Field Umpire(s), Reserve Umpire, Video Umpire.

Football - officials are differentiated and identified by the jersey placard/marking (NFL/NCAA)
Referee (R, white hat), Umpire (U), Head Linesman (H or HL), Line Judge (L or LJ), Field Judge (F or FJ), Side Judge (S or SJ), Back Judge (B or BJ). NCAA Big 12 also adopted the Alternate (A) official.

Hockey (Ice) - officials are differentiated and identified by jersey marking/accessory
Referee(s) (uniform: orange or red arm bands), Linesmen, Off-Ice officials (e.g., goal judge, scorer).

Lacrosse - on-field officials are not differentiated from each other by uniform marking
Head Referee, Referee, Chief Bench Official, Bench Manager.

Rugby - on-field officials are not differentiated from each other by uniform marking (see flag equipment)
Referee, Touch Judges (equipment: flag), Video Referee or In-Goal Judge, Timekeeper, Interchange.

Soccer (Association Football) - officials are not differentiated by uniform marking (ARs have flags)
Referee, Assistant Referees ("Goal Judge" in UEFA play are two added Assistant Referees), Fourth Official.

Other Sports with One/Two Classes of Official - Impress friends with knowledge of titles in these sports!
Billiards (Cue Sports), Boxing - Referee.
Cycling - Commissaire (occasionally referred to as judge or referee or time-board ardoisier in road cycling).
Figure Skating - Referee (separate and distinct from panel of judges), Assistant Referee - Ice.
Motor Sports - Marshals (corner captain in charge, communicator, flaggers, 1st and 2ndary responders).
Sumo - Gyōji (Referee), Shimpan (Judges, including shimpan located in a video room).
Tennis - Chair Umpire, Line Umpire(s); Off-court officials are Referee and Chief Umpire.
Volleyball - First Referee ("up referee" or "go-up"), Second Referee ("down referee").
Water Racing - Umpire (during), Judge (finish line), Protest Committee (sailing's post-event panel).
Wrestling - Referee, Judge, Mat Chairman [international]; Referee, Assistant [collegiate].

Close Call of the Week: NFL Unsporting Contact Ejection

This edition of Close Call of the Week considers unsporting behavior on the part of players that results in inappropriate contact with an official. The rule referred to herein is NFL Rule 12, Section 3, Article 1(g).

With 3:50 remaining in the 3rd quarter of the Rams-Seahawks game, Seahawks running back Robert Turbin ran for no gain, followed in short order by a confrontation between the teams, resulting in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty against Rams linebacker Alec Ogletree. While arguing the call, Rams defensive tackle Kendall Langford made contact with Back Judge Steve Freeman, resulting in an additional unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and disqualification. At the time of the ejection, the Seahawks were leading, 13-3. The Seahawks ultimately won the contest, 27-9.

Animated GIF: Langford's backswing hits Freeman; on second shove, Triplette throws the USC flag

12-3-1(g): "Unnecessary Physical Contact."

Replays indicate that during the course of argument with Line Judge Jeff Bergman and Referee Jeff Triplette, Langford swung his arm and (what appears to be) accidentally made contact with BJ Freeman's hat and face, followed seconds later by Langford (what appears to be) not accidentally pushing Freeman's outstretched left arm down. Unnecessary physical contact with an official => ejection. Ho-hum.

Nonetheless, this didn't deter Fox Sports' social media outlet from questioning the decision, fatuously determining that "an official's head got in the way of [Langford's] hand...Seems like a bit of an overreaction, right?"

Wrong. Especially considering Langford's actions in contacting the official a second time after the initial strike.

Rule 12-3-1(g) states unsportsmanlike conduct specifically includes "unnecessary physical contact with a game official." Note 1 states "under no condition is an official to allow a player to shove, push, or strike him in an offensive, disrespectful or unsportsmanlike manner."

An example of acceptable (e.g., not "unnecessary") physical contact includes incidental contact with the official during a live ball while attempting to complete a football play (run, pass, catch, etc.).

An example of unacceptable (e.g., "unnecessary") physical contact with a game official includes any contact—whether intentional/purposeful or inadvertent—that occurs during the course of argument or confrontation. This could include contact with a game official who might not be party to the initial argument, if this contact is unnecessary as in Rule 12-3-1(g). This most certainly includes conscious contact with this same game official for a second distinct time after an accidental wrist to the head.

Accordingly, Triplette's crew ejection of Langford was proper and the correct call according to a rule that all but requires officials disqualify a player who contacts an official in an unsportsmanlike manner.

Close Call of the Week: Butt-Goal - Should it Have Counted?

Monday's Coyotes-Sabres game ended in bizarre fashion 3:47 into the overtime period when Sabres defenseman Mark Pysyk's wrist shot, assists to Matt Moulson and Christian Ehrhoff, appeared to come to rest in the back of Coyotes goalie Mike Smith's uniform jersey, just above the pads of the pants, as Smith's rear end drifted into the net, the puck physically crossing the plane of the goal line. The game-ending buttgoal was ultimately confirmed after a (1) conference between referees Greg Kimmerly and Chris Rooney and linesmen Greg Devorski and Brad Kovachik and (2) instant replay review from Toronto's video "war room," allowing Buffalo the 2-1 final. But should the goal have counted?

Puck stays in Referee's sight as butt-goal ends game.

NHL Rule 31.4 grants Referees the authority to "give the final decision in matters of disputed goals" while Rule 38.2 unequivocally states that "every goal is to be reviewed by the Video Goal Judge," who, working in concert with the off-ice official at ice level, will relay the result of the replay review to the referee for final decision. As is generally the case, this review process was correctly executed.

At issue is game flow and the question of when shall the officials rule the puck out of bounds. Rule 85.2 states that a puck is considered unplayable if it becomes lodged in the netting outside of either goal, is frozen between opposing players or if it enters a goal from behind or the side. Rule 85.3 states that "should scramble take place or a player accidentally fall on the puck and the puck be out of sight of the Referee, he shall immediately blow his whistle and stop the play." As the attached image demonstrates, the puck did not fully enter goalie Smith's shirt/pants cradle prior to crossing the goal line; accordingly, play was properly kept alive. Good goal.

Video: Buffalo defeats Phoenix on walk-off #buttgoal win as referee Kimmerly announces the good goal

Close Call of the Week: Illegal Bat on Blocked FG

In the 3rd quarter of Sunday's Steelers-Packers game, Green Bay attempted a field goal to tie on 4th and goal. After Packers kicker Mason Crosby's attempt was blocked by Steelers nose tackle Steve McLendon, the football bounced towards Steelers safety Ryan Clark who attempted to lateral the ball to William Gay before Steelers defensive end Ziggy Hood ultimately contacted the loose ball by batting it out of bounds—and in a forward direction.

Citing Hood's action as illegal batting, referee Carl Cheffers' crew awarded Green Bay a first down, allowing them to retain possession at the Steelers' two-yard line. Steelers coach Mike Tomlin's challenge was denied on the grounds that possession is ineligible for review.

Relevant to this play is NFL Rule 12, Section 4, Article 1, which states an illegal bat has occurred when "a player of either team bats or punches a loose ball in the field of play toward his opponent's goal line," or forward, the prescribed penalty for which is a loss of 10 yards and automatic first down (since the foul was committed by the defense and prior to any deemed change of possession).

As for that issue of possession which Tomlin challenged, Rule 15-5 states that "recovery of a loose ball that does not involve a boundary line or the end zone" is specifically non-reviewable. Accordingly, officials properly denied Tomlin's request for instant replay review.

Rule 3-2-3 states that "a loose ball (either during or after flight) is considered in possession of team (offense) whose player kicked, passed or fumbled. [Prior possession] ends when a player secures possession or when the down ends if that is before such possession." Article 7 of Rule 3 states that a player is in possession of a ball when "he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms."

As for gaining possession of a loose ball, a player must not only have (1) complete control of the ball, he must additionally (2) "have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone." Note 1 states that "a player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground." Note 1, however, generally is applied during a pass situation.

Replays are inconclusive as to whether Pittsburgh's Clark had possession of the loose ball, although it is clear he attempted to perform an action common to the game in the form of a lateral—again, though, it is unclear whether he gained a firm grip and control of the ball prior to the pitch. The penalty for illegal batting was properly enforced—half the distance (recall the original line of scrimmage) and first down to the offense as the defense was ruled not to have gained possession.

Video: Steelers block Green Bay's game-tying FG attempt, lose the ball out of bounds as penalty flags fly

Close Call of Week: Hand Part of Basket—Not Base—Ball

When is the hand considered part of the ball; when can a player handle the game ball or puck? It all depends on which sport you are playing; in most cases off the hardwood, the hand is decidedly not part of the ball.

Baseball - Hand is Not Part of the Ball (Hand is Not Part of the Bat)
This most often comes into play during a plate appearance and hit-by-pitch situations wherein a pitched ball strikes (a) the batter's hand or (b) the bat itself. In (a), the batter is awarded first base without liability to be put out unless he has attempted to strike the pitch, in which case a dead ball strike is ruled (if strike three, the batter is out), or he has not attempted to avoid being touched by the ball, in which case a dead ball ball is ruled, or the pitched ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, in which case a dead ball strike is ruled, while in (b), the ball is ruled foul. Rule 6.08(b) awards the batter first base by virtue of becoming a runner and entitlement to the base when "he is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit," subject to the above conditions. On defense, the hand is likewise not considered part of the ball while possessing it but is simply deemed a body part capable of catching or holding a ball.

Basketball - Hand is Part of the Ball (when in contact with the ball)
This mid-December Close Call of the Week examines a recent foul non-call during an NBA game that ultimately resulted in the ejection of Cavaliers head coach Mike Brown for his excessive campaign for a foul call (see NBA Ejections: McCutchen, Forte, Wright). Replays indicate that as the offensive player attempted to shoot the basketball, the defensive player's hand contacted the shooter's hand while in contact with the ball. Foul or no foul?

All rules codes agree. Whether NFHS, NCAA or NBA/FIBA, the hand is considered "part of the ball" when it is in contact with the basketball, as in a shot attempt. The NFHS rule book, for instance, reminds us of a very important basketball feature in its definitions section pertaining to incidental contact: "The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul" (NFHS 4-27-1 & NBA Comments on the Rules II-A-1). In this situation, it is specifically legal for a defender to use the hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled by an offensive player and "accidentally [hit] the hand of the opponent when it is contact with the ball (NFHS 4-24-2). The NBA specifically expands on this point in its "Comments on the Rules" section: "The hand is considered “part of the ball” when it is in contact with the ball. Therefore, contact on that hand by a defender while it is in contact with the ball is not illegal" (II-A-1).

Football - Hand is Not Part of the Ball
In American and Canadian football, the hand is afforded special privileges that only the feet share (e.g., a hand or foot may touch the ground and the ballcarrier is not considered down [NFHS/NCAA] or down by contact [NFL]), though may not be used solely to establish inbounds status (NFL Rule 3-2-6). The hand is used to establish player possession (3-2-7), or to hand off the ball yet no rule exists prohibiting contact with the hand, as inter-squad contact is allowed in this sport.

Hockey - Hand is Not Part of the Puck (penalties for certain extended contact / checks legal)
Though the sport only uses a ball in its "field" and "roller" incarnations, the ball or puck for ice hockey is separate and distinct from the player's hand (or glove). Hockey allows batting of the ball or puck with the open hand, but a glove pass and—except for the goalie —covering or closing the hand over the puck is generally illegal. A player can catch the puck out of mid air, provided the player immediately places or knocks it down to the ice. Skating with the puck to avoid a check or gain territorial advantage results in a minor penalty for closing the hand (NHL 67.1). When the penalty occurs in the goal crease area, a penalty shot shall be assessed or a goal awarded (NHL 67.2, 67.4, 67.5). Checks are legal in hockey for those in possession or playing the puck, but contact with the hand is not distinguished.

Soccer (Football/Futbol) - Hand is Not Part of the Ball (except for goalkeepers, is generally illegal use)
Because the use of hands is generally prohibited in this sport save for throw-in situations (deliberate handling of the ball except for the keeper in the penalty area results in a direct free kick / it is a send-off [red card] offense if it denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity [DOGSO]), it is clear the hand is not part of the ball (FIFA Law 12). As for goalkeepers attempting to play a loose ball at the same instant an attacking player attempts to kick or deflect the ball, Law 12 simply states, "when a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot be challenged by an opponent." Because a goalkeeper generally attempts to secure possession through the use of the hands/torso/neck/head area, it may be considered "playing in a dangerous manner...that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone," which is an offence (Law 12). A goalkeeper illegally handling a ball in the penalty area by virtue of a >six-second possession, touching the ball again with the hands after releasing from possession, touching the ball with hands after a deliberate kick or throw-in from a teammate results in an indirect free kick (Law 12).

Close Call of the Week: NBA Flagrant & Technical Ejections

Referees Scott Foster (crew chief), David Jones (R) & Marat Kogut (R2/Umpire) ejected Portland Trail Blazers center Meyers Leonard for a flagrant foul penalty two and Philadelphia 76ers center Daniel Orton for a technical foul in the 4th quarter of the Trail Blazers-76ers game. With 7:19 remaining in the 4th period, Leonard and Orton became entangled at the lower defensive block, away from the ball. Replays indicate Leonard committed a takedown upon Orton, both players falling to the ground as Leonard was whistled for the flagrant foul (type two). During the dead ball skirmish on the ground, Orton appeared to punch/throw an elbow at Leonard's jaw, resulting in a technical foul and ejection. At the time of the ejections, the Trail Blazers were leading, 126-92. The Trail Blazers ultimately won the contest, 139-105.

Wrap: Portland Trail Blazers vs. Philadelphia 76ers, 12/14/13
Video: Physical altercation during play in blowout game leads to throw down, elbow to the mouth

Discussion Point: How is play resumed? What is the proper ruling in college (NCAA), high school (NFHS)?

NBA: Instant Replay is used to determine Leonard (herein "A1")'s foul constituted a flagrant foul penalty two—the takedown was both excessive and unnecessary. Orton (herein "B1") was assessed a technical foul for unsportsmanlike acts during the dead ball period immediately after A1's FF2 foul. The technical is shot first. Because both players were ejected, play is resumed with one technical foul free throw, taken by any of the four remaining players on the floor for Portland (herein "Team A"). Immediately thereafter, the opposing ("Team A") coach shall select the shooter from Philadelphia (herein "Team B")'s bench to shoot the two free throws for the flagrant foul. Team B basketball at the free throw extended. (Rules 12A-V-j, 12B-IV-b, 13-I-a(3), Case Play 123).
- tldr, A1=FF2, B1=Tech, A1 & B1 = Ejected; 1 Tech FT to Team A; 2 FF2 FTs to Team B (HC A choice); B ball.

NCAA: Using Instant Replay, officials rule A1's foul constitutes a flagrant 2 personal foul, resulting in automatic ejection, as in the NBA ruling. B1 is issued a Class A Unsporting Technical for flagrantly (severe/extreme) contacting an opponent while the ball is dead; he too is automatically ejected by rule. Because this is a false double foul (second foul occurred while the clock was stopped for the first foul) and includes a contact dead ball technical foul, the fouls are penalized in the order they occurred. After awarding two free throws for the flagrant foul to B1's substitute, any player from Team A shoots two free throws for the technical foul. Team A basketball at the division line. (Rules 8-3-2, 8-3-4, 10-1-17, 10-1-PENALTY-d-2, 10-3-1-d/e, 10-3-PENALTY, 11-2-1-d-1, A.R. 235).
- tldr, A1=FF2, B1=Cl A Tech, A1 & B1 = Ejected; 2 FF2 FTs to B1's sub; 2 Tech FTs to Team A; A ball.

NFHS: Officials rule A1's foul constitutes a flagrant personal foul, resulting in automatic disqualification to the team bench. B1 is assessed a flagrant technical foul for his dead ball actions, resulting in automatic disqualification to the team bench. As in the NCAA scenario, this is a false double foul; each foul carries its own penalties and are penalized in the order they occurred. After awarding two free throws for the flagrant foul to B1's substitute, any player from Team A shoots two free throws for the technical foul. Team A basketball at the division line. (Rules 8-2, 8-3, 8-6-3, 10-3-7, 10-PENALTY-7).
- tldr, A1=FF, B1=Flag Tech, A1 & B1 = Disqualified; 2 FF FTs to B1's sub; 2 Tech FTs to Team A; A ball.

Close Call of the Week: NHL Overtime Penalty Strength

Last night, a CCS follower asked a question about NHL overtime rules, specifically how on-ice strength is determined during the extra 4x4 period when one or both teams suffers two or more concurrent or subsequent penalties, as was the case during Tuesday's Kings-Ducks freeway rivalry game, decided in a shootout.

The Play: With just 29 seconds remaining in regulation of a 2-2 game, Kings RW Justin Williams received a two-minute minor for slashing against Corey Perry, giving Anaheim a power play to end the third period. The score still tied, the teams headed to overtime and four-on-four skating, only with the Kings down to three due to the wraparound Williams penalty. 27 seconds into the five-minute overtime period, Perry drew another penalty, a slash by Kings defenseman Willie Mitchell, who joined Williams in LA's penalty box.

Question: Is Anaheim allowed to skate with five during the overtime two-man advantage?

NHL's Table 20 - Rule 84 - Overtime Penalties

Short Answer: Yes, Anaheim is awarded a fifth skater because Los Angeles is obliged to add one skater to bring its on-ice strength up to three. (LAK 2 + 1 = 3 / ANA 4 + 1 = 5)

Explanation and References: According to NHL Rule 84 regarding overtime and Table 20 regarding overtime penalty assessment, once a team receives a second minor penalty, each team must add one player to their on-ice strength. For Los Angeles, adding one player effectively increases on-ice strength from two to three while for Anaheim, this increases on-ice strength from four-to-five. The reason for this is that no team shall skate with an on-ice strength of less than three skaters.

Bonus: Playing five-on-three, the Ducks received a minor penalty at 1:24 due to Dustin Penner's interference against Jarret Stoll, creating a four-on-three situation. When LAK Williams' penalty expired at 1:31 and he exited the penalty box, the teams skated four-on-four even though each team had one player serving a penalty. The rules state play shall continue four-on-four, but at the next stoppage of play (prior to the expiration of either penalty), the strength shall be adjusted to three-on-three, the standard procedure for coincidental minor penalties during overtime. In this situation, the Kings skated four-on-three when Mitchell's penalty expired at 2:27 while both teams returned to full strength (4x4 for OT) when Penner's penalty expired at 3:24.

Close Call of the Week: Tomlin Steps Out (NFL)

Welcome to "Close Call of the Week," the CCS expansion of "Ask the UEFL" in which we analyze a significant play across the sports world and its resulting calls or no-calls. In this debut feature, we examine Pittsburgh Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin's sideline adventure during an NFL kickoff play on Thanksgiving Day.

The Play: With 6:26 remaining in the 3rd quarter of Thursday's Steelers-Ravens game, Steelers kicker Shaun Suisham kicked off to the opposing goal line, where Ravens return man Jacoby Jones caught the fly and returned the ball past midfield and into Steelers territory. As Jones approached the 40-yard line, Steelers coach Mike Tomlin appeared to be straddling the sideline at the 38-yard line with his back to the play, sidestepping onto the thick white stripe of the sideline as Jones approached. Jones appeared to have slightly altered his route, changing trajectory from running parallel to the sideline to a thirty degree angle in, his body position changed from being directly even with the sideline to clear of the two-foot long sideline hash mark before being tackled at the 27-yard line.

Question: Did Tomlin commit an infraction of the rules and if so, what is the appropriate penalty?

Short Answer: Yes, Tomlin's actions violated NFL rules. At minimum, Tomlin should have been penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct. The 15-yard penalty ("half the distance") would place the ball at the 13.5-yard line. At most, Tomlin could have been disqualified (ejected) for a flagrant or palpably unfair act and a touchdown awarded to Baltimore. Intent is not relevant in determining that Tomlin's positioning violated zone restrictions, though intent may be relevant in determining whether or not Tomlin's actions were flagrant or palpably unfair. Rules 1-1, 13-4, 13-5, AR 13.7, AR 13.8.

Explanation and References: NFL Football contains a series of restricting zones on both sidelines of the field, prescribing where chain crew, officials, coaches, situation substitution players, bench personnel and the media may—and may not—position themselves during play. When the ball becomes live, the six-foot "white stripe" of sideline closest to live ball territory is reserved for the chain crew and officials only, the next six feet between the 32-yard lines for coaches and situation substitution players only, followed by bench personnel further back and the media no closer than 36-feet (12-yards) removed from the field of play between both halves' 32-yard lines. Rules for marking or lining a field are codified in Rule 1-1 (The Field) while rules restricting team personnel to their respective zones are codified in Rules 13-4 and 13-5.

Because Tomlin clearly violated zone integrity, he should have been penalized, at minimum, 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct. Enforcement action 13-1(b) specifies the Referee (white hat) may, after consulting with crew, award the 15-yard penalty from "whatever spot...[he] deems equitable, if the ball was in play." If Tomlin's violation was considered flagrant, the Referee may have excluded or ejected him from the game.

Approved Ruling 13.7 and A.R. 13.8 specifically address the case of "coach in six-foot border." The NFL's official case book concludes that if the officials encounter a coach within the six-foot border (white stripe) and interference, impedance or any effect on play results, the officials "may enforce whatever penalty they think is equitable under the circumstances," including the negation or award of a score.

OFFICIATING ANALYSIS: This is an incorrect no-call (NCI). The proper call would have either been a 15-yard unsportsmanlike penalty ("half the distance") for infraction of Rule 13-1 or the award of a touchdown for this same violation; the difference between a Quality of Correctness of "correct" and "incorrect" for this call is whether or not the officials (1) recognized the foul and (2) enforced the penalty, which video evidence conclusively shows did occur. For the safety of participants involved (the (1) offending team personnel and (2) flank official whether side judge, field judge, head linesman or line judge), this penalty must be called.

Wrap: Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Baltimore Ravens (NFL Football), 11/28/13

Video: NBC's Cris Collinsworth questions Tomlin's thought process upon consultation of video instant replay