The Objective Is to Carry the Ball Into End Zone

Zebra-bashing is not my style. Men in striped shirts--football officials--already receive enough criticism as it is, much of it underserved, and the same goes for baseball umpires, basketball officials and hockey linesmen, too. These people are underpaid and underpraised.

However. . . .

In a football game Saturday at South Bend, Ind., the team from Southern California was defeated by its hated rival from Midwestern Indiana, 24-20, principally because of a referee’s terrible call.

(Not a terrible referee’s call; a referee’s terrible call. There’s a difference.)

When Tony Brooks of Notre Dame was awarded a touchdown, even though he fumbled the football short of the goal line, the game was taken out of the USC Trojans’ hands forever by an official who had no recourse but to call what he saw.

And that is exactly the problem with football today--not the officials, but the rules.

USC was taken out of--not cheated out of, because that implies intent--a significant football victory over Notre Dame because of a call that defies logic, a call that epitomizes the single biggest drawback in the sport of football today.

That being, decisions based on opinion rather than fact.

By that, I mean this:

--Fumbles are not necessarily fumbles. They are only fumbles if officials judge them to be fumbles.

--Pass interference is not necessarily pass intereference. It is only interference if an official says so.

--Tackling is not necessarily tackling. A player is “down” or “in the grasp” only because an official says that he is.

And sadly, this is all so curable.

Not only by instant replay, although the delays caused in NFL games by instant replay are often worth the trouble.

No, the trouble with football is that the game is oblong and the rules are obtuse.

In a sport measured to the millimeter by chains, officials are permitted--no, required--to arbitrarily decide whether a rusher “broke the invisible plane” of the end zone, or exactly where a punt flew out of bounds, even though the kick sailed 50 feet above the official’s head.

We could fix most of this in about an hour. Terry Bradshaw of CBS also had some excellent ideas on this subject recently, although several of them appeared to be in jest, and at times it was difficult to tell when Bradshaw was being serious.

For now, let us confine ourselves to a few simple issues:

--Fumbles. If a player does not have the football when the play is over, it’s a fumble. If he does have it, it’s not a fumble. What could be more simple?

This nonsense of “the ground causing the fumble” or--as in Notre Dame’s case Saturday against USC--a player having “crossed the goal line” before fumbling--must end and end soon. If a player in the end zone has the football when the whistle blows, it should be a touchdown. Otherwise, not.

--Pass interference. If a player catches a pass, it’s a catch. If he doesn’t catch it, it’s incomplete. Let the receiver and defenders do anything they please in between. A catch is a catch, a miss is a miss.

--Tackling. “In the grasp” is an excellent concept, intended to reduce injuries. But it is preposterously subjective. Most football players choose their sport voluntarily. They know the risks. If their knee touches down while an opponent is touching them , that should mean he is down. Otherwise, not.

Football already is burdened with all these unfathomable calls against linemen, when men using their arms, elbows, wrists and knuckles are found guilty of “holding” by someone standing 50 feet away who arbitrarily decides that the man is illegally using his palms.

Holding calls are interrupting, and spoiling, good football games more than anything else in the sport. Let them hold. These are big boys. They can take care of themselves. Eliminate holding. Change the rules.

Force the punter to punt the ball in bounds. Make it land in bounds. If it doesn’t, make him do it over, five yards back, same as with a kickoff. Why should a punter be permitted to boot the ball into the cheerleaders? Change the rules.

One thing more:

USC also lost to Notre Dame because an onside kick, apparently recovered by Marvin Pollard of the Trojans, was instead awarded to Irv Smith of the Irish.

And that is the entire point of this essay. That is the entire point of the Brooks play, for that matter.

If you have the football at the end of the play, you have it. If you don’t, you don’t. The USC guy had it. End of discussion.