Sorting through the aftermath of Bulldogs' loss

I've been on most sides of the story when it comes to Friday night football. I was a referee in the North Idaho Officials Association for three years. I coached for six years at Coeur d'Alene and Lakeside High Schools and even played many moons ago. And now I'm in my second year covering the games as a sportswriter. In short, it's a few different colored pair of glasses with which I viewed the controversial play in Sandpoint's 28-24 loss to Bishop Kelly on Friday night.

First off, I'd be remiss not to talk about the effort put forth by the entire Bulldogs' football team. They gave up two big plays and fell behind by 14 points just five minutes into the game. Instead of pushing the panic button and abandoning the game plan as so often happens, they kept their resolve, stuck to their guns and pretty much manhandled the two-time defending state champs while scoring 24 unanswered points. Bishop Kelly had no choice but to finally resort to deception and trickery to help move the ball and score another touchdown.

Running back Kurt Stoll had the greatest individual effort I've ever seen from a high school player. In horse racing parlance, Stoll would be called a 'mudder' — a horse that does well on a wet and muddy track. Carrying 40 times for a hard-fought 200-plus yards against a defense designed to stop him is worthy of admiration. He never fumbled despite a soaked ball and absorbing hundreds of hits, running hard behind an offensive line that won their own little battle in the trenches. Throw in the fact that he also played the entire game at safety, making a host of tackles as well as an interception, and you saw a player who actually embodied the old cliche of 'leaving it all on the field.'

Back to the fumblerooskie — or what was essentially its legal equivalent. Since the old rooskie — where the quarterback would put the ball on the ground after a snap for one of his lineman to pick up and sneak off with — was recently made illegal, a slight variation of the same play was run by the Knights. In this play the quarterback took the snap and immediately handed the ball to his left guard, then faked a sweep with the rest of the team in the opposite direction. The guard took the ball, stood frozen with his back to the defense for about two seconds, then took off in the opposite direction for a 40-yard touchdown.

Upon watching the play a dozen times on video, one thing really stood out to me. Bulldogs' defensive lineman Aaron Griggs had the Knights' guard wrapped up in a bear hug for a full two seconds, then released him, not knowing he had the ball, to chase after the fake with the rest of his teammates. Griggs did the right thing, exactly what he is coached to do. If he were to just tackle an offensive lineman away from the play it would be considered defensive holding, and possibly even a personal foul for unsportsmanlike conduct. This is where the deception that made the original fumblerooskie illegal becomes evident. Short of coaching defensive lineman to tackle offensive linemen whenever they're unsure if they're hiding a ball, this play is nearly indefensible.

On Monday, Sandpoint principal Becky Kiebert filed a formal protest with the Idaho High School Athletic Assiciation. The tenor of the protest was less one of sour grapes, and more about making sure fairness prevailed and getting an explanation. If nothing else, the protest will make officials look at the play and maybe make a rule change, as they did with the fumblerooskie.

Bulldogs' coach Mike Mitchell is a little more vehement in his belief that the officials got it wrong.

"They can argue and argue that they made the right call, but they didn't," he said from his office on Monday. "The film doesn't lie."

Mitchell believes the guard was not behind the line of scrimmage by a full yard, as mandated for a legal forward handoff to an offensive lineman. He points out the rule book also says a legal handoff must be 'to a back or teammate who, at the snap, was on an end of his line and was not the snapper nor adjacent to the snapper.' In this case the guard was adjacent to the snapper and was not the end man on the line of scrimmage. He also notes that even if all of the above were done legally, the ball carrier should still have been ruled down because of forward progress being stopped with the ball carrier in the grasp — in this case for a full two seconds by Griggs.

Jim Kravik, commissioner of the North Idaho Officials Association, believes the right call was made by the crew. There are case books that give examples of this play being legal, and upon watching the video, Kravic believes the Knights met all of the criteria for a legal play.

"I concluded the officials were correct, they made the right non-call," said Kravic, who is sympathetic to Mitchell, but believes until there is a subsequent rule change, the play can continue to take place. "We don't have the luxury of instant replay."

John Billetz, the executive director of the Idaho High School Activities Association in Boise, talked to the rules committee chairman of the National Federation of High Schools, who said the rule was applied correctly. He talked to four other rules experts and said there was no higher authority to appeal to.

"Even if the officials had made the wrong call, all you can do is write a letter of apology and maybe suspend the official," noted Billetz, saying it's just a part of sports. "That's the way things happen. It was an unfortunate situation, but the rule was applied correctly."

For Mitchell, it's a much harder pill to swallow. He was in the locker room after the game as his devastated team released their emotions. He understood the sacrifice put forth by both coaches and players for an entire season.

"If it had been 38-18 — we lost. But to lose like that doesn't sit well; Aaron had the guy," says Mitchell, whose been coaching for more than 30 years, the last 20 at the college level. "To me it was an illegal play; the kids got a raw deal. I'm going to continue coaching the game the way it's supposed to be played. I don't want to sound like sour grapes, but I think it was unethical."

For questions, comments or story ideas, Eric Plummer can be reached at 208-263-7392, ext. 226, or via email at eplummer@cdapress.com.