Puzzling GK interference call

[laxfan25]

Here is a situation I had recently that I had never encountered before, and I'm still pondering the call;
GKA makes a save. Winds up to throw a clearing pass. As he starts to throw, the ball falls out the back. Continues the pass, oblivious to the lack of a ball in his stick, and makes contact with the attackman on the crease with his normal throwing motion. Ball bounces up and the attackman bats it into the goal. The goal judge, a newbie, indicates goal. I come in and wave it off, claiming goalkeeper interference.
My thinking is that on a normal clear, the goalie can have passed the ball (no longer in his stick) and if he contacts the atackman on follow-through, you've got interference, play on. Since this all occured in the process of making the clear, I felt the same circumstance would apply.
Does it matter if he is on his back motion or starting to throw forward when it pops out?
I'm curious as to your thoughts. I've submitted this to my rules interpreter but haven't heard back yet.
Oh, and this was in overtime! Fortunately the coach of the team that scored didn't object (I sold the call well) so we just resumed play. Unfortunately his team then lost in the 2nd overtime. I don't think I've ever mused over a call as long as I have this one...

[LaxRef]

It's an interesting question, alright! It reminds me a little of the Tom Brady "tuck rule" call for some reason.

Of course, one key element is whether the goalie's stick is inside the cylinder or not when there's contact made. If it is, it's absolutely the right call.

If not, it's trickier. I would look at it like this: If the ball were sitting on the ground in the crease, not moving, and the goalie thought he had the ball and attempted an outlet pass in which contact was made with an attackman outside the crease, there's clearly no call (or interference on the goalie if the attackman is more than 5 yards from the ball, I guess).

In this situation, the goalie has lost possession and is clearly not in the act of passing when he drew the contact. The ball might be in the air, but otherwise is not substantively different from the previous case. Therefore I don't have a goalie interference call, and I think I let the goal stand.

But do I make this call in the game under pressure without having time to think about it in front of my computer? I have no idea!

Oh, here's another perspective. Suppose the GK attempts the outlet pass and the ball rolls out of his stick and into the goal (no contact from riding team). This is clearly a goal. Now, same situation, but he contacts an attackman's stick after the ball rolls out but before the ball enters the goal. Is there a reason that this contact should bail the goalie out and wipe out the goal?

[old geezer]

Even though the HS's in NC play NCAA rules, I have both the Fed and NCAA rules books. There is no interference with the goalie's stick unless the ball was more than 5 yards away or the stick was still within the imaginery crease 'cylinder'. Under your scenario, unless the contact with the goalie's crosse occurred inside the cylinder, it should have been a goal as the ball was loose, and the goalie was within 5 yds of the loose ball.

Your thinking that there is interference once the ball has left the keeper's stick is incorrect as there is no way that the attackman's contact with the goalie's stick can have any bearing on the flight of the ball. That would go against all laws of physics that I know( which are elementary at best). I have officiated for over 30 years and have seen the play that you have described many times and have never called interference on it as the ball is in flight but still within 5 yards of the players involved, therefore no interference. And even if the ball were more than 5 yards away on the pass, I still would not call interference unless the contact was very severe as the contact would not have put anybody at a disadvantage.

[CoachRob]

Slashing: ART. 3 . . . Striking an opponent in any part of the face, neck, chest, back, shoulders, groin or on the head with the crosse (including its butt end) except when done by a player in the act of passing, shooting or attempting to scoop the ball. In all situations, the player's gloved hand shall be considered part of the crosse, except when in contact with a line marking.

Since he was not in possession of the ball, he cannot be interfered with in this case as the attacker did not initiate the action, the GK did. So, if anything, I've got a possible slash AGAINST the GK. As soon as he lost the ball, it was free, and so long as the attacker did not touch the GK (so long as he is still in the crease) when he batted it into the goal, this is a LEGAL goal. What, should the attacker run away and let the GK retrieve his dropped ball? He has just as much right to it as the GK, so long as he doesn't strike the GK or his crosse inside the crease while going for the loose ball.

In fact, there is a case on point that makes this clearly is NOT GKI:
4.19 SITUATION K: There is a loose ball in the crease. A1 covers the ball to rake it back. Goalkeeper checks A1’s crosse. RULING: No interference.

In this case, the ball is also loose and the GK initiates the contact (as in your case).

In your situation, how do you know the attacker didn't see the ball falling out of the crosse, thereby maintaining his position instead of moving out of the way? You really don't. I think you missed this call. Had I been the coach, I would have been more than slightly irritated at the loss of the goal AND a free clear to the team that dropped the ball in their own crease. This would have initiated a coach's challenge.

[laxfan25]

Geezer, you bring up an interesting point. I've always just looked at whether a goalie makes contact with an attackman (typically stick) on a normal throwing motion, whether he has passed the ball or not, using the play on technique. Your opinion, which would seem to be valid, is that unless the contact affected the pass, or occurred in the crease cylinder, there is no violation. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, i've got to re-program my brain!

[laxfan25]

I think that is why I've been mulling over the call, that I was probably wrong. You gentlemen have nicely reinforced that opinion! :banghead:
LaxRef, the "tuck" rule also crossed my mind as well for some strange reason.
Advice like this is one of the reasons I'm so pleased to have found this forum today, even if the answers leave me chagrined. CoachRob, I will actually send an e-mail to that coach today. It may be late, but knowing him, I'm sure he will appreciate the thought! :sad:

[LaxRef]

I've always seen it called as interference if there was contact made on the legitimate follow-through of the goalie. However, I don't see any direct support for this in the rules. eme?

[old geezer]

Laxfan25, you are understanding me correctly. It is my opinion that once the ball has left the goalie's crosse that almost all contact between the goalie's crosse and an opponent's crosse is incidental. Sometimes it is a fine line to differentiate, sometimes it is a very fine line. I feel sure that in my earlier days of officiating that I called some interferences that really weren't interferences, but just incidental contact on the follow through.
On the other hand, I have called slashes on the goalie for trying to disguise his intent through the actions of passing the ball, but that has only happened twice in 30+ years of officiating. And don't worry about making mistakes, you will make literally 1000's of mistakes if you stay at this long enough. If you ever have a chance to talk with the very best officials in any sport and you ask them if they have made many mistakes in their careers, they'll probably roll their eyes and tell you that they've made too many to count. The difference between these officials and others is that they have learned from their mistakes and just don't repeat them, and it is called experience.

[LaxRef]

One of my favorite stories:

A young businessman asks an older and very successful businessman for the secret to success. The older man responds, "Good judgment!"

The younger man says, well, that's great, but how do you get good judgment? "Experience!" is the reply.

Well, yeah, but how do you get experience? The reply: "Bad judgment!"

This story could just as well be about officiating.

[laxfan25]

Geezer, It would certainly seem to fall under the "advantage gained" principle if he has already made the pass. I do think that most refs will call it if there is contact made on a normal follow-through. I have had one instance where it was very apparent that the goalie wanted to whack the attackman and I gave him a slash, but it is very rare. I think I will take your comments and put them into my mental casebook.
This is my 20th year reffing and 36th year of lacrosse, and it just goes to show that we can always be learning.
Thanks to all for your comments!

[CoachRob]

This is my 20th year reffing and 36th year of lacrosse, and it just goes to show that we can always be learning.
Thanks to all for your comments!

New name: LaxsOldestFan36

36 years? You were around when the Six Tribes of the Iroquois in upstate New York called their version of the game "baggataway" or "tewaraathon".

[laxfan25]

36 years? You were around when the Six Tribes of the Iroquois in upstate New York called their version of the game "baggataway" or "tewaraathon".

Being here in Michigan I can tell you about how me and my Indian buddies slaughtered the British garrison at Fort Michilimackinac under the guise of a lacrosse game being held in honor of King George's birthday. Man, there were a lot of slashing penalties that day!

[blindbill]

LF25,
Being in Michigan, how in the world could you be involved in LaX for 36 years? I'm from Mi. and I just discovered it last year!!! (I was there for that B-day party, but I thought it was just another war)

[laxfan25]

Easy! I spent the first 25 years of my life in Connecticut! Played HS and College there, starting out with wooden sticks, and then this newfangled orange thing came out from a new company called STX, they snapped like twigs. Moved to MI in '78 and played 15 yrs of club ball here, and started reffing in '85 as well.

[laxfan25]

As an update to my earlier post, I sent an e-mail to the coach who's goal I took away. He sent a very nice reply, saying he had put that one out of his mind long ago, and wrapped up by saying "Bottom line -don't sweat the call! My wife, Lindsay, and I decided you are the best official we've had. I now have an even greater respect for
you as a person having taken the time to send me this email to admit a
mistake. You have done a service for lacrosse by your actions on and
off the field, and I appreciate that you Honor the Game, the great game
I've invested so much of my life in. Thanks. Eric"

It just goes to show that if you treat the coaches the way you would like to be treated, it can really be a fun avocation, as I have found over these many years.

CoachRob, thanks for suggesting the apology!

[Lacrosse Ref LA]

I think this could go several different ways depending on the severity.
419 Situation J Can the goalkeeper be called for a personal foul if his crosse slashes an opposing player after an outlet pass ? Ruling : The privileges and protections of the goalkeeper do not permit him to gain an unfair advantage. Pretty Vague....unfair advantage, does that mean if you knock the guy out ? So you could go with a 1-3 minute Slashing penalty. Also this could apply
Unnecessary Roughness..Art. 3 Any avoidable act on the part of a player that is deliberate and excessively violent, whether it be with the body or the crosse.
I would probably go with that one or you could even go with a USC if it called for that. Anything other than a normal follow through where you hit the opponent could be a penalty. It is amazing how many goalies do not follow through with an attackman standing right in front of him begging to give the goalie's team a free clear. I don't think many coaches have ever played goalie.

[old geezer]

LA ref, at the middle school and youth levels, I have coached my goalie to do exactly that so that at least once we could get the ball to midfield. However, at the HS level, I never did that as most of the time it gave the opposing team the chance to set up defensively without having to go into transition defense. At the HS level, my goalies first look was upfield to a breaking middie as we tried to get a 4 on 3 or 5 on 3 transition set-up going. It is easier to score off an effective transition versus a half-field settled situation and I think that is why more coaches don't teach the goalie to try to make contact with a covering attackman on the crease.

[LaxRef]

Geezer, you bring up an interesting point. I've always just looked at whether a goalie makes contact with an attackman (typically stick) on a normal throwing motion, whether he has passed the ball or not, using the play on technique. Your opinion, which would seem to be valid, is that unless the contact affected the pass, or occurred in the crease cylinder, there is no violation. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, i've got to re-program my brain!

I've talked this over with some people, and the consensus is that you call GK interference even if the contact occurs after the ball leaves the stick since knowing that there will be unavoidable contact can affect the pass. Also, it's in line with the general philosophy of protecting the GK. I'll continue to call GK interference in these situations until we get word to do otherwise; it's just not wise to be the only person in the area who calls it differently.

[laxfan25]

I've talked this over with some people, and the consensus is that you call GK interference even if the contact occurs after the ball leaves the stick since knowing that there will be unavoidable contact can affect the pass. Also, it's in line with the general philosophy of protecting the GK. I'll continue to call GK interference in these situations until we get word to do otherwise; it's just not wise to be the only person in the area who calls it differently.

I do like his point about advantage gained. If the goalie has made the pass and there is just small contact with the stick, why not treat it like a brush? I've been doing what LaxRef said in the next post, always calling it if there is any contact on the follow-through. What's interesting is that this is not clearly addressed in the rule book - it must have been a mechanic or interpretation introduced to me many years ago.
Again, I think Geez raised a good point, but I probably won't change my calls as I finish up these last three games in the playoffs!

[laxref39]

Here is a situation I had recently that I had never encountered before, and I'm still pondering the call;
GKA makes a save. Winds up to throw a clearing pass. As he starts to throw, the ball falls out the back. Continues the pass, oblivious to the lack of a ball in his stick, and makes contact with the attackman on the crease with his normal throwing motion. Ball bounces up and the attackman bats it into the goal. The goal judge, a newbie, indicates goal. I come in and wave it off, claiming goalkeeper interference.
My thinking is that on a normal clear, the goalie can have passed the ball (no longer in his stick) and if he contacts the atackman on follow-through, you've got interference, play on. Since this all occured in the process of making the clear, I felt the same circumstance would apply.
Does it matter if he is on his back motion or starting to throw forward when it pops out?
I'm curious as to your thoughts. I've submitted this to my rules interpreter but haven't heard back yet.
Oh, and this was in overtime! Fortunately the coach of the team that scored didn't object (I sold the call well) so we just resumed play. Unfortunately his team then lost in the 2nd overtime. I don't think I've ever mused over a call as long as I have this one...
I am going with goalie interference! On a loose ball in the crease, the goalies stick may not be checked/hit therefore goilie interference, no goal ball awarded to d 20 yards lateral.

[laxfan25]

In this case the goalie's stick was extended outside the cylinder when he initiated the contact. I wouldn't give him goal crease protection in that case. I still feel I was wrong. when he dropped the ball out the back, he was no longer in possession, so he wasn't making a clearing pass. If, on the other hand, he made contact with the attackman's stick in the crease as he went to retrieve the bouncing ball, it definitely is no goal.

[LaxRef]

I am going with goalie interference! On a loose ball in the crease, the goalies stick may not be checked/hit therefore goilie interference, no goal ball awarded to d 20 yards lateral.

That's not entirely correct. First of all, the GK's stick wasn't checked; the GK initiated contact with a stationary player. And in this case, he doesn't have protection on a clearing pass because there's a loose ball. If you rule it this way, then any time the ball is loose in the crease, the GK could pretend to make a pass, intentionally making contact with the offense, and say, "Well, I thought I had the ball, so you need to give us the ball outside the box!"

Secondly, the goalie's stick may be checked on a loose ball in the crease if it's within 5 yards of a loose ball and if the check is on part of the GK's crosse outside the crease.

[Lacrosse Ref LA]

I always would be trying to get it to that open middie or defenseman breaking out for a fast break. I would use it more like an insurance policy for when that middie or defenseman did not catch the ball and it is lost in the neutral zone. Most of the time the goalie pulls back on these passes so he does not hit a little, pesky, (not well coached) attackman standing in front of him.

[laxref39]

That's not entirely correct. First of all, the GK's stick wasn't checked; the GK initiated contact with a stationary player. And in this case, he doesn't have protection on a clearing pass because there's a loose ball. If you rule it this way, then any time the ball is loose in the crease, the GK could pretend to make a pass, intentionally making contact with the offense, and say, "Well, I thought I had the ball, so you need to give us the ball outside the box!"

Secondly, the goalie's stick may be checked on a loose ball in the crease if it's within 5 yards of a loose ball and if the check is on part of the GK's crosse outside the crease.
Don't have 2005 nfhs book handy but 2004 states in rule 4-19 art.2 No opposing player shall make contact with the goalkeeper or his crosse while the goalkeeper is within the goal crease area, regardless of whether the goalkeeper has the ball in his possesion.... This point is further emphasised in rule 6-2 art.3. There is no point of emphasis in who initiates contact but that the contact implies interference with the goalie! The NCAA2005 rule book has similar verbage.

[LaxRef]

Don't have 2005 nfhs book handy but 2004 states in rule 4-19 art.2 No opposing player shall make contact with the goalkeeper or his crosse while the goalkeeper is within the goal crease area, regardless of whether the goalkeeper has the ball in his possesion.... This point is further emphasised in rule 6-2 art.3. There is no point of emphasis in who initiates contact but that the contact implies interference with the goalie!

That's just not correct; you missed Art. 3. Here are some relevant rules and A.R.s (NCAA, but I think they're all in the NFHS book as well). See A.R. 85 in particular.

4-19-c. The crosse of the goalkeeper, but not his body, when extended outside the cylinder above the crease area, is subject to being checked under the same circumstances as the crosse of any other player, except when the ball is in the crosse.

A.R. 79. Loose ball in front of crease. Goalkeeper B1 reaches out to pick up ball, and A1 checks B1’s crosse. RULING: Legal play. Goalkeeper does not have possession of the ball.

A.R. 81. The goalkeeper is in the crease, making a pass to begin his clear. Goalkeeper’s crosse collides with crosse of A1, who is standing on the edge of the crease with his crosse in a covering position, thus causing ball to drop to the ground. Interference by A1, play-on. Goalkeeper, while clearing from the crease, has protection on passes for clear, regardless of whether the attack player moves his crosse. Play continues or award ball to Team B at center of field.

A.R. 85. There is a loose ball in the crease. A1 covers the ball to rake it back. Goalkeeper checks A1’s crosse. RULING: No interference.

Think about it: if it didn't matter who initiated the contact, then the goalie in the crease could just reach out and touch an attackman at any time to draw a technical foul.

[laxref39]

That's just not correct; you missed Art. 3. Here are some relevant rules and A.R.s (NCAA, but I think they're all in the NFHS book as well). See A.R. 85 in particular.



Think about it: if it didn't matter who initiated the contact, then the goalie in the crease could just reach out and touch an attackman at any time to draw a technical foul.
My understanding from laxref25 is that the ball was still in the crease, i did not miss art3 I beleive it pertains to a loose ball outside the crease. See A.R. 103 in the NCAA book where it stipulates 1. ball in the crease and 2.ball outside the crease. When all is said and done and the specifics of the sitution can be questioned I think I would still call the interference! In ar 103 it states "the two crosses collide". Contact with the goalkeepers crosse is not allowed if the ball is in possesion of the goalkeeper or if the ball is loose in the crease and the goalkeeper is also in the crease.

[LaxRef]

My understanding from laxref25 is that the ball was still in the crease, i did not miss art3 I beleive it pertains to a loose ball outside the crease. See A.R. 103 in the NCAA book where it stipulates 1. ball in the crease and 2.ball outside the crease. When all is said and done and the specifics of the sitution can be questioned I think I would still call the interference! In ar 103 it states "the two crosses collide". Contact with the goalkeepers crosse is not allowed if the ball is in possesion of the goalkeeper or if the ball is loose in the crease and the goalkeeper is also in the crease.

I think you're misreading Art. 3 and A.R. 103. Note that Art. 3 says nothing about where the ball is, only where the crosse is. If the crosse is outside the crease and there's no possession, it may be checked. Now, A.R. 103 says:

A.R. 103. Goalkeeper B1 makes save, but the ball bounces out of his crosse and is in the air in front of goal. A1 bats at ball while goalkeeper is making attempt to gain possession of ball, and the two crosses collide. Is this interference with (1) ball within crease? (2) ball outside crease? RULING: (1) Interference by A1, play-on. Play continues or ball awarded to defense outside the attack area. (2) No interference.

The only reason the location of the ball matters here is that the GK and A1 are playing the ball. If the ball is inside the crease, A1 illegally contacts the GKs crosse because the crosse is inside the crease (How do I know this? Because the GK is attempting to gain possession of the ball, and that's where the ball is).

If the ball is outside the crease and the GK is trying to get it, he must have his crosse extended outside the cylinder of the crease, and so--since there's no possession--there's no interference.

Taking a good, hard second look at this A.R., I will wholeheartedly agree that the wording is very confusing unless you're looking at it with Art. 3 directly in mind. Fortunately, Art. 3 (or c. in NCAA) is very clear: nowhere does it mention where the ball is, only where the crosse is.

To further support this view, look at:

A.R. 85. There is a loose ball in the crease. A1 covers the ball to rake it back. Goalkeeper checks A1’s crosse. RULING: No interference.

If it were true that any contact between the GK and A1 was interference when the ball was loose in the crease, there's no way that they could rule "no interference" here.

And in laxfan25's case, we have the GK checking A1's stick when the ball is loose inside the crease but A1's crosse is outside the crease; if it isn't interference in A.R. 85, when A1's crosse is in the crease, it sure can't be interference here when A1's crosse is out of the crease and the goalie initiates the contact!

[old geezer]

I've talked this over with some people, and the consensus is that you call GK interference even if the contact occurs after the ball leaves the stick since knowing that there will be unavoidable contact can affect the pass. Also, it's in line with the general philosophy of protecting the GK. I'll continue to call GK interference in these situations until we get word to do otherwise; it's just not wise to be the only person in the area who calls it differently.

I am basing my response on my 31 years of officiating, both collegiate and scholastic, and on my 11 years of coaching and my limited time in the goal as an emergency backup goalie for both my college team and summer leagues( I was a defenseman and didn't see much difference between being a D-man and a goalie, man, was I evermore wrong).

I currently have two former goalies playing collegiately, a sophomore at a D-3 school where he starts and a freshman at a D-2 school he started about 1/3 of his team's games this spring, so I think that I have done something right. I coached all my goalies to focus on the outlet pass and not to worry about the man on the crease as it is incumbent on the riding opponent to get out of my goalie's way, not my goalie's duty to get out of the opponent's way. As a result, the riding attackman never affected our goalie's clears except when there was interference with the ball still in his crosse. When I was at the MS level and I was working with beginning goalies in practice, I used to put 1 or 2 attackman on the crease during clearing drills so that the goalie would be used to this and would not let this situation affect him in a game. By still calling interference in the quoted manner above, it is my opinion that you are rewarding a poorly coached goalie rather than applying the rules of the game.

So much for my coaching philosophy, now for my officiating philosophy. I stress to all officials something that I picked up from officiating basketball, call what happens, not what you think happens. Generally, it is not an official's job to read into the play what he thinks is going through the player's mind, it is his job to call or not call what happens. If you adjudicate the rules properly and fairly, then it is the coaches job to correct his own player's shortcomings. I have yet to have any coach continue to disagree with me when I tell him that the ball had already left the goalie's crosse, therefore there was no interference.

Lastly, in your posting of 11:57 last night, you covered all the bases, good job.

[ragnut]

So, I don't think we ever got a solid definite answer to the original situation. Sometimes, I think it's best not to look at different rules so technically, but to go with what makes the most sense. In this case: the GK dropped the ball (in my opinion, this was not a pass -- big difference in this case), crosse contact was initiated by the goalie, then the attackman cleanly puts the ball in the goal. Sounds like this should be a goal. If the rules are not clear on this now, sounds like they should be changed so that this is legitimately scored a goal.

[laxfan25]

I think most are in agreement that I blew that call. As you noted, he dropped the ball (so no possession) and he initiated contact outside the crease, so it wouldn't be interference, and the goal should have counted. My bad.

[shrekjr]

So, I don't think we ever got a solid definite answer to the original situation. Sometimes, I think it's best not to look at different rules so technically, but to go with what makes the most sense. In this case: the GK dropped the ball (in my opinion, this was not a pass -- big difference in this case), crosse contact was initiated by the goalie, then the attackman cleanly puts the ball in the goal. Sounds like this should be a goal. If the rules are not clear on this now, sounds like they should be changed so that this is legitimately scored a goal.
I agree with Ragnut.

[LaxRef]

I think most are in agreement that I blew that call. As you noted, he dropped the ball (so no possession) and he initiated contact outside the crease, so it wouldn't be interference, and the goal should have counted. My bad.

The only way you can avoid occasionally blowing calls like this is to quit officiating. The important thing is to learn from them so you don't keep making the same mistakes. And, as I've often pointed out, it's comforting to me when officials more experienced than I am make mistakes, since then I don't feel so bad about doing it myself!

[laxfan25]

What was nice was that I wrote to the coach who was the recipient of the bad call. He had already put it out of his mind, but appreciated the thought! It raised my status in his mind a great deal, and will benefit me down the road. Also, I won't make that mistake again, but there will be plenty of opportunity for others! The good thing is that on many occasions when we do make a mistake, our LaxForum compatriots aren't there to hoot and holler, since they're they only ones that would know it!

[LaxRef]

The good thing is that on many occasions when we do make a mistake, our LaxForum compatriots aren't there to hoot and holler, since they're they only ones that would know it!

I went to see a HS game this spring, and I'm always careful not to complain about calls made by my fellow officials, even when I disagree vehemently. I will explain to people around me what a particular call was, though.

Anyway, at halftime of this game, I went over to chat with the officials. I told them "I just wanted to warn you that the crowd is ready to turn on you. One missed call, and you will be mocked and booed until my throat is sore!"

[laxfan25]

So you're saying it's bad form when working on the bench side and your partner on the far side makes a "questionable" call to turn to the coaches and say "I have NO idea what he's doing over there!"?? Even worse than heckling your fellow zebras from the stands?
I agree, we've got to stand together, not matter how lousy that guy is! :crazy:

[shrekjr]

So you're saying it's bad form when working on the bench side and your partner on the far side makes a "questionable" call to turn to the coaches and say "I have NO idea what he's doing over there!"?? Even worse than heckling your fellow zebras from the stands?
I agree, we've got to stand together, not matter how lousy that guy is! :crazy:
To an extent. Obviously, as an official in the game, I'm not going to allow a misapplication of the rules, but as a fan when you can't do anything about it at the time, it is a fine line between standing together and speaking up for what is right. The main thing we have to remember is perception. If everyone in the stands knows you're an official, and you start yelling at the officials in the game, the fans will jump on the bandwagon in a hurry and make the rest of the game miserable for the officals. But I have been known as a fan to peacefully acknowledge an incorrect call in a game to those nearby in the stands, and save the embarrassment of telling the officials they were wrong until after the game when we can do it one-on-one, face to face quietly.