NFHS 2022 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES PRESS RELEASE

[NVFOA_Ump]

You are correct. A scrambling QB rolling outside the FBZ is fine even if his scramble brings him back inside. By the way, we used the term FBZ in lieu of 'tackle box' because in 9.8 & 6-man there ain't no tackles. The FBZ is 3 yds. each side of snapper in 9,8,& 6.

Once the ball leaves the FBZ doesn't the FBZ cease to exist?

[HLinNC]

Once the ball leaves the FBZ doesn't the FBZ cease to exist?

For legal BBW yes.  I imagine that it will now carry forward for the purposes of the passer just like the neutral zone does for a legal/illegal forward pass.

[Ralph Damren]

Once the ball leaves the FBZ doesn't the FBZ cease to exist?

For this rule, the FBZ remains and stretches all the way back to the end line. For practical purposes, the three states that ran this as experimental considered the passer out of the FBZ if he has taken 3 steps to either side.

[Ralph Damren]

On point #1, I would respond that the back- in legal motion - wasn't directly behind the snapper at the snap, as his interception of the snap came slightly thereafter.

On Point #2, you have a good point and I'll contact our editor, Bob Colgate, to get a clarification. Thanks for the suggestion.

AFTER FURTHER REVIEW BY THE REPLAY OFFICIAL (one who designed this for an experimental state) : 'positioned directly behind the snapper' applies only to Exception #1 (spiking the ball) and 'to conserve yardage' would include a passer dumping the pass to stop the clock as the slow-footed big ole' Bubbas would someday get to him.

Thanks, NCwingman, for bringing this up. I'd rather drop the ball here than at an auditorium full of coaches that I'll be yapping to this Friday.
                  :'(

[NVFOA_Ump]

For this rule, the FBZ remains and stretches all the way back to the end line. For practical purposes, the three states that ran this as experimental considered the passer out of the FBZ if he has taken 3 steps to either side.

So is the current FBZ language going to be completely rewritten for this change?

[Ralph Damren]

So is the current FBZ language going to be completely rewritten for this change?

No, only defining the parameters the passer must leave before heaving the football for this rule.

[NVFOA_Ump]

No, only defining the parameters the passer must leave before heaving the football for this rule.

So does that mean that once the ball has left the FBZ that there no longer is a FBZ?

[AlUpstateNY]

Somebody whizzed in Al’s Wheaties......

Help me understand Bama, what happened to the concept of "Balance & Risk vs Reward"?  Offense still decides what play they CHOOSE to run, and Defense has to deal with, and react to, O's decision.  IFP requires O to live with their decision.  If they "bail" they suffer the consequence of the "succeeding spot" being the spot where they bailed + a 5 yd penalty (Current exception for "Spike").

Why give O the benefit of allowing them to scramble wherever, and when all else fails, simply "DUMP" the pass and go back to the original succeeding spot?  Eliminating the 5 yd penalty is one option, but allowing them to ignore all that scrambling distance (caused by an effective Defense) seems a bit EXCESSIVE.

NCAA and NFL have their own considerations, but NFHS is STILL a learning level where "Balance & Risk vs Reward" are primary values.

[KWH]

So does that mean that once the ball has left the FBZ that there no longer is a FBZ?

Don't try to make this too complicated because it is not.

2-17-1 The FBZ is 4-yards either side of the snap of the football. (This determines where the passer must be outside of)
2-17-4 The FBZ disintegrates when the ball leaves the zone.  (This is for blocking purposes)


The new rule will use the term the lateral boundary of the FBZ as determined at the snap. (Or something very similar)
This simply determines the area that the passer must have been outside of sometime during the play to meet 1/2 of the requirement to legally terminate the play.. Once out always out.

For the purpose of getting out of the FBZ, the lateral boundary(s) of the FBZ remains until the Passer has been outside.

Restated, YES, the FBZ may have disintegrated for blocking purposes (such as when the QB drops back more than 3 yards) but the lateral boundary of the FBZ remains for the simple purpose of the judging the new rule.

Again, lets not complicate this!
I hope this makes sense! 
I completely agree with bama_stripes, somebody must have whizzed in Alf's Wheaties!

[CalhounLJ]

Don't try to make this too complicated because it is not.

2-17-1 The FBZ is 4-yards either side of the snap of the football. (This determines where the passer must be outside of)
2-17-4 The FBZ disintegrates when the ball leaves the zone.  (This is for blocking purposes)


The new rule will use the term the lateral boundary of the FBZ as determined at the snap. (Or something very similar)
This simply determines the area that the passer must have been outside of sometime during the play to meet 1/2 of the requirement to legally terminate the play.. Once out always out.

For the purpose of getting out of the FBZ, the lateral boundary(s) of the FBZ remains until the Passer has been outside.

Restated, YES, the FBZ may have disintegrated for blocking purposes (such as when the QB drops back more than 3 yards) but the lateral boundary of the FBZ remains for the simple purpose of the judging the new rule.

Again, lets not complicate this!
I hope this makes sense! 
I completely agree with bama_stripes, somebody must have whizzed in Alf's Wheaties!

I agree this is simple enough. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I like that NFHS has made this similar to NCAA. This will be less confusing for coaches on Friday night. On the other hand, I agree with Al that we shouldn’t be giving A the freedom to just dump the ball. Especially when pressured. As my mentor used to say, I don’t write em, I just memorize and enforce em.  This one will not be difficult to enforce. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

The new rule will use the term the lateral boundary of the FBZ as determined at the snap. (Or something very similar)
This simply determines the area that the passer must have been outside of sometime during the play to meet 1/2 of the requirement to legally terminate the play.. Once out always out.

I would be surprised if the word lateral is used in an NFHS rulebook but not real surprised if a "new rule" piggybacks on an existing rule even if that existing rule is not a real good fit (think succeeding spot & OT).  IMHO not a good idea - just one man's opinion.

[bossman72]

One thing that helps us in college determine the tackle box parameters is making sure the U/C spots the ball at one of 5 lateral positions.  Left hash, left upright, middle, right upright, right hash.  So, if the runner is down between the right hash and right upright, put it at one of those two spots and not in the exact spot where he went down.

What helps is that each position gives you a pretty good rough estimate of the lateral confines of the tackle box (or in our case, the FBZ).  So if the ball is spotted on the left upright, the left side of the pocket is the left hash, and the right side is the middle of the field.  So, if you happen to lose your bearings during the play and you're unsure if where he threw the ball was in or out, you can use those landmarks to assist you.  I've verified this on film and it's almost spot on.  If the U/C doesn't use those lateral spots for the ball, then you're SOL. 

Now, I'd like to see how this lines up with the NFHS fields where the uprights are slightly wider and the hashes are slightly wider.  Do we keep 1-5 or do we need 1-7?  I'd like to see some film from an EZ angle to determine this.

[KWH]

Agree completely with Bossman!

Positions 1-5 are recommended with the exception of 9-Player man which, like the NFL, only uses positions 1-3
(See the 9-Man diagram and you will see why)

It is also recommended that the R now have two wrist bands.
1 - To keep track of the down.
2 - To keep track of the ball position at the snap! This will greatly assist when the R goes brain dead determining where the lateral boundaries of the FBZ are?  For 1-2-3-4-5 operating instructions, ask your favorite Umpire!

[NVFOA_Ump]

One thing that helps us in college determine the tackle box parameters is making sure the U/C spots the ball at one of 5 lateral positions.  Left hash, left upright, middle, right upright, right hash.  So, if the runner is down between the right hash and right upright, put it at one of those two spots and not in the exact spot where he went down.

What helps is that each position gives you a pretty good rough estimate of the lateral confines of the tackle box (or in our case, the FBZ).  So if the ball is spotted on the left upright, the left side of the pocket is the left hash, and the right side is the middle of the field.  So, if you happen to lose your bearings during the play and you're unsure if where he threw the ball was in or out, you can use those landmarks to assist you.  I've verified this on film and it's almost spot on.  If the U/C doesn't use those lateral spots for the ball, then you're SOL. 

Now, I'd like to see how this lines up with the NFHS fields where the uprights are slightly wider and the hashes are slightly wider.  Do we keep 1-5 or do we need 1-7?  I'd like to see some film from an EZ angle to determine this.

  - I believe that the 5 positions is more than adequate.

[CalhounLJ]

One thing that helps us in college determine the tackle box parameters is making sure the U/C spots the ball at one of 5 lateral positions.  Left hash, left upright, middle, right upright, right hash.  So, if the runner is down between the right hash and right upright, put it at one of those two spots and not in the exact spot where he went down.

What helps is that each position gives you a pretty good rough estimate of the lateral confines of the tackle box (or in our case, the FBZ).  So if the ball is spotted on the left upright, the left side of the pocket is the left hash, and the right side is the middle of the field.  So, if you happen to lose your bearings during the play and you're unsure if where he threw the ball was in or out, you can use those landmarks to assist you.  I've verified this on film and it's almost spot on.  If the U/C doesn't use those lateral spots for the ball, then you're SOL. 

Now, I'd like to see how this lines up with the NFHS fields where the uprights are slightly wider and the hashes are slightly wider.  Do we keep 1-5 or do we need 1-7?  I'd like to see some film from an EZ angle to determine this.

Thanks bossman. I agree completely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ncwingman]

AFTER FURTHER REVIEW BY THE REPLAY OFFICIAL (one who designed this for an experimental state) : 'positioned directly behind the snapper' applies only to Exception #1 (spiking the ball) and 'to conserve yardage' would include a passer dumping the pass to stop the clock as the slow-footed big ole' Bubbas would someday get to him.

Thanks, NCwingman, for bringing this up. I'd rather drop the ball here than at an auditorium full of coaches that I'll be yapping to this Friday.
                  :'(

Just to clarify then, the intent of the rule is that any player that can throw a legal forward pass can utilize Exception #2?

Probably unlikely scenario as a follow up: What if A88 lines up as a slot receiver, outside the FBZ. After the snap, he runs behind the QB and receives a hand off with the intent of throwing a pass - but immediately sees a LB in his face, so he just chucks the ball across the LOS, out of bounds. A88 was outside the FBZ at the snap, but the ball never left the lateral boundary of FBZ. Since the rule you quoted says "the player", that sounds legal under the exception?

[Ralph Damren]

Just to clarify then, the intent of the rule is that any player that can throw a legal forward pass can utilize Exception #2?

Probably unlikely scenario as a follow up: What if A88 lines up as a slot receiver, outside the FBZ. After the snap, he runs behind the QB and receives a hand off with the intent of throwing a pass - but immediately sees a LB in his face, so he just chucks the ball across the LOS, out of bounds. A88 was outside the FBZ at the snap, but the ball never left the lateral boundary of FBZ. Since the rule you quoted says "the player", that sounds legal under the exception?

While it may sound legal, as the basic rule is written, it may be addresses in a case play. A new rule always brings a lobster crate of case plays with it and this is our major rule change. IMHO, I would be concerned where the player was when he received the ball. If he received the handoff within the FBZ, I feel he would still have to leave it to get the exception. The ref would probably be focused on the ball and not where the player was coming from.

[bama_stripes]

Help me understand Bama, what happened to the concept of "Balance & Risk vs Reward"?  Offense still decides what play they CHOOSE to run, and Defense has to deal with, and react to, O's decision.  IFP requires O to live with their decision.  If they "bail" they suffer the consequence of the "succeeding spot" being the spot where they bailed + a 5 yd penalty (Current exception for "Spike").

Why give O the benefit of allowing them to scramble wherever, and when all else fails, simply "DUMP" the pass and go back to the original succeeding spot?  Eliminating the 5 yd penalty is one option, but allowing them to ignore all that scrambling distance (caused by an effective Defense) seems a bit EXCESSIVE.

NCAA and NFL have their own considerations, but NFHS is STILL a learning level where "Balance & Risk vs Reward" are primary values.

I’m on record as not liking this change, for the very reasons you’ve enumerated.  However, Inwill enforce this rule as written, and I won’t be publicly referring to the new rule as “a waste of time and a cluster****” as you did.

[AlUpstateNY]

I’m on record as not liking this change, for the very reasons you’ve enumerated.  However, Inwill enforce this rule as written, and I won’t be publicly referring to the new rule as “a waste of time and a cluster****” as you did.

I fully accept my job is to thoroughly understand, and consistently enforce the rules as presented and determined by the NFHS Rules Committee.  Nevertheless, I still believe I'm still entitled to voice an opinion as to what I believe the benefit and effect a new rule may (or MAY NOT) have on the NFHS level of Football.

What may be considered appropriate, necessary and/or practical at other levels of Football may, or OFTEN MAY NOT prove to be as beneficial to the NFHS level.  I try and be practical, and specific,  about how I choose to season my Wheaties, and at times have been proven wrong. 

If you see some overriding benefit, or practical necessity to this exception expansion that I'm overlooking, please enlighten me and help me understand what I'm missing.     

[CalhounLJ]

I fully accept my job is to thoroughly understand, and consistently enforce the rules as presented and determined by the NFHS Rules Committee.  Nevertheless, I still believe I'm still entitled to voice an opinion as to what I believe the benefit and effect a new rule may (or MAY NOT) have on the NFHS level of Football.

What may be considered appropriate, necessary and/or practical at other levels of Football may, or OFTEN MAY NOT prove to be as beneficial to the NFHS level.  I try and be practical, and specific,  about how I choose to season my Wheaties, and at times have been proven wrong. 

If you see some overriding benefit, or practical necessity to this exception expansion that I'm overlooking, please enlighten me and help me understand what I'm missing.   

One obvious benefit is decreased contact on the QB. I realize that the "no need to be pressured" element of this rule contradicts that thought, but surely there will be times when the QB avoids possible injury by getting rid of the ball instead of holding on and taking the hit. It's important, especially at this level of the game, to adjust and adapt the rules so as to give the most protection to the most vulnerable players. As these players develop in age and ability, I think the rules should change with them. Unfortunately, that's not always the case.

[AlUpstateNY]

One obvious benefit is decreased contact on the QB. I realize that the "no need to be pressured" element of this rule contradicts that thought, but surely there will be times when the QB avoids possible injury by getting rid of the ball instead of holding on and taking the hit. It's important, especially at this level of the game, to adjust and adapt the rules so as to give the most protection to the most vulnerable players. As these players develop in age and ability, I think the rules should change with them. Unfortunately, that's not always the case.

Although "avoiding possible injury" is always a laudable goal, are you suggesting that objective be extended to OTHER players in possession of a live ball?  Although laudable, "Avoiding contact" seems to contradict one of the basic components of the game of Football, already detailed and specified in the rules of the game.

[CalhounLJ]

Although "avoiding possible injury" is always a laudable goal, are you suggesting that objective be extended to OTHER players in possession of a live ball?
No. I'm not suggesting anything. I am simply stating an obvious benefit for the one player involved that the rule addresses.

Although laudable, "Avoiding contact" seems to contradict one of the basic components of the game of Football, already detailed and specified in the rules of the game.
     Yes, I agree. But you will also agree that avoiding contact is a "laudable" way to prevent injury, no?

[AlUpstateNY]

YES, I agree that avoiding (Unnecessary, excessive, inappropriate) contact is laudable, and already well covered in NFHS rules.  My question is allowing the Offense, who created the play, to unilaterally decide to terminate action  when/if the Defense is able to seriously threaten the play's potential success by simply "DUMPING" the ball WITHOUT loss of any yardage caused by the success of Defensive pursuit.

Designating the succeeding spot at the SPOT OF THE PASS would seem a much fairer result.

[dammitbobby]

But then the issue becomes, did the QB ditch the ball due to being threatened, or just no play was there?  You can't march off yardage against A just because they essentially had an incomplete pass.
There's way to much subjectivity in deciding if a receiver was in the area, if he was being threatened, just throwing it away, just a terrible passer...

[CalhounLJ]

YES, I agree that avoiding (Unnecessary, excessive, inappropriate) contact is laudable, and already well covered in NFHS rules.  My question is allowing the Offense, who created the play, to unilaterally decide to terminate action  when/if the Defense is able to seriously threaten the play's potential success by simply "DUMPING" the ball WITHOUT loss of any yardage caused by the success of Defensive pursuit.

Designating the succeeding spot at the SPOT OF THE PASS would seem a much fairer result.

Yes I agree with that. I’m like you in that I do not like the rule. But even as bad as it is, there are some tangible benefits. If I had my way, we would leave it alone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk