SANTA'S WISH LIST .....2023 VERSION

[ilyazhito]

NCAA makes it a turnover on downs just like we do for NFHS.  So if on 4th down, the runner runs OOB short of the sticks and is late hit OOB, it's 1st and 10 for Team B and then Team B is penalized.  So, no real discussion to have.

I agree. That is why the automatic first down provision has the caveat "if not in conflict with other rules". In most cases, a defensive penalty does result in an automatic first down in NCAA rules (e.g. DPI on an interception, RPS on an incomplete pass, FMM on a run). If there is a conflict in rules (one penalty with an automatic first down occurs together with a penalty by the offense (RPS and OH)), then the appropriate rules are followed, such as offsetting penalties in the example above. If NFHS was to incorporate similar language (Automatic first down for B and R fouls if not in conflict with other rules), then we would have an easy way to implement them without devolving into casuistry.

[HLinNC]

Currently, mechanics call for a whistle-less wind after a first down with the 40 second play clock, but the truth is, I assess the ability of the clock operator -- we have so many that simply aren't paying attention or they're focused on adjusting the down/distance/yard line that they aren't looking at me. For them, it's a short blast on the wind and me trying to have patience with the clock operator.

This  ^^^^^

2021- working p/t as a WH, late season game, a little bit of a breeze and light rain showers, could have been much colder than it was.  PCO isn't starting play clock until the umpire puts the ball down.  Fine, we'll live with it....until we have an incomplete pass.  "Oh good Lord, we'll never get out of here."  I finally realized that if I chopped and tooted, he would run it on me so I had to revert back to old clock mechanics.

2022- now a f/t WH, back at the same school in September.  Lo and behold, we have the same play clock issues.  I go over to the home coach/AD - "Geez, we're never going to get out of here at this rate."  HC- "I know.  My regular clock guy went to Florida"  I started to ask if he only went to Florida when I was assigned as R but thought better of it.  I went back to old clock mechanics and we survived.

[CalhounLJ]

This  ^^^^^

2021- working p/t as a WH, late season game, a little bit of a breeze and light rain showers, could have been much colder than it was.  PCO isn't starting play clock until the umpire puts the ball down.  Fine, we'll live with it....until we have an incomplete pass.  "Oh good Lord, we'll never get out of here."  I finally realized that if I chopped and tooted, he would run it on me so I had to revert back to old clock mechanics.

2022- now a f/t WH, back at the same school in September.  Lo and behold, we have the same play clock issues.  I go over to the home coach/AD - "Geez, we're never going to get out of here at this rate."  HC- "I know.  My regular clock guy went to Florida"  I started to ask if he only went to Florida when I was assigned as R but thought better of it.  I went back to old clock mechanics and we survived.

I always make it a point during pregame to talk to both clock operators. Have not had a problem getting them on board.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

I always make it a point during pregame to talk to both clock operators. Have not had a problem getting them on board.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Don't mean to be redundant, but more than 60 years ago, when Field clocks were a shiney new gadget, our Officials org decided maintaining game time was an Official's responsibility and refused to relinquish that control.  Despite a lot of growling, we've maintained responsibility for that function ever since, and it has proved to be a blessing and has avoided a lot of needless nonsense since.  We are ever grateful to those "old timers".

Now, it's really simple a trained member of CDFOA runs the game clock, either from the booth, or from the field. Same is now true, with the advent of the "Play clock", which if associated with a field Play clock is run by a 2nd Clock, which is operated by a 2nd Official (either on the field or in the booth.  Neither Clock Operator is responsible for other Field Clock operations (although we'll maintain display of score).  Most schools provide their own scoreboard operator to handle down/distance and other features for Team/Spectator benefit.

We are truly blessed, and thankful, for/by those predecessors who decided "that was the way it WILL BE, and dealt with complaints during those early years, although the addition of a visible "Play Clock" has resurrected some whining.  In the grand scheme of things, issues, complaints, problems with timing factors are minimal, if not virtually nonexistent.  Our "Clock Operators" are part of the Official Crew, dress like the rest of the crew, arrive & depart from the field together. 

An "Official" Clock Operator/Timer is standard for all HS levels (Modified/Freshman, JV, Varsity) if a scoreboard clock is to be used, or time is maintained on the field by a member of the crew.  The same holds true for the various "Youth Level" leagues (although those complaints/arguments lasted a bit longer than HS's).

In addition to eliminating a basket full of complaints, handling "Timing" responsibilities as an Officiating Crew duty, it also provides terrific training opportunity for new(er) Officials, as well as extended career opportunity for senior officials.

Old habits are ALWAYS harder to break, and we are truly grateful to those former members who had the vision to anticipate unnecessary problems,  and the backbone to face them, long ago.

[BIG UMP]

(1) Failure to wear proper equipment = 1st, warning > 2nd  = 5 yards > 3rd = 15 yards USC > 4th & more = 15 yards USC + Disq.
No too much to keep up with

(2) Any colored towels = OK
Yes

(3) Expand list of illegal equipment.
No

(4) Leaping OOB player is still OOB until landing IB.
Just clarify definition

(5) Clock starts on RFP after OOB unless under 2 min. in half.
Fine cuts game time

(6) If K/A subs, R/B can sub prior to snap.
No, too many would miss this and cause all kinds of problems

(7) Forward fumble > OOB > spot of fumble.
I can live with this

(8) Only the player that takes snap can legal IG.
Either is good.

(9) After ball goes beyond LOS, can't have forward pass.
Leave it alone

(10) IG only LOD at spot.
NF is fine.

(11) Legalize 'pushing the pile'.
Define assisting the runner, where it is legal

(12) Legalize hurdling.
No

(13) Strengthen 'defenseless player'.

(14) Hands to the face = 15 yards.
Illegal use of hands, add it

(15) AFD/LOD if PF.
No

(16) AFD if USC by B.
No

(17) Coaches bail moat on RFP
Define eminent snap at coaches meeting, then enforce.

(18) Previous spot if foul by A behind LOS or by B if run ends behind LOS.
Yes

[jason]

(1) Failure to wear proper equipment = 1st, warning > 2nd  = 5 yards > 3rd = 15 yards USC > 4th & more = 15 yards USC + Disq.
No. Put this responsibility on coaches, not officials.

(2) Any colored towels = OK
Yes, please.

(3) Expand list of illegal equipment.
No

(4) Leaping OOB player is still OOB until landing IB.
Yes. Tired of the what-if questions.

(5) Clock starts on RFP after OOB unless under 2 min. in half.
No. The 25/40 change made a big enough impact.

(6) If K/A subs, R/B can sub prior to snap.
No. There are maybe 1% of HS teams that have the specialized players and roster size for this to be impactful. For HS it doesn't make sense.

(7) Forward fumble > OOB > spot of fumble.
No. "That's the way the ball bounces."

(8) Only the player that takes snap can legal IG.
No. The point of the rule is safety, and it applies to all potential passers.

(9) After ball goes beyond LOS, can't have forward pass.
Yes. Close the loop-hole.

(10) IG only LOD at spot.
No. If the offense doesn't like it, don't commit the foul.

(11) Legalize 'pushing the pile'.
Yes. Change the definitions to make it fit.

(12) Legalize hurdling.
No. Safety.

(13) Strengthen 'defenseless player'.
No.

(14) Hands to the face = 15 yards.
No. It's already implied.

(15) AFD/LOD if PF.
No

(16) AFD if USC by B.
No

(17) Coaches bail moat on RFP
No. The coaches play a game with this rule because they know we don't want to flag it, but won't leave until we do flag it. Then they yell, "Watch the game!" or something similar, when the entire time they knew they weren't supposed to be there.

(18) Previous spot if foul by A behind LOS or by B if run ends behind LOS.
No

[Ralph Damren]

Thanks to the 15 guys that have responded. Note, not all questions were answered by everyone. Here are the current results :
                               
(1)  1-14
(2) 11-4
(3)  2-7
(4) 12-0
(5) 12-3
(6)  2-10

(7) 6-8
(8) 9-4
(9) 5-6
(10) 5-7
(11) 4-11
(12) 0-15

(13) 3-7
(14) 11-3
(15) 2-13
(16) 5-9
(17) 6-5
(18) 7-8

Numbers 7, 9, 10, 17, and 18 are within 2 votes of an opinion change. Any further comments on these ? Our meeting is Jan. 8-10 and I'll print and bring your responses as they come in hany by providing valid responses during the debates. Thanks again, and please keep responding.

 

[tankferguson]

Hi Ralph,
No for numbers 1, 5,6, 9,10,11,12,14,15,16,17, and 18

Yes for numbers 2, 4, 7, 8, 13

Thanks for asking, and Happy New Year!  Ferg

[Ralph Damren]

Hi Ralph,
No for numbers 1, 5,6, 9,10,11,12,14,15,16,17, and 18

Yes for numbers 2, 4, 7, 8, 13

Thanks for asking, and Happy New Year!  Ferg

Thanks for answering, and Happy New Year ! Ralph

[Ralph Damren]

AND, OH BY THE WAY....

HAPPY NEW YEAR, ONE AND ALL 

((I,LL BE AWAY FROM MY TRUSTY DESK TOP OLE' DELL UNTIL 2013 

OLE' MAINER NEW YEAR'S EVE SAYING: " 'Tis better to have a bottle in front of me that a frontal lobotomy, ayuh 'spect so " 

[bama_stripes]

((I,LL BE AWAY FROM MY TRUSTY DESK TOP OLE' DELL UNTIL 2013 

Goin’ somewhere in your Wayback Machine? 

[Ralph Damren]

Felt you guys might find interest in some info from the questionnaire......

The majority of officials were happy with all of last year's  changes. (Part I)

45% of officials felt that running into a coach was still a problem (Part II)

All new proposals were favored by officials. Coaches didnt always agree...Starting clock on RFP after OOB = Coaches 25% YES, 75% NO; Officials 76% YES, 24% NO.

Scoreboard on # of officials responding from states...

OHIO  1124   
IL.       674     
MICH.  663         
FL.       559                           

....Maine  38                 

[bama_stripes]

The coaches’ responses bear out what I’ve thought for a long time:  Coaches and players don’t give a fig about how long a game lasts.  It’s (usually) Friday, and there’s no school the next day.  This is their time on the big stage and a chance to show off their talents.

I hate a 3-hour game as much as the next guy, but I’m not sure they’re wrong.

[AlUpstateNY]

The coaches’ responses bear out what I’ve thought for a long time:  Coaches and players don’t give a fig about how long a game lasts.  It’s (usually) Friday, and there’s no school the next day.  This is their time on the big stage and a chance to show off their talents.

I hate a 3-hour game as much as the next guy, but I’m not sure they’re wrong.

The same limited culprits have usually been responsible for unusually long, or slow moving games, at the HS level,: player injuries, unnecessary delays after COP, post scoring KO setup delay situations, assorted issues with game management (slow chain relocation, game ball retrieval, excessive charged TO duration, totally unique, whacky (game specific) situations.  The "play clock" solutions, although incorporating correction/adjustment of these, sometimes persistent issues, in and of itself, hasn't accomplished all that much (at the HS level) that couldn't have been directly and effectively addressed by instituting/managing those "game management" problems, alone, at FAR LESS cost & confusion than updating a zillion HS scoreboards.

Aside from field injuries legitimately requiring sometimes (necessary) lengthy interruptions, the accompanying adjustments applied to "game management" corrections seem far more responsible for maintaining consistent overall length of game time, than the visible necessity of "play timing".

[Snapper]

Santa has plenty of gifts (new rules proposals) for the upcoming year. I value your opinions and would enjoy hearing from them.

(1) Failure to wear proper equipment = 1st, warning > 2nd  = 5 yards > 3rd = 15 yards USC > 4th & more = 15 yards USC + Disq.
No

(2) Any colored towels = OK
OK, don't care.  Just not ball colored.

(3) Expand list of illegal equipment.
No.  Not sure what else needs covering?  Half the rule changes always seem to be about uniforms or numbers anyway.

(4) Leaping OOB player is still OOB until landing IB.
Yes.  Make it like NCAA and basketball, your status in or out is where you left the ground until you reestablish.

(5) Clock starts on RFP after OOB unless under 2 min. in half.
I'm OK with that, but don't feel strongly that it's needed.  High school games seem a bit long nowadays, so some timing adjustment is probably ok.

(6) If K/A subs, R/B can sub prior to snap.
No, not necessary for most high school games.

(7) Forward fumble > OOB > spot of fumble.
Yes

(8) Only the player that takes snap can legal IG.
A very firm YES.  Should have been written that way in the first place.

(9) After ball goes beyond LOS, can't have forward pass.
Yes

(10) IG only LOD at spot.
Yes

(11) Legalize 'pushing the pile'.
Yes

(12) Legalize hurdling.
Yes.  But then put in the college "leaping" rule.

(13) Strengthen 'defenseless player'.
Unsure what they mean by strengthening it?  To be totally honest, I don't know what the high school defenseless player rule states.  I just use the college's if I work or observe a game.  And then I just keep in mind that TGT is not an automatic DQ in HS.

(14) Hands to the face = 15 yards.
Yes, absolutely.

(15) AFD/LOD if PF.
Yes to AFD.  No to LOD.

(16) AFD if USC by B.
Yes

(17) Coaches bail moat on RFP
No.

(18) Previous spot if foul by A behind LOS or by B if run ends behind LOS.
Yes.  A hold behind the line in high school most times kills a drive, and I don't think that's fair.  There should be a chance to dig themselves out of a 10 yd hole.

Please let me know your opinions. Thank you 

 

Thanks Ralph.  Travel safe to your meeting!

[ncwingman]

(1) No.
(2) Yes.
(3) Is there something specific that's not being called? If so add that, but don't make the list longer just for something to do.
(4) Yes.
(5) No. In areas without officials as clock operators, it's already a fight to get them to stay with the current rules. I don't want to make things more complicated.
(6) No. Solution in search of a problem. It's not an issue that I've seen.
(7) Sure, why not. Not urgent to fix, but I understand why.
(8) Yes.
(9) No.
(10) Yes.
(11) Yes? Pushing the pile is never called as assisting the runner anyway.
(12) No.
(13) Eh, how? It might be better served as a POE, reminding people that "Hey, these scenarios are defenseless players, so you should be calling it that way"
(14) Yes. The lack of any explicit "Hands to the face" penalty is a bit odd, in my mind.
(15) LOD for PF? No. No. No. You want to skip a down? That's how you'll get people skipping downs. I get AFD for PF makes things "inequitable", but what of a dead ball PF? After 3rd down, A50 punches B56. A50 is ejected, 15 yards back, 3rd down counts since dead ball... and loss of down, so they lose 4th and it's a turnover on downs? Of course not, but somebody's going to enforce it that way. In my mind, LOD should be restricted to illegally advancing the ball (illegal touching, IFP, handing).
(16) AFD for PF/USC by B? I'd be okay with yes, but I'm not going to lobby hard for it.
(17) Sure, but it's another rule that won't be enforced consistently. Around me, there's a bunch of coaches that aren't in the restricted area then because they're on the field... but that's a different rant.
(18) Yes, yes, yes.

[Ralph Damren]

Thanks again, guys, for your imput. They've expanded my ability to debate the proposals as they are presented. I authored one change : If B fouls on running plays that end behind the LOS the previous spot would be the enforcement spot. It may end up tied to previous spot enforcement of A fouls behind the LOS (excepting IG, in EZ, IK & IB). I'll also propose two POEs : "Who put the free-kick OOB ??"- a debate that we've have had here several times and " Don't smile on pushing the pile" -forward progress stops when the push begins. A laundry list of POEs are presented and a show of hands picks the three most popular. I would welcome any thoughts you may have on those two topics.

    Ralph

[AlUpstateNY]

Thanks again, guys, for your imput. They've expanded my ability to debate the proposals as they are presented. I authored one change : If B fouls on running plays that end behind the LOS the previous spot would be the enforcement spot. It may end up tied to previous spot enforcement of A fouls behind the LOS (excepting IG, in EZ, IK & IB). I'll also propose two POEs : "Who put the free-kick OOB ??"- a debate that we've have had here several times and " Don't smile on pushing the pile" -forward progress stops when the push begins. A laundry list of POEs are presented and a show of hands picks the three most popular. I would welcome any thoughts you may have on those two topics.

    Ralph

I know this is redundant, but please express the UNFAIR DISADVANTAGE to "B" who has created the need for "A" to choose fouling, because they (A) have been unable to thwart "B's" legitimate effort in forcing "A" to retreat to be able to continue the play they (A) chose to execute.

Changing the enforcement to previous spot, will ONLY encourage "A" to continue retreating (endlessly) by removing the consequence of doing so, while encouraging "A" to foul (without ANY additional consequence) for doing so. 

It was ENTIRELY "A's" choice to call a play that provided an escape plan when their designed action failed, providing "B" with an UNFAIR disadvantage created by ignoring their legitimate effort to redirect/negate the original plan CALLED FOR by "A".

[Rich]

I know this is redundant, but please express the UNFAIR DISADVANTAGE to "B" who has created the need for "A" to choose fouling, because they (A) have been unable to thwart "B's" legitimate effort in forcing "A" to retreat to be able to continue the play they (A) chose to execute.

Changing the enforcement to previous spot, will ONLY encourage "A" to continue retreating (endlessly) by removing the consequence of doing so, while encouraging "A" to foul (without ANY additional consequence) for doing so. 

It was ENTIRELY "A's" choice to call a play that provided an escape plan when their designed action failed, providing "B" with an UNFAIR disadvantage created by ignoring their legitimate effort to redirect/negate the original plan CALLED FOR by "A".

10 yards is a consequence. Declining the penalty on a play that loses more than 10 yards is a consequence.

The one that I have always believed needed fixed is the play where A is pulled down behind the line by the facemask.  Allowing B to keep that yardage before enforcement of the penalty has never seemed right to me.

So I would be very happy to see both A and B fouls use the previous spot as an enforcement spot.

[refjeff]

Thanks again, guys, for your imput. They've expanded my ability to debate the proposals as they are presented. I authored one change : If B fouls on running plays that end behind the LOS the previous spot would be the enforcement spot. It may end up tied to previous spot enforcement of A fouls behind the LOS (excepting IG, in EZ, IK & IB). I'll also propose two POEs : "Who put the free-kick OOB ??"- a debate that we've have had here several times and " Don't smile on pushing the pile" -forward progress stops when the push begins. A laundry list of POEs are presented and a show of hands picks the three most popular. I would welcome any thoughts you may have on those two topics.

 

I see no reason to end pushing the pile.  Forward progress hasn't stopped and I've never seen anyone get hurt. 

If there is statistical evidence of increased injury let's see it.

And I see no way of calling it without being completely arbitrary.

[AlUpstateNY]

I see no reason to end pushing the pile.  Forward progress hasn't stopped and I've never seen anyone get hurt. 

If there is statistical evidence of increased injury let's see it.

And I see no way of calling it without being completely arbitrary.

Forward progress applies to the RUNNER's progress, "Pushing the pile" suggests to motion being provided by others (often lots of people).  If the force advancing the runner is judged to be provided by the runner, it's still FP,  if not, the play has ended, and the continued force being applied can be very dangerous.

[refjeff]

Forward progress applies to the RUNNER's progress, "Pushing the pile" suggests to motion being provided by others (often lots of people).  If the force advancing the runner is judged to be provided by the runner, it's still FP,  if not, the play has ended, and the continued force being applied can be very dangerous.

2.15.1 says advancement of the ball ... in a runner's possession. It doesn't say anything about who is supplying the locomotion.

We could make something up and say the runner has to be supplying the force, but it doesn't say that, and there's really no reason to make it up.

 "is judged to be provided by the runner,"  Like I said, completely arbitrary, and thus causing no end of complaints.  For what purpose?

"Could be very dangerous." If there is statistical evidence of increased injury let's see it.

[bama_stripes]

The one that I have always believed needed fixed is the play where A is pulled down behind the line by the facemask.  Allowing B to keep that yardage before enforcement of the penalty has never seemed right to me.

Especially when you consider the big difference in enforcement if it’s a running play vs a loose-ball play.  Makes no sense whatsoever.

[Ralph Damren]

Especially when you consider the big difference in enforcement if it’s a running play vs a loose-ball play.  Makes no sense whatsoever.

I've been a strong proponnent of this and have submitted a change (with Bossman's help)  several times. My interest was kindled late last centuary by this event.....

SCENE: Brunswick Dragons were coming up to play the Bangor Rams. The Dragon coach had spent a couple of years on the NY Giant taxi squad.
ACT I : Early in the game the Dragon QB was scrambling and tackled by FM 18 yds. behind LOS.

ACT II : After  ump's stroll, ball was placed 3 yds. behind LOS 

ACT III :    the giant Dragon coach  called TO to  to ask : "THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT
            I explained : "Well, you got the down back, and only lost 3 in lieu of 18  "

ACT IV : In the 2nd half Ram QB was scrambling , was tackled 10 yds. behind LOS AND FUMBLED. The defense recovered  but knew they couldn't keep the ball. Being a loose ball play , I sent  Mr. Umpire  on his journey from the previous spot. 

ACT V : I felt the giant Dragon coach  would need an explaination and approached...
             ME : "I want to explain the difference.... "
             COACH : " I know the difference , this is the HOME QB  "
             ME : " Not really, on  this play, the fumble made it.....  "
             COACH : " Would you agree that it's a lousy rule  . "
             ME: "Yes, in this situation it is  ."
             COACH : "Well, we're behind 30-0 because we can't tackle, block, run, pass or kick...not because of a lousy rule.
             You guys are doing a good job, keep it up  ."

FOOTNOTE : In my daze of youth, mom said one could get away with saying things with a smile  , that you couldn't  if said with a frown or growl  .

EPILOGUE : Over the next few years, at our coaches clinic the giant Dragon coach would ask : "  YOU FIXED THAT LOUSY RULE YET  ?" I would reply : " NOT YET COACH, still trying  "

FORCAST : I feel it will pass this year, but the giant Dragon coach has retired. 

[CalhounLJ]

10 yards is a consequence. Declining the penalty on a play that loses more than 10 yards is a consequence.

The one that I have always believed needed fixed is the play where A is pulled down behind the line by the facemask.  Allowing B to keep that yardage before enforcement of the penalty has never seemed right to me.

So I would be very happy to see both A and B fouls use the previous spot as an enforcement spot.

I’ve never understood why allowing B to keep the yardage he has caused A to lose is a big deal. With the ABO, we let A do it all the time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk