Santa's Wish List.....

[bossman72]

  "This would only make it easier for the officials, we don't change rules for that."

Strange, I always thought one of the long standing NFHS points of making a rule change is "ease of administration".  (See Baseball dead ball balks)

Edit:  (Also see current thread arguments on low blocks from 2 point stance or from shotgun)

[VALJ]

The arguments that I recall :
  "A needs 7 on the LOS -PERIOD-no need to count backs."
  "This would only make it easier for the officials, we don't change rules for that."
  " 'The NCAA does it' is the worst reason for us to change." (Reflection to the 1947 rules war)
  "Teddy Roosevelt told us that the 'flying wedge' was dangerous."

While the rule change ganders good support (around 50%) it is not close to the 67% needed. Probably good to take a year of promotion off as the opponents are still there and are solid.

I still say it should come to advantage/disadvantage.  If they've only got 10 on the field, they're already at a disadvantage.  If Bubba is on the sideline staring at the prom queen instead of at right guard like he should be, that's one less blocker they have to protect Lefty and Slick.  So not only are they at a disadvantage, but they're being flagged for 5 yards, too.

Plus, as Bossman says, for "ease of administration", counting 4 or 5 is easier than counting 7.

[Stinterp]

YOUR OPINIONS, PLEASE....
   1. white or clear mouthpiece OK;  YES
   2. bounced FK can be FC; NO
   3. blindside block must lead w/open hands; NO
   4. FBZ stuff :
     a. can't block below waist; NO
     b. can't block below knees; NO
     c. FBZ only on hand-to-hand snap; YES
     d. only 3/4 pt. stance blockers in FBZ; YES
     e. no clipping in FBZ. NO
   5.targeting = auto 1st down;; NO
   6."pop-up" kick is illegal; NO
   7. 2 yds between K players on FK; NO
   8. no FK opt. if A fouls after FC; YES
   9. can spike from shotgun; YES
  10. no more face guarding PI; YES
  11. only USC or PFs carry over after TD; NO
  12. no more FC> FK; YES
  13. showoff after TD = DOG on 1st offense;  NO
  14. basic spot stuff:
      a. A fouls behind LOS = previous spot; YES
      b. B fouls ,run ends behind LOS = previous spot. YES
      c. anyone fouls, run ends behind LOS = previous spot. YES
  15."tack-on" for IB fouls by K; NO
  16  ( FILL IN THE BLANK )   

[FLAHL]

  "This would only make it easier for the officials, we don't change rules for that."
 

Aren't we learning from the NFL, on a weekly basis, that making things easier to officiate would be a really good idea?

[Ralph Damren]

You guys are preaching to the choir, as I'm 101% in favor of the change. An other "drawback" that was once brought up : " GEE, you have to start the game with 11 players but can continue with less as long as you have seven players on offense to be on the line. If we changed the rule, you could play with only one or two players and that would increase their chance of injury !"

Often, rebuttals such as this ,while not being realistic, will enough doubt in some to kill the rule.

 

Have a great weekend,guys...

[bama_stripes]

The arguments that I recall :
  "A needs 7 on the LOS -PERIOD-no need to count backs."
  "This would only make it easier for the officials, we don't change rules for that."
  " 'The NCAA does it' is the worst reason for us to change." (Reflection to the 1947 rules war)
  "Teddy Roosevelt told us that the 'flying wedge' was dangerous."

Not to be ugly, Ralph, but if the initial reason for requiring 7 on the LOS was to prevent the flying wedge, wouldn't prohibiting more than 4 in the backfield accomplish the same thing?

And if, as a byproduct, changing the rule happens to make it easier for officials to "get it right", isn't that a good thing?   

[bossman72]

You guys are preaching to the choir, as I'm 101% in favor of the change. An other "drawback" that was once brought up : " GEE, you have to start the game with 11 players but can continue with less as long as you have seven players on offense to be on the line. If we changed the rule, you could play with only one or two players and that would increase their chance of injury !"

Often, rebuttals such as this ,while not being realistic, will enough doubt in some to kill the rule.

 

Have a great weekend,guys...

!  I can see the types you're dealing with.  Although, you can't play with less than 6.  Need 5 players 50-79 on LOS

[Ralph Damren]

!  I can see the types you're dealing with.  Although, you can't play with less than 6.  Need 5 players 50-79 on LOS

  Who sez' you need to have someone to snap the ball to. A fleetfooted pulling guard should be able to scoop up the grounded snap.....and if you need to punt, you've got the numbering exception....

[Rulesman]

  Who sez' you need to have someone to snap the ball to. A fleetfooted pulling guard should be able to scoop up the grounded snap.....and if you need to punt, you've got the numbering exception....

The problem with the "fleetfooted guard" is that you've already outlawed the fumblerooski.

[Ralph Damren]

The problem with the "fleetfooted guard" is that you've already outlawed the fumblerooski.

Elias, herein lies the confusion ....7-2-4 : "A snap shall be such that the ball immediately leaves  the hand or hands of the snapper and touches a back OR THE GROUND before it touches a lineman. ..." while 7-2-8 states : "Any A player on his line of scrimmage may not advance a planned loose ball in the vicinity of the snapper."

My concerned inquiry : "Fellow esteemed members of the rules committee, if with only 2 eligible and uninjured A players left, Porkchop - the snapper - snaps a 'grounder' that Tugboat - the pulling guard - then retrieves; would we consider that a snap infraction ? If we did, would it be a dead ball foul and would we then reset the game clock ? If we reset the game clock, would we be inviting an event similar to the occurrence in the movie Groundhog Day"

My requested presentation would be discussed just prior to : "What happens if a field goal attempt sticks to the. goal post "

...and shortly following the third liquid round, in an informal liquid inspired setting.

[maybrefguy]

 1. white or clear mouthpiece OK;  YES - this is fly poop in the pepper stuff - have a mouthpiece
   2. bounced FK can be FC; Yes
   3. blindside block must lead w/open hands; NO
   4. FBZ stuff :
     a. can't block below waist; NO
     b. can't block below knees; NO
     c. FBZ only on hand-to-hand snap; YES
     d. only 3/4 pt. stance blockers in FBZ; YES
     e. no clipping in FBZ. NO
   5.targeting = auto 1st down;; NO
   6."pop-up" kick is illegal; NO
   7. 2 yds between K players on FK; NO
   8. no FK opt. if A fouls after FC; YES
   9. can spike from shotgun; YES - I've never understood this rule
  10. no more face guarding PI; YES
  11. only USC or PFs carry over after TD; NO
  12. no more FC> FK; WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
  13. showoff after TD = DOG on 1st offense;  NO
  14. basic spot stuff:
      a. A fouls behind LOS = previous spot; YES
      b. B fouls ,run ends behind LOS = previous spot. YES
      c. anyone fouls, run ends behind LOS = previous spot. YES
  15."tack-on" for IB fouls by K; NO
  16  ( FILL IN THE BLANK )   

[theunofficialofficial]

1. white or clear mouthpiece OK; YES. Just make them wear one
2. bounced FK can be FC; No
   3. blindside block must lead w/open hands; Yes. I think it removes a lot of the ambiguity of what is 'unncessary'
   4. FBZ stuff : I'd like to see the FBZ go away, we have taken the Low Hits out everywhere else on the field, why are they still okay here?
     a. can't block below waist; Yes
     b. can't block below knees; Yes
     c. FBZ only on hand-to-hand snap; Yes
     d. only 3/4 pt. stance blockers in FBZ; Yes
     e. no clipping in FBZ. Yes
   5.targeting = auto 1st down;; No. We took it out of OPI/DPI don't need to add more auto-first back in
   6."pop-up" kick is illegal; ?
   7. 2 yds between K players on FK; Ugh NO... don't want to get out my yard stick before the kickoff to make sure they are lined up correctly.
   8. no FK opt. if A fouls after FC; Eh don't care
   9. can spike from shotgun; NO. This gets into all kinds of weird things if the snap is bad and the QB spikes it after recovery... keep it hand to hand and directly into the ground.
  10. no more face guarding PI; Don't care.
  11. only USC or PFs carry over after TD; Eh this seems like adding more complexity on an already complex rule. NO
  12. no more FC> FK; ?
  13. showoff after TD = DOG on 1st offense; No I like it as an USC make them feel the pain.
  14. basic spot stuff:
      a. A fouls behind LOS = previous spot; NO.
      b. B fouls ,run ends behind LOS = previous spot. NO
      c. anyone fouls, run ends behind LOS = previous spot. NO
  15."tack-on" for IB fouls by K;
  16. Speed up games by having OOB runs keep the clock moving!

[TennRegOneRef]

2. No
3. Yes.
4. Yes. Low blocks should be eliminated.
6. No
7. No. Nightmare to enforce.
9. No. Shouldn't be a problem to get under center, then spike - as long as everyone is set for one second.
10. No. Face guarding should be a foul. It's still interference.
12. No. Even though it's rare, a FK after a FC should remain an option.
14. a. Yes.
16. Speed up games by starting the clock on the ready when a player goes OOB prior to 2:00 (or 3:00) left in the 2nd and 4th quarters.

[Ralph Damren]

Starting the clock on RFP after OOB has been on the docket several times.  I'm a strong proponent of the change as having ran a NCAA game clock for several years w/o seeing a problem but the issue always seems to be the timing change @ 2:00 in half. A couple of states have ran it as an experimental rule with similar results : Coaches think it's great BUT want the timing adjustment @ 2 + Officials think it's great BUT don't want the timing adjustment = stalemate. It's not on the docket this year.

[CEngel]

No blindside block by anyone in motion at the snap
Foul by the defense behind the line of scrimmage penalized from the previous spot
Spike from a shotgun snap

[Ralph Damren]

No blindside block by anyone in motion at the snap
Foul by the defense behind the line of scrimmage penalized from the previous spot
Spike from a shotgun snap

I apologize for my belated response. #1 : There is no proposal as such, but I expect plenty of discussion. 2 states ran experimental rules and am interested in their findings.

#2 : There is a proposal that I submitted 9goastwritten by Bossman) to do basically that. 10-4-2d would read, "When the related run ends behind the neutral zone before a change of team possession." This would also correct the play where the prime receiver was held by B while the QB was sacked.

#3 : This is on the docket but I would stand in opposition. My rationale :
   a. When this was allowed back in 1995, a major concern was giving the QB an "out" if he couldn't find
any open receivers. From the shotgun would give the QB more opportunity to glance.
   b. Snap over shotgun QB's head could be ran down and spiked.

Thanks for the interest, CEngel. 

[Rulesman]

#3 : This is on the docket but I would stand in opposition. My rationale :
   a. When this was allowed back in 1995, a major concern was giving the QB an "out" if he couldn't find
any open receivers. From the shotgun would give the QB more opportunity to glance.
   b. Snap over shotgun QB's head could be ran down and spiked.

3-a Not if the rule were written to include language the spike must occur immediately after the snap. And even if there were the slightest delay (I'm not talking about 2-3-4-5 seconds), what "out" has the QB gained by giving up a down?
3-b The see first sentence in my response to 3-a.

[HLinNC]

I seem to recall it took them several tries to define immediately rather than just saying "Dey broke duh huddle wif tway-ulv".

[Rulesman]

The word "immediately" is already in the book for a hand-to-hand snap.

Table 7-5-2: Illegal Forward Pass EXCEPTION d - "It is legal to conserve time by intentionally throwing the ball forward to the ground immediately after receiving a direct hand-to-hand snap."

Next excuse...

[ncwingman]

3-a Not if the rule were written to include language the spike must occur immediately after the snap. And even if there were the slightest delay (I'm not talking about 2-3-4-5 seconds), what "out" has the QB gained by giving up a down?
3-b The see first sentence in my response to 3-a.

Doesn't the spike rule already include "immediate" verbiage?

Here's an odd twist to add (and feel free to call this stupid) -- what if the ball were to be placed at the spot of the spike? You clock it under center, and it's effectively no change. You do it from the shotgun and you're willing to sacrifice 3-4 yards? Snap over his head, and he runs it down and spikes = Loss of 10+?

[HLinNC]

That would create the dreaded exception in the eyes of the Fed, wing.

Of course the whole legal spike thing IS an exception.