Author Topic: 2018 NFHS Rules Interpretations  (Read 3931 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2936
  • FAN REACTION: +115/-27
2018 NFHS Rules Interpretations
« on: August 29, 2018, 08:06:02 AM »

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2940
  • FAN REACTION: +134/-1004
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2018 NFHS Rules Interpretations
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2018, 08:15:54 AM »
Clear as mud..
So they didn't address the "what if K fouls after R gains possession of the kick" issue..

Offline VA Official

  • *
  • Posts: 197
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-6
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2018 NFHS Rules Interpretations
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2018, 08:17:26 AM »
Clear as mud..
So they didn't address the "what if K fouls after R gains possession of the kick" issue..

Which was the biggest issue that should have been addressed...

Offline bjfb

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-2
Re: 2018 NFHS Rules Interpretations
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2018, 11:05:09 AM »
Ever wonder how many of the rules makers (not just the Editorial Committee) are actually active, on field high school football officials and what their
understanding of the game is?

Offline jgf6

  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-2
Re: 2018 NFHS Rules Interpretations
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2018, 12:07:16 PM »
In AZ, according to our rules interpreters, 10-4-2 Exception has been explained this way: In the past, if K fouls during the kick and the penalty is accepted, the foul would be administered from the previous spot and the down would be replayed. Now with the exception, R may have the penalty tacked on from the end of the down provided they are next to put the ball in play. If K fouls after R gains possession of the ball the exception no longer applies and the penalty is enforced under the all-but-one.

Offline dch

  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-1
Re: 2018 NFHS Rules Interpretations
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2018, 01:00:39 PM »
jgf6 said it well and AZ seems to have it as it should be.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2940
  • FAN REACTION: +134/-1004
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2018 NFHS Rules Interpretations
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2018, 01:16:30 PM »
I make a motion that the NFHS adopt this statement as official...

Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 669
  • FAN REACTION: +37/-47
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: 2018 NFHS Rules Interpretations
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2018, 04:15:07 PM »
I make a motion that the NFHS adopt this statement as official...

Motion seconded!  +1

Online Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4655
  • FAN REACTION: +864/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: 2018 NFHS Rules Interpretations
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2018, 06:52:38 AM »
jgf6 said it well and AZ seems to have it as it should be.
:thumbup  Remember, guys, our new tack-on rule applies only while it is still a kick. Once the kick ends, it's the way it always was - all but one.

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-52
Re: 2018 NFHS Rules Interpretations
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2018, 09:31:27 AM »
:thumbup  Remember, guys, our new tack-on rule applies only while it is still a kick. Once the kick ends, it's the way it always was - all but one.

How is it any different? A foul by K is tacked on regardless now... if there is a facemask after the kick and during the runback, don't we 'tack that on' to the end of the run anyways?

All-but-one doesn't apply if we're only talking about K (defense) fouls. All the fouls by K are added on to the end of the run.

The only thing that wouldn't be would be where we had multiple running plays - R receives kick, runs, then fumbles, then recovers and runs some more. In this play, would we use the 'tack it on at the end of the last run' (tack-on rule) or 'during the run in which the facemask occurred' (old rule)?


Online Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4655
  • FAN REACTION: +864/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: 2018 NFHS Rules Interpretations
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2018, 09:59:58 AM »
How is it any different? A foul by K is tacked on regardless now... if there is a facemask after the kick and during the runback, don't we 'tack that on' to the end of the run anyways?

All-but-one doesn't apply if we're only talking about K (defense) fouls. All the fouls by K are added on to the end of the run.

The only thing that wouldn't be would be where we had multiple running plays - R receives kick, runs, then fumbles, then recovers and runs some more. In this play, would we use the 'tack it on at the end of the last run' (tack-on rule) or 'during the run in which the facemask occurred' (old rule)?
Good point, BBeagle, this is covered on pg 13 of S & I. The caption under the illustration reads : "K fouls during a scrimmage kick. Despite the fumble, K will not be next to put the ball in play. R may have the penalty enforced from the succeeding spot." Rule reference : 6-1-9b, 10-4-2 & 10-5-1j.
You are correct, I should has stated succeeding in lieu of all but one.

Offline backspace

  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2018 NFHS Rules Interpretations
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2018, 02:34:07 PM »
Missing something on Page 96, 10.1.3 Situation: K2 illegal use of hands is a 10 yard penalty and the delay of game penalty 5 yds.  Previous spot enforcement of both fouls
would give K the ball at K's 45 yard line.  What would we have if the illegal use of hands by K occurred behind the line?  If R takes the ball at the succeeding spot, after enforcing both penalties, ^no it would be R's ball at R's 35 yard line.  Is there clarifications for clarifications?