Survey posted

[gsrc]

The Fed posted their annual survey. Here are the rules they are thinking about changing:
1. Making illegal helmet-to-helmet contact a disqualifying foul.
2. Requiring rugby-style punter protection to end outside of the tackle.
3. Restricting advancement of a fourth-down fumble.
4. Removing a player for one down when the helmet comes off of any player.
5. Revising the penalty for defensive pass interference to stipulate that a foul is not called on a ball that is obviously uncatchable.
6. Removing the equipment specifications on thigh guards.
7. Requiring at least four team K players to be on each side of the kicker when the ball is kicked on a free kick.
8. Stipulating that if eye shade (grease, no-glare strips or stickers) is worn, it must be a solid stroke with no words, numbers, logos or other symbols within the eye shade.
9. Revising Rule 2-6 to stipulate that an authorized conference can only be held with one or more team members directly in front of the team box within 9 yards of the sideline (eliminated the on-field conference between the hash marks).
10. Revising Rule 1-6 to remove restrictions on communication equipment being utilized except for the restrictions on players using LAN phones and/or headsets during authorized sideline conferences.
11. Revising Rule 2-4-1 to eliminate from the catch definition the Team A player being prohibited from returning inbounds by an opponent (therefore requiring Team A to come down inbounds for a catch to be completed).
12. Specifying for the purpose of penalty enforcement and the awarding of a new series, that the horse-collar foul occurs when the collar is grabbed, but only enforced if the player is subsequently brought to the ground. This would result in this horse-collar foul being treated as a live-ball foul in all situations, including the awarding of a new series.

[george7244]

why don't they just throw away the fed book and go to ncaa

[GoGoGo]

WOW - DQ for a helmet-to-helmet hit.

I understand that is a serious offense but WOW. How do they come up with the recommendations?

[VALJ]

If they want to prevent all from the most egregious (sp?) helmet to helmet shots being called, they should pass #1.  I've called it a few times this year - and I believe that it's the toughest foul for an official to call in real time - but I'd really have to think long and hard about ejecting a player unless it's obvious to me, God, and everybody that he INTENDED to hit with the helmet.  It's a hard enough sell to a coach now, even in the current environment where helmet blows are such a hot-button issue.  If we're telling a coach that his player has ejected himself from the ballgame because of it, that's going to lead to an awful lot of grief.  I'm entirely behind the IDEA on this, but if *any* helmet foul is a DQ, that might be overkill.

I'd be in favor of the "uncatchable" comment.  The Fed went halfway there a few years ago with the "it's not PI unless it's in the area where the ball is thrown" change a couple years back. 

It wouldn't surprise me if #7 gets passed.  The NFL adopted it to prevent having so many bodies in such a small space on an onsides kick, and it seems to be an easy enough way to spread things out a bit.

[VALJ]

And to save others a few seconds of googling, the survey is at http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=3844.

[LarryW60]

OK, they have my two cent's-worth. 

[GoGoGo]

I just took my survey

[bama_stripes]

I just took my survey

As did I.

But I don't understand why they are concerned about:

"12. Specifying for the purpose of penalty enforcement and the awarding of a new series, that the horse-collar foul occurs when the collar is grabbed, but only enforced if the player is subsequently brought to the ground. This would result in this horse-collar foul being treated as a live-ball foul in all situations, including the awarding of a new series."

This would result in a lot of "waved-off" flags, and cause more problems than it would solve, IMO, when the runner eventually falls forward, is hit from the front, or simply pulls out of the tackle.  As it stands, we don't have a foul unless he is actually tackled.

[AlUpstateNY]

1.  Will it ALWAYS be a foul on the defensive player when there is helmet to helmet contact?  current rules provide the leeway to disqualify a player who commits a flagrant foul.
2.  The current Roughing the Kicker rule applies to any kind of kick.  If the contact is avoidable.  Referee judgment seems to be working fine in these situations.
3.  How many deliberate fumbles do we see today, intended to provide an unfair advantage?
4.  Unnecessary overkill.
5.  Whose call is that in a 4 man crew?  A big mistake.
6.  Why?
7.  Didn't we try that and discontinue it?
8.  Good idea, include it under coach's certification responsibilities.
9.  Why limit the referee's judgment.
10. Why?
11. Why?
12. Current version seems to be working alright.

[LarryW60]

As did I.

But I don't understand why they are concerned about:

"12. Specifying for the purpose of penalty enforcement and the awarding of a new series, that the horse-collar foul occurs when the collar is grabbed, but only enforced if the player is subsequently brought to the ground. This would result in this horse-collar foul being treated as a live-ball foul in all situations, including the awarding of a new series."

This would result in a lot of "waved-off" flags, and cause more problems than it would solve, IMO, when the runner eventually falls forward, is hit from the front, or simply pulls out of the tackle.  As it stands, we don't have a foul unless he is actually tackled.

This seems to me to be a problem specifically because there can be any number of yards between when the collar is grabbed and when the player is actually pulled down.  If we're supposed to enforce from the spot of the grab, then we'll need to flag that spot and hope the defender actually follows-through with the take-down.  Otherwise we're going to be waving off a lot of flags.

[bama_stripes]

My thought was that the defense isn't getting much (if any) illegal advantage if the runner pulls the collar-grabber along for a few yards, or breaks the "collar" completely.  The spot of the foul should be where the tackle is completed.

[Atlanta Blue]

I don't see that as the purpose at all.  The issue is a dead ball foul vs a live ball foul.  If the foul doesn't "occur" until the player is tackled, it is a dead ball foul.  Or if the player isn't brought to the ground until after he crosses the sideline, again, it is a dead ball foul.  If it was 4th down, unless the LTG was made PRIOR to the player being tackled, the ball would go over to the defense, THEN the yards would be marked off.  In essence, the defense could benefit by horse collaring a runner to stop him from reaching the LTG.

This change would make the foul "occur" at the time of the grabbing, making it a live ball foul, and eliminating that loophole.  The idea of closing the loophole is a good one, although the wording for doing so is a little clunky.

C'mon guys, it took a COACH to figure this out?   

[Mike L]

1> isn't the flagrant rule good enough?
2> isn't it already enforced that way?
3> rule in search of a problem.
4> what's the purpose, unless of course you're trying to force teams to actually give the players helmets that fit correctly so they don't come off everytime the wind blows.
5> goes to advantage gained, probably a good idea, might be tough judgement/controversy
6> dumb
7> whatever
8> God I hate being the fashion police
9> is the coach coming out to the middle of field that big of a problem?
10> probably because it seems most everyone can't survive without a cell phone in their possession at all times. Can't allow something like a game to interrupt one's texting.
11> I like it. If the defense can hit the receiver to not allow him to come down in bounds they should be rewarded.
12> why don't they just go to the NCAA wording of "immediately" and eliminate all this BS?

[AlUpstateNY]

I don't see that as the purpose at all.  The issue is a dead ball foul vs a live ball foul.  If the foul doesn't "occur" until the player is tackled, it is a dead ball foul.  Or if the player isn't brought to the ground until after he crosses the sideline, again, it is a dead ball foul.  If it was 4th down, unless the LTG was made PRIOR to the player being tackled, the ball would go over to the defense, THEN the yards would be marked off.  In essence, the defense could benefit by horse collaring a runner to stop him from reaching the LTG.  C'mon guys, it took a COACH to figure this out?   

The problem is not the rule, it's that some people insist on reading whatever is written to suggest whatever thay want, that's not intended by the rule.  If a foul BEGINS when the ball is alive, it's a live ball foul (holding, face mask, BIB, whatever).  If the ball becomes dead BEFORE the foul begins, it's a dead ball foul.(late hit OOB, face mask in a pile up, a lot of really stupid things)

It's usually not officials who spend all their time trying to twist the words used in creating a rule to squeeze something that was never intended into an interpretation.  It's not rocket science because it's not supposed to be.

[Atlanta Blue]

The problem is not the rule, it's that some people insist on reading whatever is written to suggest whatever thay want, that's not intended by the rule. 

No, the problem is that some officials want to interpret things the way things they think SHOULD be, instead of what is actually written.  Too many officials have "interpreted" this as a live ball foul.  This proposed rule change fixes that current misinterpretation.

If a foul BEGINS when the ball is alive, it's a live ball foul (holding, face mask, BIB, whatever).

The reason those are live ball fouls are because they are fouls AS SOON AS they occur, not when the play ends.  That's why a HCT is different: BY DEFINITION, it's not a foul until the play ends.  The rule was even rewritten this year to specifically include HCTs that occur AFTER the runner is out of bounds or has scored.  Without this proposal, how can you possibly think it's currently a live ball foul?

  If the ball becomes dead BEFORE the foul begins, it's a dead ball foul.(late hit OOB, face mask in a pile up, a lot of really stupid things)

True, because they weren't fouls until the ball was dead, just like a HCT.  Currently a HCT isn't a foul until the player is tackled.  It's not a foul to grab the collar and pull a runner, it's a foul to do so and TACKLE him.  It's not a foul until he's tackled, which means it's not a foul until the ball is dead.

It's usually not officials who spend all their time trying to twist the words used in creating a rule to squeeze something that was never intended into an interpretation.

No, it's simply officials that decide they can interpret the rules they way they want them to be, not the way they are written.

 

It's not rocket science because it's not supposed to be.

No, but they are rules, not suggestions.  You don't get to make up your own version of them just because you wear the striped shirt and the silly pants.


I don't understand your opposition, they are trying to fix the rule to be enforced the way you WANT it to be enforced.

[Jackhammer]

I don't understand why they just don't add to the HCT rule....All HCT fouls are enforced as live ball fouls.  The spot of the foul is then simple.

That's what needs to be done and appears to be what they're trying to do.  Plain english will help the situation, this re-write doesn't.  HCT is an evolving rule, I think there's a need to further clarify what is and isn't one...not sure that's in rulemaking or simply further definition in casebook examples.

I agree with VALJ on the helmet to helmet.  More rulemaking here doesn't help this situation.  Allowing discretion will.  DQ fouls are the antithesis to proactive officiating, most officials want to avoid DQ's as much as possible.  The rules now allow for a DQ in this situation through the exercise of discretion and awareness by the official on the field, this rule will do more harm than good.  I think this approach goes in the exact opposite direction they went to with the concussion rule....which I believe to be a very positive change.

Absolutely no need for #3
#4 overkill

#8 I'm sick of being uniform police.  Is it really that big of a deal for towels, bracelets, sweatbands, play cards and all of the other things that are worn. 

[AlUpstateNY]

No, but they are rules, not suggestions.  You don't get to make up your own version of them just because you wear the striped shirt and the silly pants.

I don't understand your opposition, they are trying to fix the rule to be enforced the way you WANT it to be enforced.

Perhaps it would be clearer if you wore a striped shirt and silly pants.

[AlUpstateNY]

#8 I'm sick of being uniform police.  Is it really that big of a deal for towels, bracelets, sweatbands, play cards and all of the other things that are worn. 

Just a somewhat different perspective, but if anyone should be pleased with rules eliminating "Uniform police" nonsense, it should be officials.  You might consider that without restrictions we would be dealing with a never ending source of creative one-upsmanship that people would want to argue about infinitim.

The rules makers, in their wisdom, cut out the bulk of all this BS, and answered most questions with a simple, and straightforward "NO", either it complies with a very limited description, or it's prohibited.  Not a lot of wiggle room that keeps totally superflous nonsense out of the game.  These are rules that are clearly intended to be enforced before the players enter the field, thus eliminating all this silly nonsense from becoming an issue.

The problem is that when players are allowed to flaunt these rules, it becomes a matter for officials to clean up, because when players are allowed to go too far with this nonsense, really bad things can spiral way out of control.  When that happens many of the same people who allow this crap to happen are the ones yelling the loudest about "control of the game being lost".

If anything, I appluad the effort of rule makers to try and eliminate all this BS, unfortunately the ones charged with the primary responsibility for doing so, are not doing all that well enforcing it. 

[jjseikel]

None of these proposals are necessary. Leave things alone unless they want to change the penalty for OPI.

[Luke]

WOW - DQ for a helmet-to-helmet hit.

I understand that is a serious offense but WOW. How do they come up with the recommendations?

It said nothing about a helmet to helmet hit.  It said "illegal helmet contact" which is defined as a butt block, face tackle, or spear.  None of those have anything to do with wear the other player gets hit.