Recent Posts

1

Texas Topics / Re: Out of Chapter Requests from Playoff Teams

« Last post by JBall on Today at 05:17:32 PM »

You know an aspect of this that I fear is being overlooked is I know Taso is trying to push retention of officials but overlooking how playoff assignments could be affecting that.  If a chapter knows they are not gonna get any playoff assignments but another neighboring chapter will but you can't or won't transfer would you just quit?
Does lack of playoff games for a chapter lower moral and cause some officials to quit putting in time to get better? This affects how games are called at all levels.

I know nothing said here will affect Taso wanting to change how playoff games are done.  I would like to see a rotation system put in place for championship games and a limit on how often crews and chapters can do each classification and division. 

If every chapter knew they had to be ready for a playoff game how much harder would some work to improve?  For smaller chapters this would be huge but bigger chapters  will never go for it.

2

National Federation Discussion / Re: Intentional Grounding enforcement scenario

« Last post by Ralph Damren on Today at 01:02:23 PM »

It's because all illegal forward passes are returned to the spot of the pass instead of the previous spot.  Without that, a runner that gains 30 yards then tries to pitch the ball forward which then hits the ground would be brought all the way back to the previous spot.  That wouldn't be fair since they gained the 30 yards legally.

I think a good rule change would be for IFPs BEYOND the NZ to be returned to the spot of the pass only.  Behind the NZ would be returned to the previous spot, but you'd have the option to accept the penalty.

NCAA made the exception where IFPs from the end zone can be returned to the previous spot like an incomplete pass, which is basically the only time that the defense could possibly choose not to take the penalty.  Maybe the above rule change I proposed would make sense for only IFPs from the field of play would be returned to the spot of the pass.

Sorry, Bossman, I was thinking of my  post while you were posting yours . The only proposal I recall on this issue was succeeding spot enforcement on this ...free kicking from the 15. That was defeated as two points and recieving the free kick was penalty enough.

3

Texas Topics / Re: Out of Chapter Requests from Playoff Teams

« Last post by dammitbobby on Today at 12:38:57 PM »

Ive been mulling it over, and here's possible solution (or at least improvement):

For the first round of playoff games only, the chapter that normally serves the venue chosen, will provide the crew for that game. Would love to see TASO push a change this this to UIL (or something similar.)

It shows progress without tearing everything down and starting over (which IMO should happen, but never will, until some scandal about officials being in cahoots with a coach to get picked happens... and tbh as much as I want to believe everyone in officiating has integrity, there's some who don't and finagle for games and talk to coaches and whisper in their ear to get selected.)

4

Texas Topics / Re: Out of Chapter Requests from Playoff Teams

« Last post by Etref on Today at 11:57:19 AM »

My understanding was the opposite - for the El Paso teams, I thought they had to flip home/home with their opponent, not neutral site, and if they won, the opposing coach would automatically scratch their home chapter (just because they could). There were 5-6 playoff games in El Paso last year, and I think 2 this year, and all games in El paso the last few years have had non-local crews.

Wow

5

National Federation Discussion / Re: Intentional Grounding enforcement scenario

« Last post by Ralph Damren on Today at 11:46:20 AM »

IG is of the IFP family. IFP is considered a running play with the enforcement being spot of foul. The problem of making IFP a loose ball play is if a forward pitch was made after a 40+ yard gain, and dropped, it would be treated as an incomplete pass with previous spot enforcement. Sure, we could make an exception that IG in the EZ = previous spot exception. We don't like exceptions. A safety is not a bad result for B, 2 points & recieving a free kick.

6

Texas Topics / Re: Out of Chapter Requests from Playoff Teams

« Last post by dammitbobby on Today at 11:45:31 AM »

My understanding was the opposite - for the El Paso teams, I thought they had to flip home/home with their opponent, not neutral site, and if they won, the opposing coach would automatically scratch their home chapter (just because they could). There were 5-6 playoff games in El Paso last year, and I think 2 this year, and all games in El paso the last few years have had non-local crews.

7

National Federation Discussion / Re: Intentional Grounding enforcement scenario

« Last post by Fatso on Today at 11:16:57 AM »

That would be a sensible rule change.  Thanks for the answer and input.     

8

National Federation Discussion / Re: Intentional Grounding enforcement scenario

« Last post by bossman72 on Today at 11:14:44 AM »

I know your answer is correct.  Can you explain why B can't decline the penalty and take over at the 4 yd line?  (I believe it's rule 7-5-3,  offended team can accept the penalty which would be a safety.  Or they can decline the distance portion of the penalty and have the down counted at the spot of the illegal pass - which is also a safety).   I guess my question is why can't they decline the penalty completely?  It seems like offending team can bail themselves out a bit by giving up 2 pts there instead of turn over on downs at the 4.

It's because all illegal forward passes are returned to the spot of the pass instead of the previous spot.  Without that, a runner that gains 30 yards then tries to pitch the ball forward which then hits the ground would be brought all the way back to the previous spot.  That wouldn't be fair since they gained the 30 yards legally.

I think a good rule change would be for IFPs BEYOND the NZ to be returned to the spot of the pass only.  Behind the NZ would be returned to the previous spot, but you'd have the option to accept the penalty.

NCAA made the exception where IFPs from the end zone can be returned to the previous spot like an incomplete pass, which is basically the only time that the defense could possibly choose not to take the penalty.  Maybe the above rule change I proposed would make sense for only IFPs from the field of play would be returned to the spot of the pass.

9

National Federation Discussion / Re: Intentional Grounding enforcement scenario

« Last post by Fatso on Today at 11:10:15 AM »

Options are safety or safety.

I know your answer is correct.  Can you explain why B can't decline the penalty and take over at the 4 yd line?  (I believe it's rule 7-5-3,  offended team can accept the penalty which would be a safety.  Or they can decline the distance portion of the penalty and have the down counted at the spot of the illegal pass - which is also a safety).   I guess my question is why can't they decline the penalty completely?  It seems like offending team can bail themselves out a bit by giving up 2 pts there instead of turn over on downs at the 4.

10

NCAA Discussion / Re: Question about NAIA

« Last post by ElvisLives on Today at 11:02:33 AM »

If you are working NAIA, you are doing so either for the fun of it, or in an effort to advance to higher levels of collegiate football. It ain't for the money. If you make a profit over a season, you are an exception. Most folks find that they are self-funding their hobby. Always been that way. Probably will always be that way. Been there, done that. Enjoyed the experience, and the camaraderie with the other guys. It paid off for me, in helping me get to FBS. I would not have continued sub-FBS officiating very much longer than I did.
Have fun doing it. But don't expect to fund your Hawaiian vacation with it.