Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
31
NCAA Discussion / Re: NCAA Rule Changes (Proposed)
« Last post by Ralph Damren on March 01, 2026, 06:43:43 AM »
Sorry to be nosey, guys, but I'm thrilled to see the NCAA to consider allowing a free kick following a fair catch. More often than not we (NFHS) try to copy them on rule changes !

While the excitement of this occuring may be in the minds of millions of college fans, the odds of such may not be high. In my 56 years of officiating, I have seen/heard of it occuring in Maine to be less than one  :( . Last season in the NFL, it did occur once, after a KCI  ^flag took the ball into FG range with time expired in the first half. With an untimed down, the kick sailed thru the pipes  ^TD  for the first occurance in the NFL since 1976.

Enjoy the new rule...if it becomes that.  tiphat:
32
NCAA Discussion / Re: NCAA Rule Changes (Proposed)
« Last post by ElvisLives on February 27, 2026, 10:52:32 PM »
So, what is an “awarded” fair catch? Like, maybe where the ball belongs to Team B after a KCI penalty?
33
National Federation Discussion / Re: SANTA'S WISH LIST....2026 version
« Last post by bossman72 on February 27, 2026, 10:45:26 PM »
IMO "hands to the face" has always been inconsistently interpreted between making it a 10 or 15 yard foul.
34
NCAA Discussion / Re: NCAA Rule Changes (Proposed)
« Last post by bossman72 on February 27, 2026, 10:41:43 PM »
What is the rationale behind this one?

Offensive pass interference penalties would be 10 yards. Currently, the penalty for offensive pass interference is 15 yards.

My only guess is "because NFL" like a lot of the rule changes.

I understand the NFL because 15 yards is an absolute drive killer.  NCAA for the most part is too, but the offensive firepower and the ability to recover from that in NCAA is a lot greater than NFL.  That's kind of why I liked keeping it at 15 to maintain offensive/defensive balance.  Oh well.

I'm kind of pumped they're bringing back the fair catch free kick.  No tee though.
37
NCAA Discussion / Re: NCAA Rule Changes (Proposed)
« Last post by ElvisLives on February 27, 2026, 07:27:09 PM »
Waiting to see the player with tights only, no pants

I don’t think we’ll see that, but I DO think we’ll see some REALLY short pants with tights. Just take the responsibility off of us. But, for the good of the game, no exposed skin below the neck of the body and legs, or below the elbows of the arms.
38
NCAA Discussion / Re: NCAA Rule Changes (Proposed)
« Last post by Etref on February 27, 2026, 07:14:02 PM »
Waiting to see the player with tights only, no pants
39
NCAA Discussion / Re: NCAA Rule Changes (Proposed)
« Last post by ElvisLives on February 27, 2026, 06:30:47 PM »
No skin it is….

You can either wear high socks that come up to the bottom of your pants, or you could wear some sort of leg covering -- tights -- whatever you want to call them," Shaw said. "We're looking for a no-skin gap. And if we have a skin gap and the officials recognize it, then they're going to send the player out of the game. And they have to stay out at least for one play but get it fixed."

Good. Where/when did he say this?
40
NCAA Discussion / Re: NCAA Rule Changes (Proposed)
« Last post by Imperial Stout on February 27, 2026, 05:41:47 PM »
No skin it is….

You can either wear high socks that come up to the bottom of your pants, or you could wear some sort of leg covering -- tights -- whatever you want to call them," Shaw said. "We're looking for a no-skin gap. And if we have a skin gap and the officials recognize it, then they're going to send the player out of the game. And they have to stay out at least for one play but get it fixed."
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10