PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

[ElvisLives]

Oh, and I see no UIL action on other editorial changes:
1-4-2-d
Player has to report to the referee if he enters the game wearing a number other than that on the "game day roster." WTF is a "game day roster"? Never saw one in my years in FBS, and certainly not in UIL football. By taking no other action, is the UIL accepting this change? Are they going require schools to provide us with an official "game day roster"? What a mess.

12-3-3-d-3 is a Replay rule, and there is no reason not to accept it, for those 12 annual games using replay.

12-3-6-i and j is a Replay rule, and there is no reason not to accept it, for those 12 annual games using replay.

I'll see what I can find out about those.

[ElvisLives]

UIL 2024 Modification to Exception #52

OK, I know a little more.

Firstly, the 2024 'action' document published by the UIL is not the final Exceptions document. That will probably not be issued until after the actual 2024 NCAA Rules book is released (which should be any time now, I would think).

I have it on good authority that yes, the language in the 'action' document from the UIL is not properly edited, as it relates to a 'snap' and a 'fumble,' as both as defined.  I expect that will be corrected.

As I now understand it, if Team A executes a 'routine' field goal attempt, the UIL does not want 'upright' players of Team B who are positioned within one yard of their LOS at the snap to initiate contact with any opponent. They can rush, but they just can't initiate any significant contact. If they can run through a gap or around an end with anything more than minor contact, they are legal. I also understand that those 'restricted' Team B players will be responsible to avoid contact with Team A, even if a Team A player moves into their path. Let's say a wingback steps toward a 'restricted' edge rusher and blocks him below the waist, we may have offsetting fouls. BBW by offense, UNR by defense.

But a bona fide muff of the snap, or a fumble of the ball (after possession is gained) will eliminate the restriction on Team B players.
A 'bad' snap does not necessarily mean the restriction is eliminated. If the ball reaches the holder without him having to leave his position to recover the ball, and then he is able to place the ball, and the kicker makes the kick, that will work as a routine kick, and the restriction applies. 
If Team B does anything other than continue their attempt to execute a place kick, like a pass or a run, the restriction is eliminated.

Potential holder A11 tries to catch the snap in flight, but bobbles it in hands and against his chest, then completes the catch. That will be a simple, clean catch, for #52 purposes. Restriction applies.
So, what does count as a muff? Not totally sure yet. Maybe if it hits the ground (?). Surely, that would have to qualify. (Yeah, I know - Stop calling you Shirley. )

How about a fumble?
Potential holder A11 catches the ball, but then fumbles it as he is moving to place the ball for the kick. That's a fumble, and the restriction is eliminated.

The idea is that the defense must be allowed to attempt to recover a ball loose from a muff or a fumble, make a play for a pass, or pursue a Team A ball carrier attempting to advance. But, if the kick is normal and routine, those restricted folks can't initiate contact with a Team A player.

One way for teams to avoid problems is simply have everybody on the line in 3 or 4 point stances. And B players more than 1 yard off their line are not restricted.

Oh. Also, I understand that we will not have to deal with 'game day rosters.'  Although not addressed in the 'action' document, the UIL will not approve that NCAA editorial change for the UIL. Whew!

[Zebra Watcher]

Thank you ElvisLives for doing all this work to clarify UIL's own wording of their rules. A major help.

[Legacy Zebra]

And B players more than 1 yard off their line are not restricted.

This part doesn’t make sense to me from a “Why?” stand point. If a player starts at 2 yards standing up and hits a lineman, how is that more safe than a player starting on the line hitting a back? And how is it safer than starting on the line and hitting a lineman?

[ElvisLives]

This part doesn’t make sense to me from a “Why?” stand point. If a player starts at 2 yards standing up and hits a lineman, how is that more safe than a player starting on the line hitting a back? And how is it safer than starting on the line and hitting a lineman?

Don’t get me started. I’m just trying to mitigate the ambiguities in the rule we are getting, and make it as ‘black and white’ as possible, so we can all officiate it consistently.
This will be covered in the Webinar on Wednesday. Tune in.

[dammitbobby]

This part doesn’t make sense to me from a “Why?” stand point. If a player starts at 2 yards standing up and hits a lineman, how is that more safe than a player starting on the line hitting a back? And how is it safer than starting on the line and hitting a lineman?

The only rationale I can think of (assuming the wording is intentional) is that there's enough of a delay when they are two yards off the ball to allow the lineman to get their head up. He's still going to get knocked onto his butt, most likely, but much less chance of head/neck injury.

[Bulldog75]

When we did training on it last year, we were told that Team B players had to be in a 3 or 4 point stance AND lined up within 1 yard of the LOS to be able to initiate contact.  The play they were wanting to avoid was Team B players shooting from depth and crashing into Team A blockers at the snap.  And from how I read it, that doesn't change with the new verbiage.


"it is illegal for a defensive player who is not in a three or four point stance and aligned in a stationary position within one yard of his line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped, to run forward after the snap and initiate contact"


That's clumsy phrasing, but if the defensive player is not in a 3 or 4 point AND lined up within 1 yard of the LOS, it is illegal for that player to initiate contact.

[ElvisLives]

When we did training on it last year, we were told that Team B players had to be in a 3 or 4 point stance AND lined up within 1 yard of the LOS to be able to initiate contact.  The play they were wanting to avoid was Team B players shooting from depth and crashing into Team A blockers at the snap.  And from how I read it, that doesn't change with the new verbiage.


"it is illegal for a defensive player who is not in a three or four point stance and aligned in a stationary position within one yard of his line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped, to run forward after the snap and initiate contact"


That's clumsy phrasing, but if the defensive player is not in a 3 or 4 point AND lined up within 1 yard of the LOS, it is illegal for that player to initiate contact.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is correct. The 2024 difference is that the one-second time frame has been removed, so now it is illegal for such players to initiate contact with opponents any amount of time after the snap begins,  UNLESS the snap is:
-errant;
-muffed;
-caught by the potential holder who then fumbles the ball; and
any of those things affect the potential holder's ability to place the ball for the kick attempt, OR the action is a 'fake', i.e.:
-the potential holder possesses the ball then passes/hands the ball, or rises to run with the ball;
-the snap goes directly to the kicker, or
anything else that is obviously and clearly not a clean, bona fide attempt to place-kick the ball.

A muff or fumble by the holder that he can quickly catch/recover without having to move out of his holding posture will count as a 'clean' placement attempt. If the holder has to stretch up (maybe with his knee coming off the ground a bit) to catch the snap, but is able to immediately drop back into holding posture and place the ball will count as a 'clean' placement.

When the placement attempt is considered 'clean,' there is no time element as to when Team A is allowed to initiate contact. Until it is obvious the ball is loose, or the potential holder will not be able to place the ball for a place kick, or it is obvious a kick will not be attempted, Team B 'restricted' players still can not initiate contact with opponents.
That doesn't mean they can't 'rush.' It just means they must avoid any significant contact with opponents, even if the opponent moves into the path of the Team B restricted player.

TASO members, tune in 7:00 pm tonight.  https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83050566897?pwd=dzZldDQrS3RwcHpGVjUyVktqRTA3dz09

[dammitbobby]

I wonder since it effectively el  ok minutes any meaningful interior LOS penetration attempt by B, if we will see teams try to take advantage of that and run more planned fakes.

[ElvisLives]

I wonder since it effectively el  ok minutes any meaningful interior LOS penetration attempt by B, if we will see teams try to take advantage of that and run more planned fakes.

All 11 Team B players can get in a 3 or 4 point stance within a yard of the NZ and charge forward as hard as they want (and make contact) at the snap. [erroneous info removed by original poster.]
Yes, Team B players outside the width of the tackle box, or more than 1 yard beyond the NZ, can’t block below in the waist, even if they are otherwise permitted to make contact with opponents.
No doubt about it. This is one of the most complicated of all football rules.

[dammitbobby]

All defensive players within one yard of the LOS must be in a 3 or 4 point stance at the snap.

No defensive player more than one yard off the ball may initiate contact with a Team A blocker.

Exception: If the snap is fumbled or muffed, or it becomes obvious that no kick will be attempted.

Is that accurate?

[ElvisLives]

All defensive players within one yard of the LOS must be in a 3 or 4 point stance at the snap.

No defensive player more than one yard off the ball may initiate contact with a Team A blocker.

Exception: If the snap is fumbled or muffed, or it becomes obvious that no kick will be attempted.

Is that accurate?

NO!

NOBODY must be in any specific posture.
However, Team B players who are not in a stationary 3 or 4 point stance and within one yard of the NZ at the snap may not initiate contact with opponents in or behind the NZ until it is obvious and clear that the play is a fake kick or a ‘busted’ play.

I don’t like using the term ‘busted’ play, because that can mean a lot of things, but that is the simplest way I can put it. What is a busted play? Well, an errant snap that causes the holder to move out of his position to recover the bouncing/rolling ball would qualify. A muff of the snap by the holder that gets away from the holder who has to move out of his position to recover the bouncing/rolling ball would qualify. After catching the snap, a fumble of the ball by the holder that gets away from him and he has to move out of his position to recover the bouncing/rolling ball would qualify.
A bobble (muff) of the snap that the holder is able to control in place, and quickly place for the kick would NOT qualify. A fumble of the ball that the holder is able to control in place and quickly place for a kick would NOT qualify. A low snap that bounces to the holder that he is able to control and place for the kick without having to move out of his position would NOT qualify.

A fake is a direct snap to the apparent kicker or a player other than the apparent holder. A pass made by the apparent holder. Handing of the ball made by the apparent holder to another player. When the apparent holder catches the snap and rises to run. Those events release the restricted players to initiate contact with opponents.

None of this means that ‘restricted’ Team B players can’t ’rush.’ If they can avoid making significant contact with opponents, they are completely free to run through a gap, or around the end to try to block the kick or tackle the holder (holding the ball), if he can get there quickly enough. Once it is obvious and clear the play is a fake or busted, then they can initiate contact with opponents.

[dammitbobby]

I'm just trying to boil this down into simpler language/statements to make it easier to understand and digest.


To initiate contact with a Team A blocker, defensive players must be within 1 yard of the LOS, and in a 3-4 point stance, unless <exception>.

Examples:
B73 is lined up within 1 yard of the LOS, in a 3-point stance. He may initiate contact with a Team A blocker in or behind the NZ to attempt to disrupt or block the kick.
B44 is lined up in an upright stance within 1 yard of the LOS. He may not initiate contact with a Team A player in or behind the NZ, unless <exception>.

No defensive player in an upright stance, regardless of location, may initiate contact with a Team A blocker in or behind the NZ, unless <exception>.

Examples:
B44 is lined up in an upright stance 3 yards off the ball (typical linebacker position). He may not initiate contact with a team A player, in or behind the NZ unless <exception>.

<Exception>: If the snap is fumbled or muffed, or it becomes obvious that no kick will be attempted.

[ElvisLives]

I'm just trying to boil this down into simpler language/statements to make it easier to understand and digest.

<Exception>: If the snap is fumbled or muffed, or it becomes obvious that no kick will be attempted.

Everything else is OK, but this statement is too simplistic. It is entirely possible for the holder to muff the snap, but quickly recover and place the ball for the kick. It is entirely possible for the holder to fumble the ball, but recover quickly and place the ball for the kick. Those actions would NOT relieve the restrictions on the “restricted” Team B players. Sadly, the edited modified Exception #52 will probably still contain this confusing language. But, the intent is to require a muff or a fumble that makes it virtually impossible for the holder to place the ball for the kick to relieve the restricted Team B players of those restrictions.

[dammitbobby]

Yes, I see the problem (both with my language and what the rule is saying.)


Mechanically, whose flag is this, I'd imagine it would have to be wings or U? If they see this, and the kick is successfully attempted, then it's a foul; and if it's not successfully attempted, then no foul?

[ElvisLives]

Yes, I see the problem (both with my language and what the rule is saying.)


Mechanically, whose flag is this, I'd imagine it would have to be wings or U? If they see this, and the kick is successfully attempted, then it's a foul; and if it's not successfully attempted, then no foul?

More terminology issues. When it becomes clear and obvious that a kick attempt won’t be made, then they are released to make contact.
When the ball is clearly loose from an errant snap, a muff of the ball, or a fumble of the ball, and the apparent holder has to move from his pre-snap position to try to field the ball, and it is clear a place kick won’t be attempted, Team B restricted players are free to initiate contact. But, as long as the apparent holder is able to remain in his pre-snap position and can field the ball for a potential place kick attempt, the restrictions remain.
If Team A is able to execute a place kick, even after bumbling around with the ball momentarily, then the restrictions remain.

One thing the writer/editor of the rule has not yet addressed is what is possible after the kick is made. If the ball flies away by the kick, then, are Team B restricted players free to initiate otherwise legal contact? If the kick is blocked - same question. I am  trying to get these issues addressed. I’m sure they intend that those Team B players would be released from those restrictions once the ball is kicked. But the preliminary language certainly doesn’t say that. The writer/editor simply has to think these things through.

[FWREF]

All 11 Team B players can get in a 3 or 4 point stance within a yard of the NZ and charge forward as hard as they want (and make contact) at the snap. All Team B players could take upright positions more than 1 yard beyond the NZ and charge forward as hard as they want (and make contact) at the snap. The blocking prohibition only applies to those upright players within 1 yard of the NZ.
Yes, Team B players outside the width of the tackle box, or more than 1 yard beyond the NZ, can’t block below in the waist, even if they are otherwise permitted to make contact with opponents.
No doubt about it. This is one of the most complicated of all football rules.

I do not believe this is correct. The rule states that to charge forward and make contact, the defenders must be in a 3 point stance AND within one yard of the LOS. Standing players beyond 1 yard of the LOS may not move forward and make contact. At least that is the way i am reading it and would rule???

[ElvisLives]

I do not believe this is correct. The rule states that to charge forward and make contact, the defenders must be in a 3 point stance AND within one yard of the LOS. Standing players beyond 1 yard of the LOS may not move forward and make contact. At least that is the way i am reading it and would rule???

You are 100% correct. For 2023, they could have, because it would take more than 1 second for them to make contact. No longer.  My error. I will fix my post.

[ElvisLives]

Well, if I were y’all, I’d disregard everything you’ve heard about former UIL Exception 52. “Former,” because it is now becoming UIL Exception 58 (don’t ask me…I don’t know why, just yet). But, the final rule will, apparently, be QUITE different, and far more restrictive, than we originally understood. If it doesn’t get changed again, truthfully, it will be considerably easier to officiate, but defensive coaches, in particular, will really hate it. And, spectators will be completely befuddled as to “what just happened,” when we make this call, or why the defense did - or, more accurately, DIDN’T do - what they did/didn’t do on that down (because of this rule).
It’s a mess. But, the entire coaching universe (in Texas) will get a preview of the rule they have given themselves at the THSCA convention in mid-July (about 10 days ahead of our State Meeting). ‘January 6’ may have been a tea party compared to the revolt we might (and hope) see.
All because one lousy school (and coaching staff) chose to try to hurt people, because they lacked talent and skill, and coaching integrity. And the UIL chose to put this on our backs, instead of having the fortitude to simply sanction that one school/coaching staff.
As Emily Litella would say, “Never mind.” (For now.)

[dammitbobby]

Come on now, spill the tea... we need the hot goss!

And what will exception 57 be, current list (2023) ends at 56...

[ElvisLives]

Come on now, spill the tea... we need the hot goss!

And what will exception 57 be, current list (2023) ends at 56...

“Patience, young grasshopper.”  (Bonus points for identifying the origin of that reference.)

[dammitbobby]

From my era, it's from the Karate Kid but I'm guessing it's older than that.

[ElvisLives]

From my era, it's from the Karate Kid but I'm guessing it's older than that.

Oh, yeah. Older. No points. Originally from the original “Kung Fu,” (‘72-‘75) with David Carridine, as Kwai Chang Caine. His blind master, Master Po (Keye Luke) said that to him from time to time, when student Caine would get impatient. Pat Morita (or the script writer) stole it for Karate Kid (‘84).

[ElvisLives]

For those wondering, the reason UIL 52 became UIL 58 is because of all the additions and re-numbering of the Exceptions. There were 56 exceptions in 2023; now there are 62.

OK, so for UIL 58, take a look at it. It seems simple. But, what you don’t see at first glance is that a “restricted” player of Team B (my term, but one that I believe will become universally accepted) - as of this moment - can’t tackle (initiate contact) a Team A ball carrier (or initiate contact with ANY Team A player) behind the neutral zone. Once the BC gets beyond the NZ, then restricted B players may initiate contact with him.
As of now, it doesn’t make any difference if the snap is errant, if they muff the snap, if they catch the snap and then fumble, if they snap directly to somebody other than the potential holder, or if they do any sort of fake (pass or run). A “restricted” B player can’t initiate contact with any A player in/behind the NZ. They may cross and be behind the NZ, but they just can’t initiate contact with any A player(s). So, they still have some opportunity to block a kick, but they better not initiate contact with any A players behind the NZ.
Now, from an officiating perspective, that’s actually a pretty easy rule. Do we have any defensive coordinators in the room? What do y’all think?
I believe this will be reviewed in graphic detail at the THSCA Convention in July. No tellin’ what might happen when they all get a good whiff of this rule.
Yeah. Sure. Just put all 11 on the line and with at least one hand in contact with the ground, and this rule becomes moot. Is that a good defensive strategy? I don’t know. Not a coach. But it seems like a real hamstring to me.
And, all because of one school (or a very small handful of schools/coaches) that just want to inflict pain and injury.

[blindtxzebra]

For those wondering, the reason UIL 52 became UIL 58 is because of all the additions and re-numbering of the Exceptions. There were 56 exceptions in 2023; now there are 62.

OK, so for UIL 58, take a look at it. It seems simple. But, what you don’t see at first glance is that a “restricted” player of Team B (my term, but one that I believe will become universally accepted) - as of this moment - can’t tackle (initiate contact) a Team A ball carrier (or initiate contact with ANY Team A player) behind the neutral zone. Once the BC gets beyond the NZ, then restricted B players may initiate contact with him.
As of now, it doesn’t make any difference if the snap is errant, if they muff the snap, if they catch the snap and then fumble, if they snap directly to somebody other than the potential holder, or if they do any sort of fake (pass or run). A “restricted” B player can’t initiate contact with any A player in/behind the NZ. They may cross and be behind the NZ, but they just can’t initiate contact with any A player(s). So, they still have some opportunity to block a kick, but they better not initiate contact with any A players behind the NZ.
Now, from an officiating perspective, that’s actually a pretty easy rule. Do we have any defensive coordinators in the room? What do y’all think?
I believe this will be reviewed in graphic detail at the THSCA Convention in July. No tellin’ what might happen when they all get a good whiff of this rule.
Yeah. Sure. Just put all 11 on the line and with at least one hand in contact with the ground, and this rule becomes moot. Is that a good defensive strategy? I don’t know. Not a coach. But it seems like a real hamstring to me.
And, all because of one school (or a very small handful of schools/coaches) that just want to inflict pain and injury.

Surely it will not be written this way.