The new rule will........

[ncwingman]

Honest question, yes it was a loophole... but was it ever exploited?

I could see that there was some situation were the team buys some new BFBS jerseys... and then one of them just torn to shreds or blood on it and they didn't have a midgame replacement, but they do have their normal red jerseys for the guy to switch into. That situation wouldn't really be exploiting the rule to gain an advantage ...

I guess the other way *could* be? Defense is used to seeing opponents in red, but now there's some reciever who is wearing black and is less visible...

Again... did it happen, or is just preemptive?

[Rich]

In retrospect, I agree with the committee - the rules and game are in a pretty good place, especially when I compare them to when I started officiating in the early 90s.

And some changes must take multiple years to process and put in place.

I've already told me crew there's no meaningful changes, although I am hopeful there's one big editorial change coming.

Ralph, when do people meet on mechanics?  Is it the same meeting? 

[CalhounLJ]

"McWhirter noted that while this was the only rules proposal that was approved by the committee, there was considerable discussion related to the other eight proposals that advanced to the full committee. He said there was considerable discussion dealing with sportsmanship, particularly unsporting acts in dead-ball situations.

“There was solid agreement by the committee that the rules of the game are in good shape,” McWhirter said. “There was great discussion regarding the need for consistent enforcement of the existing rules specifically in regard to equipment and sportsmanship. Several proposals garnered substantial interest and discussion and may merit further consideration in future committee meetings.”"

Holy Cow...
I'm speechless.
😳🫣🤦‍♂️

[refjeff]

Say it ain't so, Ralph.

[Ralph Damren]

Say it ain't so, Ralph.

It's so, and accolades to 'Bama for noticing the singular 'rule' in my topic. The one change was to address the possibility of a home team wanting to have a different dark color of jersey for : captaiins, seniors, positions or whatever. IMHO, it will fall into a bin with 9-9-3 (the pregnant fullback) or 9-6-4e (the sleepy slotback) of fouls that are seen less as often as Haley's Comet. I agree with the Chair, Richard McWhirter,  that the game is on solid footing and not in need of massive changes. Of the eight other proposals that came to the floor, I favored three and they may return in future years. The Rule 10 review was fully in the hands of the Editorial Committee to 'clarify' (a soft word that wasn't used in many discussions ) last year's revamp.

I haven't yet heard what editorial changes to expect. I'll pass in on to you guys as soon as I learn. Now ,at your Super Bowl parties, you can brag that you know of the new NFHS football rule !

[refjeff]

Ralph,
 
Your contributions extend beyond the borders of Maine and this forum and are greatly appreciated.

 

[ted skoundrianos]

Ralph, Of the eight other proposals that came to the floor, I favored three and they return in future years. What were the 3 you favored this year.

[Ralph Damren]

(1) Adding AFD to DPI - IMHO, failed as only AFD that wasn't a PF and LTG exceeds 15 yds, not deserved.

(2) Forward fumble > OOB > returned to spot of fumble - IMHO, failed on complexity.

(3) Reducing IP fouls for A/R stepping on sidelines to 5 yards - IMHO,  failed on complexity.

Requiring 2/3 to pass, it doesn't take alot of skeptics to derail a proposal. Steve Shaw, a NCAA rules leader, spoke at the start of our meeting and stressed the importance of keeping our rules simple. His speech may have had an impact on some. I do expect to see the above three to return to the floor in the future. One of the POE's will stress the importance of knee pads.

Enjoy the Super Bowl and now you can brag about knowing the new NFHS football rule !!

[ncwingman]

Just had a good potstirrin' thought

Ain't nothing in the rule book says they can't wear different colored pants though.

 

[Snapper]

Interesting.  Thanks Ralph.

[CalhounLJ]

So, nobody on the rules committee thought Rule 10 was a trainwreck?

[ncwingman]

So, nobody on the rules committee thought Rule 10 was a trainwreck?

I think this comes back to my previous post on the matter -- fixing Rule 10 is an "editorial change" not a "rule change", so it's in a different category/press release?

The fundamental reasoning behind Rule 10 isn't being changed, so there was no need to vote on it or make it a "new" rule, just fix the wording... *all* of the wording.

[bossman72]

I think this comes back to my previous post on the matter -- fixing Rule 10 is an "editorial change" not a "rule change", so it's in a different category/press release?

The fundamental reasoning behind Rule 10 isn't being changed, so there was no need to vote on it or make it a "new" rule, just fix the wording... *all* of the wording.

We're putting our faith in the same incompetent editorial committee that gave us the table.  Hopefully they don't double down and keep the table and bring back all-but-one with exceptions.

[bama_stripes]

Ralph, would you mind listing the eight proposals that made it to the full committee?  Otherwise, this board may not make it ‘till July. 

[CalhounLJ]

I think this comes back to my previous post on the matter -- fixing Rule 10 is an "editorial change" not a "rule change", so it's in a different category/press release?

The fundamental reasoning behind Rule 10 isn't being changed, so there was no need to vote on it or make it a "new" rule, just fix the wording... *all* of the wording.

The fundamental reasoning of rule 10 IS the problem. 😂

[refjeff]

Just had a good potstirrin' thought

Ain't nothing in the rule book says they can't wear different colored pants though.

 

Or helmets.

[refjeff]

We're putting our faith in the same incompetent editorial committee that gave us the table.  Hopefully they don't double down and keep the table and bring back all-but-one with exceptions.

Agreed, except now they have had a year to think about a revision.

[lawdog]

We're putting our faith in the same incompetent editorial committee that gave us the table. 

Exactly!  What could go wrong?  They are also the same group that said, No the table is right, you just don't understand it well enough... 

[ncwingman]

The fundamental reasoning of rule 10 IS the problem. 😂

Do you mean to say you don't approve of the Expanded All But One principle where All Penalties are Enforced from the Basic Spot except for the singular unique one case where:

1) A fouls behind the basic spot, then the enforcement spot is the spot of the foul
1a) Unless (with no change of possession) the resulting enforcement spot is behind the previous LOS, then it is enforced from the LOS
1a(i)) Unless unless that foul was for illegal kicking, batting or forward pass or illegal participation
One) Or Unless the foul qualifies under Rule 10-5 for Special Enforcement Rules

I'm not against the *philosophy* of the rule change... it was just the mangled nature of how they actually wrote it down that is the problem. They can fix it without changing what the rule should have been last year.

We're putting our faith in the same incompetent editorial committee that gave us the table.  Hopefully they don't double down and keep the table and bring back all-but-one with exceptions.

Yeah, I'm a bit worried that they're going to try to add to the current rule wording to patch the mistakes rather than just burn the whole thing down and start over.

I think they *can* bring back the ABO principle and modify it correctly, kind of like how I mentioned it above. They really should bring back ABO as a general philosophy -- or just straight up copy the Three-And-One principle from NCAA or NFL as those also contain the caveats for fouls in the offensive backfield as well.

[CalhounLJ]

Do you mean to say you don't approve of the Expanded All But One principle where All Penalties are Enforced from the Basic Spot except for the singular unique one case where:

1) A fouls behind the basic spot, then the enforcement spot is the spot of the foul
1a) Unless (with no change of possession) the resulting enforcement spot is behind the previous LOS, then it is enforced from the LOS
1a(i)) Unless unless that foul was for illegal kicking, batting or forward pass or illegal participation
One) Or Unless the foul qualifies under Rule 10-5 for Special Enforcement Rules

I'm not against the *philosophy* of the rule change... it was just the mangled nature of how they actually wrote it down that is the problem. They can fix it without changing what the rule should have been last year.

i suppose you're right. I do like your version better..

[Ralph Damren]

So, nobody on the rules committee thought Rule 10 was a trainwreck?

The following editorial changes were made : 10-3-1c NOTE; 10-4; 10-5; NFHS OFFICIAL FOOTBALL SIGNALS; PENALTY SUMMARY; INDEX.

So work was done. We now need to wait until the books show up to see if it is to the finished results   

[Ralph Damren]

Ralph, would you mind listing the eight proposals that made it to the full committee?  Otherwise, this board may not make it ‘till July. 

Beyond the three I favored and have mentioned, the remaining five were:

2 dealt with eye shade ,what could / couldn't be done.
Excuse a player trying to punch the ball loose, if he unintentionally punched opponent.
Dead ball contact fouls to be treated as USC.
USC on B = AFD

 

[Snapper]

Excuse a player trying to punch the ball loose, if he unintentionally punched opponent.

I'm surprised that one would even make it out of committee.  That's a terrible idea.   

[Ralph Damren]

In retrospect, I agree with the committee - the rules and game are in a pretty good place, especially when I compare them to when I started officiating in the early 90s.

And some changes must take multiple years to process and put in place.

I've already told me crew there's no meaningful changes, although I am hopeful there's one big editorial change coming.

Ralph, when do people meet on mechanics?  Is it the same meeting?

The Officials' Manual Committee's starts once full meeting ends. It is made up of active officials, some not on the rules committee. This being a publish year, their meeting may go late into the evening and sometimes into the following morning. I've served three terms of four years on the committee and a lot of thought is put into it.  Remember, guys, that the book is only a guideline, not a rule.

[Ralph Damren]

I'm surprised that one would even make it out of committee.  That's a terrible idea.   

My wording "excused" was misleading, it would still be a PF just not DQ. I didn't think that it was a terrible idea, I just didn't think it was a good idea  .