Author Topic: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis  (Read 29186 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« on: May 04, 2015, 09:11:38 AM »
POEs for 2015 are attached.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 900
  • FAN REACTION: +52/-9
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2015, 09:43:46 AM »
There is an inconsistency between the Point of Emphasis and the rulebook regarding sideline interference.  The POI says "All coaches must leave this area (the sideline safety area) when the ball is about to become live, such as when the snapper is approaching the ball, and no one may be in this area while the ball is live."

The rulebook simply says “No player, nonplayer or coach shall be in the restricted area when the ball is live.”  I believe the rulebook used to say "about to become live" but it doesn't say that any longer.

In our area, administration of this rule is inconsistent.  Some officials say things like "I used to be a coach, so I give them plenty of leeway."  Other officials are more strict.  Even if we wanted to get consistent here, what should we be telling coaches?  The POI says "when the ball is about to become live" and the rulebook says "when the ball is live."

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4654
  • FAN REACTION: +864/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2015, 10:06:40 AM »
IMHO, if the coach isn't moving out of the moat when the ball is about to become live, he won't be out of the moat when the ball becomes live. It won't be a  ^flag until the ball becomes live.

 Preventave officiating : "Coach, ya' gotta' move outa' here, the ball's about to become live z^!"

 Happy coach : " :D Thank you very much, Mr. wingman, that was very thoughtful of you :D!"

              ....we can always dream yEs:...

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2015, 11:28:51 AM »
"About to become live" is subjective, "live" is objective.  Objective rules are always better than subjective ones.

Last year, we had a game where we were slowing down our offense and milking all the clock we could, at a field where there were no play clocks.  I started my watch on the RFP, and would step into the restricted area while the snapper had his hands on the ball.  The QB would watch me, and when I stepped back, he knew he could start his cadence.  Wing says to me:, "Coach, you need to step back, the ball about to be live."

"No, sir, it's not.  They aren't going to snap it until I move back."

He sneered, but he left me alone.

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 900
  • FAN REACTION: +52/-9
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2015, 12:27:05 PM »
"About to become live" is subjective, "live" is objective.  Objective rules are always better than subjective ones.

Last year, we had a game where we were slowing down our offense and milking all the clock we could, at a field where there were no play clocks.  I started my watch on the RFP, and would step into the restricted area while the snapper had his hands on the ball.  The QB would watch me, and when I stepped back, he knew he could start his cadence.  Wing says to me:, "Coach, you need to step back, the ball about to be live."

"No, sir, it's not.  They aren't going to snap it until I move back."

+1 - great example AB. 

Offline mardunn

  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2015, 12:38:30 PM »
Seems slightly inconsistent, but the way I read it, it's just saying what Ralph said.  If the coach isn't moving out just before the ball is snapped, he's not going be out by the time the ball is live.  It's still not a foul unless the ball is live, and if AB knows exactly when the ball will be snapped, for instance, everything should be fine! 

In most cases, instructing the coaches to start moving back as the ball is about to be snapped will be good for everyone, which is probably why it made it into the points of emphasis.

Offline SCHSref

  • *
  • Posts: 413
  • FAN REACTION: +15/-10
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2015, 12:40:42 PM »
AB,

I agree that rules need to be objective, however many rules are not.  The new POI on what is considered excessive...who gets to decide that?  The official.  It can obviously be a different call for different officials.  I think the main point is when you  ^flag, be sure you can back it up.  If not, keep that flag in your pocket.
If you didn't see it, you can't call it

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2015, 01:15:04 PM »
Objective rules are always better than subjective ones.
So I guess we should call holding on every play.  :sTiR:
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2015, 02:09:24 PM »
"About to become live" is subjective, "live" is objective.  Objective rules are always better than subjective ones.

Last year, we had a game where we were slowing down our offense and milking all the clock we could, at a field where there were no play clocks.  I started my watch on the RFP, and would step into the restricted area while the snapper had his hands on the ball.  The QB would watch me, and when I stepped back, he knew he could start his cadence.  Wing says to me:, "Coach, you need to step back, the ball about to be live."

"No, sir, it's not.  They aren't going to snap it until I move back."

He sneered, but he left me alone.

I'm truly not looking to be picky, but maybe you should devise another signal.  Keep in mind the PRIMARY PURPOSE of the sideline restrictions and subsequent warnings is to avoid Coach/Official collisions which is a very sound safety precaution.  There are any number of alternative areas to split hairs on a football field during a game.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2015, 02:20:02 PM »
If we were running a "normal" offense, or if we are on defense, yes, as soon as the snapper even approaches the ball, we need to get out of the restricted area, and we do.  But I also know what the rule says and when I HAVE to be out.  With our system, I was assuring I would be out before the ball became live, and before any official or coach was in a position to collide.  No need for an alternative signal.

As for the "new" excessive rule:

1.  I don't think there is anything "new".
2.  I think the FED Rules Committee has mucked this up and created a mess.  That POE is as clear as mud.
3.  I have already talked with the top training official for our state.  We agreed that veteran officials already know what shouldn't and shouldn't be a foul.  The problem is going to come from the young guys and the "rule book officials" that read one thing, and don't have the experience or knowledge to apply it to the game.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2015, 09:51:00 AM »
If we were running a "normal" offense, or if we are on defense, yes, as soon as the snapper even approaches the ball, we need to get out of the restricted area, and we do.  But I also know what the rule says and when I HAVE to be out.  With our system, I was assuring I would be out before the ball became live, and before any official or coach was in a position to collide.  No need for an alternative signal.

As for the "new" excessive rule:

1.  I don't think there is anything "new".
2.  I think the FED Rules Committee has mucked this up and created a mess.  That POE is as clear as mud.
3.  I have already talked with the top training official for our state.  We agreed that veteran officials already know what shouldn't and shouldn't be a foul.  The problem is going to come from the young guys and the "rule book officials" that read one thing, and don't have the experience or knowledge to apply it to the game.

Far too often, being technically correct proves far less satisfactory than anticipated.  There is NO signal, visual or audible, that cannot be conveyed exactly as effectively from the near edge of the Team box, than from within the restricted area.

Insisting on doing so is NOT a foul, but adhering to a reasonable request from a wing official, designed to insure both coach and official personal safety, is usually viewed as a constructive, cooperative effort that helps establish and maintain a positive communication connection that benefits both coach and official in the exercise of their responsibilities. 

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2015, 10:24:23 AM »
Far too often, being technically correct proves far less satisfactory than anticipated.  There is NO signal, visual or audible, that cannot be conveyed exactly as effectively from the near edge of the Team box, than from within the restricted area.

Insisting on doing so is NOT a foul, but adhering to a reasonable request from a wing official, designed to insure both coach and official personal safety, is usually viewed as a constructive, cooperative effort that helps establish and maintain a positive communication connection that benefits both coach and official in the exercise of their responsibilities.
Actually, when you stand IN the team box, you blend in much more than if you stand apart, next to the official.  It's MUCH easier for the QB to see me.

And that cooperative effort is a two way street.  As long as I explain what I am doing and am sure to be out of the way when required, the official should have no problem with what I'm doing.

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2015, 11:49:28 AM »
Just an observation and random thought. The team box is 50 yards long. Even if the ball is spotted on the 50, there are still 25 yards in either direction to maneuver. I would hope the cooperative effort would include standing far enough away from the wing official that this never becomes an issue. Standing next to the official to make it "easy on the QB", to me, also makes it "easy" to have issues. I've seen coaches wear fluorescent vests to make them easy to spot on the sideline. That looks like a "win-win" all the way around. Fair assessment?
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2015, 12:58:49 PM »
The signal giving coaches on our sideline wear the opposite color as the team, while other coaches wear the same color.  So if we are in our home green jerseys, signal giving coaches are in white, other coaches, attendants, and players are in green.  We do the opposite on road games.  So without wearing florescents, we can be spotted.

I stand near (to the backfield side) of the wing because that's where the QB is.  I don't want him to have to look backward, I don't want him to have to look downfield.  I was to make it easy for him to look directly to the side, to a known spot (just behind the official).  As long as I step back before he turns to the snapper, how is it any different than "when the ball is about to become live"?  Until I step back, it's not going to become live.

My job is to coach within the rules.  Sure sounds like I'm doing so.

Offline bkdow

  • *
  • Posts: 239
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-3
  • Striving for the impossible level of perfection
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2015, 09:45:58 AM »
The "excessive" part is very difficult to explain to coaches.  If a player lays a big hit on someone and it is below the head, above the waist, and in the front, then people believe all of it is legal.  I hope that mindset is changing but I still expect dissent when I do throw that rare flag for it.
"Don't let perfection get in the way of really good." John Lucivansky

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2015, 10:06:44 AM »
The "excessive" part is very difficult to explain to coaches.  If a player lays a big hit on someone and it is below the head, above the waist, and in the front, then people believe all of it is legal.  I hope that mindset is changing but I still expect dissent when I do throw that rare flag for it.

Rather than see scholastic football games descend into endless arguments between adults, the rule makers long ago settled this issue.  NF:1-1-6 "The Referee has authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, on any situation not specifically covered by the rules.  The Referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game."

That imparts a great deal of authority, which includes a matching amount of responsibility which may require a considerable amount of patience and careful explanations, but in the final analysis, "is what it is".
« Last Edit: May 06, 2015, 10:12:42 AM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4654
  • FAN REACTION: +864/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2015, 10:28:08 AM »
Sunday evening....while perched in my Attila the Hun rocker, sipping on American Honey (Wild Turkey Bourbon & honey), puffing on a 60-ring Churchill w/madro wrap (big cigar), huntin' dawg at my feet (yellow Lab named Mercedes) ,one eye on those Boston Red Sox gittin' yanked by them ther' Yanks, the other eye on 2015 FOOTBALL POINTS OF EMPHASIS; I came to the following conclusions........

RISK MINIMIZATION : We need to do all we can to minimize the risk of injury - if I'm not rocking in my rocker, I won't accidentally rock on Mercedes' tail :o.

WHAT IS EXCESSIVE ? : Overaggressive action, unneeded to get the same results. Certainly a very subjective call, can we apply the basketball ref's analogy of, "No harm,no foul?" - in overaggressive action, I cussed my TV when the Sox got behind the Yanks 8-0....same results... Sox lost. :( :( :(

FACILITATING NFHS FOOTBALL RULES : We do much more in Windy Indy than to drink beer and tell war stories and a lot of thought, discussion and debate is put into each rule change. Note that NOT included in the list is...Will it be more exciting for the fans? Will it sell more tickets? Will it draw more media coverage? Can they sell more advertisements? Can the Snack Shack prices go up? nAnA

FREE-BLOCKING ZONE : If you're snapping from the shotgun, the BBW has gotta' be awfully quick. yEs:

ILLEGAL EQUIPMENT : It can be dangerous, let's catch in pregame yEs:.

SIDELINE INTERFERENCE : It's a live ball foul as it doesn't produce a danger until the ball is alive. On the show Star Trek, one could say "Beam me up ,Scotty". One would then disappear from the Starship Enterprise and find themselves in the boudoir of a beauty from Venus - or something there such . Coaches don't move as quickly and should start their journey before the snap.

Those are my opinions(or lack thereof), I welcome yours.... tiphat:
« Last Edit: May 06, 2015, 10:45:20 AM by Ralph Damren »

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 3491
  • FAN REACTION: +133/-24
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2015, 02:18:52 PM »
NC made it easy...when the RFP is blown , coaches need to be backing out.

As I recall from previous discussions, I think AB disagrees with our supervisors interpretation but it gives a definite point of reference and besides anytime from then the ball is eligible to be snapped.

As for excessive, I hope the Fed provides us with some video examples of HIGH SCHOOL hits THEY deem excessive.  I don't want to see NCAA clips borrowed from some conference office.

The ruling on low block from two point stance and 3-4 point stance is consistent with what we have been told the past few years

Offline Sumstine

  • *
  • Posts: 387
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-10
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2015, 06:03:47 PM »
As for excessive, I hope the Fed provides us with some video examples of HIGH SCHOOL hits THEY deem excessive.  I don't want to see NCAA clips borrowed from some conference office.

This is an interesting comment. If there is high definition video available that will provide the examples needed what difference does it make if it is from a high school or college game?

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 3491
  • FAN REACTION: +133/-24
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2015, 08:35:09 PM »
Because I've watched ACC video before, Matt.  I've watched two different videos and Doug deems one hit bad and one hit good and I can't tell the difference.  I'm not an NCAA official so I don't need their interpretations in some of these instances.

Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 669
  • FAN REACTION: +37/-47
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2015, 08:49:49 PM »
  I'm not an NCAA official so I don't need their interpretations in some of these instances.

AMEN!!!

Offline Sumstine

  • *
  • Posts: 387
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-10
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2015, 01:49:43 AM »
Because I've watched ACC video before, Matt.  I've watched two different videos and Doug deems one hit bad and one hit good and I can't tell the difference.  I'm not an NCAA official so I don't need their interpretations in some of these instances.

So what if you had NCAA video and a NFHS interpretation of the act? I have learned NFHS officiating by watching NCAA video and I have learned NCAA by watching NFHS video. If it is the interpretation you don't like coming from an NCAA guy I understand but what if he/she works both? The initial comment led me to believe you were not interested in any video that included an NCAA play. My misunderstanding, I think.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4654
  • FAN REACTION: +864/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #22 on: May 07, 2015, 07:59:12 AM »
At the NFHS Rules Meeting, several high school video scenes were shown with vicious - but then legal - hits. The hitter was cheered wildly by his teammates and his team's fans, while the "hittee" was often helped or carried off the field. I'm sure these will become available via some outlet. some points I took from the viewing :
  (1) Tackles/sacks can be made and blocks can be carried out without vicious acts.
 
  (2) Teammates don't congratulate a player whose been  ^flag.

  (3) Fans don't wildly cheer a player whose been  ^flag.

  (4) Coaches aren't happy with a player whose been  ^flag.

  (5) Promoting safety at our level is the top priority P_S.

  (6) A picture is worth a thousand words. tiphat:

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2015, 08:10:55 AM »
This is an interesting comment. If there is high definition video available that will provide the examples needed what difference does it make if it is from a high school or college game?

Watching video of excessive hits, at any level, with instructional advice on what about the hit may have been problematic, can be helpful, but they are NOT the hit that you may be looking at and have to determine is legal, or illegal.  It is ABSOLUTE, no two plays are exactly alike. 

Understanding the rule, it's purpose, it's history, it's objective and being in the proper position to thoroughly see, and focus on, what happened, including the set up and lead up to the contact is what helps make the right call.  It's not easy, or guaranteed, to factor in intent and purpose, but that's often part of the evaluation process. 

EXCESS:" that which passes the ordinary, reasonable or required limit" is a judgment call related to what you are seeing in the specific situation you are looking at.  It is unique to the play you are looking at, may be different than all the plays you've seen before, or will see after.  (From the NFHS POE, "The game official must draw distinction between contact necessary to make a legal block or tackle and that which targets a defenseless player".

It's an individual judgment and decision specific to the contact you are looking at, and what's happened before (live, or what may have been seen on a video(s) of some previous play(s)) isn't going to make the call.  As with ANY foul, it there is ANY doubt that it was, then it wasn't, and we need to be sure of that difference and be willing to make the call and stand by it. 

The clear cut calls, either way, are usually easy.  It's those borderline, bang bang calls you can be sure will bring challenge and complaint, and what happened before, somewhere else, doesn't take the monkey off your back alone, then and there.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 3491
  • FAN REACTION: +133/-24
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #24 on: May 07, 2015, 09:39:46 AM »
My issue is if I, a fairly overall well rated official at the HS level, have difficulty discerning some legal vs. illegal hits, other, maybe not so adept, yet working, high school level officials may struggle with it.  "Polluting" the issue in the minds of high school officials with college video does not render itself to be helpful in this particular circumstance, in my opinion.  If the Fed wants to carve out a new ruling/interpretation on this, I think it behooves them to provide exclusive training content for us and not rely on work already done that may or may not apply.

However, if they want to say "look at these NCAA videos, we want you to respond in like manner" then so be it.  We are being expected to "modernize" our approach to officiating with way more limited resources than the NCAA provides to its officials.  The NFHS is going to have to begin to do the same.

After flagging the "excessive" hit, the coach is going to demand an explanation.  We need to keep our knowledge base and training exclusive to our level or we going to dig a giant hole for ourselves, particularly when we try to explain it.  They can sit through all the state clinic presentations this summer they can stomach.  Come Friday nights in August, none of that is going to mean anything.

I hope I am explaining this.  I know what I'm trying to say, maybe just not articulating it very well.