RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: ncwingman on January 16, 2018, 11:13:11 AM
-
With the stipulation that I am not part of any sort of rule committee and that whatever said here will never be taken seriously by anyone... what NCAA/NFL rules would you actually like to see incorporated into Fed rules?
We've all seen and lamented changes that happened just because the big boys do it, but which rules do you think would actually help?
One caveat -- the "help" must affect the actual game, not just to prevent assistant coaches from yelling absurd things like "He was out of the tackle box!" by making it a legitimate claim. Granted, I think that allowing the QB to throw the ball away would be a useful addition to prevent taking a hit (either that or actually enforce IG when he throws the ball into the 6th row or 50 feet in the air, even if it came within a quarter mile of an eligible receiver)
-
Here are some changes I have in the arsenal that I need to submit to my state office next year. Some are more important than others.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzA-T4I9Rwu4WEdnYUp1TkFHNFU
-
Here are some changes I have in the arsenal that I need to submit to my state office next year. Some are more important than others.
Nice work Bossman. Getting clarification on whether an airborne player is in bounds or out of bounds is long overdue.
-
Nice work Bossman. Getting clarification on whether an airborne player is in bounds or out of bounds is long overdue.
Changing the definition for the in/out of bounds status of an airborne player is so logical as to make one wonder why it hasn't happened already. I would word it a bit differently than Bossman to include ground, pylon or goalpost, to eliminate the possibility that an enterprising coach (remember the offense which shall not be named) could design a play where a receiver in the back of the end zone could leap from the end zone, push off of the goal post on the way up and then bat the pass backward to a teammate.
The current rule implies that an airborne player is "out of bounds" or "not out of bounds" but doesn't say anything about inbounds. This is "not so logical" (bad pun intended).
Prediction - the rule will remain unchanged but there will be an increased emphasis placed on making sure that jersey numbers are at least 8" and 10" on the front and back respectively.
-
Changing the definition for the in/out of bounds status of an airborne player is so logical as to make one wonder why it hasn't happened already. I would word it a bit differently than Bossman to include ground, pylon or goalpost, to eliminate the possibility that an enterprising coach (remember the offense which shall not be named) could design a play where a receiver in the back of the end zone could leap from the end zone, push off of the goal post on the way up and then bat the pass backward to a teammate.
The current rule implies that an airborne player is "out of bounds" or "not out of bounds" but doesn't say anything about inbounds. This is "not so logical" (bad pun intended).
Well, if you touch a goal post, then you wouldn't be airborne. I think a case play would do the trick for that.
Prediction - the rule will remain unchanged but there will be an increased emphasis placed on making sure that jersey numbers are at least 8" and 10" on the front and back respectively.
Hahaha! If we fixed this rule a long time ago, then we wouldn't have that ridiculous IP rule about going OOB and otherwise participating.
-
Bring back the automatic 1st down on DPI.
-
Bring back the automatic 1st down on DPI.
This is one where I see the argument for it, but I'm not 100% convinced. Although, that might also be because I think the NFL's policy of "Every defensive foul is an auto first" is ridiculous and I'm just reflexively pushing back.
If anything, I'd push for following college enforcement of a spot foul up to 15 yards first -- why do you get 15 yards if the interference was on a 10 yard pass? I wouldn't do the NFL's full spot foul approach, because of the (in)accuracy of high school QBs. If they start launching 35+ yard bombs under this rule, are they trying to complete long passes or are they trying to get the DPI call?
-
I would like all facemask penalties to be 15
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I would like all facemask penalties to be 15
Seems like we tried that before, and didn't like the results.