RefStripes.com

Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: TennRegOneRef on January 22, 2013, 11:14:10 AM

Title: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: TennRegOneRef on January 22, 2013, 11:14:10 AM
Has anyone heard anything yet regarding the NFHS 2013 football rules changes? The rules committee met this past weekend.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Atlanta Blue on January 22, 2013, 12:28:18 PM
Official notice usually posts around Feb 15, but would love to hear any inside info.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: TampaSteve on January 22, 2013, 12:52:19 PM
Based on my memory of the survey, nothing looked too drastic they were considering to review.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: HLinNC on January 22, 2013, 04:06:00 PM
Last year's press release went out on 2/9.

I don't forsee any earth shattering revisions.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on January 22, 2013, 06:13:33 PM
The Fed is notorious for keeping things close to the vest until the press release. As alluded to by others, I would not expect a peep from them until at least the second week of February.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Bob M. on February 01, 2013, 10:35:12 AM
REPLY: The survey isn't the only vehicle for getting proposals. That's only the Fed's way of determininig what (if any) proposals they might want to make. But member states also make proposals using input from coaches, and mostly officials. Those make up most of the docket considered each January.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Magician on February 01, 2013, 09:31:58 PM
Last year's press release went out on 2/9.

I don't forsee any earth shattering revisions.
One rumor I've heard is pretty earth shattering and illogical in my opinion.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on February 01, 2013, 09:55:56 PM
One rumor I've heard is pretty earth shattering and illogical in my opinion.
Elaborate?
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: bama_stripes on February 02, 2013, 07:38:45 AM
Let me guess:  No BBW unless the QB is under center?
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on February 02, 2013, 07:50:35 AM
Let me guess:  No BBW unless the QB is under center?
I may be wrong but I don't think they touched the FBZ rules.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: HLinNC on February 02, 2013, 08:55:09 AM
That was one of the questions on the survey.  Don't know if it will pass.  I voted yes.  Eliminates the "was the ball still in the zone" argument.

I wouldn't call it earth shattering nor illogical.

Personally, if we're all about safety of the athlete, then all BBW would be eliminated.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: bossman72 on February 02, 2013, 09:41:28 AM
Let me guess:  No BBW unless the QB is under center?

No, but in typical FED fashion, they missed a layup.  Changed one thing that needed changing but changed something else along with it that will have everybody up in arms.  Just wait.  haha
Title: Re: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Magician on February 02, 2013, 11:40:27 AM
No, but in typical FED fashion, they missed a layup.  Changed one thing that needed changing but changed something else along with it that will have everybody up in arms.  Just wait.  haha
Bingo. Bad compromise and illogical. Maybe the rumor isn't true or the editorial committee will do the right thing.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: cbailey on February 02, 2013, 05:41:47 PM
Elaborate?

I heard they pretty much jacked up this whole OPI/DPI thing.  Anybody willing to confirm?
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on February 02, 2013, 07:06:30 PM
I heard they pretty much jacked up this whole OPI/DPI thing.  Anybody willing to confirm?
If they finally removed LOD for OPI, I'll drink to that!
Title: Re: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Magician on February 02, 2013, 10:02:41 PM
If they finally removed LOD for OPI, I'll drink to that!
Very warm. What ridiculous option do you think they would use as a compromise?
Title: Re: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: cbailey on February 02, 2013, 10:19:29 PM
Very warm. What ridiculous option do you think they would use as a compromise?

Perhaps they did something so incredibly stupid like removing the auto first down on DPI?  Please tell me I'm wrong.  hEaDbAnG hEaDbAnG hEaDbAnG
Title: Re: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on February 02, 2013, 10:47:17 PM
Perhaps they did something so incredibly stupid like removing the auto first down on DPI?  Please tell me I'm wrong.  hEaDbAnG hEaDbAnG hEaDbAnG
...or keep the automatic first down but reduce the distance portion to 5 or 10 yards. If that's a change, I feel sorry for back judges.
Title: Re: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Atlanta Blue on February 03, 2013, 09:12:16 AM
Please tell me I'm wrong.

I would be lying if I did.
Title: Re: Re: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Magician on February 03, 2013, 10:39:26 AM
Perhaps they did something so incredibly stupid like removing the auto first down on DPI?  Please tell me I'm wrong.  hEaDbAnG hEaDbAnG hEaDbAnG
That's what I'm hearing.  Again...rumor no fact.  I'm anxious to see the response if true.
Title: Re: Re: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on February 03, 2013, 01:10:08 PM
That's what I'm hearing.  Again...rumor no fact.  I'm anxious to see the response if true.
If true, let the muggings begin.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: TennRegOneRef on February 04, 2013, 10:42:06 AM
What about no LOD on OPI and AFD at the spot for DPI less than 15 yds from LOS with 15 + AFD for DPI beyond 15 yds? What would be the rationale for eliminating the AFD provision?
Title: Re: Re: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: VALJ on February 04, 2013, 11:22:24 AM
That's what I'm hearing.  Again...rumor no fact.  I'm anxious to see the response if true.

Holy crap. 

I worked mostly B/F/S this season.  If that's the case, I want to move to umpire this year. 
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Atlanta Blue on February 04, 2013, 02:05:35 PM
Not sure why the worry.  95% of the time, a 15 yard DPI is going to be a first down anyway.  There are two situations where it will be an issue: more than 15 yards to gain to reach the LTG, and DPI in the end zone when the goal line if the LTG.

On the first, you are still going to get to repeat the down, and there are VERY few 15+ yard passes on long yardage situations anyway.  In HS football, a completion where the catch is more than 15 yards downfield is still the minority of pass plays, so on DPI, the offense is still going to get 15 yards, and they are going to get the down again.  They aren't going to be that upset.

The one tricky one is going to be 3rd and less than 10 with the goal line the LTG.  In those cases, it may actually be worth the DPI if there is a good chance the ball will be caught.

But for the vast majority of the time, this is a non-issue.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on February 04, 2013, 07:21:03 PM

....The one tricky one is going to be 3rd and less than 10 with the goal line the LTG.  In those cases, it may actually be worth the DPI if there is a good chance the ball will be caught....
...like I said, let the muggings begin!
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: bama_stripes on February 05, 2013, 05:21:47 AM
The one tricky one is going to be 3rd and less than 10 with the goal line the LTG.  In those cases, it may actually be worth the DPI if there is a good chance the ball will be caught.

So now the defense is encouraged to foul?  SMH.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on February 05, 2013, 09:25:24 AM
So now the defense is encouraged to foul?
Unfortunately, that's what's fixing to happen....  :o
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: HLinNC on February 05, 2013, 10:17:11 AM
 pray:; Please, let it not be so.

They send out a questionaire and then they pull out THIS?!
This will make the horsecollar evolution look well thought out. :!#
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Atlanta Blue on February 05, 2013, 10:33:34 AM
The problem is, there are those on the committee that equate the LOD with an automatic first down, and the only way to get rid of the LOD was to do away with the first down.

I don't equate the two AT ALL.  I don't think we had to get rid of the first down to make the two "equal".  But there are a group that do, I know one personally, and we have had this debate before.  The only way you were possibly going to get he (and others) to give up the LOD was to make the two "equal".  Call it the Missouri Compromise of high school rule making.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: HLinNC on February 05, 2013, 01:21:20 PM
Might as well make it a spot foul then, well except for OPI.... which would be spot of the pass I guess...., geez   cRaZy.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Mike L on February 05, 2013, 02:04:52 PM
I still don't understand why they could not just make OPI 5 yds and LOD just like all the other offense LOD penalties.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: bossman72 on February 05, 2013, 06:31:48 PM
If given the choice, I would keep it the way it is rather than take them both away.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on February 06, 2013, 10:12:15 PM
Change IS coming. Book it.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on February 07, 2013, 08:16:38 AM
...and here they are:

INDIANAPOLIS, IN (February 7, 2013) — In an effort to continue minimizing the risk of injury in high school football, three additional rules will take effect next season to address helmets coming off players’ heads during games.

These three risk-minimization additions were among 10 rules changes approved by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Football Rules Committee at its January 18-20 meeting in Indianapolis.

All rules changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

As a follow-up to last year’s rules change that requires players to sit out one play if their helmet comes off while the ball is live, the committee approved three additional rules that are extensions of last year’s change.

An illegal personal contact foul was added to Rule 9-4-3 to state that “no player or nonplayer shall initiate contact with an opposing player whose helmet has come completely off.”

In addition, a new listing in Rule 9-6-4 will state that it is illegal participation “for a player whose helmet comes completely off during a down to continue to participate beyond the immediate action in which the player is engaged.”

“With its continued focus on risk minimization, the committee determined that a helmet-less player shall not block, tackle or otherwise participate beyond the immediate action in which the player is engaged when the helmet came completely off,” said Bob Colgate, NFHS director of sports and sports medicine. “The penalty would be a live-ball, basic-spot foul.”

The committee also added language to Rule 3-5-10 to clarify that if the helmet comes completely off during the down or subsequent dead-ball action related to the down – and is not directly attributable to a foul by the opponent – the player must leave the game for at least one down, with the exception of halftime or overtime intermission. When this occurs, an official’s time-out shall be called.

“Player safety has been and will continue to be the top priority for members of the NFHS Football Rules Committee,” said Brad Garrett, chair of the NFHS Football Rules Committee and assistant executive director of the Oregon School Activities Association. “These rules changes regarding helmet-less players are more examples of the group’s commitment to minimize risk within the game.”

Perhaps the most significant rules change next season will be one that reduces the penalty for pass interference. While the 15-yard penalty will remain for both offensive and defensive pass interference, the loss of down has been removed for offensive pass interference and the automatic first down has been eliminated for defensive pass interference.

“Offensive and defensive pass interference and the penalty structure related to these fouls has been debated many times in recent years,” Garrett said. “Proposals that either deleted the loss of down or the automatic first down – but not both – failed to gain support among committee members. The proposal to eliminate both components, thus not upsetting the balance between offense and defense, was the key factor in the adoption of the new rule.”

Another change at high school football games next year will be the expanded use of communication devices. In specific situations, coaches, players and nonplayers will be allowed to use any form of communication technology.

This expansion of the rule allows the use of communication devices during authorized conferences outside the nine-yard marks, on the sidelines and during the halftime intermission. Use of communication devices by players except conferences outside the nine-yard mark continues to be prohibited.
In Rule 2-4-1, the committee clarified the rule approved last year regarding the definition of a catch, which stated that a receiver is required to establish possession of the ball and contact the ground inbounds while maintaining possession – regardless of the opponent’s action.

“The committee clarified the definition of a catch such that an airborne player who has forward progress stopped inbounds and is carried out of bounds by an opponent before contacting the ground is awarded a catch at the spot of forward progress,” Colgate said.

In Rule 9-3-8, the committee added another provision to the rule enacted last year regarding contact by the kicking team against members of the receiving team. The new provision stipulates that the kicking team may initiate contact once the receiving team has initiated a block within the neutral zone.

The committee also approved the addition of a 15-yard penalty to the existing option of accepting an awarded fair catch for kick-catch interference.

Finally, in Rule 8-3-3, the committee clarified that the touchdown scoring team is the only team that can score on a try, and in Rule 1-5-3 the committee modified the rule regarding the wearing of towels.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Jason Kramer on February 07, 2013, 08:36:35 AM
If I was a coach, I'd encourage VERY aggressive DB play in goal-to-go situations.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Tom.OH on February 07, 2013, 10:35:57 AM
Glad to see the LOD and automatic first down both dropped on PI. As has been argued in the past DPI was usually a first down with the 15 yard markoff and the LOD on OPI was the harshest penalty in HS football.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on February 07, 2013, 11:34:05 AM
Glad to see the LOD and automatic first down both dropped on PI. As has been argued in the past DPI was usually a first down with the 15 yard markoff and the LOD on OPI was the harshest penalty in HS football.
"Usually" being the key word. In long yardage passing situations DBs are now being given a license to steal. I don't know why, but I have a feeling removing the AFD won't last more than a year or two.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: VALJ on February 07, 2013, 12:18:37 PM
I don't like losing the AFD, but I suppose it's a trade off for the LOD.  As the release said, the LOD made that the most brutal penalty we had, so I like seeing that gone.  I suspect that Rulesman is right, and the AFD will return some time soon.

I'm not surprised that the additional rules about the helmet coming off suring the down showed up, either - once NCAA did it, I figured we'd see them sooner or later.  Also dislike seeing the "carried out" exception show up for forward progress, but I'm not surprised by that, either.  And 8-3-3 has GOT to be a reaction to the 1-point safety in the Virginia Tech bowl game.

"The committee also approved the addition of a 15-yard penalty to the existing option of accepting an awarded fair catch for kick-catch interference. "

Does that mean KCI will now have the options on 15 yards with rekick, or take the awarded fair catch and tack on 15 from there?
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: younggun on February 07, 2013, 12:48:36 PM
With reguards to the KCI thats what I think it means... give them the awarded fair catch and 15... tee up the ball and kick it though the uprights....lol
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Atlanta Blue on February 07, 2013, 01:32:53 PM
I'm not surprised that the additional rules about the helmet coming off suring the down showed up, either - once NCAA did it, I figured we'd see them sooner or later.

Matches the NCAA

Quote
Also dislike seeing the "carried out" exception show up for forward progress, but I'm not surprised by that, either.

Matches the NCAA

Quote
And 8-3-3 has GOT to be a reaction to the 1-point safety in the Virginia Tech bowl game.

No, it was always the intent of the rule, but there was language that wasn't clear.  This makes it clear.

The 1 point safety still exists in FED, but with tries dead on possession by B, it is a near impossiblity.  The ball would have to be loose on the field, with B adding a force that put the ball in the end zone, where they recover.  It COULD happen, but if it does, send film, because I would like to see it.
 
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Magician on February 07, 2013, 01:46:26 PM
With reguards to the KCI thats what I think it means... give them the awarded fair catch and 15... tee up the ball and kick it though the uprights....lol
No..options will be 15 yards replay down, 15 yards from spot of foul, or awarded fair catch.  None can be used together.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: TampaSteve on February 07, 2013, 02:12:41 PM
No..options will be 15 yards replay down, 15 yards from spot of foul, or awarded fair catch.  None can be used together.
What am I missing:
The committee also approved the addition of a 15-yard penalty to the existing option of accepting an awarded fair catch for kick-catch interference.

Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: HLinNC on February 07, 2013, 02:18:29 PM
15 yards from the spot of the foul has not been an option in the past.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: skip1 on February 07, 2013, 02:27:33 PM
Tampa Steve is correct. If they take the 15 yds no AFC. They cannot put the ball on a tee for a field goal try.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Atlanta Blue on February 07, 2013, 02:40:10 PM
You can accept the result of the play, you can take an awarded fair catch 15 yards from the spot of the foul, or you may take the 15 yards from the previous spot.  Since it is an awarded fair catch, you still have the free kick option.

Apparently, some state interpreters have misinterpreted this and are giving out incorrect information. 
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: TampaSteve on February 07, 2013, 03:06:52 PM
You can accept the result of the play, you can take an awarded fair catch 15 yards from the spot of the foul, or you may take the 15 yards from the previous spot.  Since it is an awarded fair catch, you still have the free kick option.

Apparently, some state interpreters have misinterpreted this and are giving out incorrect information.
bingo
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: VALJ on February 07, 2013, 03:48:01 PM
You can accept the result of the play, you can take an awarded fair catch 15 yards from the spot of the foul, or you may take the 15 yards from the previous spot.  Since it is an awarded fair catch, you still have the free kick option.

Apparently, some state interpreters have misinterpreted this and are giving out incorrect information.

So you get the 15 yards and still keep the option for the free kick.  Wow - it's still going to be rare, but it potentially became a whole lot more appealing.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: younggun on February 07, 2013, 03:51:53 PM
The DPI AFD is not going to be a factor 90% of the time. The time it will be is on the 3/25 plays and all the plays where the Line to Gain is the Goal line. It is also going to make OT a lot more interesting. I can just imagine all the guff from parents and coachs now that NFHS football is the only rule book in North America that does not give the AFD, that thinking we screwed something up. Some have been coaching/parents of the game for a awhile and still do not know the Dead Ball on an encrochment foul...............................

On a side note... (mainly because I do not feel like starting a new thread for this) does anyone know anyone on here who calls in the NCAA DIV II MIAA?

Thanks
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: cbailey on February 07, 2013, 04:57:26 PM
The DPI AFD is not going to be a factor 90% of the time. The time it will be is on the 3/25 plays and all the plays where the Line to Gain is the Goal line. It is also going to make OT a lot more interesting. I can just imagine all the guff from parents and coachs now that NFHS football is the only rule book in North America that does not give the AFD, that thinking we screwed something up. Some have been coaching/parents of the game for a awhile and still do not know the Dead Ball on an encrochment foul...............................

On a side note... (mainly because I do not feel like starting a new thread for this) does anyone know anyone on here who calls in the NCAA DIV II MIAA?

Thanks

younggun.....I don't personally work MIAA, but there are several in my high school association that work in the MIAA.  What do you need?
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: NoVaBJ on February 08, 2013, 09:22:20 AM
With NF becoming the only code in the history of pass interference to drop the automatic first down for DPI, I'm seriously thinking of sitting next year out.

In my 19 years of doing this, there have been a lot of rule changes, some of them as big, and some of them as stupid, but none of them simultaneously as big, as stupid, and as detrimental to the quality of our work environment.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: TampaSteve on February 08, 2013, 10:28:18 AM
With NF becoming the only code in the history of pass interference to drop the automatic first down for DPI, I'm seriously thinking of sitting next year out.

In my 19 years of doing this, there have been a lot of rule changes, some of them as big, and some of them as stupid, but none of them simultaneously as big, as stupid, and as detrimental to the quality of our work environment.
On 1 hand, yes it is a bit odd that NF dropped auto 1/10 for DPI.
On the other hand, how often do we hear screaming that particular fouls are auto 1/10 when the foul in question IS an auto 1/10 - but only on Sunday and this aint Sunday..
No 'auto 1/10' for DPI will only be an issue if A has >15 to gain - which is more infrequent than not.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: VALJ on February 08, 2013, 12:49:12 PM
The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to agree with Steve.  Most of the time, the 15 yards will result in a first down anyway.  And the coach will certainly know that they're not getting a FD any more, so most of the griping about no first down is going to come from outside the fences.

I'm starting to think that the "stop participating in the play when your helmet comes off" and "leave the other guy alone when his helmet comes off" are going to be the ones that can be more problematic.  I get the idea behind them, and I know those rules are just trickling down from NCAA, but I don't think it's realistic to tell Bubba the left tackle that if his helmet comes off, he has to stop and stand there instead of picking up the delayed blitzer.

(I'd still like to see DPI become the spot of the foul or 15 yards, whichever is less, plus AFD, but what I want is neither here nor there.)
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: TampaSteve on February 08, 2013, 01:30:18 PM
I'm starting to think that the "stop participating in the play when your helmet comes off" and "leave the other guy alone when his helmet comes off" are going to be the ones that can be more problematic.  I get the idea behind them, and I know those rules are just trickling down from NCAA, but I don't think it's realistic to tell Bubba the left tackle that if his helmet comes off, he has to stop and stand there instead of picking up the delayed blitzer.
Sounds to me like a coaching issue.
...AND if it comes off, while still engaged, we aint got nothing.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: TampaSteve on February 08, 2013, 01:33:40 PM
In as far as DPI & OPI now coming with the same penalty, I have a feeling we'll see OPI getting called a bit stiffer.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Magician on February 08, 2013, 06:54:40 PM
On 1 hand, yes it is a bit odd that NF dropped auto 1/10 for DPI.
On the other hand, how often do we hear screaming that particular fouls are auto 1/10 when the foul in question IS an auto 1/10 - but only on Sunday and this aint Sunday..
No 'auto 1/10' for DPI will only be an issue if A has >15 to gain - which is more infrequent than not.
The bigger issue with be inside the 30.  Half the distance may not reach the LTG or goal-to-go situations would replay the down.  It doesn't happen often but we'll get the same complaints we get in those situations when there is a personal foul facemask.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: FBUmp on February 09, 2013, 11:11:47 AM
I can just imagine all the guff from parents and coachs now that NFHS football is the only rule book in North America that does not give the AFD, that thinking we screwed something up. Some have been coaching/parents of the game for a awhile and still do not know the Dead Ball on an encrochment foul...............................

Who cares what parents and coaches think?  Most don't know the rule anyway plus they already think we're trying to screw their team.

In my 19 years of doing this, there have been a lot of rule changes, some of them as big, and some of them as stupid, but none of them simultaneously as big, as stupid, and as detrimental to the quality of our work environment.

You're kidding, right.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: inthepit on February 10, 2013, 12:49:07 PM
Some of you veterans out there can correct me if I am wrong.  Many years ago --- I am thinking at least 15 --- we had three options for the offended team on kick-catching interference: 

1) 15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down 
2) awarded fair catch at the spot of the foul 
3) awarded fair catch plus 15 yards from the spot of the foul

I have yet to receive a 2013 NFHS rule book so I cannot read the rule verbatim, but from what I am gathering, the "old rule" is now the "new rule".
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: HLinNC on February 10, 2013, 01:02:20 PM
I've been calling since '94, don't recall Option C ever being present.  I worked a little BJ in those early days and recall having a KCI where the receiver actually ended up catching the kick afterward.  R kept the ball at the spot, declined the foul I think or we awarded the fair catch.  I know we didn't let them have 15 more yards on top of it.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: bossman72 on February 10, 2013, 01:06:27 PM
Some of you veterans out there can correct me if I am wrong.  Many years ago --- I am thinking at least 15 --- we had three options for the offended team on kick-catching interference: 

1) 15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down 
2) awarded fair catch at the spot of the foul 
3) awarded fair catch plus 15 yards from the spot of the foul

I have yet to receive a 2013 NFHS rule book so I cannot read the rule verbatim, but from what I am gathering, the "old rule" is now the "new rule".

Not sure why they would even include #2...  Who would choose that when you could have #3?
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on February 10, 2013, 01:09:38 PM
Some of you veterans out there can correct me if I am wrong.  Many years ago --- I am thinking at least 15 --- we had three options for the offended team on kick-catching interference: 

1) 15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down 
2) awarded fair catch at the spot of the foul 
3) awarded fair catch plus 15 yards from the spot of the foul

I have yet to receive a 2013 NFHS rule book so I cannot read the rule verbatim, but from what I am gathering, the "old rule" is now the "new rule".
At one time #3 was an option. Not sure of the year it was removed, but you are correct in your assessment.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: SWilliams on February 10, 2013, 10:22:58 PM
We had a game this year where option #2 was welcomed by the receiving team.  K kicks to R and commits a KCI, and the ball deflects off the R player and is landed on by K.  R gladly accepted the fair catch where they were interferred with.  I'm sure they would have loved option #3 but they were glad to get the ball back.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Ump33 on February 11, 2013, 05:52:57 AM
Some of you veterans out there can correct me if I am wrong.  Many years ago --- I am thinking at least 15 --- we had three options for the offended team on kick-catching interference: 

1) 15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down 
2) awarded fair catch at the spot of the foul 
3) awarded fair catch plus 15 yards from the spot of the foul

I have yet to receive a 2013 NFHS rule book so I cannot read the rule verbatim, but from what I am gathering, the "old rule" is now the "new rule".
At one time #3 was an option. Not sure of the year it was removed, but you are correct in your assessment.

According to http://football.refs.org/rules/NFrules4.html ... Option #3 was added in 1983 and removed in 1990
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: maven on February 11, 2013, 09:37:00 AM
With NF becoming the only code in the history of pass interference to drop the automatic first down for DPI, I'm seriously thinking of sitting next year out.

In my 19 years of doing this, there have been a lot of rule changes, some of them as big, and some of them as stupid, but none of them simultaneously as big, as stupid, and as detrimental to the quality of our work environment.

You have a couple options other than sitting out, such as:

1. "Forget" the new DPI rule and award an AFD when it happens.

2. Call an intentional DPI and get the defense for 30 yards.

3. Petition your state interpreter to issue an "interpretation" according to which the new DPI rule really does involve an AFD, except perhaps when you flag intentional DPI.

4. Just call the game by the new rules, let the coaches tear out their hair, and have a card in your pocket with the e-mail addresses and phone numbers of the NFHS rules committee that you can hand them at the end of the game.

5. E-mail huge video files of game film to state interpreters and rules committee members, effectively filling up their inboxes, a couple times per week.

Just a few of the tamer ideas I've come up with to date. :)
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: bbeagle on February 11, 2013, 03:17:34 PM
4th and goal from the 10 yard line. Passing play.

2012 - Defense needs to be careful, they don't want a 1st and goal at the 5. It's better to hope the offense drops the ball or hit them just as they catch the ball and hope for a drop.

2013 - Defense should mug the offense on any close passing plays. If it's not called, awesome. If it is called, 4th and goal from the 5 yard line is not so bad.

THIS is the main problem we have with the rule.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on February 11, 2013, 08:05:32 PM
4th and goal from the 10 yard line. Passing play.

2012 - Defense needs to be careful, they don't want a 1st and goal at the 5. It's better to hope the offense drops the ball or hit them just as they catch the ball and hope for a drop.

2013 - Defense should mug the offense on any close passing plays. If it's not called, awesome. If it is called, 4th and goal from the 5 yard line is not so bad.

THIS is the main problem we have with the rule.
BINGO.... and especially in overtime.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: bbeagle on February 12, 2013, 12:35:19 PM
"Forget" the new DPI rule and award an AFD when it happens.

If we're doing that, I guess I could also call a 5-yard holding penalty with an automatic first down, a la NFL.
 tiphat:
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: bama_stripes on February 13, 2013, 06:53:38 AM
I'm more interested to see the exact language of the "carry-out" rule.  I figured they would have to reinstate it eventually, but I thought it would take a couple of years.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: inthepit on February 17, 2013, 08:22:13 AM
According to http://football.refs.org/rules/NFrules4.html ... Option #3 was added in 1983 and removed in 1990

Thank you. 
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: VALJ on February 18, 2013, 10:23:31 AM
2013 - Defense should mug the offense on any close passing plays. If it's not called, awesome. If it is called, 4th and goal from the 5 yard line is not so bad.

THIS is the main problem we have with the rule.

Just for the sake of argument - the DB does something so blatant that we decide for the first time in our careers to call an "intentional" DPI.  Say, both guys in double coverage combine to tackle the receiver.  4th and goal from the 2 1/2, or - since it's still one penalty - still 4th/G from the 5?
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: HLinNC on February 18, 2013, 02:00:55 PM
2 1/2-- its an additional penalty for the intentional act.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on February 18, 2013, 04:52:10 PM
2 1/2-- its an additional penalty for the intentional act.
I realize this is taking things to an extreme, but could the intentional act be considered "flagrant" at some point, thus being an ejectionable offense? Short of this change merely being a concession to removing LOD from OPI, I really wonder if the rules makers thought this one out.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: HLinNC on February 18, 2013, 07:36:50 PM
Who, pray tell, would you eject?  The HC or the DB?

I sure hope somebody re-thinks this come interpretation time.

In lieu of that, all we can do is say "Coach, the Federation rulesmakers came up with this, you'll need to contact them.  They'll be in the state office."
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on February 19, 2013, 08:25:22 PM
Who, pray tell, would you eject?  The HC or the DB?

I sure hope somebody re-thinks this come interpretation time.
I was thinking more in terms of the player(s), rather than the coach, but it makes you think hard about the intent of the change vs. what could happen in a screwy situation, doesn't it?
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Atlanta Blue on February 20, 2013, 10:54:17 AM
I still think the worries are much ado about nothing.  DBs are already taught when all else fails and you are beat deep, break it up however you can, even if that means a foul.  The automatic first down isn't an issue when the alternative is a TD.

So now, is there more incentive to foul in the specific situation of 3rd down, goal line is the LTG, and there is a pass in the end zone where the DB is clearly beat?  Yes.

But how often across a season are you going to run into that specific situation?  I'll bet you can count them on your ring finger.

There are other specific situations that create bizarre situations in FED.  One that comes to mind is a defensive FM in the backfield.  The QB is better off intentionally throwing an interception or fumbling the ball rather than going down.  How does that make sense?  But then again, how often does it happen?

This is just this side of a non-issue.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Jackhammer on March 13, 2013, 08:42:00 PM
This discussion leads me to a question, "why do we care what the rule is?"

It's not our game, we are the keepers of maintaining fairness in the game, but it's not our job to determine the rules....it's their game, players and coaches....it is our task to administer the game they want to play.

Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a input in rules involving safety or the practicality of administering the game.  We definitely have a role to play.  If they wanna remove the afd/lod provisions in PI why the hell would I, or any other official, care?  It doesn't make my job any harder.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Jason Kramer on March 14, 2013, 11:37:53 AM
This discussion leads me to a question, "why do we care what the rule is?"

It's not our game, we are the keepers of maintaining fairness in the game, but it's not our job to determine the rules....it's their game, players and coaches....it is our task to administer the game they want to play.


When rules are implemented that have clear fairness issues, or are easy to exploit, or have obvious loopholes, it makes our job harder. We're supposed to administer the rules as written, but sometimes that conflicts with the intent of the rule or with the fairness of the game.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: maven on March 16, 2013, 06:53:11 AM
When rules are implemented that have clear fairness issues, or are easy to exploit, or have obvious loopholes, it makes our job harder. We're supposed to administer the rules as written, but sometimes that conflicts with the intent of the rule or with the fairness of the game.

Agree. I'll add that, although in a technical sense the rules define fairness for the game, we can also adopt a standpoint outside the rules from which to judge advantage and disadvantage with respect to what makes the game better overall (more exciting, more scoring, safer, and any number of other values).

It would be from this standpoint, the standpoint of a fan or lover of the game, that it is possible to critique the rules.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Jackhammer on March 16, 2013, 08:43:58 PM
When rules are implemented that have clear fairness issues, or are easy to exploit, or have obvious loopholes, it makes our job harder. We're supposed to administer the rules as written, but sometimes that conflicts with the intent of the rule or with the fairness of the game.

Which was kind of address in the part of my post you didn't include.

What're the fairness issues or the obvious loopholes you speak of?  I suspect they're not going to be all that clear or obvious
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Jason Kramer on March 18, 2013, 09:22:36 AM
Which was kind of address in the part of my post you didn't include.

What're the fairness issues or the obvious loopholes you speak of?  I suspect they're not going to be all that clear or obvious

They're not major, but the obvious ones are committing pass interference with more than 15 yards to go or in goal-to-go situations, especially 4th and goal late in games. On 4th and goal, the defense has very little disincentive to commit PI
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Jackhammer on March 18, 2013, 09:19:37 PM
They're not major, but the obvious ones are committing pass interference with more than 15 yards to go or in goal-to-go situations, especially 4th and goal late in games. On 4th and goal, the defense has very little disincentive to commit PI

Thanks.  I think that makes my point.  It doesn't really change our job, nor does it have that big of an effect on the game. 

The nfhs for whatever reason chooses not to favor the offense in this situation.  That's the way they want to play the game, it shouldn't matter one whit to us.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: maven on March 20, 2013, 06:27:54 AM
The nfhs for whatever reason chooses not to favor the offense in this situation.  That's the way they want to play the game, it shouldn't matter one whit to us.

Not to us as officials, perhaps, but it might matter to us as fans of the game. It is certainly possible to appreciate the issue from more than one standpoint.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: VALJ on March 20, 2013, 03:20:41 PM
Last year's press release went out on 2/9.

I don't forsee any earth shattering revisions.

So much for that, huh?
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Bob M. on March 25, 2013, 01:32:25 PM
This discussion leads me to a question, "why do we care what the rule is?"

It's not our game, we are the keepers of maintaining fairness in the game, but it's not our job to determine the rules....it's their game, players and coaches....it is our task to administer the game they want to play.

REPLY: Another reason we "care" is because of those occasions where a rule change is implemented but it can't be properly officiated on the field. Examples: the original (2003) version of PSK. Impossible to officiate. Took another season or two to get it right. Last season's rule about K blocking on a free kick. Difficult to officiate at best. If you 'get' it, you'll be lucky.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: HLinNC on March 25, 2013, 03:40:25 PM
Another reason why we care is because there is nobody from the Federation office on the field on Friday nights to explain it.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Jackhammer on April 23, 2013, 09:45:15 PM
Bob and HL,
Agree with both of those points and think that's absolutely a role we should play as it relates to rulemaking.  The context of my discussion was mostly intended for that related to the PI change.  In this specific issues, the change involes administering the penalty and doesn't really make our job any harder.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: VALJ on May 26, 2013, 11:36:10 PM
Another official I work with just raised a pretty good point.  Since DPI no longer carries an auto first down, I guess the OT procedure will have to be amended accordingly, and the only time A can get a new first down is on a roughing penalty (passer, snapper, kicker or holder)... right?
Title: Re: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Magician on May 27, 2013, 02:57:54 PM
Another official I work with just raised a pretty good point.  Since DPI no longer carries an auto first down, I guess the OT procedure will have to be amended accordingly, and the only time A can get a new first down is on a roughing penalty (passer, snapper, kicker or holder)... right?

Correct. NFHS is already aware of it and will be addressing it.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: prab on June 04, 2013, 04:18:00 PM
Caveat #1 - I do not have a rule book at my disposal at this time

Caveat #2 - My state uses the NCAA 25 yard line OT/tie breaking procedure

That having been said, wouldn't the following play also result in a first down for team A during OT?

A attempts a field goal which is short and is muffed by B in the field of play and recovered by A in the field of play.  Ball not having crossed B's goal line at anytime during the play.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Atlanta Blue on June 04, 2013, 07:15:40 PM
Caveat #1 - I do not have a rule book at my disposal at this time

Caveat #2 - My state uses the NCAA 25 yard line OT/tie breaking procedure

That having been said, wouldn't the following play also result in a first down for team A during OT?

A attempts a field goal which is short and is muffed by B in the field of play and recovered by A in the field of play.  Ball not having crossed B's goal line at anytime during the play.

Assuming the muff was beyond the neutral zone, yes.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: VALJ on June 04, 2013, 08:38:06 PM
Good catch.  Should have said "the only way A can get a first down by penalty".
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: VALJ on June 20, 2013, 10:43:18 AM
OT section in the rulebook is NOT revised.  Surely they just missed that, right?  They're not awarding a first down for DPI in OT when it hasn't been a first down all game...  Are they?
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on June 20, 2013, 11:28:19 AM
OT section in the rulebook is NOT revised.  Surely they just missed that, right?  They're not awarding a first down for DPI in OT when it hasn't been a first down all game...  Are they?
I believe that is correct - no auto 1st down in OT. I'll be with a committee member tomorrow and will try to get a confirmation.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Atlanta Blue on June 20, 2013, 12:19:42 PM
I believe that is correct - no auto 1st down in OT. I'll be with a committee member tomorrow and will try to get a confirmation.

It has already been confirmed, and is supposed to be corrected on the NFHS website.
Title: Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
Post by: Rulesman on June 20, 2013, 12:40:59 PM
It has already been confirmed, and is supposed to be corrected on the NFHS website.
Key words...  ;)