Let's Fix Things

[mbyron]

Make "holding" by the offense legal and change the name of the foul to "restraining".

I don't see the difference. If "restraining" were something that was always illegal, I could see the point: holding is sometimes legal and sometimes not. But the terms have approximately the same meaning. Restraining an opponent is sometimes legal and sometimes not.

And grabbing the uniform and restraining an opponent near the runner is legal if done correctly.

[Curious]

I don't see the difference. If "restraining" were something that was always illegal, I could see the point: holding is sometimes legal and sometimes not. But the terms have approximately the same meaning. Restraining an opponent is sometimes legal and sometimes not.

And grabbing the uniform and restraining an opponent near the runner is legal if done correctly.

In my mind, the difference is "restricting" would finally acknowledge what coaches already know but what officials struggle to effectively articulate.  I don't know how many times I've had coaches tell me that crews are telling them that "holding" is legal - solely IF they lock onto their opponent inside the shoulders - instead of using the "advantage/disadvantage" argument. 

While the Rule Book actually doesn't address "advantage/disadvantage" per se, common sense officiating does.  Nevertheless, a rule-based distinction as wingnut argues, could alleviate some of the unnecessary and unpleasant discourse.

And help me understand your last comment about the legality of "grabbing the uniform near the runner if done correctly"....     

[mbyron]

And help me understand your last comment about the legality of "grabbing the uniform near the runner if done correctly"....   

Using proper blocking technique -- not taking his man to the ground, keeping his hands inside his opponent's frame, moving his feet, etc. -- a blocker can hold jersey all day, even at the point of attack, and not commit a foul.

[AlUpstateNY]

In my mind, the difference is "restricting" would finally acknowledge what coaches already know but what officials struggle to effectively articulate.  ..... instead of using the "advantage/disadvantage" argument. 

It's clearly imperative to understand the rules and to be able to succinctly explain your understanding when questioned, but coaches, who think they already know the answer, at some point simply need to accept your answer, whether they like it or not.  Expecting  coaches to acknowledge, much less accept, the advantage/disadvantage logic when that explanation doesn't support their objective, is most often, wishful thinking.

[Curious]

Using proper blocking technique -- not taking his man to the ground, keeping his hands inside his opponent's frame, moving his feet, etc. -- a blocker can hold jersey all day, even at the point of attack, and not commit a foul.

With respect, you're stating what blocking has evolved into - not what is defined in 2-3-1,2 and 3.  This is exactly the point I'm trying to make; that this technique is NOT legal by rule - but we let it go (and should)when it gives no unfair advantage or has no bearing on the play.  The "restriction" idea seems to give a little clearer picture of a blurry situation.

At the point of attack especially, I would vehemently argue, grabbing and holding your opponent's jersey IS a foul; but is also adequately addressed by the "restriction" idea.

[Curious]

It's clearly imperative to understand the rules and to be able to succinctly explain your understanding when questioned, but coaches, who think they already know the answer, at some point simply need to accept your answer, whether they like it or not.  Expecting  coaches to acknowledge, much less accept, the advantage/disadvantage logic when that explanation doesn't support their objective, is most often, wishful thinking.

"Because I said so" is no answer; and frankly does nothing to make a complicated game easier to understand! 

While I firmly believe coaches, in general, do not spend enough time understanding the rules - let alone philosophy - the rules, and officials' differing "interpretations", are often sources of frustration.  Why not spend the time to explain - or better yet - simplify the rules for everyone?

[younggun]

Lets us have the ability to announce the number of the fouling player. Basketball, you announce the foul to the scorekeeper, soccer you call the player over by himself and show him the card. Baseball, well if you toss a player generally everyone knows. Volleyball they get cards just like in soccer, track if a player starts early they all know who did it. Hockey they have the 'sin bin'. It just seems Football is the only sport that wants to keep the players number a secret. If we were just able to announce the number over the intercom system it would help getting that number to the coach faster, instead of us having to route the number across the field.

[AlUpstateNY]

"Because I said so" is no answer; and frankly does nothing to make a complicated game easier to understand! 

I'm not sure how you arrived at "because I said so" being an appropriate, or recommended response.  I presume the response, and explanation, would be an accurate and rational answer to whatever the question might be.  The message, you seemed to miss, is that once an accurate and rational explanation is offered, there is nothing to be gained by either party, in rehashing it.

Regarding announcing the number of fouling players;  I believe the reason we don't announce the numbers is that there is no purpose gained by doing so.  Alerting the player's coach is a courtesy to assist the coach in working with a particular player to understand what he may have done wrong.  Alerting spectators and the other team as to which player might be making mistakes serves no constructive purpose. 

[Curious]

I'm not sure how you arrived at "because I said so" being an appropriate, or recommended response.  I presume the response, and explanation, would be an accurate and rational answer to whatever the question might be.  The message, you seemed to miss, is that once an accurate and rational explanation is offered, there is nothing to be gained by either party, in rehashing it.

I didn't "miss" anything.  What is "rational" to you is often "Greek" to the rest of the world. The point of this thread was how we might make rules CLEARER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND!  Officials are not the only people capable of comprehending and interpreting the rules; but unfortunately the rulesmakers choose to make them (the rules) often very muddy.  With some consolidation and simplification of the three codes, we can cut down on misunderstanding, arguments, and "rehashing"....

[AlUpstateNY]

I didn't "miss" anything.  What is "rational" to you is often "Greek" to the rest of the world.

Still don't see the dots you're trying to connect, or how you arrived at "because I said so", which is your idea, not mine.  If you want to run a series of rule clinics during your games, that's entirely up to you.  When asked a civil question, a civil, concise and clear response is appropriate.  That is simply not an open invitation to engage in a prolonged debate, unless of course, a debate is what you're looking for.

One, fairly certain, way to, "cut down on misunderstanding, arguments, and "rehashing" is to deftly replace the question mark at the end of your answer with a period, and simply move on. I wouldn't think ANY official would provide an irrational answer to any question, although if the person asking the question shows no interest in understanding or accepting the answer, it's probably best, for both parties to make the exchange as brief as possible.
 

[Curious]

Still don't see the dots you're trying to connect... o

Obviously! 

One, fairly certain, way to, "cut down on misunderstanding, arguments, and "rehashing" is to deftly replace the question mark at the end of your answer with a period, and simply move on.

For the FINAL time: The point of this thread was how we might make rules CLEARER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND!

[AlUpstateNY]

For the FINAL time: The point of this thread was how we might make rules CLEARER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND!

Forgive me, I must have missed the part that designated YOU as the final arbiter of deciding exactly what, "CLEARER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND" is supposed to mean for everyone else.

[Bob M.]

I would like to see the NFHS adopt the NCAA encroachment rules on the defense. I dont see why it is automatically a penalty if the defense is in the NZ following the RFP whistle. I do no think many high school officials call it the way the Fed has it written... Maybe we should start calling it by book rule, the fed would probably change it after the coaches start to complain.

REPLY: Actually it's not. There are two ways for defensive encroachment to occur: (1) after the RFP, it's encroachment if a player other than the snapper touches the ball or the defense enters the NZ to call signals, or (2) after the snapper has placed his hands on the ball, if any player enters the NZ.

So generally, if a defensive player is in the NZ after the RFP, he hasn't fouled--until the snapper places hands on the ball. Then he's guilty.

[bossman72]

my list:

1) No LOD on OPI

2) KCI is 15 from the spot of KCI or 15 from prev spot

3) Totally re-do the illegal participation rule and make the action of going out of bounds and returning and touching the pass before the defense an illegal touching foul instead of IP.  This eliminates the too-punitive current rule for that action and they don't need the rule change they made last year to eliminate the "participating out of bounds" loop hole.

4) Mechanics: let us announce the number of the fouling player.  If it's good enough for basketball, it's good enough for football.  It also prevents the coaches from screaming "WHAT NUMBER??? WHAT NUMBER!!!???"

5) Mechanics: Don't frown upon auxiliary signals (ie Juggled pass, pass hit the ground, receiver OOB, covering official giving prelim to R on the way in).

Thinks I like from NCAA which would never happen in NFHS:

1) Holding / Illegal Blocks / Personal Fouls always enforced from the prev spot if occurring behind LOS.  (Too many exceptions for HS officials to remember.  Too many opportunities to screw up)

2) 40/25 sec play clock - too hard to administer without a good play clock operator and frankly officials would screw it up too much

[Rulesman]

40/25 sec play clock - too hard to administer without a good play clock operator and frankly officials would screw it up too much

We have play clock operators who can't keep up with 25 seconds now and they want to blame the officials. I shudder at the thought of giving a PCO two things to keep straight!

[AlUpstateNY]

Fot over 50 years our Association has assigned officials to operate all field clocks at High School games, where schools elect to utilize field clocks.  Otherwise the game time is kept by the field crew, on the field.  25 second clocks are somewhat rare at this point, in this area, but if a school elects to provide this functionality, we will provide a separate operator to service that need.   

[FBUmp]

NCAA rules seem to work fine for players at all ages in the states of Texas and Massachusetts.

That's a matter of opinion.  It would seem that 48 states disagree.

[Rulesman]

That's a matter of opinion.  It would seem that 48 states disagree.

And isn't it true that both states have adopted modifications to some of those rules?

[bama_stripes]

A smart fellow once told me:

"NFL rules are made for television.  College rules are made for the coaches.  High school rules are made for the safety of the players."

[Magician]

A smart fellow once told me:

"NFL rules are made for television.  College rules are made for the coaches.  High school rules are made for the safety of the players."

That is a good quote!

[east louis]

I agree w/ tampa steve,games are taking longer,most so-called OC's are simply copycats of what they see on TV,knowing they dont,and NEVER WILL have the talent/personnel to run SPREAD OPTION LIKE OREGON,ETC.--DOG's need Clock start on RFP instead of snap(which delays game even more),and NCAA rule on ENC/NZI by B(give A the freebie),eliminate 5 yd FMK,and some tweaks to mech on kickoffs for H & U to box in players better...

[HLinNC]

I see a lot of calls for eliminating the five yard face ask foul but was it not imposed because coaches wanted facemasks called and officias didn't as there wasn't any twisting or turning?

[Rulesman]

I see a lot of calls for eliminating the five yard face ask foul but was it not imposed because coaches wanted facemasks called and officias didn't as there wasn't any twisting or turning?

Split the difference... make 'em all 10. 

[AlUpstateNY]

Split the difference... make 'em all 10. 

Simply ignoring what the sideline thinks, solves a lot of problems.

[Atlanta Blue]

Simply ignoring what the sideline thinks, solves a lot of problems.

And it's this kind of thinking that leads to there being far more coaches on the rules committee than officials!