Recent Posts

1

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by ETXZebra on Today at 12:57:05 PM »

I’m assuming this is from the UIL. I haven’t seen nor heard from TASO on this. The next webinar, May 22, is covering the new rules. We should get it covered then.

2

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by Legacy Zebra on Today at 12:35:09 PM »

There is no foul if, prior to the defensive contact, the snap is muffed or fumbled

Now that we’ve covered the actual meat of the rule, can we go back to this part?

Who is writing this? If it’s from the TASO side, we need to do better. If it’s from the UIL side, it needs to be vetted by people who actually know the rules. A snap cannot be fumbled. Just like a pass cannot be fumbled or a kick cannot be fumbled. Only a ball in player possession can be fumbled. If the ball is loose from a snap, it is a backward pass by definition, not a fumble. That distinction actually matters quite a bit in this context since 99.9999% of place kicks occur either on 4th down or a try.

3

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by Zebra Watcher on Yesterday at 03:27:37 PM »

Your probably right Legacy Zebra. May never see it with 12 minute quarters. Hopeful wishes...  ElivisLives, I truly believe your right on the NCAA coping with the NFL in 2 Minute Warning was driven by TV revenue. Show Us The Money..

4

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by ElvisLives on Yesterday at 02:38:18 PM »

I don’t think we will see the NCAA first down and out of bounds rules come to UIL as long as we are still running 12 minute quarters. And there’s no reason to have a two minute timeout if there’s no timing rules that change at that point.

Well, there is one rule change in the last 2-minutes - 3-4-3-b, starting the clock on the snap (at the offended team's option) for a foul by the team ahead in score during the last 2 minutes of a half. Agree, not worth having a timeout for that 'reminder,' alone. We got along just fine without the 2-minute T/O until now. No doubt in my mind this was driven by TV. They love the NFL two-minute warning, and they wanted it for NCAA.

5

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by Legacy Zebra on Yesterday at 02:05:09 PM »

I don’t think we will see the NCAA first down and out of bounds rules come to UIL as long as we are still running 12 minute quarters. And there’s no reason to have a two minute timeout if there’s no timing rules that change at that point.

6

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by Zebra Watcher on Yesterday at 01:18:12 PM »

Like ElvisLives said, I would have thought they would have accepted the 2 Minute Warning and then could sync up timing rules with 10 sec run-off. I think it would be good to follow NCAA first timing rules to keep the game moving.  Maybe next time around. The uniform police...they don't care enough about it, we don't enforce it. Moving on into the season.

7

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by ElvisLives on Yesterday at 12:19:25 PM »

I disagree. The new rule says it’s not a foul if *prior to the contact* the ball is muffed or it’s obviously a fake. If the contact occurs first, it’s still a foul.

I'm with ya. I overlooked the, "...prior to the defensive contact...," language.
As you state, even a muff of a direct snap to the holder will take about a second, from the start of the snap movement to the ball falling from the holder's hands. So, yeah, kinda moot.
The only scenario that I can see that might fit this language is the ball slipping from the snapper's hands as he is snapping it, and falling loose on the ground. Technically, that is not a 'muff,' but simply a ball that is loose from a backward pass. For these intents and purposes, though, I would think it would fall under the same category as a muff. It will most likely fall under the category of, "...obvious there will be no place kick attempt...," in very short order, anyway.

So as not to influence anybody incorrectly, I will strike the language in my previous post.

Thanks.

8

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by dammitbobby on Yesterday at 09:15:55 AM »

Legacy, you are certainly not wrong about the timing of blocks related to a muff, etc. But, this rule 'tweak' is intended to absolve an upright Team B player who ignores the principal rule, charges ahead and makes immediate contact with a Team A player within one second, but then the holder muffs the snap, or they snap it directly to the potential kicker who then runs or passes the ball, etc. So, we'll have to 'process' the action, and see if Team A's action is a 'normal' kick, then toss a flag for such a foul, or, perhaps, recognize the muff or fake, and realize 'no foul' because of this rule tweak.

I can think a little more clearly now than i could yesterday.

If this is a safety foul, why would/should B be absolved of the foul - the contact is still the same with a lineman in a comparatively vulnerable position, and even with a muff, he doesn't know that the kick will not occur.  It seems like the same as the wedge rule, which I also don't understand, from a safety perspective (the kick going OOB negates any wedge foul, even after contact).

I think what Elvis describes is what they intended the rule to be, (regardless of my ignorance or confusion), but Legacy is right in that the wording of the exception says otherwise.  Just my opinion.

9

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by Legacy Zebra on Yesterday at 09:02:31 AM »

I disagree. The new rule says it’s not a foul if *prior to the contact* the ball is muffed or it’s obviously a fake. If the contact occurs first, it’s still a foul.

10

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by ElvisLives on Yesterday at 08:50:24 AM »

The red part is just a rewrite. They moved the “not a foul” portion up to the first sentence. So instead of describing a foul and then saying “it’s not a foul if the player…”, they just added the player description to the definition of the foul.

Then below that they added the section about not being a foul if the snap is muffed or it’s a fake.

Of course that’s kind of pointless in my opinion. The rule only applies within 1 second of the snap. To have  a snap, muff by the holder, defensive player see it and then make contact all within 1 second that would be almost impossible. Most high school holders barely get the ball down to the tee within 1 second on a good kick.

****struck by author**** See next post by this author.