Author Topic: Rule Change Suggestions  (Read 17053 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline UmpHawk

  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
  • I am proud to wear the stripes.
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #50 on: November 05, 2018, 10:00:24 AM »
The high majority feeling (including mine) is that the All-But-One principle if both fair and simple. The hold occurring in the backfield may have freed the QB sack or a runner's loss of yardage and deserves to remain a spot foul. A change would benefit the offense which, in the opinion of many, doesn't need any benefits.

I understand your reasoning, but a 10 year penalty is fairly significant. It also simplifies penalty administration, along with getting NFHS more in line with NCAA rules. I usually don't care if our rules are more in line with NCAA, but in this case I think they have it right.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4654
  • FAN REACTION: +864/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #51 on: November 05, 2018, 10:48:10 AM »
The reverse of that is: “Just because we don’t want to mirror the NCAA is never a good reason NOT to change a rule.”  And yet that’s the perception many of us have about some of the RC members.

It boggles my mind that 33%+ of the RC would have a problem with the “4 backs” change, especially since (if we’re honest with ourselves) that’s how a majority of officials are counting anyway.
Agree fully, 'Bama, that just because NCAA does it is not a reason not to. Many of our rule changes over the years have had NCAA roots. Our tack-on rule that passed this year is one. Others of note include : PSK, horsecollar, targeting, blocking in the back,  removing LOD from OPI (cost us AFD on DPI, though), QB spike, offsetting DBPF/USC fouls..etc. I've supported counting 5 backs in lieu of 6 linesman, as have most active officials on the committee, but regrettably not enough.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4654
  • FAN REACTION: +864/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #52 on: November 05, 2018, 11:00:39 AM »
I understand your reasoning, but a 10 year penalty is fairly significant. It also simplifies penalty administration, along with getting NFHS more in line with NCAA rules. I usually don't care if our rules are more in line with NCAA, but in this case I think they have it right.
This has been on the docket several times without success. Outside of the considered fairness of the All-But-One, I've heard the following two negative points:

(1)Exceptions and complexity are not popular with the NFHS. Several years ago we were told that we had 16 exceptions in our Rule 10 (penalty enforcement) while NCAA had +70. Not only would this be an exception to the All-But-One but we would need an exception to that exception to cover fouls such as IG or fouls occurring in the EZ.

(2) While we could look at a holding call occurring 8 yards behind the LOS as an 18 yard penalty, we could also look at a 90 yard TD kick return with a hold called at R's 25 as an 85 yard penalty. In both situations, the hold may have sprung the runner loose.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2018, 11:03:10 AM by Ralph Damren »

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #53 on: November 05, 2018, 11:28:24 AM »
I understand your reasoning, but a 10 year penalty is fairly significant. It also simplifies penalty administration, along with getting NFHS more in line with NCAA rules. I usually don't care if our rules are more in line with NCAA, but in this case I think they have it right.

I wholeheartedly agree with Ralph's summation (aside from baseball).  Making ALL fouls, behind the line as previous spot enforcement  seems like an INVITATION to foul, whenever the defense has forced the offense to retreat 10 yards or more.  Why not foul, the worst that will happen is losing the right to repeat the down, by B declining the penalty.

Offline CK51

  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #54 on: November 06, 2018, 08:14:40 AM »
somebody suggested in my weekly meeting that DPI in the EZ should be an automatic first down. Sounded like a good idea to me. It takes away the defense's advantage of trading a small yardage penalty for preventing a TD, especially on 4th down

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2940
  • FAN REACTION: +134/-1004
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #55 on: November 06, 2018, 09:54:15 AM »
I wholeheartedly agree with Ralph's summation (aside from baseball).  Making ALL fouls, behind the line as previous spot enforcement  seems like an INVITATION to foul, whenever the defense has forced the offense to retreat 10 yards or more.  Why not foul, the worst that will happen is losing the right to repeat the down, by B declining the penalty.

FTR, I agree with Al and Ralph here. The fact that the ball and the foul are behind the LOS is because of the offense. No sense in letting them off the hook.

Offline SCline

  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-1
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #56 on: November 06, 2018, 10:15:14 AM »
I would be strongly for an auto first down for DPI where the interference occurs in B’s endzone.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2940
  • FAN REACTION: +134/-1004
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #57 on: November 06, 2018, 10:17:31 AM »
I would love to see a spot foul enforcement in this case. Put it at the 1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline sj

  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-0
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #58 on: November 06, 2018, 01:10:20 PM »
Question for Ralph - In your estimation what do you think will be the next rule change or two that the NF will actually put in place?

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 2116
  • FAN REACTION: +301/-25
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #59 on: November 07, 2018, 08:14:33 AM »
I would love to see a spot foul enforcement in this case. Put it at the 1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't like spot foul for DPI.  It assumes the receiver is going to catch it.  In high school, that's a big assumption.

Offline SCline

  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-1
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #60 on: November 07, 2018, 08:37:17 AM »
I don't like spot foul for DPI.  It assumes the receiver is going to catch it.  In high school, that's a big assumption.

I couldn’t quite put my finger on why I didn’t like putting the ball at the 1 but you nailed it. Give the offense yards and a first down (IMO) and move on.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2940
  • FAN REACTION: +134/-1004
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #61 on: November 07, 2018, 08:40:09 AM »
I get all that, but the spot foul sure would take away the incentive to interfere. one thing about it - if the defender does interfere, it's almost a certainty A won't catch it. A spot foul may prevent B's coach from teaching his players to foul...

Offline ilyazhito

  • *
  • Posts: 365
  • FAN REACTION: +11/-13
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #62 on: November 08, 2018, 11:44:45 PM »
In that case, just adopt the NCAA rule on DPI. Spot, 15, or 2 makes sense, because the ball is at the spot of the foul if the pass was not a long one, 15 yards would be a major deterrent on long passes, because that would give A a free series (the automatic 1st down provision addresses those cases where 15 yards would not affect the next series, whether on 2nd and 16+, 3rd and 16+, or inside the 30 yard line, where half the distance enforcement reduces the possible distance), and the 2 yard line provides a consistent spot for fouls on passes near the goal line (specifically, a pass when the previous spot is between the B17 and B2 inclusive, with a foul on or inside the B2). If spot, 15, or 2 is a simple enough mnemonic for new NCAA officials, NFHS officials would also be able to pick up on it.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4654
  • FAN REACTION: +864/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #63 on: November 09, 2018, 10:03:46 AM »
I don't like spot foul for DPI.  It assumes the receiver is going to catch it.  In high school, that's a big assumption.
In high school, assuming a pass is always catchable is a big assumption. Assuming a catchable pass will be caught will even be a bigger one!!

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4654
  • FAN REACTION: +864/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #64 on: November 09, 2018, 10:08:12 AM »
Question for Ralph - In your estimation what do you think will be the next rule change or two that the NF will actually put in place?
I HOPE....

Worry about 5 in backfield, not 6 on the line.

Put some sort of AFD for DPI occurring in goal to go situations.

I HOPE NOT.....

Adopting the 40" play clock.

Offline refjeff

  • *
  • Posts: 542
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-30
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #65 on: November 09, 2018, 10:39:53 AM »
Put some sort of AFD for DPI occurring in goal to go situations.
More than that.  How about any DPI in the EZ is an AFD?

I HOPE NOT.....

Adopting the 40" play clock.
  Me too.  We don't work with a 7 or 8 man crew, chain crews that can run, and ball boys that are consistently where they need to be. 

Offline colorado_lines

  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #66 on: November 09, 2018, 01:04:04 PM »
I HOPE....

Worry about 5 in backfield, not 6 on the line.

Put some sort of AFD for DPI occurring in goal to go situations.

I HOPE NOT.....

Adopting the 40" play clock.

I agree about the first two but I'm totally in favor of the 40" play clock.  Absolutely love it here in Colorado and dread the old play clock when I do games in Wyoming.  The 40" has made our crew pretty efficient and we actually get comments about that from the Wyoming coaches who aren't used to efficiency apparently (or can't remember it).

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2940
  • FAN REACTION: +134/-1004
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #67 on: November 09, 2018, 01:07:34 PM »
That brings up an interesting question. How does the 40 increase your efficiency when running a 25 in Wyoming? Also, can those principles be applied in states running the 25 to such a degree that the 40 is not needed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline colorado_lines

  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #68 on: November 09, 2018, 02:15:38 PM »
That brings up an interesting question. How does the 40 increase your efficiency when running a 25 in Wyoming? Also, can those principles be applied in states running the 25 to such a degree that the 40 is not needed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think because the 40 starts right after the previous play is dead most of the time we naturally move quicker in getting the ball spotted in order to give the offense as much of the play clock as possible.  Before the 40 second clock I definitely had worked with crews that took a bit more time to spot the ball and others that moved quicker.  One of the big advantages of the 40 is that it leads to greater consistency between crews.  I wouldn't say that the 40 is absolutely needed but it does make for smoother games (as a side note, I was originally very against the 40 but came to love it).

Offline ilyazhito

  • *
  • Posts: 365
  • FAN REACTION: +11/-13
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #69 on: November 09, 2018, 11:33:02 PM »
40 = no wait time from previous play, hence why wing spotting ball declares the ball dead by raising his hand when marking the forward progress spot. With the 25 second play clock, since the play cannot start until the R blows the ready-for-play whistle, the pace will be inherently inconsistent, because different Rs will have different paces.
While the ball rarely is snapped instantly after being available, allowing a team to put the ball in play sooner (or wait from the time the ball is spotted until ~10 seconds remain on the play clock, for a longer period of time, might reduce the amount of kneel downs used (a kneel with a 25 second play clock might use up ~27 seconds per kneeldown, while a kneel with a 40-second play clock can use ~41 seconds. 3 kneel downs (assuming no timeouts) can consume 123 seconds (2:03) vs 81 seconds (1:21) of game time, a difference of 42 seconds that might not need to be played) or reduce the amount of knees taken. The R would only blow the RFP whistle when needed to restart the game clock, or for special situations  (start of series, start of period, penalty administration, untimed downs, after timeouts, etc.).

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4654
  • FAN REACTION: +864/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Rule Change Suggestions
« Reply #70 on: November 10, 2018, 10:27:20 AM »
That brings up an interesting question. How does the 40 increase your efficiency when running a 25 in Wyoming? Also, can those principles be applied in states running the 25 to such a degree that the 40 is not needed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This past season we took the POEs in both the NFHS Rules Book and Officials' Manual seriously. Stressing pace of game and realizing it takes about a month to develop a habit - both good & bad - we made the following resolutions :

(1) During the first half of our games in the first month, we would focus on our pace of game. Whoever was facing the game clock - R or BJ - would monitor.
(2) As soon as the ball became dead, the "clockwatcher" would mentally record if the ball could then be spotted within 10".
(3) Once the ball was spotted, he would then mentally record if the RFP was sounded within 5".
(4) At halftime, we would discuss our adaption to the 10"/5" goal.
(5) During the second half, we would rely on the hopeful habit that was developing during the first half.

Results : Everyone seemed to move a little quicker as that had became their "habit". Rarely was there a delay in RFP within 5" of spotting the ball. Without 7 man crews and attentive ball boys, the 10" goal appeared to be achieved other then the long incomplete passes/ ball going OOB/ need to change the ball. The coaches didn't feel there was a problem before. Hope this helps those of you who share my feelings.