Author Topic: Rule Changes I'd Like to See  (Read 432 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 2369
  • FAN REACTION: +121/-102
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Rule Changes I'd Like to See
« on: January 12, 2022, 01:31:09 PM »
1. Mouthpieces. If they really want players to wear mouthpieces, then require that the mouthpieces be on a strap attached to the facemask (no exceptions). Any dangling mouthpiece would then be clear evidence of not having it properly in place. (He might have two, you might argue. But why would he have two, strapped to his facemask?) A rule like that could be enforced. (But, by whom, you might ask. Read on.)

2. Take us out of uniform and equipment enforcement. If they want compliance with uniform and equipment rules, then make that the responsibility of the conferences. Have them hire and assign a U & E officer to each game, and he/she has the authority to issue fines to the teams for U & E violations. Say, $1,000 per violation. Quadruple that for post-season games. That would probably get their attention somewhere around week 3.

3. If they are going to leave U & E enforcement to us, then change the pant/knee pad rule to something enforceable. Maybe forget the knee pads, but require the pants to extend below the knee cap while in a standing position, with the entire belt line above the top of the hips. And require that there be no exposed leg skin, for all players. Either wear stockings that extend above the knees, or underpant style leggings.

4. Require that all jerseys be tucked into the pants, OR require undershirts that EXACTLY match the jersey color, tucked into the pants. Nothing - NOTHING - extends below the beltline, and there shall be no skin exposed below the neck (except lower arms - see item 5).

5. Jersey or undershirt arms must extend to the crook of the elbow. There shall be no skin exposed above the elbows.

6. Towels, if worn, must be at the belt line and between the front of the hips on the anterior side of the player's body. Exception: The player designated to be the snapper, and who subsequently snaps the ball, may wear a towel on his posterior side, at the belt line.

7. By rule, the Head coach is responsible for all players on his team wearing uniform and equipment in compliance with the rules. Officials have no responsibility to verify that players are properly equipped. (So no certification needed.)

8. Only linemen within the tackle box at the snap may block below the waist toward the ball (right now, backs can BBW toward the ball, but from the front; I'd like to see that go away).

Probably some other things, but that's it for now.










Offline dammitbobby

  • *
  • Posts: 628
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-7
  • I know just enough to be dangerous...
Re: Rule Changes I'd Like to See
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2022, 01:51:23 PM »
#3 - what makes the current rules around kneepads unenforceable?  For HS at least, it's a lack of willingness of officials to call it for fear of being scratched.  Higher levels, I don't know.  But regardless, a unified front by officials to enforce a rule that has clear, unambiguous language, and isn't really even a judgement call, would go a long way towards addressing this.  But, we all know how likely that is.

What's your rationale for #5? 

This is what you are proposing would look like:  https://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_in_content_image/xughgui0nxlqqgt4n5rx.png

But what's wrong with this?  https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/MiSAHQgJuc5NbhcbI4NnDkN5e1M=/0x0:620x933/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:620x933)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8709483/Orange_Orange_White.jpg

If this is a wishlist, I'd do away with BBW altogether, although that's not likely to ever happen.  (I fully support this as you worded it though, to simplify the rule)

I'd like to see a change to the HCT rule, so that any abrupt downward pull, that buckles the knees, is a HCT, regardless of when the tackler latches onto the runner.  Had one where I got overruled this year for that, and I was not happy about it.  Their rationale was that since he 'rode' him a few yards, the pulldown was not immediate.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 2369
  • FAN REACTION: +121/-102
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Rule Changes I'd Like to See
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2022, 02:03:57 PM »
#3 - what makes the current rules around kneepads unenforceable?  For HS at least, it's a lack of willingness of officials to call it for fear of being scratched.  Higher levels, I don't know.  But regardless, a unified front by officials to enforce a rule that has clear, unambiguous language, and isn't really even a judgement call, would go a long way towards addressing this.  But, we all know how likely that is.

What's your rationale for #5? 

This is what you are proposing would look like:  https://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_in_content_image/xughgui0nxlqqgt4n5rx.png

But what's wrong with this?  https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/MiSAHQgJuc5NbhcbI4NnDkN5e1M=/0x0:620x933/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:620x933)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8709483/Orange_Orange_White.jpg

If this is a wishlist, I'd do away with BBW altogether, although that's not likely to ever happen.  (I fully support this as you worded it though, to simplify the rule)

I'd like to see a change to the HCT rule, so that any abrupt downward pull, that buckles the knees, is a HCT, regardless of when the tackler latches onto the runner.  Had one where I got overruled this year for that, and I was not happy about it.  Their rationale was that since he 'rode' him a few yards, the pulldown was not immediate.

I'm trying to clean up the image of the game. Exposed gut and butt ain't pretty. Exposed legs ain't pretty. The NFL already has those under control. Exposed upper arms ain't pretty, especially with all the butt-ugly tattoos. Requiring the upper arms to be covered would go a long way to cleaning up the image.

Offline bctgp

  • *
  • Posts: 219
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-10
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rule Changes I'd Like to See
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2022, 11:30:52 PM »
regarding these comments made before:

3. If they are going to leave U & E enforcement to us, then change the pant/knee pad rule to something enforceable. Maybe forget the knee pads, but require the pants to extend below the knee cap while in a standing position, with the entire belt line above the top of the hips. And require that there be no exposed leg skin, for all players. Either wear stockings that extend above the knees, or underpant style leggings.

#3 - what makes the current rules around kneepads unenforceable?  For HS at least, it's a lack of willingness of officials to call it for fear of being scratched.  Higher levels, I don't know.  But regardless, a unified front by officials to enforce a rule that has clear, unambiguous language, and isn't really even a judgement call, would go a long way towards addressing this.  But, we all know how likely that is.

Just look at the Rose bowl where the (very talented) receiver for Ohio State appeared to play the whole second half without a single pad used from the waist and below. 

Maybe we just need to say that only thing required beyond shoes, pants, jersey is a helmet and mouthpiece.  Not saying they couldn't wear more but it's not mandatory.  Makes our job easier.  yEs:

Offline FWREF

  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rule Changes I'd Like to See
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2022, 08:41:44 AM »
Two things that i would really like to change for player safety and ease of enforcement.

#1 eliminate all BBW except for the 5 linemen  on the LOS and only if they are within 3 yards of the ball at the snap. They can block BBW within 2 yards of the LOS only. Easy to understand and enforce.

#2 the HCT is any tackle with the hand inside the side or back of the collar of the jersey or grasping the nameplate. Again, simple to see, to enforce and protects the players.

(and if we are throwing in pipe dreams.... coaches are not allowed to speak to officials)

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 2369
  • FAN REACTION: +121/-102
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Rule Changes I'd Like to See
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2022, 03:21:36 PM »
More things from me:

-Require that a player laying atop an opponent (laying prone/supine) must immediately get himself off of the opponent, and may not further contact the opponent until the opponent is on his feet (no part of his body other than feet are touching the ground). Require that a player on his feet may not contact an opponent that is on the ground (laying prone/supine, or with both knees on the ground) until the opponent is on his feet (no part of his body other than feet are touching the ground).

-Change the rule regarding a kicking team player going OB during the kick to apply only between the goal lines. A player that goes OB from the end zone gains no advantage whatsoever, but loses a valid opportunity to return inbounds and legally recover the ball (especially a live ball in the end zone).

I'll have more later.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2022, 09:49:19 AM by ElvisLives »

Offline dammitbobby

  • *
  • Posts: 628
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-7
  • I know just enough to be dangerous...
Re: Rule Changes I'd Like to See
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2022, 08:46:09 AM »
I'd like to modify the wedge rule, for it to be a foul regardless if the kick goes OOB - if it's a safety foul, that foul shouldn't get waved off just because the kick isn't returnable. 

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 2369
  • FAN REACTION: +121/-102
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Rule Changes I'd Like to See
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2022, 11:45:24 AM »
I'd like to modify the wedge rule, for it to be a foul regardless if the kick goes OOB - if it's a safety foul, that foul shouldn't get waved off just because the kick isn't returnable.

I think the Rules Committee would tell you that a wedge block, which is simply 2 or more receiving team teammates blocking a kicking team player, above the waist, and not in the back, is NOT a safety foul. Blocks that are safety fouls are those blocks below the waist, or when the player being blocked can’t defend himself. Multiple players blocking an opponent above the waist and from the front doesn’t fit that model.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 2369
  • FAN REACTION: +121/-102
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Rule Changes I'd Like to See
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2022, 12:09:13 PM »
More.

-Let’s just go ahead and leave the game clock running when a BC or a loose ball goes OB, and when Team A reaches their line-to-gain. With virtually all conferences restarting the game clock within just a few seconds after stopping the clock, there doesn’t seem much point in stopping the clock.

(Now, for UIL football, we should just leaves things as they are.)

-Change the (scoring) safety/impetus rules back to be that impetus is the action on the ball IN THE FIELD OF PLAY by a player that puts the ball from the field of play into the end zone, where it becomes dead. Impetus can NOT be changed in the defending team’s end zone. (That’s how it was under Nelson and Adams. For the life of me, can’t figure out why Redding changed it.)

-Change KCI to require physical contact that causes the receiver to not be able to get into position to catch the ball, or causes the receiver to muff the ball. A receiver that wants to get into position can run through a kicking team defender in his way, and a foul would be on the kicking team player.





Offline dammitbobby

  • *
  • Posts: 628
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-7
  • I know just enough to be dangerous...
Re: Rule Changes I'd Like to See
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2022, 10:13:50 PM »
I think the Rules Committee would tell you that a wedge block, which is simply 2 or more receiving team teammates blocking a kicking team player, above the waist, and not in the back, is NOT a safety foul. Blocks that are safety fouls are those blocks below the waist, or when the player being blocked can’t defend himself. Multiple players blocking an opponent above the waist and from the front doesn’t fit that model.

So what's the purpose of the wedge rule, if not safety?  What makes it any different than a high-speed double team block?

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1869
  • FAN REACTION: +211/-24
Re: Rule Changes I'd Like to See
« Reply #10 on: Yesterday at 12:54:24 PM »
I think the Rules Committee would tell you that a wedge block, which is simply 2 or more receiving team teammates blocking a kicking team player, above the waist, and not in the back, is NOT a safety foul. Blocks that are safety fouls are those blocks below the waist, or when the player being blocked can’t defend himself. Multiple players blocking an opponent above the waist and from the front doesn’t fit that model.

It's certainly a safety foul, although indirectly.  No wedges = no wedge busters from the kicking team.  This is to prevent concussions.

No return means there really is no opportunity to set up a wedge and block someone, so I can see why it would be a foul here. 

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 2369
  • FAN REACTION: +121/-102
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Rule Changes I'd Like to See
« Reply #11 on: Yesterday at 01:24:48 PM »
It's certainly a safety foul, although indirectly.  No wedges = no wedge busters from the kicking team.  This is to prevent concussions.

No return means there really is no opportunity to set up a wedge and block someone, so I can see why it would be a foul here.

Typo? Did you mean “…why it would NOT be a foul here…?”

The rule has worked. Since we first got the rule, wedge blocking has all but disappeared. When we do see it, it is virtually always two blockers who have come together, usually nearly stationary while they wait for an advancing kicking team player to reach them. If they move forward, it usually is only a step or two - no real opportunity to reach high speed.
When we first got this rule, officially, this was a foul, regardless of the outcome of the down. Very quickly, we got the ‘philosophy’ to rule no foul if the result of the down is a TB, a KOB foul, or a fair catch. Then the philosophy became actual rule. If the rules committee was concerned about the safety aspect of this type of block, they would not have adopted these no foul ‘exceptions.’ A block below the waist during the down will never be ‘excepted’ by the result of the down.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 03:24:37 PM by ElvisLives »

Offline Imperial Stout

  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rule Changes I'd Like to See
« Reply #12 on: Yesterday at 03:10:15 PM »
Start the game clock after an incomplete pass at the RFP outside of the last 2 minutes of a half. 

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1869
  • FAN REACTION: +211/-24
Re: Rule Changes I'd Like to See
« Reply #13 on: Yesterday at 10:44:07 PM »
Typo? Did you mean “…why it would NOT be a foul here…?”

The rule has worked. Since we first got the rule, wedge blocking has all but disappeared. When we do see it, it is virtually always two blockers who have come together, usually nearly stationary while they wait for an advancing kicking team player to reach them. If they move forward, it usually is only a step or two - no real opportunity to reach high speed.
When we first got this rule, officially, this was a foul, regardless of the outcome of the down. Very quickly, we got the ‘philosophy’ to rule no foul if the result of the down is a TB, a KOB foul, or a fair catch. Then the philosophy became actual rule. If the rules committee was concerned about the safety aspect of this type of block, they would not have adopted these no foul ‘exceptions.’ A block below the waist during the down will never be ‘excepted’ by the result of the down.

Contrary to those other fouls, this one doesn't require contact.  Just the formation of the wedge is a foul.  So if there is no return, then there's no foul, as you rarely have contact when there is a touchback or FC.