2014-15 Points of Emphasis- Officials Manual

[bkdow]

Maybe it's the kid who puts his hand up and says "it's me!" before the RFP 

[Rulesman]

Maybe it's the kid who puts his hand up and says "it's me!" before the RFP 

If he starts more than 5 yds back it better be him. And he better have 4 on each side of him. And the other 10 better be inside the 5 yard belt. 

[Atlanta Blue]

If he starts more than 5 yds back it better be him.

And if it's not him, it's a foul when?  When someone else kicks the ball, which means you are now shutting down the play that started, which violates the FFF (FED Football Fundamental) that no foul causes the play to end.

No matter how you write it, the editor or committee blew the wording on this one.  In their attempt to make it a dead ball foul, they ignored/butchered both a definition (a kicker) and a fundamental.

[VALJ]

And if it's not him, it's a foul when?  When someone else kicks the ball, which means you are now shutting down the play that started, which violates the FFF (FED Football Fundamental) that no foul causes the play to end.

Technically, the play never started in this case - just like an illegal snap, where we're shutting the play down and the whistle comes after the action has started.

I agree with your general point, AB; I'm just pointing out that we have another foul where that part is comparable.  Wouldn't surprise me to see something come out from NFHS before the season starts with some sort of adjustment to the verbiage in the rulebook.

[prab]

I am willing to wager an adult beverage that there will be at least one instance where the Rule Book and the Case Book contradict each other on this play.

[Atlanta Blue]

Technically, the play never started in this case - just like an illegal snap, where we're shutting the play down and the whistle comes after the action has started.

On an Illegal Snap, some action occurred prior to the ball being snapped that caused the play to be killed before it started (snapper moves the ball, rotates it end to end, etc.).  On this one, it's the otherwise LEGAL action of kicking the ball that kills the play.

And to make it worse, on a scrimmage play with an Illegal Snap, usually 20 players (or more) are within 5-7 yards of the ball, so there's a better chance of getting everyone stopped safely.  On a free kick, some of them are 60 yards away, as are half your crew.  Of course, ALf. thinks everyone is paying attention to the official blowing the whistle and they will all stop together.  That just isn't going to happen.

[HLinNC]

I am willing to wager an adult beverage that there will be at least one instance where the Rule Book and the Case Book contradict each other on this play.

Sadly, I wouldn't take that bet.

[AlUpstateNY]

Of course, ALf. thinks everyone is paying attention to the official blowing the whistle and they will all stop together.  That just isn't going to happen.

Which is why one of the key requirements of a successful official is healthy lungs, enabling him to sound his whistle loud enough (and if necessary long enough) so EVERYONE he intends to hear it, both on the playing field and sideline, does and acts accordingly.

[Ralph Damren]

Refer to new case 6-1-3B on switching kickers : " K has committed a foul for encroachment and the ball is blown dead immediately. ...." In that play ,the kick was made with R recovering but, BY RULE, was dead as soon as it was kicked = dead ball foul.

[Atlanta Blue]

Refer to new case 6-1-3B on switching kickers : " K has committed a foul for encroachment and the ball is blown dead immediately. ...." In that play ,the kick was made with R recovering but, BY RULE, was dead as soon as it was kicked = dead ball foul.

I understand that is how they have written the rule, but doesn't it mean that the foul is causing the play to be dead?  Nothing illegal happened until the ball was legally kicked.  There is nothing about the kick that was illegal, it was the player that lined up more than 5 yards deep not kicking it that was illegal.  So the only reason the play is stopped is because of a "retroactive" foul.

[Patrick E.]

In the Rules Book, the penalty is classified as Encroachment.The ball was dead as soon as it was touched = dead ball foul.  Just as catching is always preceded by touching, kicking is always preceded by touching.

Indiana Jones: Meet me at Omar's. Be ready for me. I'm going after that truck.
Sallah: How?
Indiana Jones: I don't know, I'm making this up as I go!

[bama_stripes]

Refer to new case 6-1-3B on switching kickers : " K has committed a foul for encroachment and the ball is blown dead immediately. ...." In that play ,the kick was made with R recovering but, BY RULE, was dead as soon as it was kicked = dead ball foul.

But the reason that play is illegal is because K had a player more than 5 yds behind the ball that didn't kick it.

And I can't for the life of me figure out why these are being called "encroachment".  They're obviously formation fouls.  Is the only reason so that we can kill the play as soon as the ball is kicked?

[bossman72]

And I can't for the life of me figure out why these are being called "encroachment".  They're obviously formation fouls.  Is the only reason so that we can kill the play as soon as the ball is kicked?

Bingo

[AlUpstateNY]

In an environment that depends so heavily on the spelled out details of specific definitions, this issue seems so defiantly contradictory to basic fundamental understandings of long established definitions, to what end escapes me.  The logic of the situation clearly suggests a revised formational requirement that when violated, makes sense to simply shut the play down to avoid all the unnecessary possibilities and nyances of handling violations as live ball fouls.

Sometimes, stupid is just that.

[Curious]

I know I'm "late to the party" here; but I could swear I read somewhere that the wording has been changed from "4 players to each side of the KICKER" to each side of the BALL....

Is this simply wishful thinking?

[Rulesman]

I know I'm "late to the party" here; but I could swear I read somewhere that the wording has been changed from "4 players to each side of the KICKER" to each side of the BALL....

We have good reason to believe the original wording was (and was intended to be) BALL, but was changed to KICKER when the book went to press. Stay tuned for resolution to the Fed's annual rule book crisis. 

[Ralph Damren]

The proposed rule changes provided to us in December used the term "kicker" in lieu of "ball" . I assume the foul was put into the encroachment family as ALL encroachment fouls are dead ball fouls. In the new quoted case, the reason the ball became dead with the kick was a "trick kicker" made the kick and not the apparent kicker, who had lined up in excess of 5 yds  from K's line. The foul didn't occur until the ball was kicked when then made it a foul as a player was beyond 5 yds off after the RFP. Most fouls of this nature will probably occur somewhere after the RFP and before the kick and should be blown dead. A flash back in time to my 1972 NFHS Football Rules Book shows on page 74 : Football officials' signals #1 "Offside or violation of free kick rules." Was that the reason encroachment was the chosen foul ? Probably not ! IMHO, will this ever become a live ball foul ? Probably not unless we adopt a "tack on " rule that would prevent a re-kick.    This has worked as an experemtial rule in 3 states without a hitch. If hitches do occur, they can be tweaked out in future years.  Football is the most injury-prone sport in high school > kickoffs are the most injury-prone plays in football > onside kicks are the most injury-prone kickoffs in the game. These rules was passed after 3 years of debate, in the interest of improving the safety of our game. Lets all agree to give them a shot.        

[Atlanta Blue]

Football is the most injury-prone sport in high school > kickoffs are the most injury-prone plays in football > onside kicks are the most injury-prone kickoffs in the game.       

Heard this tossed about as "known", but have never seen any stats to back it up.  Were you shown "proof" of this, or is it more legend/belief?

[Ralph Damren]

Heard this tossed about as "known", but have never seen any stats to back it up.  Were you shown "proof" of this, or is it more legend/belief?

The High School Related Injury Surveillance Study produced by High School RIO was provided at our Jan meeting. It provided stacks of stats with the eyeopener being :

         INJURY RATE PER 1,000 ATHLETIC EXPOSURES

                                              COMPETITION             PRACTICE               TOTAL

   Football                                      12.1                           2.2                   14.3
   Girl's soccer                                   5.7                           0.9                    6.6
   Boy's ice hockey                             5.2                           0.5                    5.7
   Boy's lacrosse                                 3.7                           1.0                    4.7
                 ....
                                   ......
                                                     .....
   Boy's swimming                                0.1                           0.1                     0.2

Trying to deciper all the info is compluated but decipering that Mama Bear and Papa Bear's little Baby Bear  has twice the chance of injury playing football than any other sport is not. Safety has to be the top priority of the officials, coaches and players. As a member of the rules committee, it is ours.

[Atlanta Blue]

The High School Related Injury Surveillance Study produced by High School RIO was provided at our Jan meeting. It provided stacks of stats with the eyeopener being :

         INJURY RATE PER 1,000 ATHLETIC EXPOSURES

                                              COMPETITION             PRACTICE               TOTAL

   Football                                      12.1                           2.2                   14.3
   Girl's soccer                                   5.7                           0.9                    6.6
   Boy's ice hockey                             5.2                           0.5                    5.7
   Boy's lacrosse                                 3.7                           1.0                    4.7
                 ....
                                   ......
                                                     .....
   Boy's swimming                                0.1                           0.1                     0.2

Trying to deciper all the info is compluated but decipering that Mama Bear and Papa Bear's little Baby Bear  has twice the chance of injury playing football than any other sport is not. Safety has to be the top priority of the officials, coaches and players. As a member of the rules committee, it is ours.

Ralph:
I sure hope they didn't present those numbers that way!  The numbers for practices and competitions are NOT additive.  For instance, the number of football injuries per 1000 athlete exposures in competition is 12.53, and for practice it's 2.08, but in total, it's 3.57 (latest RIO report).  And yes, football is higher than any other sport, followed by boys' wrestling and girls' soccer (for some reason, ice hockey and lacrosse are not in the latest report).

And I get that football has the most injuries.  But further digging into that study says that being tackled is the number one source of football injuries (29.3%) and tackling is #2 (21.9%).  Blocking and being blocked, the primary sources for injuries on a kickoff are 15 and 10% respectively.  If we really want to reduce injuries, don't allow tackling and 50% of all injuries go away!

The rest of that study doesn't break down football injuries by play type, so I'm wondering where all that negativity toward kickoffs and onside kicks has it's source.  It does say 80% of all football game injuries occur between the 20 yard lines, with 18% in the red zone, and about 1% each off the field or in the end zone.

I'm still trying to figure out how 1% of injuries happen off the field.  Tripping over the chains while running off the field?

[AlUpstateNY]

Not to question the validity of any of these statistics, but as a long time observer of the game of football, I'm not at all surprised if a considerable portion of those "tackling" collisions causing injury  (between the 20 yd lines) were related to tackles on kickoffs, and/punt returns where the distance between colliding persons is often greater.

I remember as a player (LONG ago) tackling on kickoffs were a lot more....memorable.

[Ralph Damren]

With my trusty slide rule and adding machine at my side, I did the following interpulation :

        2013 NFHS Football Play-off Game Statistics Summary (2013 - 682 games reported)

Score of winning teams :                    38.4
Score of losing teams :                       14.7

Total running plays :                           76.4
Total passing plays :                           31.0
Total plays :                                     107.4

Assuming  total score of 53 = 8 TDs = 8 kickoffs = 7.5% of plays were kickoffs =  if greater than 7.5% of injuries are on kickoffs then that should be of our concern.......

[Atlanta Blue]

We have got to get you a computer!

53 pts a game would probably be closer to 10 scores, as there are a few FGs in there.  And the total of 107 plays is OFFENSIVE plays.  You would have to add in the kickoffs (10 scores, plus 1 to start each half), plus an average of say 8 punts per game (4 per team, probably a little low).

So 12 KOs divided by 127 total plays, is almost 10% of all plays are KOs (which is about right as about 24% of all plays are special teams plays).

There is an error range around all of these numbers, so if more than 10-12% of all injuries come on Kick offs, then there could be an issue.  The question we then have to ask is if these rule changes do anything to lessen those injuries.  There certainly isn't anything other than anecdotal evidence that they do.  So we're changing rules on emotional decisions, not scientific reasoning.

[ECILLJ]

  These rules was passed after 3 years of debate, in the interest of improving the safety of our game. Lets all agree to give them a shot.        

I support Ralph. It is clear the Federation wants to improve safety on kick-offs.  Before R blows the RFP the BJ (five man crew) should make sure K is lined up legally. If K changes into an illegal alignment after the RFP and before the kick, we blow it dead before or at the kick (depending on the action by K).

Atlanta Blue is a Special Teams coach, so his dislike for the rule is understandable. The new rule will take away options K was once allowed.

[Ralph Damren]

A stat from the Minnesota experiment might be of interest to you guys.

               Kickoffs :               7,378
               Onside kicks :            321 (4.1% of kickoffs)

               Penalties on onside kicks :   17 (5.7% of onside kicks)

               Encroachment (new rule) :    10
               Illegal block (old rule):            7