Just to be sure everyone noticed this...

[Patrick E.]

On today's NFHS call it was advised that 7.2.5 Situation C (c&d) are correct as written.

I take this to mean that more than one player can be in "no mans land", and the one player in "no mans land" that has his hands underneath the snapper per 2-32-3 is a back.

If A has five players on the LOS numbered 50-79, four backs (one of which is a back per 2-32-3) and two players in "no mans land", this is a legal formation.

[CalhounLJ]

I’m about as confused and frustrated as I’ve ever been. I think I’ll just go out there and make them up as I go along. It seems like that’s what’s happening anyway. I don’t believe I can mess them up any more.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

Just to be sure DEFINITIONS in the RULES say:

RULE 2 - SECTION 32 PLAYER DESIGNATIONS

ART. 3 . . . A back is any A player who has no part of his body breaking the plane of an imaginary line drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the nearest teammate who is legally on the line, except for the player under the snapper, who is also considered a back.

ART. 9 . . . A lineman is any A player who is facing his opponent’s goal line with the line of his shoulders approximately parallel thereto and with his head or foot breaking an imaginary plane drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the snapper when the ball is snapped.

The rules also make it very clear that you only have two types of players backs and linemen, with the obvious exception for the player when he is under center to receive a hand-to-hand snap where he for alignment purposes is considered a legal back.

We fix all other "alignments" early on and flag if they continue to avoid the SH*% that this absurd issue apparently wants to introduce.

Ralph, are things really so bad with the rules writers that they no longer have any idea what they are doing? 

[CalhounLJ]

While I understand the rules committee doesn’t owe me one, I would love to see an explanation of how the 5 in the backfield rule change impacted the no man land interpretation.  Maybe that would offer some insight.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bama_stripes]

A lot of you are too young to remember when the double wing offense was popular in HS football.  Allowing wingbacks to start in no-man’s land was a definite advantage in that offense.

[CalhounLJ]

we have a team in our district that still runs the double wing. 

[CalhounLJ]

So the fix is simple, the casebook sections 7.2.5.C and D simply need to be deleted.  This seemingly continuing process of adding new rules and/or casebook plays without a detailed review and reconciliation with the existing material indicates that the rulesmakers need a much better understanding of how intertwined, circular, and complicated the current wording is prior to "fixing" things by adding new words that directly conflict with existing words.

Also, we need to be very careful ourselves when we "cherry pick" a single phrase or section that's "clear and concise" and use that to finitely determine how something should be called.  That doesn't work very well either and I have found myself doing that more than once.  This will be my 3rd season using NFHS rules and the 1st where all games will be NFHS.  Every time that I re-read the books I find some additional intricacies.  The most difficult are the ones that involve definitions since definition usage should be consistent and unchanging throughout the books.  That's the very definition of definition.

I agree, except for the notation that this fix is not "simple" or "sufficient." It's not enough to just put a casebook play in the book without changing the applicable rule. If the committee wants the "no-man's-land" rule to go away, fine. I have no problem with that. But, they need to change it from the RULEBOOK. The casebook gives support and clarification for the RULES. It is not supposed to be used to make rule changes.

[Ralph Damren]

I believe it's at least 6 or 8 of them. I personally know 4 of them including our own Ralph.

In reviewing  a list of committee members, an * indicates those not in the state office. There are 18 *s. At least 3 are coaches. I assume the remaining 15 are/were officials. Watching the interp meeting yesterdaye it appeared NFHS was going to stand by their published cases. This may change when they publish their clarification /correction list which should be published shortly.

[CalhounLJ]

Thanks for the update Ralph. Just to throw gasoline on the fire, in the case of conflicting published cases, which one does the committee intend to stand on? 

[bossman72]

A lot of you are too young to remember when the double wing offense was popular in HS football.  Allowing wingbacks to start in no-man’s land was a definite advantage in that offense.

Not really because, again, when in the history of our officiating careers have we ever called someone for being in no-man's land?

[Magician]

While I understand the rules committee doesn’t owe me one, I would love to see an explanation of how the 5 in the backfield rule change impacted the no man land interpretation.  Maybe that would offer some insight.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My theory is the person who wrote the case book play either doesn't like the rule so they are sabotaging it or they didn't understand why it's really the same thing as the previous rule but took away a foul if the offense as short and the missing player was a lineman. The fact the interpreters meeting felt it was correct is baffling, but with a large group of people you never know what thoughts get thrown in. Just keep doing what you have always done with linemen and backs and you won't have to worry about it.

[Ralph Damren]

Thanks for the update Ralph. Just to throw gasoline on the fire, in the case of conflicting published cases, which one does the committee intend to stand on? 

The rule book trumps the case book. Sometimes we hear : "It doesn't have rule book support." We've heard it often regarding this topic.

We see Haley's Comet every 75 years. We last saw it in 1986, some of us may see it again in 2061.

In the past 50 years I seen the following calls made:
   Intentional pass interference            0
   "No man's land" violation                 0
   Free kick after fair catch                  0

[ucanfindmj]

In reviewing  a list of committee members, an * indicates those not in the state office. There are 18 *s. At least 3 are coaches. I assume the remaining 15 are/were officials. Watching the interp meeting yesterdaye it appeared NFHS was going to stand by their published cases. This may change when they publish their clarification /correction list which should be published shortly.

You have posted in other threads that you know these gentlemen on the rules committee.  Or at least alluded to that fact.  If so, how about have one of them post as to what they want us to go by and clear all this up.  Just because none or some have ever called a particular foul, does not mean we should leave the rules/case books unclear.  Maybe they need to spend more that a day on editing.  They have gotten really sloppy in the last few years and there needs to be an official source that can pass this information along in a timely manner, preferably before the season starts, and that is the end all be all of the governing rules.  There are a lot of guys explaining, each way, of what to call, and each make valid arguments both ways.  This adds further to the confusion, but if it comes directly from one of your collogues on the rules committee, we may have a clear direction to follow.

[Ralph Damren]

You have posted in other threads that you know these gentlemen on the rules committee.  Or at least alluded to that fact.  If so, how about have one of them post as to what they want us to go by and clear all this up.  Just because none or some have ever called a particular foul, does not mean we should leave the rules/case books unclear.  Maybe they need to spend more that a day on editing.  They have gotten really sloppy in the last few years and there needs to be an official source that can pass this information along in a timely manner, preferably before the season starts, and that is the end all be all of the governing rules.  There are a lot of guys explaining, each way, of what to call, and each make valid arguments both ways.  This adds further to the confusion, but if it comes directly from one of your collogues on the rules committee, we may have a clear direction to follow.

I'm waiting for the NFHS clarification / correction post which should appear within a week or two. If it is not addressed ,I'll contact NFHS for a clarification and pass their response on to you guys.

[CalhounLJ]

Because it seems like a pretty important change, but it seems to be getting lost in the noise about the 40 second clock coming in...


According to casebook play 7.2.5.C, a player lining up in "no man's land" does NOT result in an illegal formation, as long as there are still 5 correctly numbered linemen on the LOS.  Anyone in "no man's land" is by definition not an end, nor is he a back, and he is INELIGIBLE to receive a forward pass.

I've seen several discussions on Facebook where people are saying this in an illegal formation foul.  It's not!  As long as you've got 5 Bubba's on the the LOS wearing a correct number, and you have 4 or less guys meeting the definition of a back, you can't have an illegal formation foul.

2019 NFHS Football Rules Simplified and Illustrated addresses this situation on page 169: [the picture shows two players lined up in no-man's land. One is the QB, the other is a player lined up next to the qb on the same plane.]
"7-2-3: If the ball is snapped, this would be an illegal formation foul at the snap. Of the players who are not on their line at the snap, only one player may penetrate through the waistline of his nearest teammate who is on the line, and he must be in position to receive the snap, even tough he is not required to receive it."
 

[ucanfindmj]

I'm waiting for the NFHS clarification / correction post which should appear within a week or two. If it is not addressed ,I'll contact NFHS for a clarification and pass their response on to you guys.

That's great!  Thank you!

[riffraft]

On today's NFHS call it was advised that 7.2.5 Situation C (c&d) are correct as written.

I take this to mean that more than one player can be in "no mans land", and the one player in "no mans land" that has his hands underneath the snapper per 2-32-3 is a back.

If A has five players on the LOS numbered 50-79, four backs (one of which is a back per 2-32-3) and two players in "no mans land", this is a legal formation.

I don't know if it is true, but I was told that a particular person here in Arizona is on the rules committee (not sure if that is true) and he stated at our State Rules meeting that this would be corrected that it is not a "legal" formation.

[CalhounLJ]

I suggest radio silence until Ralph gets the scoop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KWH]

I don't know if it is true, but I was told that a particular person here in Arizona is on the rules committee (not sure if that is true) and he stated at our State Rules meeting that this would be corrected that it is not a "legal" formation.

Riffraft -
To determine who your state representative is, you need look no further than Page 4 of your 2019 NFHS Rules Book!
However, in your case, you can ALSO take a look at the Brady Bunch Photos on page 5!

[refjeff]

A lot of you are too young to remember when the double wing offense was popular in HS football.  Allowing wingbacks to start in no-man’s land was a definite advantage in that offense.

I'm not disagreeing, but how was that an advantage?

[VALJ]

I suggest radio silence until Ralph gets the scoop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's my plan at this point. Said my piece.  Waiting for clarification from the higher ups. 

(And, since I'm a B now despite my name on this board, I kinda feel like I stirred up a hornet's nest for nothing... )

[Ralph Damren]

I asked for a clarification of the conflicting cases 7.2.3A & B with 7.2.5c.Will pass it on as soon as received.

[Ralph Damren]

FROM NFHS........

I asked : "There seems to be a conflict between cases 7.2.3A & B with case 7.2.5C. The first two state a player in "no man's land" is illegal formation while 7.2.5C states that it is legal as long as there are five players 50-79 on LOS. What am I missing?"

They responded : "The issue is not so much the formation, but what happens when the player in 'No Man's Land' goes out for a pass. We have no issue if there is a running play as long as 5 are on the line and numbered 50-79. However, the person in 'No Man's Land' who goes out for a pass does create an issue as he is not defined as a back and should not catch the ball.

I am not sure that case book play 7.2.3 Situation A is a good case book play anymore and may need to be deleted as it is not necessarily true as A2 can be in this position, but we do not know how many are on the line of scrimmage. Maybe if it said 'after A comes to line of scrimmage with 5 players numbered 50-79.....' it would become clearer.

I do not think there is a contradiction in 7.2.3 Situation B and 7.2.5 Situation C.

Your wing officials need to communicate with players and coaches and make sure they know if the player is supposed to be a back or a lineman and get him in the proper position."


PS : PLEASE DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER !!

[CalhounLJ]

Ha. I expected nothing less.

[NVFOA_Ump]

FROM NFHS........

Your wing officials need to communicate with players and coaches and make sure they know if the player is supposed to be a back or a lineman and get him in the proper position."

PS : PLEASE DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER !!

So the recommendation is that the wing officials take a pro-active role here and get the player(s) out of no-man's land before the snap?