RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Rulesman on January 28, 2015, 04:26:55 PM
-
Speculate all you want, but DO NOT POST confidential documentation/proposals that the NFHS has provided to the rules committee members until such time as these become public information.
-
Not cool - I got all excited when I saw the title.. LOL
-
Not cool - I got all excited when I saw the title.. LOL
LOL me too! This is like a clickbait article. haha
-
I knew it was too early 8]
-
Don't go bringing logic into it, NC. :)
-
Unfortunately we seem to have the same problem every year. Someone gets their hands on a confidential document and they decide to share it with the world. Like good wine, NOT before its time! At least not here.
-
Speculate all you want, but DO NOT POST confidential documentation/proposals that the NFHS has provided to the rules committee members until such time as these become public information.
My apologizes for jumping the gun. Did not know it was taboo here.
-
My apologizes for jumping the gun. Did not know it was taboo here.
Not so much taboo here as it is the negative view the Federation has on informational leaks. They don't take kindly to that. I'm sure Ralph will gladly weigh in at the appropriate time.
-
I know what the PROPOSED rule changes are...I know you don't know what the PROPOSED rule changes are. There are two more hoops they need to go through before the become official....IE..... the Patriots had to play the Super Bowl to make their victory official... :patrioticon: aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd :patrioticon: tiphat:
-
I know you don't know what the PROPOSED rule changes are.
Actually, those were published online in more than one place. I know they weren't supposed to be, but they were.
Personally, I think they should be published ahead of time, to allow some vetting and comments to be made to our state reps. I can guarantee you I spent far more time on these rule changes than my rep did over the past few weeks. Maybe with a little more transparency, we could avoid things like 3 years of redefining the horse collar or two years to fix the free kick rule.
-
Why keep it all a secret?
-
Why keep it all a secret?
The proposed changes need to be approved by two more arms of the NFHS, and until that's complete,the overwhelming feeling is that they shouldn't be published until official. I can tell you that the proposal to remove the free blocking zone was removed by author prior to the vetting of proposals. That's all for now. :)
-
The proposed changes need to be approved by two more arms of the NFHS, and until that's complete,the overwhelming feeling is that they shouldn't be published until official. I can tell you that the proposal to remove the free blocking zone was removed by author prior to the vetting of proposals. That's all for now. :)
I understand the secrecy between the committee vote and the final release, as you said, there are two other approvals to be done.
But why can't the proposed rules be shared, so that reps might be able to gather input from interested parties before going to Indianapolis?
-
But why can't the proposed rules be shared, so that reps might be able to gather input from interested parties before going to Indianapolis?
I believe "input" is what their survey loosely addresses.
-
My opinion is that these committees are very old fashioned, and believe information and secrecy leads to their power. It probably makes some of them feel good that they know "stuff" that we don't (Ralph excluded).
The internet/free information age pretty much put that to rest, but football particularly at the HS level is old fashioned and slow to change.
-
AB - I try to listen to as many valued opinions as possible before I go. On occasion, they may sway my opinion; but often they provide ammo to defend my stance. There are 50 voting members (none from Tex or Mass, but one each from coaches and officials associations) and it is up to them to obtain opinions if they wish. The Questionnaire items that is published prior to the meeting are always on the docket.
:patrioticon: aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd :patrioticon: (Editor's note : this stops 7 days after victory)
-
Ralph,
Was there any 'major' rules changes or just a bunch of tweaks to current rules? or is that is sharing too much info with the masses?
-
AB - I try to listen to as many valued opinions as possible before I go. On occasion, they may sway my opinion; but often they provide ammo to defend my stance. There are 50 voting members (none from Tex or Mass, but one each from coaches and officials associations) and it is up to them to obtain opinions if they wish. The Questionnaire items that is published prior to the meeting are always on the docket.
I know you do, as do a few others that I know. But without the proposals being public, you can only do so in general terms.
Suppose I am the head coach of a significant high school program that just won the state championship. Don't you think as a state rep, I might be interested in the opinion of a coach like that? Or how about asking the official that runs your official's training camps each summer what he thinks about proposal #32?
But with the curtain of secrecy drawn, people like this coach or this official don't even know what's being proposed. The NCAA publishes what's on the agenda before their meetings. We all know what Congress is going to vote on today. We even know what cases the Supreme Court will hear. But what changes that MIGHT be considered for high school football is a bigger secret than any of those, and I can't for the life of me understand why.
-
Maybe Davis Whitfield, the recently departed NCHSAA Commissioner nee' NFHS Director, will bring some fresh, modern ideas to the organization?
-
Ralph,
Was there any 'major' rules changes or just a bunch of tweaks to current rules? or is that is sharing too much info with the masses?
TD is still worth 6 points. Nothing that would cause you to fall off you chair.
:patrioticon: aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd :patrioticon: (only 3 days left of this :))
-
Maybe Davis Whitfield, the recently departed NCHSAA Commissioner nee' NFHS Director, will bring some fresh, modern ideas to the organization?
"Fresh" & "modern" are generally not words I associate with when I speak of NC.
;) just joking fellas.
It was a softball and I had to take a swing.
-
If the list I'm finding of "proposed changes" is correct, there are some that I'll be rather disappointed about if they pass...
-
That's alright Steve, we don't call it Floriduh for nothing eAt&
-
Ralph,
Was there any 'major' rules changes or just a bunch of tweaks to current rules? or is that is sharing too much info with the masses?
Ralph probably can't remember. Something about too much snow in Maine and the Pats winning the Superbowl requiring lots of drinking. ;)
-
Ralph probably can't remember. Something about too much snow in Maine and the Pats winning the Superbowl requiring lots of drinking. ;)
Staying warm up there this winter seems to be a major project, too.
-
I just returned this Monday to the frozen tundra after a week in sunny Florida. Not to bore you guys with the mundane occurrences such as : three days of debating proposed football rules, cheering on the Pats during a Super bowl party at our condo where I was the youngest by far, or just enjoying the sun; I would like to share my three highlights....
(1) Meeting Magician at a watering hole in windy Indy.
(2) Meeting FLAHL at our condo in St. Pete Beach
(3) My attempt at Karaoke within stumbling distance of our condo.....
My wife's a big fan of Karaoke, I'm a big fan of partaking of adult beverage during karaoke, I was sporting a spiffy old Boston Patriots cap while flippig a deflated Patriots Nerf ball. Many patrons offered friendly banter. I offered them this ( to the tune of Tom Dooley /Kinston Trio/circa 1958) :
"Many songs have been written about the internal rectangle, this one is about a Mr. Kraft , a Coach B, some deflated footballs and a quarterback named Brady...Come this Sunday, Tom Brady will shine......
Hold up your head, Tom Brady,
hold up your head and sigh. Hold up your head , Brady,
as the Seahawks ain't gonna' fly....
This time on Sunday,
Recon where I'll be. Bledsoe hadn't been injured,
I might have been traded to Tennessee.....
(chorus)
This time on Sunday,
recon where I'll be, Down in Tombstone Valley,
Earning another MVP!!!"
:patrioticon: aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd :patrioticon: (only two days left)
When my officiating days are gone, songwriting may be my next hobby :). Those that offered friendly banter, now offered to buy me my next beer. eAt& I accepted. Cheer up, guys, the new rules will be out shortly. I hope to meet more of you over the coming years and I promise not to sing! tiphat:
-
I know you do, as do a few others that I know. But without the proposals being public, you can only do so in general terms.
Suppose I am the head coach of a significant high school program that just won the state championship. Don't you think as a state rep, I might be interested in the opinion of a coach like that? Or how about asking the official that runs your official's training camps each summer what he thinks about proposal #32?
But with the curtain of secrecy drawn, people like this coach or this official don't even know what's being proposed. The NCAA publishes what's on the agenda before their meetings. We all know what Congress is going to vote on today. We even know what cases the Supreme Court will hear. But what changes that MIGHT be considered for high school football is a bigger secret than any of those, and I can't for the life of me understand why.
Curtain of secrecy? Come on AB get with the program. I believe the correct/revised more modern term is "The Cone of Silence". A term coined by the late great Maxwell Smart.
In all seriousness, my Chrystal ball indicates the new changes should be posted prior to Friday the 13th. Then we can discuss them until the cows come home...
-
Curtain of secrecy? Come on AB get with the program. I believe the correct/revised more modern term is "The Cone of Silence". A term coined by the late great Maxwell Smart.
In all seriousness, my Chrystal ball indicates the new changes should be posted prior to Friday the 13th. Then we can discuss them until the cows come home...
Perfect date for it!!!! :sTiR:
-
As assigner for my association, I have gotten to look at the proposed changes and a number of them are good. I witnessed one of them happen in the 2A State Championship Game. It will be great if the change goes through and the offended team is not penalized by accepting the penalty.
-
Welcome to the forum, CEngl, I hope you find it both enjoyable and informative.
-
In its ongoing effort to minimize the risk of injury in high school football, the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Football Rules Committee expanded the provisions of unnecessary roughness to include contact with a defenseless player.
This revision in Rule 9-4-3g was one of six rules changes recommended by the Football Rules Committee at its January 23-25 meeting in Indianapolis. These changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.
The revised rule now reads, “No player or non-player shall make any contact with an opponent, including a defenseless player, which is deemed unnecessary or excessive and which incites roughness.”
Bob Colgate, director of sports and sports medicine at the NFHS and editor of the NFHS football rules, noted that an example would be when a defensive player who is not in the vicinity of the ball is “blindsided” by a blocker on the offensive team.
Another change with a focus on risk minimization is a revision of the spearing rule – one of several examples of illegal helmet contact listed in Rule 2-20. Spearing is now defined as “an act by any player who initiates contact against an opponent at the shoulders or below with the crown (top portion) of his helmet.”
With “targeting” now defined as contact to an opponent above the shoulders, the committee more clearly defined “spearing” as contact to an opponent at the shoulders or below. Colgate said the implementation of the first spearing rule in 1971 has played a significant role in reducing injury in high school football.
“The committee spent considerable time discussing and clarifying expectations related to contact involving any player that is deemed excessive or unnecessary – including spearing – that may occur during play,” said Brad Garrett, chair of the NFHS Football Rules Committee and assistant executive director of the Oregon School Activities Association. “Minimizing risks to players involved in these situations must remain at the forefront of the game.”
In other changes, the rules committee revised the 2014 rule change regarding free-kick formations. A new Rule 6-1-4 was added to state that the timing of the foul for not having at least four players on each side of the kicker now occurs when the ball is kicked.
A change also was made in the listing of penalties in Rule 9-4, Illegal Personal Contact. Beginning next season, an automatic first down will not be awarded for a 5-yard incidental face mask penalty against the passer. Previously, this violation was included in the penalty for roughing the passer, which calls for a 15-yard penalty and an automatic first down.
The rules committee also approved new language in Rule 10-2-5 regarding the enforcement of dead-ball fouls. The distance penalty for unsportsmanlike, non-player or dead-ball personal fouls committed by teams can offset. Equal numbers of 15-yard penalties by both teams will cancel and remaining penalties may be enforced.
The final change approved by the Football Rules Committee related to a series of downs. A new Rule 5-1-1b will read as follows: “The referee shall have authority to correct the number of the next down prior to a new series of downs being awarded.”
A complete listing of all rules changes is available on the NFHS website at www.nfhs.org. Click on “Activities & Sports” at the top of the home page, and select “Football.”
According to the 2013-14 NFHS High School Athletics Participation Survey, football is the most popular sport for boys at the high school level with 1,093,234 participants in 11-player football. Another 28,790 boys participated in 6-, 8- and 9-player football. In addition, 1,828 girls participated in football during the 2013-14 season.
-
I was disappointed to see that the rule regarding changing the enforcement spot for a foul by the defense occurring behind the line of scrimmage from a spot foul to a previous spot foul did not make it. I saw this happen at the MPSSAA 2A State Championship game where a team lost yardage when they had to accept a penalty on fourth down. As I recall the play, it was 4th and goal from the 4 yardline, the QB dropped back and had his facemask grasped at the 11 yardline and then subsequently tackled. Following the enforcement of the 5 yard penalty, the team was left with 4th and goal from the 6 yardline. I was hoping to see this situation rectified.
-
Defensive fouls on plays that ended behind the LOS was on the docket last year, but not this. My recollection was that it was evenly split, but not near a super majority (67%) needed to pass. Offensive fouls behind the LOS, with the basic spot becoming previous spot was on the docket but didn't make it out of committee for a floor vote. Deterrents : (1) Exception to ABO principle; (2) Both benefit the offense in balance of offense/defense; (3) A-fouls would require exceptions for IG & fouls in own EZ. I supported /will support fouls by B =previous spot if play ends behind LOS; but do not support fouls by A. My rationale : The foul could have enabled A's gain, and an exception to ABO (which I feel is usually quite fair & easy to teach) which would require, at least, at least a couple of more exceptions would not help the game.
-
"A new Rule 6-1-4 was added to state that the timing of the foul for not having at least four players on each side of the kicker now occurs when the ball is kicked."
I'm good with that but fear this is still a dead ball foul.
Ralph?
-
We now need 4 players on each side of the ball & it's not a foul until it's kicked BUT it's a dead ball foul when it is. There was very little support for keeping the kick alive ,with the potential for a re kick. IMHO, the proposed NCAA "tack-on" rule would have solved this, but it never made it out of committee.
-
Did they change the signal for the 'New' Kick Rules too?
-
...IMHO, the proposed NCAA "tack-on" rule would have solved this, but it never made it out of committee.
I agree 100% with that assessment. That said, I believe we all need to chip in and treat that committee to a few adult beverages on the night before they meet next year. That way they just might come out of that meeting with a different perspective. ;D
I'll also wager if the "tack-on" rule were added to the next survey the sentiment would want the rule changed, too. As it is now, one way or the other you'll be kicking it more than once.
Progress... one baby step at a time.
-
Love the change to 4 on either side of the kicker at the time of the kick. They can lineup however the want when we blow the RFP and we don't have to play the guessing game of who the kicker will be. I don't see anything else that did change that I have an issue with, really. Like that the 5 yard FM penalty doesn't escalate to RTP now, too. And the umpires among us will be happy with the DB penalties cancelling one for one - less walking, and more time for sNiCkErS.
Still wish we'd get rid of the darn free blocking zone - with all the focus (rightly) on injury prevention and risk management, kids' knees need protection too.
-
Did they change the signal for the 'New' Kick Rules too?
That would have been an Editorial Committee decision, but not to my knowledge. The rationale of the encroachment signal is that portrays a dead ball foul and foul for not being in the right spot. I don't have a problem with that.
-
IMHO, the biggest change is 9-4-3g : "...which is deemed unnecessary OR EXCESSIVE...." for this may include subjective calls such as a vicious blindside sack of the QB being ^flag. IMHO, there will be much discussion around this addition.
-
IMHO, the biggest change is 9-4-3g : "...which is deemed unnecessary OR EXCESSIVE...." for this may include subjective calls such as a vicious blindside sack of the QB being ^flag. IMHO, there will be much discussion around this addition.
I don't see where this changes anything. If someone excessively hit a QB from behind it was very likely RTP already. The blindside hit on a defender away from the ball was already a foul for hitting a player out of the play. This may give the call a little more emphasis and maybe expand it a little, but I don't see this as much of a change.
-
I don't see where this changes anything. If someone excessively hit a QB from behind it was very likely RTP already. The blindside hit on a defender away from the ball was already a foul for hitting a player out of the play. This may give the call a little more emphasis and maybe expand it a little, but I don't see this as much of a change.
During the discussions, it was suggested that a flag could be thrown if the QB was violently SACKED from the blindside along with violent (but legal) blindside blocks made in vicinity of the runner. IMHO, this would be a major change in a subjective call.
-
I think I've finally realized that some of the major changes I've been hoping for will simply never happen without serious turnover on the committee.
Since that's not going to happen, I'll always feel that the outcome of this process is a huge swing-and-a-miss.
-
During the discussions, it was suggested that a flag could be thrown if the QB was violently SACKED from the blindside along with violent (but legal) blindside blocks made in vicinity of the runner. IMHO, this would be a major change in a subjective call.
We all know football - it's a violent game. There are going to be violent hits that occur during the course of the game that are perfectly legal, like that blindside QB sack - that's still a football play. That violent block near the ball carrier is still a football play. It seems to me that what we should all be trying to eliminate - rules committee and officials both - are the violent excessive hits that are intended strictly to punish an opposing player.
-
I think this has the potential to cause us problems with consistency. Some will argue that football is a violent sport, and this is part of the game. Others will argue that "safety first" is a legitimate reason for this rule change. If we can't agree as an association, we won't enforce consistently. And if we're inconsistent, coaches have a right to complain.
-
During the discussions, it was suggested that a flag could be thrown if the QB was violently SACKED from the blindside ....
Oh, no! The QB is a runner.
-
Hey Ralph, good job getting this one passed!!!! This one I'm excited about.
The rules committee also approved new language in Rule 10-2-5 regarding the enforcement of dead-ball fouls. The distance penalty for unsportsmanlike, non-player or dead-ball personal fouls committed by teams can offset. Equal numbers of 15-yard penalties by both teams will cancel and remaining penalties may be enforced.
-
Ralph, what exactly was changed by this rule. So any hard hits are flags now?
The revised rule now reads, “No player or non-player shall make any contact with an opponent, including a defenseless player, which is deemed unnecessary or excessive and which incites roughness.”
-
I don't understand why the definition of spearing was changed. Targeting, by definition, requires the player to "...take aim...".
With the change to the spearing definition, a player who now initiates contact to an opponent's head with their helmet, but doesn't "take aim", is guilty of neither targeting, nor spearing.
What am I missing?
-
First reading of these new rules and adjustments seems pretty rational and reasonable, although it seems some amateur Supreme Court Justices are bound and determined to find potential problems. In a general sense it seems leaving some important decisions to the logic and common sense of the calling official has withstood the effort to try and spell everything out, down to the most minute detail (which rarely works as well as intended).
There's still no definition of a "Cheap shot", which is likely a good idea because anyone doing what we do needs to understand that meaning and be able to recognize it as "violent", "excessive" or "unnecessary" which provides the flexibility to deal with it as necessary.
The off-setting of DB fouls is a good idea, and referencing it applies to 15 yard fouls, should avoid any serious confusion (Supreme Court Justices aside).
As for the Free Kick adjustment, I hope they intend it to be a DB foul, and the subsequent mechanic will be to STOP everything (like we do on a False Start/Encroachment) situation, eliminating action that doesn't count, where in the case of Kick Offs will likely eliminate a lot of opportunities for some serious (and unnecessary) collisions.
As VALJ points out above, "It seems to me that what we should all be trying to eliminate - rules committee and officials both - are the violent excessive hits that are intended strictly to punish an opposing player", which we presently have absolute and total ability to effectively deal with under the existing rules, by simply exercising appropriate judgment and common sense.
Football is a contact sport, which are sometimes violent in nature, and all of the rational people associated with the sport are serious about "safety first". As is, and has always been, important factors in dealing with both of those conflicting elements, the common sense and judgment of game officials, to be able to recognize when these elements conflict and the courage to act upon those observations and conclusionsis is what's really important.
-
Whew....
After all that, can anyone now explain the rationale behind the change to the spearing definition.
Seems like it was fine as is, but I'm assuming there must have been a reason.
-
Whew....
After all that, can anyone now explain the rationale behind the change to the spearing definition.
Seems like it was fine as is, but I'm assuming there must have been a reason.
Alas, I can not explain the rationale that you are asking for. However, I am still trying to come to grips with the 2009 rule change that had the hash marks bisecting the yard lines followed by the 2010 reversion to the original rule, both without any explanation. I know that it is time to move on to other injustices in the space time continuum but the disturbance in The Force seems to linger.
-
Say (for example) on a change of possession play when an offensive player decides to cheap-HOT AIR-slobber-knock an opponent and send him into the third row when he could have just as easily set a basketball screen on the opponent and accomplished the same result.
+1
-
I am talking about Blindside blocks not involving the QB. Say (for example) on a change of possession play when an offensive player decides to cheap-HOT AIR-slobber-knock an opponent and send him into the third row when he could have just as easily set a basketball screen on the opponent and accomplished the same result.
Language is not the problem, the verbiage used in NFHS: 9-4-3-b & g has taken care of what you describe for the past 40 years. However, it's not our responsibility to judge whether the action chosen is the "best" option available, our judgment is restricted to whether whatever action chosen is executed legally, or violates the intent of 9-4-3.
Players ARE RESPONSIBLE for being aware of their surroundings, and there most certainly are consequences for being careless, however that carelessness doesn't give license for one player to take an UNFAIR advantage of an opponent, but there have never been two "cheapshots" exactly alike, so trying to generate a "one size fits all" definition is NEVER going to happen (nor should it).
That is a conclusion, made exclusively, by the covering official, who hopefully has the knowledge to recognize it, and the courage to call it.
-
Language is not the problem, the verbiage used in NFHS: 9-4-3-b & g has taken care of what you describe for the past 40 years. However, it's not our responsibility to judge whether the action chosen is the "best" option available, our judgment is restricted to whether whatever action chosen is executed legally, or violates the intent of 9-4-3.
While your interpretation was correct for the last 40 years, now that the word "excessive" has never been introduced into the wording of 9-4-3g, your 40 year interpretation is replaced and goes the way of the return kick.
Players ARE RESPONSIBLE for being aware of their surroundings, and there most certainly are consequences for being careless, however that carelessness doesn't give license for one player to take an UNFAIR advantage of an opponent, but there have never been two "cheapshots" exactly alike, so trying to generate a "one size fits all" definition is NEVER going to happen (nor should it).
We actually agree that no two cheap shots are alike. But judging if the contact was excessive, in many cases, should be no more difficult that any other personal foul call. You use Judgement! Restated, the 40 year interpretation of "That's just football" no longer has a place in today's NFHS game.
That is a conclusion, made exclusively, by the covering official, who hopefully has the knowledge to recognize it, and the courage to call it.
Actually, better worded, this is a judgement call by the game official, and, if in the judgement of the game official the contact was deemed "excessive" for the situation, the act is suspect of a personal foul flag.
I don't expect every corner of the nation to buy in on day one, but, just like any other change, eventually they all will.
One closing thought for you Alf; While the rules committee (most of whom are men) writes the rules, it is the Mom's (most of whom are women) who decide if they are going to let little Johnny play youth football. As such, the game we all love must get safer or the Mom's may make go the way of the Faro Table
-
If a couple of new words helps clarify things for you, KWH, that's beneficial, but the message that's been available (for 40 years) hasn't changed, and will be viable for the next 40 years. "That's just football" hasn't condoned excessive, or inappropriate contact for at least 40 years, and the judgment of the covering official, in many respects, has helped guide the game to it's current level of success.
Perfection may well be the ultimate goal, a laudable one, and admittedly we're not quite there, yet. "One size fits all" hasn't, nor likely ever will, function to the extent some hope might eliminate their personal responsibility. Recognizing when it's appropriate to "pull the trigger" is important, but it's still the judgment of the covering official, assessing multiple facets of what is specifically being observed and unique to that observation, that determines "IF" the trigger is pulled, or not.
-
My crystal ball tells me :
(1) There will be more discussion/debate/argument about when violence/brutality/contact of our beloved game of football becomesEXCESSIVE :sTiR: ^talk :sTiR then the other changes combined:. Many of the frenzied masses today cheer a violent/ brutal hit. Few would cheer if ^flag was thrown.
(2) The Red Sox will once again win the World Series. aWaRd
(3) Someday the snow will melt 8]- probably not before MLB's opening day :'(.
My crystal ball isn't always correct.
-
Hey Ralph, good job getting this one passed!!!! This one I'm excited about.
Thanks, Bossman, and thanks for the verbage. :thumbup
-
Ralph, what exactly was changed by this rule. So any hard hits are flags now?
We were presented a video with several vicious hits were made on unsuspecting players. While the hits were all legal , by rule, the contacted players were often helped/carried off the field while the "conquerer" was cheered loudly. The major concern was : "Is this the direction we want our beloved game to evolve to???" Most felt that it wasn't (including several coaches that were present). There will be much discussion about this, I'm sure.
-
We were presented a video with several vicious hits were made on unsuspecting players. While the hits were all legal , by rule, the contacted players were often helped/carried off the field while the "conquerer" was cheered loudly. The major concern was : "Is this the direction we want our beloved game to evolve to???" Most felt that it wasn't (including several coaches that were present). There will be much discussion about this, I'm sure.
So, here's a good example from college football season. We've all seen this play. Michigan St vs Baylor and the kicker gets lit up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7xgKsxk9I4
For argument's sake, let's say this block was definitely NOT targeting. Is this play a foul under this new rule?
-
IF you are removing the variable of targeting, the K player is a potential tackler and thus not well out of the play.
-
So, here's a good example from college football season. We've all seen this play. Michigan St vs Baylor and the kicker gets lit up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7xgKsxk9I4
For argument's sake, let's say this block was definitely NOT targeting. Is this play a foul under this new rule?
I think this is a perfect example of the type of play that the new rule is intended to eliminate. To me, anything that would have qualified for ESPN's "He got JACKED UP" segment is a candidate. Looking forward to hearing our state's official interpretation of this rule.
-
This is a targeting foul for initial hit above the shoulders. This is the kind of excessive hit the rules committee wants out of high school football. The same block could have been accomplished without "taking the players head off" and injuring him.
-
This is a targeting foul for initial hit above the shoulders. This is the kind of excessive hit the rules committee wants out of high school football. The same block could have been accomplished without "taking the players head off" and injuring him.
Our job is not to speculate on "coulda-been, shoulda-been" assumptions. This was a bang-bang, totally unplanned reaction to a surprisingly "blocked-kick" situation that unfolded in a split second. The block, which seems like pure reaction, was from the front side against a pursuing tackler. I certainly couldn't differentiate whether the actualy point of initial contact was at, above or below the shoulders or was partially caused by the movement of the player being blocked.
It seems there is a required element of premeditation and/or specific intent to punish an opponent in the logic behind these recent rule revisions and adjustments, that unquestionably should be removed from the game. As with MOST illegal personal contact situations we are challenged to rule on, we are required to "see" the entire action to be able to judge specific, and actual, illegality and/or prohibited intent.
Basing a judgment and forming a conclusion on the severity and result of a collision, alone, is a luxury afforded ONLY to spectators and bystanders, who usually have a vested interest in their conclusions and not available to game officials.
-
I think this is a perfect example of the type of play that the new rule is intended to eliminate. To me, anything that would have qualified for ESPN's "He got JACKED UP" segment is a candidate. Looking forward to hearing our state's official interpretation of this rule.
I disagree. If the same block had been at the defender's mid-section (and remember, the OP explicitly stated "not targeting"), I wouldn't have a flag for UNR -- the defender is trying to make a play.
-
Our job is not to speculate on "coulda-been, shoulda-been" assumptions.
Basing a judgment and forming a conclusion on the severity and result of a collision, alone, is a luxury afforded ONLY to spectators and bystanders, who usually have a vested interest in their conclusions and not available to game officials.
Alf -
Review this play
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JGogFxATeuo
I believe this type of excessive contact (he launches) has no place in and should be eliminated from NFHS play.
Additionally, the NCAA agrees, (see the flag) as this action is illegal in NCAA play.
And of course you will disagree... hEaDbAnG
-
Alf -
Review this play
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JGogFxATeuo
I believe this type of excessive contact (he launches) has no place in and should be eliminated from NFHS play.
Amazingly, the NCAA agrees with me as it is now (as it was then - see the flag) illegal in NCAA play.
And of course you will need to disagree... hEaDbAnG
Actually KWH, you're half right. Considering your fixation with NCAA rules, which I no longer focus on, allow me to familiarize you with the current NFHS rule; 2-20-2 "Targeting is an act of taking aimand initiating contact to an opponent above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist elbow or shoulders."
In looking at the contact in real time, it is clear the contact was in fact aimed, and involved either/both the blockers forearm and/or shoulder as the initial point of contact. However, it was NOT CLEAR , at least to me, if that initial point of contact was actually above the shoulders.
Given that subsequent slow motion views from multiple angles seems to support my conclusion that the initial point of contact, either by forearm or shoulder appears to be initiated at the defender's upper chest area, as well as the proximity of the potential defender in pursuit to the runner, I would likely have refrained from considering this contact, although dramatic and severe, excessive or illegal.
To qualify as a genuine "Bang-Bang" type of call, which this play would certainly match, is that the action observed is extremely close to the dividing line separating legal from illegal, so I wouldn't quibble with a contrary conclusion. Hopefully the covering official, who made this call, was in the proper position to view the contact in it's entirety, was thorougly versed in the requirements of the rule governing the game he was officiating and reacted to specifically what he observed, and how what he saw related to that rule.
There is no, "see, I told you so" value to analysis of this particular play, other than the importance of being in the proper position to completely observe a contact unfold, and be keenly aware of the exact requirements of the rule you are about to consider.
-
I am not an NCAA official. but I will assume the flag is correct based on their interpretations
It appears that the contact is at the shoulder. Now to me, he obviously lines up the hit, and he also appears to give a little "umph" with the left arm. While I would agree he took aim, the strike zone would appear to be legal.
Parsing the Fed rule, I'm not so sure. I also do not see the launch that you describe.
-
Question of the year... ^talk....What's EXCESSIVE ??? ???
At a buffet : IMHO, 2nd trip should be for dessert only eAt&
sNiCkErSSome may disagree sNiCkErS eAt& eAt&
On the football field : IMHO, we all will develop our own barometer. A coach said to me : "It sounds as if it'll be like helmet contact...won't always be called, BUT it may be called ^flag at the worst time. Best way to keep from being ^flag is to teach kids that tackling or blocking doesn't mean injuring. It'll become my job to teach that and hope that my fellow coaches follow."/font]
-
Alf -
Review this play
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JGogFxATeuo
I believe this type of excessive contact (he launches) has no place in and should be eliminated from NFHS play.
Additionally, the NCAA agrees, (see the flag) as this action is illegal in NCAA play.
And of course you will disagree... hEaDbAnG
This flag was thrown because the hit was deemed to be to the head.
HAD THIS NOT BEEN TO THE HEAD... would you still have a foul under the new NFHS rule?
-
Yes I would. This is unnecessary roughness and if we call this type of hit every time, it will stop.
The players taking these types of hits are getting seriously injured and there is no place for this hit in high school ball.
-
This flag was thrown because the hit was deemed to be to the head.
HAD THIS NOT BEEN TO THE HEAD... would you still have a foul under the new NFHS rule?
Bossman - Under the new rule, yes I would throw the flag. For me, one key is whether or not the person about to be blocked can see the blocker. In this case, the defender is concentrating on the ball carrier and the blocker knows he's getting a free shot. The blocker can choose whether or not to JACK HIM UP. If he does, I'm flagging him. (I'm still very curious to see what our state rules interpreter has to say about this rule.)
I think the new rule clearly shifts the burden. It used to be on the defender to "keep his head on a swivel". Now it seems that the burden is on the blocker to not be excessive.
As the coach said in Ralph's post - the best way to avoid this flag is to teach the kids that blocking and tackling doesn't mean injuring.
-
Yes, IMHO, the violent hit wasn't necessary to block the opponent.
Will this be easy ??? ??? - NO, subjective calls rarely are :o.
Will calls be consistant ??? ??? - We all will develop different levels of what we consider "excessive" - sorta' like the 1-10 pain chart we all see at the doc's when something hurts; we'll mentally develop such a chart for excessiveness. yEs:
Will coaches be supportave ??? ??? - allowing their players to excessively hit opponents will sorta' become like Russian roulette - with a preventative rule, it may hurt them at the worst time of the game.
Is the change to our beloved game necessary ??? ??? - to paraphrase my esteemed colleague, KWH (from the Left Coast & a Seahawk fan) : Momma Bear decides if Baby Bear will play youth football or join the chess club. Momma bear reads,hears, & sees articles/reports/shows about the danger of football. Baby Bear learns how to checkmate in 5 moves.
The Poppa Bears (dads,coaches,officials,fans,media,rulesmakers and the like) are learning something needs to be done.
100 years ago, boxing was the most popular sport for teenage boys.
Today it's football - we want to keep it like that :bOW.
How many high school boxing teams can you name ??? ??? -Probably not many/any :-X ::)
....,Sorry if this has been excessive... tiphat:
-
Bossman - Under the new rule, yes I would throw the flag. For me, one key is whether or not the person about to be blocked can see the blocker. In this case, the defender is concentrating on the ball carrier and the blocker knows he's getting a free shot. The blocker can choose whether or not to JACK HIM UP. If he does, I'm flagging him. (I'm still very curious to see what our state rules interpreter has to say about this rule.)
I think the new rule clearly shifts the burden. It used to be on the defender to "keep his head on a swivel". Now it seems that the burden is on the blocker to not be excessive.
Although I agree with the objective of penalizing ANY and ALL unnecessary hits, and accept that the burden of responsibility has shifted (SOMEWHAT) to the blocker, I don't think the responsibility to know what you're doing and where you're going has been (or should be) TOTALLY REMOVED from the defender pursuing the runner, allowing for an expectation of an uninterrupted path to the runner.
The problem with pendulums is that they often swing beyond the target of balancing a situation, to the extent they create an equal imbalance in the opposite direction. All players are (and should be) responsible to be aware of their surroundings. If the objective is to establish some magical, "one size fits all" answer, this type play seems like an extremely poor target.
-
If we want our game to be played 20 years from now, we had better foul these types of violent hits in which the player being blocked cannot see the block coming and the player delivering the block doesn't pick a target that is between the lower part of the chest area and the belt buckle. No one said that's easy, but if the blocker isn't sure he can do that in real time, just screen the player vs d-cleating him.
One guys opinion
-
If we want our game to be played 20 years from now, we had better foul these types of violent hits in which the player being blocked cannot see the block coming and the player delivering the block doesn't pick a target that is between the lower part of the chest area and the belt buckle. No one said that's easy, but if the blocker isn't sure he can do that in real time, just screen the player vs d-cleating him.
One guys opinion
Make that two guys.
-
Make that two guys.
Three. pi1eOn
-
If we want our game to be played 20 years from now, we had better foul these types of violent hits in which the player being blocked cannot see the block coming and the player delivering the block doesn't pick a target that is between the lower part of the chest area and the belt buckle. No one said that's easy, but if the blocker isn't sure he can do that in real time, just screen the player vs d-cleating him. One guys opinion
Is the game you want to see in 20 years, anything like the game we see today? "Throwing the baby out with the bath water", hasn't shown to be an effective solution to most problems, thus far. Is a player, who is absolutely trying to gain advantage over his opponent, but chooses to be totally oblivious to standard and obvious consequences (ie; pursuing a runner but ignoring the existence of blockers trying to protect that runner) defenseless, or clueless?
It's one thing when a defender gives up the chase, and becomes far removed from the pursuit and something completely different than a player who is in hot pursuit with reasonable opportunity to catch a runner and terminate his progress.
Football is a game of teams (and individuals) trying to out think and out position the opponent by creating (FAIR and REASONABLE) advantages over their opponent. Eliminating a player who is NOT posing a threat, and therefore excessively vulnerable, is NOT gaining a FAIR advantage, but by the same token taking advantage of allowable practices to prevent an opponent from gaining a FAIR advantage over you, is not UNFAIR.
Trying to codify two distinctly different situations under the same verbiage is an exercise in futility that will inevitably prove more problematic. Language used to respond to one situation cannot automatically be presumed to satisfy completely different situations. The problem is in trying to correct, control and cover a very specific circumstance, with an overly broad blanket.
Viable judgment applied by trained professionals observing specific, and unique, happenings is the key to appropriate, consistent and "fair" decisions and enforcements. Replacing specifically focused judgments with overly broad, generalized verbiage will only serve to exacerbate the problem.
Unfortunately, children of parents who make rash decisions based on incomplete and/or inaccurate presumptions, are going to deal with a lot more problems than football.
-
Is the game you want to see in 20 years, anything like the game we see today? "Throwing the baby out with the bath water", hasn't shown to be an effective solution to most problems, thus far. Is a player, who is absolutely trying to gain advantage over his opponent, but chooses to be totally oblivious to standard and obvious consequences (ie; pursuing a runner but ignoring the existence of blockers trying to protect that runner) defenseless, or clueless?
I reject the premise that a player can pursue a runner while also being able to see all other players running at them without significantly slowing down the speed of their pursuit. Why did baseball make an adjustment to their game and tone down the bats in both NCAA and Federation? Because technology had advanced to a point that humans could not keep up with the speed of the game-and someone was going to get killed. 40 years ago how big and fast were football players? 20 years ago? 20 years from now? It's time to slow the game down-while there is still a game to be played.
P.S. I worry less about parents telling their kids that can't play football and more about insurance companies being unwilling to underwrite the coverage
One guys opinion
-
FOUR!!!
-
I reject the premise that a player can pursue a runner while also being able to see all other players running at them without significantly slowing down the speed of their pursuit. Why did baseball make an adjustment to their game and tone down the bats in both NCAA and Federation? Because technology had advanced to a point that humans could not keep up with the speed of the game-and someone was going to get killed. 40 years ago how big and fast were football players? 20 years ago? 20 years from now? It's time to slow the game down-while there is still a game to be played.
P.S. I worry less about parents telling their kids that can't play football and more about insurance companies being unwilling to underwrite the coverage.
Am I understanding you correctly? You want to offset the balance of the game, by allowing one side to fully pursue their objectives, by removing the burden, and responsibility, of maintaining full awarness of their surroundings, while requiring the opponent to abandon their primary objectives of protecting their team mates and preventing their opponent from achieving its objective, by means that would otherwise be legal and permissable.
You recommend "slow the game down-while there is still a game to be played", have you thought of a name for your game, because "Football" is taken.
-
Am I understanding you correctly? You want to offset the balance of the game, by allowing one side to fully pursue their objectives, by removing the burden, and responsibility, of maintaining full awarness of their surroundings, while requiring the opponent to abandon their primary objectives of PROTECTING THEIR TEAM MATES (emphasis added) and preventing their opponent from achieving its objective, by means that would otherwise be legal and permissable.
You recommend "slow the game down-while there is still a game to be played", have you thought of a name for your game, because "Football" is taken.
It was never necessary to de-cleat a kid who isn't looking in order to "protect your team mates." However, it was legal last year. This year, it isn't, if we judge the hit to be excessive.
We make these judgment calls all the time. Was it roughing the passer? Was the kid high-stepping into the EZ to showboat, or to avoid a tackler? I suspect we'll all find our comfort zone with this one as well.
-
IMHO, these fouls could occur on both sides of the ball...IE...a blindside, vicious block on A, a blindside vicious QB sack on B...I don't feel it upsets the balance between A & B. I do feel that something is necessary to keep the balance of the pecking order of popular fall sports...
(1) Football
(2) Soccer
(3) Golf
(4) Cross-Country
(5) Lobster Crating
Is this rule change the answer ??? ..time will tell...are we going in the right direction ??? ???...YES :thumbup
-
IMHO, these fouls could occur on both sides of the ball...IE...a blindside, vicious block on A, a blindside vicious QB sack on B...I don't feel it upsets the balance between A & B. I do feel that something is necessary to keep the balance of the pecking order of popular fall sports...
(1) Football
(2) Soccer
(3) Golf
(4) Cross-Country
(5) Lobster Crating
Is this rule change the answer ??? ..time will tell...are we going in the right direction ??? ???...YES :thumbup
+1
-
Is this rule change the answer ??? ..time will tell...are we going in the right direction ??? ???...YES :thumbup
Eliminating UNNECESSARY, DANGEROUS and ILLEGAL hits from our game is, and always has been, a positive idea, worth pursuing. Overreacting, and using a meat cleaver to slice off bad behavior is using the wrong tool to accomplish the goal.
Emphasis has always been on the actual mechanics of the contact, was the contact itself somehow illegal, unnecessary or dangerous, rather than ignoring what actually happened and reacting to the sound, ferocity or result of the contact alone. "De-cleating" is NOT the issue, what specific action was delivered to cause such severity is, and always has been, the problem worthy of correction.
Over reaction to generalized, and often inaccurate and unsubstantiated exaggerations, by external critics serves primarily to add fuel to illconceived fires. Extending clearly recognized descriptions to situations that have never previously qualified, doesn't necessarily help clarify ANYTHING.
A "defenseless" player has been clearly understood to be; a kicker, additionally vulnerable because of the actual action related to kicking, a passer, focused on the act of passing, a snapper, focusing on completing the long snap, and ANY other player who has ceased actively participating in the game, and not otherwise paying attention to the storm surrounding him.
Any player, however, who has ended these special vulnerabilities and has CHOSEN to fully participate in the normal and general actions of the game, deserves ALL the protections afforded to any other player fully participating, as defined by rules.
The passer, who has totally completed all of the actions associated with passing, is given special protections until (NF:2-32-11) "the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play", at which time he is no longer a "passer" and returns to being a "player". When he CHOOSES to re-join and participate in the play, either as a blocker or a defender, whatever special protections he enjoyed as a "passer" have EXPIRED and no longer apply.
What determines if a contact is legal or illegal is, and should be, the manner and method of the contact and how the contact is delivered. That is an observation made, and judgment rendered, BEST by an impartial, trained and experienced official assessing the mechanics of the specific contact being observed and how it complies, or violates, specific rules designed for that specific circumstance, rather than some emotional reaction from a bystander, too often responding to some external agenda or objective.
Searching for a "One size fits all" solution, to address an infinitely different set of circumstances is unlikely to produce a satisfactory answer. Perhaps the understanding of a "cheap shot", much like the understanding of "beauty", is best determined, "In the eye of the beholder".
-
Here's how we keep the pecking order - we make some of these spring sports!
(1) Football - Fall
(2) Soccer - Spring
(3) Golf - Spring
(4) Cross-Country - Fall
(5) Lobster Crating - Something we do at the grocery to get ready for dinner!
-
[quote author=AlUpstateNY link=topic=11649.msg115598#msg115598 date=1424271694
Eliminating UNNECESSARY, DANGEROUS and ILLEGAL hits from our game is, and always has been, a positive idea, worth pursuing. Overreacting, and using a meat cleaver to slice off bad behavior is using the wrong tool to accomplish the goal.............
Searching for a "One size fits all" solution, to address an infinitely different set of circumstances is unlikely to produce a satisfactory answer. Perhaps the understanding of a "cheap shot", much like the understanding of "beauty", is best determined, "In the eye of the beholder".
[/quote]
Al, You seem well spoken but your long diatribes are contradictory. Choose a lane.
-
Eliminating UNNECESSARY, DANGEROUS and ILLEGAL hits from our game is, and always has been, a positive idea, worth pursuing. Overreacting, and using a meat cleaver to slice off bad behavior is using the wrong tool to accomplish the goal.
Emphasis has always been on the actual mechanics of the contact, was the contact itself somehow illegal, unnecessary or dangerous, rather than ignoring what actually happened and reacting to the sound, ferocity or result of the contact alone. "De-cleating" is NOT the issue, what specific action was delivered to cause such severity is, and always has been, the problem worthy of correction.
Over reaction to generalized, and often inaccurate and unsubstantiated exaggerations, by external critics serves primarily to add fuel to illconceived fires. Extending clearly recognized descriptions to situations that have never previously qualified, doesn't necessarily help clarify ANYTHING.
A "defenseless" player has been clearly understood to be; a kicker, additionally vulnerable because of the actual action related to kicking, a passer, focused on the act of passing, a snapper, focusing on completing the long snap, and ANY other player who has ceased actively participating in the game, and not otherwise paying attention to the storm surrounding him.
Any player, however, who has ended these special vulnerabilities and has CHOSEN to fully participate in the normal and general actions of the game, deserves ALL the protections afforded to any other player fully participating, as defined by rules.
The passer, who has totally completed all of the actions associated with passing, is given special protections until (NF:2-32-11) "the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play", at which time he is no longer a "passer" and returns to being a "player". When he CHOOSES to re-join and participate in the play, either as a blocker or a defender, whatever special protections he enjoyed as a "passer" have EXPIRED and no longer apply.
What determines if a contact is legal or illegal is, and should be, the manner and method of the contact and how the contact is delivered. That is an observation made, and judgment rendered, BEST by an impartial, trained and experienced official assessing the mechanics of the specific contact being observed and how it complies, or violates, specific rules designed for that specific circumstance, rather than some emotional reaction from a bystander, too often responding to some external agenda or objective.
Searching for a "One size fits all" solution, to address an infinitely different set of circumstances is unlikely to produce a satisfactory answer. Perhaps the understanding of a "cheap shot", much like the understanding of "beauty", is best determined, "In the eye of the beholder".
I disagree tiphat:
-
Al, You seem well spoken but your long diatribes are contradictory. Choose a lane. [/quote]
My apologies for being confusing. Allow me to try a different approach. Although I would suggest EVERYONE (should) agree that "UNNECESSARY, DANGEROUS AND ILLEGAL HITS" should be eliminated from the game, for multiple reasons. It seems some seem WAY TOO eager to apply their own interpretations of those descriptions to hits, that may be severe, hard, or dramatic but are otherwise perfectly legal.
In past years we've seen the creation of 3 separate and distinctly defined "illegal helmet contact fouls", that each apply to a different type of contact, we've seen additional rule adjustments to the majority of allowable contacts below the waist. Unfortunately, there have also been occassions where efforts to clarify rules have created additional confusion, rather than clarifications.
A basic standard of football officiating, at any level, HAS ALWAYS BEEN, "to call a foul, an officials must be absolutely CERTAIN that the violation, has IN FACT, occurred". Coaches, spectators, announcers enjoy the luxury (Only available to Officials regarding INTENT, and then in only limited circumstances) of speculating, presuming and assuming. We are normally prohibited from assuming, speculating or presuming something Illegal occurred, unless we have directly observed the infraction.
The video causing this discussion shows an incredibly hard hit, arguably below the prohibited "head" area, by a teammate of the runner, against an opponent in hot pursuit, and reasonably close to the runner producing a devastating collision. Both the pursuer AND the blocker were doing their respective jobs, which in the game of football are in direct conflict with each other, and for which their allowable behavior is defined by rule.
In "real time" a penalty was called, that film review, in some assessments, raised questions about that decision. At the HS level, where (thankfully) replay is not an option, the play would stand as called, but given doubt, expressed by some after reviewing the film evidence, others are quick to opine, "it should be a foul ANYWAY" despite evidence (or at least opinion) to the contrary.
The real question may be, are we starting down a road leading to changing the principle, "A foul is a foul ONLY when there is certainty it's a foul", to, "Close enough is enough"?
-
Say (for example) on a change of possession play when an offensive player decides to cheap-HOT AIR-slobber-knock an opponent and send him into the third row when he could have just as easily set a basketball screen on the opponent and accomplished the same result.
+1
Then our game would be turning into Flag Football....which we always tell players, is not football.
-
Here's how we keep the pecking order - we make some of these spring sports!
Like football, at least below the snow belt. Move baseball to fall. That protects players of both sports from temperature-related injuries and illnesses. :sTiR:
-
Like football, at least below the snow belt. Move baseball to fall. That protects players of both sports from temperature-related injuries and illnesses. :sTiR:
:o :!# a delima would arise......
Many star QBs are also star pitchers :-\
Many star centers are also star catchers :-\
Many star TEs are also star 1st basemen :-\
Many star wideouts are also star centerfielders :-\
.....Many prom queens go to many more football than baseball games ;) :-* :bOW
Delemia settled. yEs:
-
:o :!# a delima would arise......
Many star QBs are also star pitchers :-\
Many star centers are also star catchers :-\
Many star TEs are also star 1st basemen :-\
Many star wideouts are also star centerfielders :-\
.....Many prom queens go to many more football than baseball games ;) :-* :bOW
Delemia settled. yEs:
I think you misunderstood me, Ralph. I'm advocating switching football and baseball seasons.
-
I think you misunderstood me, Ralph. I'm advocating switching football and baseball seasons.
Ehhh, state championship football in mid-June ???....OK :thumbup....state championship baseball in November :!# :!#. Sorry, 'Bama, your suggestion would only work in Maine ,if in baseball, you played the championship games on Labor Day weekend and then worked the season backwards for the season opener to be the weekend before Thanksgiving....Might need to think that one thru a bit. :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8] ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( >:D
-
Ralph,
Obviously there were no timing-related changes :-[
Was nothing discussed to (forgive me AB) reduce the length of games? As discussed a lot on the forum, with teams throwing 40-50 passes/game, the games are taking much longer.
-
Ralph,
Obviously there were no timing-related changes :-[
Was nothing discussed to (forgive me AB) reduce the length of games? As discussed a lot on the forum, with teams throwing 40-50 passes/game, the games are taking much longer.
I don't recall any discussions regarding length of games either during the formal meetings or at the informal "campfire" meetings. The 2 Rule 3 timing proposals (start on snap if team ahead fouls in last 2 minutes & adding a 40 sec. clock) really wouldn't help to shorten and neither made it out of committee. Promoting safety was the overriding issue this year.
-
Promoting safety was the overriding issue this year.
3+ hour games promotes safety? Really now!
-
3+ hour games promotes safety? Really now!
I don't think we've gotten to that point here, yet. Varsity game start time here is 7:30 pm. Ordinarily and recently I would say the average walk-off time is 9:45-9:50 with a game or two per season hitting 10:00 pm.
We finally codified the running clock rule in NC so we don''t have to do the "if the coaches agree" dance anymore so that has helped with the blowouts, which a lot of games seem to be.
-
We used to start at 7:30. Once the final scores started regularly missing the 10 o'clock sports report, and/or the print media deadlines, the complaints rolled in. Solution? Start at 7:00. Games are still 3 hours, but at least most are now meeting media deadlines.
-
Our public schools kick off at 7:30 and rarely end before 10:00. Some private schools kick off at 7:00, and we all enjoy that. The games take just as long, but it's 30 minutes earlier to our post game debrief over wings and beers.
-
We kick off at 7:30, rarely go past 9:50, and our half time is 23 minutes. And we pass as much or more as many teams.
I know you don't want to hear it, but there is something that speeds up games, although,you might believe it would be otherwise: switching balls on most plays. Officials NEVER chase incomplete passes. If the ball is incomplete, the wing or the deep wing on that side grabs a new ball from the ball boy, tosses it to the U, the ball is set, and the RFP is blown. Ball boys chase the errant pass wherever it may be. If a play ends OOB, the wing grabs a ball from the ball boy, places it at his feet, another ball is tossed to the U from the ball boy, and the ball that is OOB is retrieved by the ball boys.
Unless the play ends between the hashes, the U is looking for a ball to be tossed to him right away, and no official deals with the other one. The goal here is to blow the RFP in 12 seconds from the end of the previous play, and they usually make it.
-
We kick off at 7:30, rarely go past 9:50, and our half time is 23 minutes. And we pass as much or more as many teams.
I know you don't want to hear it, but there is something that speeds up games, although,you might believe it would be otherwise: switching balls on most plays. Officials NEVER chase incomplete passes. If the ball is incomplete, the wing or the deep wing on that side grabs a new ball from the ball boy, tosses it to the U, the ball is set, and the RFP is blown. Ball boys chase the errant pass wherever it may be. If a play ends OOB, the wing grabs a ball from the ball boy, places it at his feet, another ball is tossed to the U from the ball boy, and the ball that is OOB is retrieved by the ball boys.
Unless the play ends between the hashes, the U is looking for a ball to be tossed to him right away, and no official deals with the other one. The goal here is to blow the RFP in 12 seconds from the end of the previous play, and they usually make it.
:thumbup :thumbup :thumbup
-
We used to start at 7:30. Once the final scores started regularly missing the 10 o'clock sports report, and/or the print media deadlines, the complaints rolled in. Solution? Start at 7:00. Games are still 3 hours, but at least most are now meeting media deadlines.
Same rationale used in Alabama. In the old run-the-ball, run-the-clock days, my games averaged 1:45 or so. Now, it's 2:30. Thank goodness we don't have TV games.
-
Quote from : 1972 National Alliance Edition Football Rules Book
Published by The National Federation of State High School Associations
"Thousands of progressive football men have assisted in producing and constantly improving the National Alliance Football Code. Here are a few desirable changes brought about through efficient
rules machinery."
-Prelude to 1972 rule book.
Quote from : Jerry "Remdawg" Remy - Red Sox TV announcer
"The Sox need an ace...the Sox don't have an ace."
The Red Sox equipment truck arrived safely in Ft. Myers, FL ; so it must be Spring...somewhere :o ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :'(....stay warm,guys, even if you don't own LL Bean Polar Explorer gear ( can be viewed on Weather Channel).. :)
-
The Sox should feel right at home as the temps on the west coast of FL dipped into the 30s overnight.
-
We kick off at 7:30, rarely go past 9:50, and our half time is 23 minutes. And we pass as much or more as many teams.
I know you don't want to hear it, but there is something that speeds up games, although,you might believe it would be otherwise: switching balls on most plays. Officials NEVER chase incomplete passes. If the ball is incomplete, the wing or the deep wing on that side grabs a new ball from the ball boy, tosses it to the U, the ball is set, and the RFP is blown. Ball boys chase the errant pass wherever it may be. If a play ends OOB, the wing grabs a ball from the ball boy, places it at his feet, another ball is tossed to the U from the ball boy, and the ball that is OOB is retrieved by the ball boys.
Unless the play ends between the hashes, the U is looking for a ball to be tossed to him right away, and no official deals with the other one. The goal here is to blow the RFP in 12 seconds from the end of the previous play, and they usually make it.
Working a game with efficient, effective and perhaps most importantly, consistently focused "ball boys" is a "day and night" difference from what seems a lot more like the standard offering. Schools who take this responsibility seriously should be appreciated because this is a service that makes a game crisper, smoother, more enjoyable to work and more pleasurable for everyone to watch.
-
In two years working NFHS in Michigan, I never had a ball boy that wasn't either:
1) an injured varsity player that didn't dress,
Or 2) a JV kid tapped by a coach that would rather be hanging out with his teammates
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
3+ hour games promotes safety? Really now!
At last year's meeting, the length of games was discussed with the majority not having a problem with the increasing length. The general feeling was that extended "down time" was what made the games longer (retrieving incomplete passes, bigger scores = more TDs) and not the actual playing time - which certainly would increase the chance of injury. There was a proposal to adopt the NCAA OOB rule which, to me, had proved successful for several years. It made it to the floor but had very limited support on the final vote ( I voted for it). I refereed 15 games last season - shortest : 1 :50 , longest : 2 :18 - I can live with that. Our Friday night games begin @ 7:00. Local TV football highlights begin @ 11:00. The reserved z^ chairs at our popular watering hole are usually full eAt& :).
-
In two years working NFHS in Michigan, I never had a ball boy that wasn't either:
1) an injured varsity player that didn't dress,
Or 2) a JV kid tapped by a coach that would rather be hanging out with his teammates
Don't forget the ones who are one of the coaches' sons or daughter. They're the ones too busy cheering to throw a football in after a change of possession.
-
I refereed 15 games last season - shortest : 1 :50 , longest : 2 :18 - I can live with that.
I'm guessing they don't chuck it 85 times a game in your neck of the woods, most of which fall incomplete.
-
Our final game of the regular season was 59-52. Stats for the stars of both teams are highlighted below. I'm only slightly exaggerating when I say the clock stopped after every play - first down, TD, or incomplete pass. The first half took 1:45, the game was over 3:00, and we loved every minute of it. I'm not saying I'd enjoy 3+ hour marathons every week, but this was one to remember.
The Spongers' Ford and Rebels QB Tyrie Adams had monster games. Ford rushed for 389 yards on 41 carries and scored five touchdowns. Adams had an amazing 719 total yards of offense. He racked up 598 yards on 39-for-57 passing, and six scores. That was in addition to his 121 yards on eight carries and one rushing TD.
-
The Spongers' Ford and Rebels QB Tyrie Adams had monster games. Ford rushed for 389 yards on 41 carries and scored five touchdowns. Adams had an amazing 719 total yards of offense. He racked up 598 yards on 39-for-57 passing, and six scores. That was in addition to his 121 yards on eight carries and one rushing TD.
Sounds like your BJ / deep wings need tackling practice. cRaZy
-
....Top of the 5th, one out..it's 5:30 (starting time 4:00)...the wind off from Bar Harbor Bay is +30 MPH....the temp is +30 F....the wind chill - no we won't go there :'(.....you're working the bases...you again glance at your watch...it's now 6:10...top of the 5th,two out.....you begin to wonder :!# what
frostbitten hands look like....your metal indicator has stuck to your palm....
Guys, our game length issues could be worse :). Ole' Mainer saying : "I cried because I had no shoes, until I saw a man who had no feet." tiphat:
-
I'm guessing they don't chuck it 85 times a game in your neck of the woods, most of which fall incomplete.
Gravitational pull, deflated footballs and flat feet of the receivers lead to mostly ground games. :)
-
As does the fact that all the players seemed to be named Bubba, Tugboat, and Smitty according to your posts. :)
-
As does the fact that all the players seemed to be named Bubba, Tugboat, and Smitty according to your posts. :)
Now now, VALJ, you forgot about Lefty (QB), Scooter (DB), Slim (WR), Porkchop (C) and the like :) :). Cubbies vs Red Sox....friendly wager...team with best record...loser closes next 10 posts with : "Cubbies rule, 'Sox suck" or the opposite???? :) :) Remember, you guys now have an ace (Lester) and we don't pi1eOn!!!
-
I think you forgot about Hans the kicker from Sweden.......
-
I think you forgot about Hans the kicker from Sweden.......
Thanks, Steve - I knew I forgot someone tiphat:
-
Porkchop doesn't exactly help your argument, Ralph.
And while I'm not a Sox fan particularly, I've got nothing against them, so a "Sox suck" applies to the black-wearing goofs on the South Side, where Bad Bad Leroy Brown hangs out. As long as we can both agree to hate the Yankees...
-
Is it wishful thinking to have this thread back on topic or should we just shut it down?
-
Is it wishful thinking to have this thread back on topic or should we just shut it down?
Time for it to meet Fredo and Luca Brasi, or to start quoting some of your favorite lines from The Godfather.
Don Corleone to Sonny: What's the matter with you? I think your brain is going soft with all that comedy you are playing with that young girl. Never tell anyone outside the Family what you are thinking again.
-
UPS delivery to Corleone :" Luca sleeps with the fishes pi1eOn "
Rulesman's delivery to us : " Let's get back on topic . yEs: "
Does anyone have any opinions on any of the other rule changes? The spearing change, IMHO, was more editorial than anything. Will the change in the free kick rule open the door for teammates prancing back and forth to either side of the ball before the kick? ??? Will it become more convoluted to kill the ball just as it is kicked ??? ???? Will it become a harder call from the white hat @ 60 yards away ??? ??? ????
Opinions, please :
Editor's note : I'm off to sunny Florida for 10 days, so you guys will have to argue with each other :)!
-
Yo Ralph -
I like the changes, and I applaud the fact their are not too many.
I do not think inserting the word "excessive" will be anywhere near as difficult to adjust to as the 1988 change that allowed offensive lineman to use open hands and fully extended arms. There are still old timers that likely feel that was the biggest change in football to date.
You forgot to list the Prom Queens Mudda!
-
Godfather trivia : What was the exact time and date of Sonny's demise ????
New rules worry : Are any of you worried about the challenge of determining if there is 4 on each side of the kicker/ball AT the time of the kick instead of RFP ??? ?????
New rules worry #2 : Treating a DBF that can't occur until the ball is kicked, means there will always be a kick and probably an onside kick and probably a mad scramble for the onside kick and another kick to follow that will probably also an onside kick and probably.....anyone worried yet ??? ??? ??????
-
New rules worry #2 : Treating a DBF that can't occur until the ball is kicked, means there will always be a kick and probably an onside kick and probably a mad scramble for the onside kick and another kick to follow that will probably also an onside kick and probably.....anyone worried yet ??? ??? ??????
No worries!!! Danger is a small price to pay for excitement!!!
-
Welcome back, Ralph.
Re question two - there will be a minor challenge with that from teams that huddle up behind the ball, and go quickly straight from the huddle after the RFP. Good preventive officiating should handle that, though - just like we told the K that they had to keep four on either side last year, we'll still talk them through it this year.
Re question three - I'll admit to being a bit worried. One - for most of our games we work 7 man crews, and (with our current mechanics, at least) that flag and whistle will be coming from the R downfield behind the receiving team. We up by the kicker probably won't hear that whistle. Two - that foul means that not only have we had one onside kick with the subsequent piling of bodies, but now we're going to have a second one.
Of course, we already have that second set of crashes when he have an ENC just prior to the ball being kicked...
-
I'm glad to hear I not the only one to worry yEs:
Hint on Godfather trivia : think of sounds coming from the deserted (by tolltakers) toll booth just before the 21 gun salute ;)....
-
I can remember the date, but wasn't the "shot heard around the world" Bobby Thompson home run playing
-
October 3, 1951
Sonny was 31, two months shy of his 32nd birthday.
The end of the old main runway where this scene was filmed at the old site of Mitchell Field on Long Island can be seen at these coordinates in Google Maps 40.730243, -73.587143
-
Great job, Patrick & Riffraft aWaRd aWaRd! Bobby Thompson was just coming to bat when Sonny discovered the regular toll-taker was not on duty. The box score shows that the 1 o'clock game lasted 2:39 = 3:39 PM @ time of homer = assumed 3:38 PM when Sonny paid his "toll" - remember Bobby still had to hit the homer and ward off Leo the Lip (coaching 3rd) from getting a "piggyback" ride from 3rd to home. tiphat:
-
We have an official run into a B coach during a scoring play and then have an unsportsmanlike foul on A after the touchdown. Are these fouls going to offset? Usually non player fouls are not personal fouls.
-
Good question, Skip1, and as author of the rule change I'll attempt to address it.
(1) Rule 9-4-8 is a live-ball foul treated as a dead-ball foul with succeeding spot enforcement with the rationale that it didn't have any impact on the outcome of the play.
(2) IF A's USC foul occurred PRIOR to B's penalty being administrated, they would cancel (I didn't want the word "offset" used ,as I felt it could be confused with offsetting live ball fouls where 3 on one team and one on the opponents would offset) .
(3) HOWEVER, IF A waited until the penalty option had been chosen by his team and administered ; it would be enforced separately.
EXAMPLES : In #2 they would cancel and you would move on to the PAT @ B's3.
In #3, if A chose B's foul on the kickoff followed by A's USC, B could tack it onto the PAT -
back to B's 18, or KO, back to original 40. A would not be allowed to change their choice.
I needed to amend my proposal, as I had originally set the benchmark for the separate enforcement as the RFP, but the issue arose : "What's going to happen if you've already enforced the original penalty when something new occurs prior to the RFP?" Yes, #3 can get complicated, but no where near the complexity of the prior rule and would guess 90+% of the occurrences would be of the #2 style.
Hope this helps.
-
Got the new Rule Book and I am confused with the added wording in the Penalty section for Rule 6-2 on page 54.
"...Art. 9 - free kick out of bounds - (S19) - 5 yards and re-kick, or put it in play at the inbounds spot 25 yards beyond the previou spot if previous spot on midfield side of R25."
What is that new phrase supposed to mean?
Why has it been added?
-
If the previous spot was inside the R25, there is no "25 yards from the previous spot". You can't give a team the ball on or inside the goal line.
It's a totally unnecessary clarification that was already covered by other rules. It changes nothing.
-
Brain cramp regarding the "dead ball penalties cancelling" bit - Sparky on A and Bubba on B both commit DB USC fouls in the first quarter so that their distances offset. In the 4th quarter, we overhear Sparky telling Bubba that he believes that Bubba has consensual adult relationships with his own mother, and flag Sparky for said implication. Sparky is still disqualified for earning his second USC foul, correct?
-
Brain cramp regarding the "dead ball penalties cancelling" bit - Sparky on A and Bubba on B both commit DB USC fouls in the first quarter so that their distances offset. In the 4th quarter, we overhear Sparky telling Bubba that he believes that Bubba has consensual adult relationships with his own mother, and flag Sparky for said implication. Sparky is still disqualified for earning his second USC foul, correct?
Yes, Sparky was on "double secret probation" (as the Delta House sanction imposed by Dean Wormer in Animal House) after being naughty in the first quarter. Dueling live ball fouls that offset (Sparky & Bubba engaging in Kung Fu fighting during a live ball) would still result in disqualification .. same here.
PS : Brain cramps can often be cured by adding a jigger of American Honey (Wild Turkey Bourbon + honey) to one's lobster chowder. South of Mason-Dixon, just add it to your grits.
-
PS : Brain cramps can often be cured by adding a jigger of American Honey (Wild Turkey Bourbon + honey) to one's lobster chowder. South of Mason-Dixon, just add it to your grits.
You better quit while you're ahead, Ralph. No self-respecting Southerner would add anything to his grits other than salt, pepper & butter, and maybe (for fancy occasions) a few bacon bits.
Also, the only thing to be added to Wild Turkey is a (small) cube of ice and an index finger.
-
You better quit while you're ahead, Ralph. No self-respecting Southerner would add anything to his grits other than salt, pepper & butter, and maybe (for fancy occasions) a few bacon bits.
Also, the only thing to be added to Wild Turkey is a (small) cube of ice and an index finger.
In addition to the above, I've been known to add cheese to my grits now and then.
And I agree, the only thing you mix with bourbon is ice.
-
Ralph, remember I'm a transplant - no grits for me, thank you.
-
In addition to the above, I've been known to add cheese to my grits now and then.
That's apparently a fairly recent innovation. My mother would have smacked me severely around the head & neck area if I had asked her to put cheese in her grits.
-
That's apparently a fairly recent innovation. My mother would have smacked me severely around the head & neck area if I had asked her to put cheese in her grits.
Really? It's my very Southern wife that taught it to me, she's done it her whole life.
-
LOVE cheese in my grits, along with salt, butter, and a touch of black pepper.
-
That's apparently a fairly recent innovation. My mother would have smacked me severely around the head & neck area if I had asked her to put cheese in her grits.
My mother learned earlier that I wanted cheese on just about everything and gave up the fight. Grits with cheese and butter.
-
Really? It's my very Southern wife that taught it to me, she's done it her whole life.
Yes, but I started eating grits more than 25 years ago.
-
One of the most important rules in any book (in NFHS it's 1-1-1-1-1, "When you're with your mother, do WHATEVER she wants you to do, and smile".
-
Cheese and grits can only be topped by Shrimp and grits.
-
Being a big John "Duke" Wayne fan, I'd have to classify your discussion as TRUE GRIT tiphat:
Blueberry pancakes with true Maine maple is my breakfast of choice.
-
Blueberry pancakes with true Maine maple is my breakfast of choice.
I had blueberry waffles on Saturday, so we aren't far off there.
But I did have grits on Sunday.
-
My Monday morning research team discovered the last time the century mark was broken in posts to a topic (Jan 28,2015). The topic was misleading as our fearless leader, Rulesman, was stating not to post perceived rule changes until NFHS published the OFFICIAL rule changes. 140+ had opinions on that.
TODAY OUR TOPIC OF 'LEGAL JERSEYS' IS CLOSING IN, LET'S GIVE IT OUR BEST RESPONSE SINCE THE PATRIOTS LAST WON THE SUPER BOWL!!!
BEST ALLTIME RECORD IN MY MEMORY :
NFHS FOOTBALL - TOPIC - BUTT BLOCKING - STARTED BY BIGJOHN
215 POSTS
]