NFHS 2022 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES PRESS RELEASE

[ncwingman]

Do we know yet if the rule will require an eligible receiver in the vicinity?

If it did, how would that make it different from the current rule?

The direct answer to your question is that we don't know, but I would be very surprised if it did.

[bossman72]

Do we know yet if the rule will require an eligible receiver in the vicinity?

I'm not sure what you're asking.  This was the old rule where you always needed a receiver in the vicinity.

[bama_stripes]

I'm not sure what you're asking.  This was the old rule where you always needed a receiver in the vicinity.

Are you saying that, under the “old” rule, you could never call IG if there was a receiver in the area?  Because I’ve seen plenty of times that it’s been called — QB throws it into the tenth row of seats, or spikes it into the ground five yards short of the receiver while being tackled, just to name a couple.

[KWH]

Are you saying that, under the “old” rule, you could never call IG if there was a receiver in the area?  Because I’ve seen plenty of times that it’s been called — QB throws it into the tenth row of seats, or spikes it into the ground five yards short of the receiver while being tackled, just to name a couple.

The "Old Rule" remains in effect.
The "New rule" should be considered as quite simply the only legal method for the Passer to terminate the play.
Should the passer fail to meet both requirements of the New Rule, then the Old rule remains in effect.

Remember, if the passer has NOT met both requirements EXCEPTION 2, it remains a foul if there was no
eligible receiver in the area, or, if a receiver in the area cannot make a bona fide attempt to catch the forward
pass (e.g., the pass is intentionally thrown to the ground short of an eligible receiver, or the pass is
intentionally thrown over an eligible receiver’s head).

I hope that makes sense?

[bossman72]

Are you saying that, under the “old” rule, you could never call IG if there was a receiver in the area?  Because I’ve seen plenty of times that it’s been called — QB throws it into the tenth row of seats, or spikes it into the ground five yards short of the receiver while being tackled, just to name a couple.

1) QB throws into the 10th row, I highly doubt there is a receiver in the 10th row.  So under the old rule, yes, this would be ING.  New rule, if the QB made it outside the FBZ and got the ball past the LOS extended, there would be no foul.

2) Spikes it into the ground 5 yards short of the receiver... I'd have to see the play.


Anyway, like KWH said, your criteria for judging ING is exactly the same as last year.
On all of your ING plays last year, the only time you would not call ING is if the ball got past the LOS extended and the QB got outside the FBZ.  All other criteria basically remain the same.

[KWH]

1) QB throws into the 10th row, I highly doubt there is a receiver in the 10th row.  So under the old rule, yes, this would be ING.  New rule, if the QB made it outside the FBZ and got the ball past the LOS extended, there would be no foul.

2) Spikes it into the ground 5 yards short of the receiver... I'd have to see the play.


Anyway, like KWH said, your criteria for judging ING is exactly the same as last year.
On all of your ING plays last year, the only time you would not call ING is if the ball got past the LOS extended and the QB got outside the FBZ.  All other criteria basically remain the same.

 

[bama_stripes]

Let me ask my question the way I would have yesterday if I had finished my coffee first:

Under the new rule, if the QB is outside the FBZ and the pass crosses the LOS, does there have to be a receiver in the area for the exception to apply?

[AlUpstateNY]

If it did, how would that make it different from the current rule?

The direct answer to your question is that we don't know, but I would be very surprised if it did.

Just a thought, if the NFHS would simply include the actual text of new/updated/modified rules in their annual advance press releases, it would likely reduce (if not eliminate) much of the confusion/speculation these announcements often generate.

[CalhounLJ]

Let me ask my question the way I would have yesterday if I had finished my coffee first:

Under the new rule, if the QB is outside the FBZ and the pass crosses the LOS, does there have to be a receiver in the area for the exception to apply?

Short answer, no. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

Just a thought, if the NFHS would simply include the actual text of new/updated/modified rules in their annual advance press releases, it would likely reduce (if not eliminate) much of the confusion/speculation these announcements often generate.

I agree.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

Just a thought, if the NFHS would simply include the actual text of new/updated/modified rules in their annual advance press releases, it would likely reduce (if not eliminate) much of the confusion/speculation these announcements often generate.

I'm sure there are at least two on here that know for sure but I'm fairly certain that the actual wording of the rule isn't done yet.  These press releases are basically a "heads up, here's what's coming" .

[bossman72]

Let me ask my question the way I would have yesterday if I had finished my coffee first:

Under the new rule, if the QB is outside the FBZ and the pass crosses the LOS, does there have to be a receiver in the area for the exception to apply?

No, that's always been legal. 

The point of the exception is to allow that when there is NO receiver in the area.


So, a flow chart.  (See attached image)

[KWH]

 
7-5-2e says;
In NFHS, it has NEVER been legal to intentionally throw a pass incomplete to save a loss of yardage.
In NFHS, there now a method for the Passer to legally terminate the play if he/she meets both the requirements of a and b.
Failure to do both, and he/she will be suspect for ING.

Some are of the opinion intentionally throwing pass 5 yards short of a eligible receiver or 5 yards over the eligible receivers head as legal plays.  They are not legal, never have been, and remain illegal in lieu of the new rule exception. 

[NVFOA_Ump]

Our guidance was always if there is a receiver "in the area" we are good.  We had to determine that there was no receiver in the "area" and "area" was a big space.  The benefit of the doubt always went to the passer.  If we flagged anything that was not clearly a flagrant "dump" we would have an unwanted discussion with our assigner.

[KWH]

Our guidance was always if there is a receiver "in the area" we are good.  We had to determine that there was no receiver in the "area" and "area" was a big space.  The benefit of the doubt always went to the passer.  If we flagged anything that was not clearly a flagrant "dump" we would have an unwanted discussion with our assigner.

I will surmise that guidance may have been given prior to 2019 when Massachusetts used the NCAA Rules Book?

[NVFOA_Ump]

I will surmise that guidance may have been given prior to 2019 when Massachusetts used the NCAA Rules Book?

Not really.  If there's a receiver in the zip code we're good.  Has to be a flagrant dump to get a flag.

[KWH]

Not really.  If there's a receiver in the zip code we're good.  Has to be a flagrant dump to get a flag.

I would be interested in how you instruct the difference between the two?

[Ralph Damren]

Here's what went to the Editorial Committee :

7-5-2   ART> 2...An illegal forward pass  is a foul. Illegal forward passes include.....

EXCEPTIONS:
1.iT IS LEGAL FOR A PLAYER POSITIONED DIRECTLY BEHIND THE SNAPPER TO CONSERVE TIME BY INTENTIONALLY THROWING THE BALL FORWARD TO THE GROUND IMMEDIATELY AFTER RECIEVING THE SNAP THAT HAS NEITHER BEEN MUFFED NOR TOUCHED THE GROUND.
2. IT IS LEGAL FOR A PLAYER TO CONSERVE YARDAGE BY INTENTIONALLY THROWING AN INCOMPLETE PASS IF:
 A) THE PLAYER IS OR HAS BEEN BEYOND THE LATERAL BOUNDARY OF  THE FBZ AS ESTABLISHED AT THE SNAP WHEN THE PASS IS RELEASED.
 b) THE FORWARD PASS REACHES THE NEUTRAL ZONE OR BYOND ,INCLUDING THE AREA OUTSIDE THE FIELD OF PLAY.
NOTE 1: THERE IS NO REQUIREMENTFOR AN ELIGIBLE OFFENSIVE RECIEVER TO BE IN THE AREA FOR THIS EXCEPTION
NOTE 2: SHOULD THE PASSER MEET BOTH CRITERIA IN (A) AND (B) ,IT IS AN INCOMPLETE PASS.

The Editorial Committee may tweak it some, my thoughts being the addition of " player directly behind the snapper " as in exception in EXP. 1. The majority feeling that a running back on a sweep couldn't use this to prevent loss of yardage.

                                                                                  Hope this helps to clarify.

[ncwingman]

I think that rule is fairly straightforward and what I was expecting it to be, especially if it includes your mentioned amendment.

I would point out two potential loopholes that somebody may either a) try to utilize or (more likely) b) use to cause an argument at a rules clinic (or online message board *cough* )

1. Receiver on a fly sweep "intercepts" the shotgun snap. Would he be afforded either of those protections? I could see it's a simple "yes" that the person who receives the snap would meet the "directly behind the snapper" criteria.

2. Late in the 4th, offense needs a chunk of yards for the game winning score. QB rolls out to the sideline, but the defense has everybody covered. No defender is actively pressuring the QB, but the QB dumps the ball out of bounds (beyond the LOS) to save time (because a three yard gain and being tackled in bounds is the worse option) and run another play. Considering the rule says "To conserve yardage", is this still an illegal forward pass?

[Ralph Damren]

I think that rule is fairly straightforward and what I was expecting it to be, especially if it includes your mentioned amendment.

I would point out two potential loopholes that somebody may either a) try to utilize or (more likely) b) use to cause an argument at a rules clinic (or online message board *cough* )

1. Receiver on a fly sweep "intercepts" the shotgun snap. Would he be afforded either of those protections? I could see it's a simple "yes" that the person who receives the snap would meet the "directly behind the snapper" criteria.

2. Late in the 4th, offense needs a chunk of yards for the game winning score. QB rolls out to the sideline, but the defense has everybody covered. No defender is actively pressuring the QB, but the QB dumps the ball out of bounds (beyond the LOS) to save time (because a three yard gain and being tackled in bounds is the worse option) and run another play. Considering the rule says "To conserve yardage", is this still an illegal forward pass?

On point #1, I would respond that the back- in legal motion - wasn't directly behind the snapper at the snap, as his interception of the snap came slightly thereafter.

On Point #2, you have a good point and I'll contact our editor, Bob Colgate, to get a clarification. Thanks for the suggestion.

[AlUpstateNY]

On point #1, I would respond that the back- in legal motion - wasn't directly behind the snapper at the snap, as his interception of the snap came slightly thereafter.

On Point #2, you have a good point and I'll contact our editor, Bob Colgate, to get a clarification. Thanks for the suggestion.

example of,

ALAS, this rule revision may go down as the PERFECT example of, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it".  Whether this change has proven itself as "beneficial" at upper levels is yet to be proven, but at the NFHS (and below) seems a complete waste of time and needlessly creating  a consistent "cluster****".

[bama_stripes]

Somebody whizzed in Al’s Wheaties......

[CalhounLJ]

Here's what went to the Editorial Committee :

7-5-2   ART> 2...An illegal forward pass  is a foul. Illegal forward passes include.....

EXCEPTIONS:
1.iT IS LEGAL FOR A PLAYER POSITIONED DIRECTLY BEHIND THE SNAPPER TO CONSERVE TIME BY INTENTIONALLY THROWING THE BALL FORWARD TO THE GROUND IMMEDIATELY AFTER RECIEVING THE SNAP THAT HAS NEITHER BEEN MUFFED NOR TOUCHED THE GROUND.
2. IT IS LEGAL FOR A PLAYER TO CONSERVE YARDAGE BY INTENTIONALLY THROWING AN INCOMPLETE PASS IF:
 A) THE PLAYER IS OR HAS BEEN BEYOND THE LATERAL BOUNDARY OF  THE FBZ AS ESTABLISHED AT THE SNAP WHEN THE PASS IS RELEASED.
 b) THE FORWARD PASS REACHES THE NEUTRAL ZONE OR BYOND ,INCLUDING THE AREA OUTSIDE THE FIELD OF PLAY.
NOTE 1: THERE IS NO REQUIREMENTFOR AN ELIGIBLE OFFENSIVE RECIEVER TO BE IN THE AREA FOR THIS EXCEPTION
NOTE 2: SHOULD THE PASSER MEET BOTH CRITERIA IN (A) AND (B) ,IT IS AN INCOMPLETE PASS.

The Editorial Committee may tweak it some, my thoughts being the addition of " player directly behind the snapper " as in exception in EXP. 1. The majority feeling that a running back on a sweep couldn't use this to prevent loss of yardage.

                                                                                  Hope this helps to clarify.

Helps abundantly. Thanks. RE: 2a, am I reading correctly that the passer can be within the parameters of the FBZ at the time of the pass, as long as he has been outside those parameters at some point before the pass?

For clarity: QB receives the snap, rolls outside the FBZ, is pressured so he changes direction, runs back inside the FBZ and then throws a pass beyond the NZ to an area not occupied by an eligible. Legal, correct?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

Helps abundantly. Thanks. RE: 2a, am I reading correctly that the passer can be within the parameters of the FBZ at the time of the pass, as long as he has been outside those parameters at some point before the pass?

For clarity: QB receives the snap, rolls outside the FBZ, is pressured so he changes direction, runs back inside the FBZ and then throws a pass beyond the NZ to an area not occupied by an eligible. Legal, correct?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You are correct. A scrambling QB rolling outside the FBZ is fine even if his scramble brings him back inside. By the way, we used the term FBZ in lieu of 'tackle box' because in 9.8 & 6-man there ain't no tackles. The FBZ is 3 yds. each side of snapper in 9,8,& 6.

[CalhounLJ]

You are correct. A scrambling QB rolling outside the FBZ is fine even if his scramble brings him back inside. By the way, we used the term FBZ in lieu of 'tackle box' because in 9.8 & 6-man there ain't no tackles. The FBZ is 3 yds. each side of snapper in 9,8,& 6.

It was wise to keep the FBZ language, because that's NFHS. Thanks for the clarification.