RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Rich on February 17, 2016, 12:49:49 PM
-
The only significant change is the elimination of clipping in the FBZ.
-----------
INDIANAPOLIS, IN (February 17, 2016) — The elimination of clipping from high school football is the latest attempt to reduce the risk of injury made by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Football Rules Committee.
The decision to eliminate clipping in the free-blocking zone (Rule 2-17-3) was the most significant of three rules changes recommended by the NFHS Football Rules Committee at its January 22-24 meeting in Indianapolis. All rules changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.
“With very few major rules changes approved by the NFHS Football Rules Committee for the 2016 season, it indicates that the committee feels that the rules of the game are in pretty good shape,” said Bob Colgate, director of sports and sports medicine at the NFHS and staff liaison for football.
Clipping, as previously stated in Rule 2-17-3, was permitted in the free-blocking zone when it met three conditions; however, clipping is now illegal anywhere on the field at any time. According to the rule, the free-blocking zone is defined as a rectangular area extending laterally 4 yards either side of the spot of the snap and 3 yards behind each line of scrimmage.
“The NFHS Football Rules Committee’s action this year on making clipping illegal in the free-blocking zone once again reinforces its continued effort to minimize risk within the game,” Colgate said.
“I look forward to ongoing conversations about how best to limit exposure to harm within the free-blocking zone and in situations involving defenseless players,” said Brad Garrett, chair of the NFHS Football Rules Committee and assistant executive director of the Oregon School Activities Association.
Other changes for the 2016 season will include those made to football protective equipment and gloves in Rules 1-5-1d(5)a and 1-5-2b.
“The committee expanded the options on what can now be worn as a legal tooth and mouth protector and also football gloves,” Colgate said.
Tooth and mouth protectors that are completely clear or completely white are no longer illegal. Rule 1-5-1d(5)a continues to require that tooth and mouth protectors include an occlusal (protecting and separating the biting surfaces) portion and a labial (protecting the teeth and supporting structures) portion, and that they cover the posterior teeth with adequate thickness.
In Rule 1-5-2b, football gloves are now required to meet either the new Sports and Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) specifications or the existing National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) test standard at the time of manufacture.
“I give my compliments to the voting members of the NFHS Football Rules Committee as they continue to put the health and safety of student-athletes at the forefront of all committee discussions regarding the future of the game,” Garrett said.
A complete listing of all rules changes will be available soon 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 2014-15 NFHS High School Athletics Participation Survey, football is the most popular sport for boys at the high school level with 1,083,617 participants in 11-player football. Another combined 28,938 boys participated in 6-, 8- and 9-player football. In addition, 1,698 girls participated in football during the 2014-15 season.
-
Wow - light year, indeed.
-
As the three-toed sloth waived his paw, yes. 5 members were deprived of attending because of weather conditions which dropped the 2/3 majority requirements to 30 votes. As I recall, 3 proposals had a favorable majority but not the super majority needed. As always, the camaraderie was great and the Koolaide was cold.
-
One thing that will be tough about the clipping change is that we need to be aware if the defender turns into the block or not (eg: defender starts to pursue laterally after the offensive player has already committed himself to block low).
-
One thing that will be tough about the clipping change is that we need to be aware if the defender turns into the block or not (eg: defender starts to pursue laterally after the offensive player has already committed himself to block low).
Wouldn't the ball most likely be gone out of the zone by then?
-
Tooth and mouth protectors that are completely clear or completely white are no longer illegal.
I don't think the new clipping prohibition will matter much but I have seen a few white mouth guards over the last couple years. I never liked telling coaches they were illegal.
-
I don't think the new clipping prohibition will matter much but I have seen a few white mouth guards over the last couple years. I never liked telling coaches they were illegal.
The rationale was that most players have their mouthpieces attached to their facemask thus making them easy to spot. Some players have their mouthpieces molded by their dentist who may not have the ability to make them in color. One less thing for the fashion P_S police ( z^us) to worry about.
-
Any editorial changes this year?
-
Any editorial changes this year?
The Editorial Committee meets after the General Session has completed.
After the General Session was completed, I hightailed it to the airport for a flight to Florida to watch MY Patriots head to another Super Bowl :) :D ;D.....
My flight was successful....THOSE Patriots were not >:( :( :o ??? ::) :-[ :-X :-\
....the editorial changes will be published shortly on the NFHS - I don't currently know what they are....
-
Let's stay on topic. Politics can be discussed in another thread.
-
Let's stay on topic. Politics can be discussed in another thread.
Do you mean to tell me there are no politics involved in the rules making process? ;D
-
The rationale was that most players have their mouthpieces attached to their facemask thus making them easy to spot. Some players have their mouthpieces molded by their dentist who may not have the ability to make them in color. One less thing for the fashion P_S police ( z^us) to worry about.
Wow that's surprising as if I have seen any trend with HS mouthpieces its that they are NOT routinely attached to the facemask. Even to the point of the player having the attachment piece still on the mask but it is not connected to the mouthpiece.
But I like the rule change, one less thing to look for pre-game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The rationale was that most players have their mouthpieces attached to their facemask...
I'd be interested in knowing where that idea came from. Like stevegarbs, I believe the trend is moving in the opposite direction.
-
I'd be interested in knowing where that idea came from. Like stevegarbs, I believe the trend is moving in the opposite direction.
Indeed, would agree, but most seem to have an outer lip or otherwise are quite obvious that it's a mouthpiece. Don't see too many internal-only mouthpieces that I recall - and if they are, pretty much can't tell what color they are once they're in.
This just seemed like a well-intentioned rule that accomplished nothing in practice.
-
This rescinded the requirement passed in 2005 that the mouthpieces had to be colored other that white. During discussion, it was mentioned that most players now used mouthpieces that were strapped to their facemasks which made it easy to determine if they were in or out. That was mentioned in passing and not a vital part of the decision as a high majority felt an official could tell if a player had his mouthpiece in regardless of it's color or lack there of. I supported the change as I felt it made our job easier by removing one worry from our "fashion police P_S" agenda.
-
Some proposals that came close and I'm sure that we'll see again :
(1) Hands must lead on blindside block - failed by one vote - Oregon, Hawaii and Colorado ran as an experimental rule and all had positive results. ++ Got coaches to teach proper techniques; -- on videos shown it was often hard to tell if the hands got there first. Officials were told to ^flag if in doubt.
(2) Spiking ball from shotgun. -- NCAA & NFL QBs usually go under the snapper to take snap for spike. Allowing it gives the QB more panoramic view of his receivers and gives the QB the opportunity to immediately spike a bad high snap to prevent loss of yardage.
(3) Removing face guarding from PI -- more than 1/3 felt our rule was fair; less than 2/3 felt it wasn't.
The strong concern is stressing the importance of safety. My personal concern is that football is the far leader in concussion injuries. A distant second and third are soccer and ice hockey. Soccer recently stated that, in the interest of safety, heading the ball would not be allowed for players under age 14. Ice hockey will not allow checking for players of a similar age. They are both being proactive with their concerns. What should we be doing with a perceived much bigger one. Opinions please....
-
I'm not sure how much more we can do.
Coaches have to teach and reinforce the proper tackling and blocking techniques,
and we as officials need to strictly enforce the existing rules.
-
I'm not sure how much more we can do.
Coaches have to teach and reinforce the proper tackling and blocking techniques,
and we as officials need to strictly enforce the existing rules.
Indeed, I don't think there is much we can do...and even by teaching those proper techniques and enforcing those existing (and future) rules, there is simply no way to eliminate the every day, subconcussive hit. It's intrinsic to the game.
Maybe that means football eventually goes the way of boxing at the scholastic level, I don't know...
-
Some proposals that came close and I'm sure that we'll see again :
(1) Hands must lead on blindside block - failed by one vote - Oregon, Hawaii and Colorado ran as an experimental rule and all had positive results. ++ Got coaches to teach proper techniques; -- on videos shown it was often hard to tell if the hands got there first. Officials were told to ^flag if in doubt.
(2) Spiking ball from shotgun. -- NCAA & NFL QBs usually go under the snapper to take snap for spike. Allowing it gives the QB more panoramic view of his receivers and gives the QB the opportunity to immediately spike a bad high snap to prevent loss of yardage.
(3) Removing face guarding from PI -- more than 1/3 felt our rule was fair; less than 2/3 felt it wasn't.
The strong concern is stressing the importance of safety. My personal concern is that football is the far leader in concussion injuries. A distant second and third are soccer and ice hockey. Soccer recently stated that, in the interest of safety, heading the ball would not be allowed for players under age 14. Ice hockey will not allow checking for players of a similar age. They are both being proactive with their concerns. What should we be doing with a perceived much bigger one. Opinions please....
Hopefully we see these changes resurface.
-
Some proposals that came close and I'm sure that we'll see again :
(1) Hands must lead on blindside block - failed by one vote - Oregon, Hawaii and Colorado ran as an experimental rule and all had positive results. ++ Got coaches to teach proper techniques; -- on videos shown it was often hard to tell if the hands got there first. Officials were told to ^flag if in doubt.
(2) Spiking ball from shotgun. -- NCAA & NFL QBs usually go under the snapper to take snap for spike. Allowing it gives the QB more panoramic view of his receivers and gives the QB the opportunity to immediately spike a bad high snap to prevent loss of yardage.
(3) Removing face guarding from PI -- more than 1/3 felt our rule was fair; less than 2/3 felt it wasn't.
The strong concern is stressing the importance of safety. My personal concern is that football is the far leader in concussion injuries. A distant second and third are soccer and ice hockey. Soccer recently stated that, in the interest of safety, heading the ball would not be allowed for players under age 14. Ice hockey will not allow checking for players of a similar age. They are both being proactive with their concerns. What should we be doing with a perceived much bigger one. Opinions please....
Look back at item (1). The answer is sitting right there.
-
The strong concern is stressing the importance of safety. My personal concern is that football is the far leader in concussion injuries. A distant second and third are soccer and ice hockey. Soccer recently stated that, in the interest of safety, heading the ball would not be allowed for players under age 14. Ice hockey will not allow checking for players of a similar age. They are both being proactive with their concerns. What should we be doing with a perceived much bigger one. Opinions please....
There's an odd incorrect statement in this that you may not be aware of. The far leader in concussion injuries isn't football -- it's actually women's ice hockey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concussions_in_sport#Incidence).
While it's hard to isolate a specific cause between such varied sports, one common theory for why women's ice hockey has such high concussion rates (especially compared to men's ice hockey) is actually *because* there is a rule against checking in women's ice hockey. Since body checking is illegal, it is theorized that women simply don't learn how to look for and avoid checks or how to protect themselves when they are (illegally) checked.
My personal thought is that we need to eliminate the "big hit" from football. The leading hands rule is nice, but lets make that the rule at all times. If you're leading with your shoulder, arms in your own chest, and just looking to pop a guy... ^flag. Blindside, above the shoulders, "targeting", crown of the helmet -- that no longer matters. If you aren't trying to wrap up and tackle, then you're trying to put a hurt on somebody which is what we're trying to remove.
-
There's an odd incorrect statement in this that you may not be aware of. The far leader in concussion injuries isn't football -- it's actually women's ice hockey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concussions_in_sport#Incidence).
/quote]
That's among COLLEGE athletes, on a per capita basis. How many high school women's ice hockey players are there in the US? 9,400. Less than Water Polo, Weightlifting or Wrestling.
The greatest number of ACTUAL concussions (not per cap) is by far football. And in high school sports, it also leads on a per cap basis. But some studies suggest that's because there is a greater chance of a certified trainer available at football games to diagnose concussions, and that concussions in sports not as well staffed may go unreported. There are conflicting studies if girls are more susceptible to concussions than boys in the same sports. Some say yes in both soccer and basketball, another says yes in soccer, but no in basketball, and yet another says no in both sports.
-
I'd be interested in knowing where that idea came from. Like stevegarbs, I believe the trend is moving in the opposite direction.
This surprises me also. Can't remember exactly what the rational was when they made the change several years ago that they could no longer be clear or white, but don't see where that would change. I agree we are seeing more mouth pieces not connected to the mask. We actually had two cases last year where we threw a flag for an equipment violation because we spotted a mouthpiece hanging down from the facemask and in both of those cases the players had another mouthpiece in their mouth that was not connected to the mask!
-
My personal thought is that we need to eliminate the "big hit" from football. The leading hands rule is nice, but lets make that the rule at all times. If you're leading with your shoulder, arms in your own chest, and just looking to pop a guy... ^flag. Blindside, above the shoulders, "targeting", crown of the helmet -- that no longer matters. If you aren't trying to wrap up and tackle, then you're trying to put a hurt on somebody which is what we're trying to remove.
What about the 160-lb DB who knocks a 240-lb TE OOB?
-
My personal thought is that we need to eliminate the "big hit" from football. The leading hands rule is nice, but lets make that the rule at all times. If you're leading with your shoulder, arms in your own chest, and just looking to pop a guy... ^flag. Blindside, above the shoulders, "targeting", crown of the helmet -- that no longer matters. If you aren't trying to wrap up and tackle, then you're trying to put a hurt on somebody which is what we're trying to remove.
I think you're on the right track NC. Not sure how we'll handle the exceptions as Bama pointed out, but all of those "He got JACKED UP" hits will end up being fouls.
-
My personal thought is that we need to eliminate the "big hit" from football. The leading hands rule is nice, but lets make that the rule at all times. If you're leading with your shoulder, arms in your own chest, and just looking to pop a guy... ^flag. Blindside, above the shoulders, "targeting", crown of the helmet -- that no longer matters. If you aren't trying to wrap up and tackle, then you're trying to put a hurt on somebody which is what we're trying to remove.
It all depends what you mean by the "Big Hit", which come in either of 2 fashions; Legal and Illegal, and frankly it's our job to be able to tell the difference. No question; Targeting, Head Hunting, Unnecessary Roughness and Cheap Shots are "ILLEGAL" should be, and usually are penalized and should be strictly enforced. Over correction is not the answer.
"Wrapping Up" is probably the most effective way in assuring a tackle accomplishes the intended objective, but isn't always possible, or practical. Removing the illegal contacts from the game is a never ending objective we ALL pursue, but over reacting and trying to micromanage everything to try and eliminate ALL risk will serve only to ruin the game.
The long time philosophy of thoroughly understanding what we're looking for, and being absolutely convinced of what we have actually seen and then enforcing what we've observed consistently seems like still being the most effective way to monitor and respond to inappropriate (illegal) behavior.
If totally eliminating any and all risk from and and all physical contact is the objective, Flag and/or Touch Football is the way to go, but even there, sometimes things don't go exactly as planned, or intended.
-
Alf -
No one is attempting to turn the game into Flag and/or Touch as you suggest.
While it has always been legal to to take an opponent out of the play,
it has NEVER been legal to take an opponent out of the game!
The "Stadium Hits", which commonly occur during open field Blindside Block situations are NOT being eliminated rather we are simply looking at putting "re-stricter plates" on the blockers.
The question is this:
Is it really necessary to hit a defenseless opponent with such force that it puts him into the third row and then into the hospital when you could have accomplished the same goal be simply setting a basketball screen?
-
Alf -
No one is attempting to turn the game into Flag and/or Touch as you suggest.
While it has always been legal to to take an opponent out of the play,
it has NEVER been legal to take an opponent out of the game!
Is this a new concept, or is this a basic understanding every football official is supposed to have clearly understood for the past 100+ years?
The current focus is a clear REMINDER of what we are ALL supposed to know, understand and enforce WHEN NECESSARY. Over reacting to this focus can be just as harmful to this game as anyone who may have been shirking their responsibility to deal with or minimize ILLEGAL contacts before. Our job is NOT to decide what should be eliminated, it is simply to enforce the rules, AS WRITTEN & INTENDED CONSISTENTLY AND FAIRLY
-
The game will continue to evolve or it will die and become a relic of the past like scholastic boxing and rifle teams. No amount of bold font will change that.
-
The game will continue to evolve or it will die and become a relic of the past like scholastic boxing and rifle teams. No amount of bold font will change that.
I can't speak for boxing's demise, but I believe that rifle teams met their Waterloo when it became difficult to find goalies.
-
It all depends what you mean by the "Big Hit", which come in either of 2 fashions; Legal and Illegal, and frankly it's our job to be able to tell the difference. No question; Targeting, Head Hunting, Unnecessary Roughness and Cheap Shots are "ILLEGAL" should be, and usually are penalized and should be strictly enforced. Over correction is not the answer.
"Wrapping Up" is probably the most effective way in assuring a tackle accomplishes the intended objective, but isn't always possible, or practical. Removing the illegal contacts from the game is a never ending objective we ALL pursue, but over reacting and trying to micromanage everything to try and eliminate ALL risk will serve only to ruin the game.
The long time philosophy of thoroughly understanding what we're looking for, and being absolutely convinced of what we have actually seen and then enforcing what we've observed consistently seems like still being the most effective way to monitor and respond to inappropriate (illegal) behavior.
If totally eliminating any and all risk from and and all physical contact is the objective, Flag and/or Touch Football is the way to go, but even there, sometimes things don't go exactly as planned, or intended.
I can't believe I agree with Al for once. As the targeting rule is only getting worse with each passing year, eventually college football will be reduced to flag football. This is ruining football for everyone and it needs to end.
-
The game will continue to evolve or it will die and become a relic of the past like scholastic boxing and rifle teams. No amount of bold font will change that.
+1 :thumbup
-
The game will continue to evolve or it will die and become a relic of the past like scholastic boxing and rifle teams. No amount of bold font will change that.
Evolution is natural and doesn't have to be fatal. Overreaction and/or panic, on the other hand, can be a real killer.
-
I can't speak for boxing's demise, but I believe that rifle teams met their Waterloo when it became difficult to find goalies.
"Targeting" may well have led to the demise of many a rifle team.
-
+1 :thumbup
I'm fully in agreement with KWH on this :thumbup :thumbup. Where KWH was the heroic author of the rule outlawing the Oregonian Flea Flicker, I wish to appoint him to begin work on a documentary entitled: GRIDIRON EDIQUETTE - BE A NICE PLAYER. Hopefully he will recognize his buddies at Refstripes in the lists of credits.
^flag ^good ^no ^TD ^talk
-
Is this a new concept, or is this a basic understanding every football official is supposed to have clearly understood for the past 100+ years?
ALF -
No, It is not a new concept!
Rather, it it is/was simply intended to focus attention to new (2015) NFHS wording Excessive Contact!
Excessive Contact has now been around for barely one 1 year but seems to get excluded from your daily diatribes.
-
Excessive Contact has now been around for barely one 1 year but seems to get excluded from your daily diatribes.
Sorry KWH, "Excessive Contact" and game official's focus to guard against it, has been a fundamental responsibility for a lot longer than either one of us has been paying attention to the rules of the game of football.
-
I can't speak for boxing's demise, but I believe that rifle teams met their Waterloo when it became difficult to find goalies.
Now that is funny.
-
Sorry KWH, "Excessive Contact" and game official's focus to guard against it, has been a fundamental responsibility for a lot longer than either one of us has been paying attention to the rules of the game of football.
Sorry ALF, but;
While it may have been a fundamental responsibility in your mind, it was not, and quite frankly still is not, in the minds of many who have been working and implementing the rules of the game of football, even though the wording was officially added to Rule 9-4-3g in 2015.
-
Sorry ALF, but;
While it may have been a fundamental responsibility in your mind, it was not, and quite frankly still is not, in the minds of many who have been working and implementing the rules of the game of football, even though the wording was officially added to Rule 9-4-3g in 2015.
Are we both referencing AMERICAN Football? An excellent history of "The Game" it's rules and their enforcement can be found in the 2009-2010 NFHS Handbook, which suggests in "History of the Game, Rules Part II"; "Football is a contact sport which demands discipline. Vigorous contact is encouraged, but rough tactics and unfair play are prohibited. this has been so since the reformation (of the rules) of 1906"
This NFHS Handbook includes a chronology of rule changes from 1860 through 2009. Changes made after 1932 reflect action of the NFHS Football Rules Committee only.
A small sampling of major rule revisions regarding different examples of "Illegal" (excessive) contact and safety measures include;
1960: Face Masks required
1962: Tooth & Mouth protectors required.
1967: Additional 15-yd penalty when USC foul follows a previous foul by the same team.
1981: Chop Block Illegal, Eliminated blocking below the waist outside the FBZ, Spearing definition revised
use of helmet to punish opponent.
1984: 1st Down added to Roughing the Passer.
1991: Contacting an official is disqualification, Kicking/Swinging at opponent is disqualification.
1996: Snapper given special protection, Auto 1st down for roughing snapper.
2001: Incidental Facemask foul established.
2002: BIB separated from Clipping.
These are just a few of the almost constant adjustments to the NFHS rules that have been made EACH YEAR regarding issues dealing with various types of contacts that have been considered to be Illegal and "Excessive".
The manual goes on to discuss in some detail the individual histories, reasons and expectations of rule adjustments relating to specific fouls for different types of "excessive/ Illegal" contacts, and indicates, "The NFHS Rules Committee has pledged to continue its unending effort to make the game of football as safe for participants as possible by rule implementation.", with heavy emphasis to the dangers of various types of helmet contacts as a special point of concern.
In fact, "Excessive Contact" and game official's focus to guard against it" has been a primary concern of the NFHS Rules Committee since 1932, and of the game of American Football dating back 110 years, and will very likely continue being so for the foreseeable future.
-
In 1906, TR said our game was too dangerous and needed to change. Recently Obama said that if he had a son he wouldn't allow him to play football. Do any of you perceive legislation passed/proposed in the direction of changing football??
Some other "sports" one could consider dangerous :
Rugby - football without pads and forward progress never ends.
Rodeo - playing with animals bigger than you doesn't always have a happy ending.
Roller derby- moving fast with no pads
Rollerball - (movie) sudden death defined.
Barrel rolling- climb in a barrel and roll down a rocky hill. Can also be attempted w/o barrel.
Can crunching - crushing an empty beer can on ones forehead. Be sure the can's empty.
Mumblers peg - throwing your jackknife at the other guy's foot : Rules:(1) knife must stick in ground, (2) knife must not stick in the other guy's foot, (3) closest wins.
Puke party - drink a shot of a common adult beverage per minute. Game ends after all but one have puked. That person is declared the winner and receives the "Iron Gut Jug."
I'm sure many of you can think of many more tiphat:......
DISCLAIMER: The above mentioned sports/events are not endorsed by the NFHS, NCAA, NFL, AFL/CIO,ASPCA, MPA and the like; but merely the mutterings of an ole' z^ watching the clock pass noon on Friday eAt& yEs: pHiNzuP
CAUTON : the above sports/events should only be attempted by trained professionals. DO NOT TRY THESE AT HOME.
-
Are we both referencing AMERICAN Football? An excellent history of "The Game" it's rules and their enforcement can be found in the 2009-2010 NFHS Handbook, which suggests in "History of the Game, Rules Part II"; "Football is a contact sport which demands discipline. Vigorous contact is encouraged, but rough tactics and unfair play are prohibited. this has been so since the reformation (of the rules) of 1906"
This NFHS Handbook includes a chronology of rule changes from 1860 through 2009. Changes made after 1932 reflect action of the NFHS Football Rules Committee only.
A small sampling of major rule revisions regarding different examples of "Illegal" (excessive) contact and safety measures include;
1960: Face Masks required
1962: Tooth & Mouth protectors required.
1967: Additional 15-yd penalty when USC foul follows a previous foul by the same team.
1981: Chop Block Illegal, Eliminated blocking below the waist outside the FBZ, Spearing definition revised
use of helmet to punish opponent.
1984: 1st Down added to Roughing the Passer.
1991: Contacting an official is disqualification, Kicking/Swinging at opponent is disqualification.
1996: Snapper given special protection, Auto 1st down for roughing snapper.
2001: Incidental Facemask foul established.
2002: BIB separated from Clipping.
These are just a few of the almost constant adjustments to the NFHS rules that have been made EACH YEAR regarding issues dealing with various types of contacts that have been considered to be Illegal and "Excessive".
The manual goes on to discuss in some detail the individual histories, reasons and expectations of rule adjustments relating to specific fouls for different types of "excessive/ Illegal" contacts, and indicates, "The NFHS Rules Committee has pledged to continue its unending effort to make the game of football as safe for participants as possible by rule implementation.", with heavy emphasis to the dangers of various types of helmet contacts as a special point of concern.
In fact, "Excessive Contact" and game official's focus to guard against it" has been a primary concern of the NFHS Rules Committee since 1932, and of the game of American Football dating back 110 years, and will very likely continue being so for the foreseeable future.
ALF -
Facts are Facts and even YOU can not argue with facts!!!
Since, based on your long diatribe, you are interested in facts think about this:
FACT 1: Your 2009-2010 Handbook was revised, reprinted and replaced with the
2011-2012 Handbook, which was revised, reprinted and replaced by the
2013-2014 Handbook, which was revised, reprinted and replaced by the most current version, the
2015-2016 Handbook, of which I will forgo republishing highlights of 2010 thru 2014 and go directly to:
FACT 2: 2015 - Excessive Contact added to the unnecessary roughness provisions
Consider this play:
During a punt return by R1, R2 lines up and commits a vicious slobber-knocker, (Aka a Stadium Hit) block on K5. The block was from the side and was within five yards of runner R1, clearing the way for R1 to score.
The fans of R shout "hooray" while the fans of K boo loudly, shout cheap shot, that's "#$%^&" football and other non-congratulatory comments.
For many years this type of hit was considered legal was referred to as a "right of passage" or perhaps "that's just football!", or one of my all time favorites, "it just goes to show you need to have your head on a swivel!"
Sure the game was stopped for the ambulance to come on the field and cart K5 off to the hospital.
It looks bad for K5. His mom is on the field, his dad is asking why no penalty?
Sure K5 never may never play organized football again but that's just football.
The officials gather by the ambulance and discuss the play.
The H thinks it should be called "Unnecessary Roughness!"
The B adds "How can you say it was Unnecessary? Of course it was Necessary, as without it, K5 would have made the tackle and saved the touchdown".
The L says well sure it was necessary, but R2 could have set a basketball screen and accomplished the same result.
The coach of K tells the officials "That just can't be legal".
The R responds with "it is legal until they change the rule".
In 2015 The rules committee got the message and added the words Excessive Contact.
So, should the above play happens in today's game, based on the new words "Excessive Contact" many believe the officials would be obliged to call the hit "excessive contact", and the touchdown would be nullified.
Yes, ALF, while many, (yourself included) felt this was a foul prior to 2015, many more did not.
And, while the words are now in the Rules Book, many more than before agree it is a foul today,
but alas, still many do not and continue to feel, "That's just football!"
Sorry for the long post, but "occasionally" long posts are necessary!"
-
Wow, talk about "diatribes", I guess you're just not going to let this poor horse rest in peace. If you want to debate "word smithing". I'm not your guy, but your suggestion that officials being responsible and observant for excessive "contact" (and/or behavior) is something new, is simply wrong, and actually silly.
I presumed NFHS had continued to publish Handbooks after 2009-10, but for reasons beyond my pay grade, our organization stopped supplying them after that edition, which I conceded was likely a self inflicted wound.
I'm not sure exactly what a "snot-locker block" entails, but I have long had a fair understanding of what "unnecessary" encompasses, which this year added the word "excessive" to NFHS: 9.4.3.g, and I thougt explained well in the 2015 Points of Emphasis, which I would suggest reinforced and underscored MY understanding of the rules intent, rather than add some previously unknown element to the issue.
I guess, if the addition of that word provided a new bolt of bright light to YOUR understanding of that rules intent, players in games you work will be safer than they were previously, while you labored in the shadows, which is certainly a good thing. Fortunately, for me, the vast amount of officials I've had the pleasure of working with have enjoyed working in well lit environments throughout their careers, and the addition of this word may well fine tune their understanding, but is absolutely NOTHING NEW.
If you choose to see this affirmation as some new challenge to radically change the game, and save it from itself, perhaps your future lays more towards journalism and your personal sense of political correctness, but is not intended to radically change the game which has always, does and will likely continue to involve serious physical contact and collisions, up to those deemed excessive. unnecessary (avoidable, dangerous or any adjective describing Illegal, to the game)
Sometimes "JUDGING" actions in real time requires a greater level of assessment regarding intent and the actual capability of adhering STRICTLY to a written definition, which may unfortunately generate emotional, uneducated comments from observers, who bear no defined responsibilities of impartiality or rule compliance. Spectators, among other observers, enjoy, and are generally allowed, a greater level of freedom of expression than game officials, as part of their overall experience and enjoyment, that officials need to learn to generally ignore.
For those of us who may not have understood the intent and purpose of this rule fully before, addition of the word "excessive" may prove beneficial as clarification is always helpful, for the majority of us it's added reassurance to what we've long been concentrating on serves to underscore our understanding of it's long established purpose.
-
To KWH...
Give up trying to prod/cajole/beg "Up-State Al" to stop with the mind-numbing ramblings!
I've tried, AB has tried - as have many others; but it's useless. Al's motto (again): "Why say something in 10 words when 200 will do"....
And he always has to have the last word (or words)>:D z^ hEaDbAnG LOL
-
I've tried, And he always has to have the last word (or words)
Not always, Curious, I've learned an awful lot from people who have disagreed with me, and have been able to show me, or explain, where their perspectives made more sense or provided an insight I hadn't previously considered. Perhaps some day you'll be better able to defend, or explain your positions to the point you're persuasive enough to convince me, which will make us both smarter and better off.
I hope you'll keep trying.
-
I'm not sure exactly what a "snot-locker block" entails, but I have long had a fair understanding of what "unnecessary" encompasses, which this year added the word "excessive" to NFHS: 9.4.3.g,
ALF -
I called it a slobber-knocker block! You called it a snot-locker block!
Anyone not knowing what a slobber-knocker block is, well, is likely working the wrong sport.
Point of parliamentary procedure:
When referencing NFHS Rules Book RULES, "dashes" ALWAYS separate the numbers!
ie; 9-4-3g
When referencing NFHS Case Book PLAYS, "periods" ALWAYS separate the numbers
ie; 9.4.3 SITUATION V.
Most first year guys pick this up rather quickly.
Looking forward to another enlightening 800 word response.
-
The rope is getting short.
-
When I first saw the 2016 rules changes, I predicted that this would be the shortest Rules Changes thread on record.
Boy, was I wrong.
-
When I first saw the 2016 rules changes, I predicted that this would be the shortest Rules Changes thread on record.
Boy, was I wrong.
:bOW
-
KWH & AL-NY are from opposite shores of our great nation and both love football but the colloquialism of the Queen's English may cause some friction. What some recognize as a "slobber-knocker block" may be recognized by others as a "snot-locker block". We Mainers might describe a similar event as : "He knocked the 'tatters and chowdah out of him".
Here's a Maine colloquialism, see if you can tell me what it means:
" 'Spect I'm a little spleeny so I set on the piazza with a chug of hard stuff and watch the grass grow."
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG
tiphat: :) ;) :D ;D :-* :bOW :laugh: pray:; yEs: tiphat:
-
The rope is getting short.
Put us out of our misery Rulesman. Rants are becoming both excessive and unnecessary.
;D
-
I'm in a good mood today. But like I said yesterday, the rope is getting short. I really don't want to lock a thread for a topic that essentially won't occur for roughly another 6 months.
-
When I first saw the 2016 rules changes, I predicted that this would be the shortest Rules Changes thread on record. Boy, was I wrong.
No, your prediction was solid.
Some seem to misunderstand that this is a "forum", where expressing different impressions and understanding is the objective, with the intent being we all might benefit from different perspectives. There are some "absolutes" but we all operate in different environments and "one size ABSOLUTELY fits all" is by far the exception than the rule.
We can share our differences, assess them and decide for ourselves which, or not, may be an approach we'd like to consider and possibly try. When a suggestion is challenged, hopefully the following dialogue to resolve differences will expose improvements everyone can benefit from. If not, "no harm no foul", as sometimes even great ideas, in one circumstance, simply don't fit in others.
Of course, something you don't agree with and have no interest in discussing can always be simply ignored and passed by. When a challenge is rejected, there is no good reason (or benefit) in acting like a spoiled child throwing an angry tantrum, because the point being made wasn't received as being as viable and worthwhile as assumed.
Only those few, if any, who have already achieved perfection have earned the right to lecture, the rest of us have to muddle along accepting what advice and help we can get from, and give to, each other discussing ways we think can improve our efforts in chasing, the ever elusive perfection we understand we'll never catch.
When even the greatest idea, or suggestion, is not received as universally well as anticipated, it's usually a far better idea to review just how well (or not) it was delivered, rather than assume there was something lacking in EVERYONE who received it less enthusiastically than expected. Sharing ideas and advice is what a forum is all about, and challenges should be anticipated, which hopefully can be backed-up or explained. Resorting to hiding behind childish insults and outbursts, rarely does anything to advance the suggestion, more often just making the author look foolish.
-
We have yet to banter around the allowance of SFIA to enter that hallowed circle where NOCSAE had been the lone occupier since last century. Will this unravel the very seam that enables our beloved football to accept and contain oxygen of our earth??? Opinions anyone.....
:) P_S ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8] ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( >:D z^ ^flag ^good ^no ^talk ^TD :thumbup :bOW :!#
-
We have yet to banter around the allowance of SFIA to enter that hallowed circle where NOCSAE had been the lone occupier since last century. Will this unravel the very seam that enables our beloved football to accept and contain oxygen of our earth??? Opinions anyone.....
:) P_S ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8] ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( >:D z^ ^flag ^good ^no ^talk ^TD :thumbup :bOW :!#
I make the assumption that SFIA, by some means, was able to demonstrate/convince the NFHS that they have equal expertise and/or standing with NOCSAE to certify the equipment in question.
The means might be interesting to know! (legal action, bribery, threats and intimidation???) ;)
-
No, your prediction was solid.
Some seem to misunderstand that this is a "forum", where expressing different impressions and understanding is the objective, with the intent being we all might benefit from different perspectives. There are some "absolutes" but we all operate in different environments and "one size ABSOLUTELY fits all" is by far the exception than the rule.
We can share our differences, assess them and decide for ourselves which, or not, may be an approach we'd like to consider and possibly try. When a suggestion is challenged, hopefully the following dialogue to resolve differences will expose improvements everyone can benefit from. If not, "no harm no foul", as sometimes even great ideas, in one circumstance, simply don't fit in others.
Of course, something you don't agree with and have no interest in discussing can always be simply ignored and passed by. When a challenge is rejected, there is no good reason (or benefit) in acting like a spoiled child throwing an angry tantrum, because the point being made wasn't received as being as viable and worthwhile as assumed.
Only those few, if any, who have already achieved perfection have earned the right to lecture, the rest of us have to muddle along accepting what advice and help we can get from, and give to, each other discussing ways we think can improve our efforts in chasing, the ever elusive perfection we understand we'll never catch.
When even the greatest idea, or suggestion, is not received as universally well as anticipated, it's usually a far better idea to review just how well (or not) it was delivered, rather than assume there was something lacking in EVERYONE who received it less enthusiastically than expected. Sharing ideas and advice is what a forum is all about, and challenges should be anticipated, which hopefully can be backed-up or explained. Resorting to hiding behind childish insults and outbursts, rarely does anything to advance the suggestion, more often just making the author look foolish.
??? Huh??? ???
-
We have yet to banter around the allowance of SFIA to enter that hallowed circle where NOCSAE had been the lone occupier since last century. Will this unravel the very seam that enables our beloved football to accept and contain oxygen of our earth??? Opinions anyone.....
Ralph -
I'll give it a go! How about this for a 2016 test question?
Q -Who approves for play gloves that are made of unaltered plain cloth? 1-5-2b
a) NOCSAE
b) SFIA
c) Both NOCSAE and SFIA
d) Albert the nail guy down at the hardware store
e) Coach Joe (Atlanta Blue)
f) None of the above
g) All of the above
-
I make the assumption that SFIA, by some means, was able to demonstrate/convince the NFHS that they have equal expertise and/or standing with NOCSAE to certify the equipment in question.
The means might be interesting to know! (legal action, bribery, threats and intimidation???) ;)
Simply the Great American FlAg1 Free Enterprize System. SFIA proved to be as good as NOCSAE, so they can play ,too. Looking for a convenient way of remembering, consider these :
(1) See Football In August;
(2) With #4 lead pencil, print SFIA to the under brim of your cap;
(3) Have U add FIA to his sNiCkErS;
Being the most creative mammals on the planet, others may have developed other means...... tiphat:
-
Ralph -
I'll give it a go! How about this for a 2016 test question?
Q -Who approves for play gloves that are made of unaltered plain cloth? 1-5-2b
a) NOCSAE
b) SFIA
c) Both NOCSAE and SFIA
d) Albert the nail guy down at the hardware store
e) Coach Joe (Atlanta Blue)
f) None of the above
g) All of the above
a fine exam question, KWH. My concern is the current official NFHS exam format allows for up to 5 choices, so an exception would have to be provided. As we all know, NFHS doesn't like exceptions.
To add support to the unaltered plain cloth rule (1-5-2b), may I suggest the following case .....
1.5.2 SITUATION C: Bubba, a slightly confused :!# offensive tackle, has elected to wrap unused diapers - made of unaltered plain cloth - to both hands. The diapers are secured by : (A) paper clips; (B) staples; (C) thumb tacks; (D) an adhesive flap attached to the diaper. RULING : (A),(B), and (C) would be illegal as the concern of Bubba injuring himself, his teammates, the opponents, or punishing the football would be present. As long as adhesive portion is not positioned to contact the ball (D) would be legal.
COMMENT : While the wearing of diapers on ones hands could be could be considered out of fashion by many, it could be appealing to the fairer sect ..IE...prom queen..as an indication that he is ready to become a daddy. ;)
SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ONLY PASS THREE RULES!!
-
Guys, don't feed the bears. You know better...
-
So what will we all do when the SFIA and NOCSAE disagree? :o
-
SFIA used to be the SGMA (Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association). When I worked for Russell (Russell Athletic, Spalding, Brooks Running, Bike, et al), I was our company's rep to the association.
We worked closely with the NFHS on uniform design, safety equipment, etc, in many sports. SGMA approved gloves for years. This is nothing but a name change. The SGMA (now the SFIA) is a major supporter of NOCSAE. The two SFIA reps to NOCSAE Board of Directors are the Board's VP and Secretary.
There is no "competition" between the two.
-
??? Huh??? ???
Only because you asked, I'll summarize; Unless the white hat, you may be wearing, is a miter, your observations and opinions do not qualify as dogma, get over yourself.
-
Simply the Great American FlAg1 Free Enterprize System. SFIA proved to be as good as NOCSAE, so they can play ,too. Looking for a convenient way of remembering, consider these :
(1) See Football In Fall;
(2) With #4 lead pencil, print SFIA to the under brim of your cap;
(3) Have U add FIA to his sNiCkErS;
Being the most creative mammals on the planet, others may have developed other means...... tiphat:
Good ideas, Ralph! But all I need to remember is, "Coach, are all of your players legally equipped and will they wear all of their equipment according to NFHS and AHSAA rules?"
-
So what will we all do when the SFIA and NOCSAE disagree? :o
I believe there is a case book play to cover that situation.
It requires the player to only wear 1 glove.
-
Guys, don't feed the bears. You know better...
Yep - Guilty again. hEaDbAnG
-
Ralph, I'm guessing that means you don't feel well, so you will sit on the porch with an adult beverage and just stare at nothing and wait to feel better. By the way, I finally made a trip to Maine, over in Rockport, had lobster 3 times a day. I was told that they could tell I was not from Maine because I was the only one eating the lobsters. I think the accent probably gave them a hint as well. Big change from Louisiana.
-
Ralph, I'm guessing that means you don't feel well, so you will sit on the porch with an adult beverage and just stare at nothing and wait to feel better. By the way, I finally made a trip to Maine, over in Rockport, had lobster 3 times a day. I was told that they could tell I was not from Maine because I was the only one eating the lobsters. I think the accent probably gave them a hint as well. Big change from Louisiana.
Very good, sir55, the statement was purely for illustrative purposes and not a suggestion as to my health/habits. In a previous life you may have been a Mainer ,too :). Rockport = Samoset Inn = beautiful spot. Lobster muffin > lobster roll > lobster plate....strictly for tourists ;). Diet of average Mainer = 'burgers & blueberries. eAt&
-
I was told that they could tell I was not from Maine because I was the only one eating the lobsters. I think the accent probably gave them a hint as well. Big change from Louisiana.
Just a bigger crawfish eAt&
-
One of the best vacations my wife and I ever took was up to Bar Harbor/Mt Desert Island. Went the week after Labor Day, and all the Boston summer vacationers had gone home for the fall. Stayed at a B&B and had the place to ourselves. Of course we had one lobster dinner, had to do it, but I'll bet I had blueberries in some way, shape or form about a dozen times that week. Went sailing, climbed Cadillac Mountain (I was younger and had two working knees then). Great country when you get rid of all of the tourists!
-
One of the best vacations my wife and I ever took was up to Bar Harbor/Mt Desert Island. Went the week after Labor Day, and all the Boston summer vacationers had gone home for the fall. Stayed at a B&B and had the place to ourselves. Of course we had one lobster dinner, had to do it, but I'll bet I had blueberries in some way, shape or form about a dozen times that week. Went sailing, climbed Cadillac Mountain (I was younger and had two working knees then). Great country when you get rid of all of the tourists!
Glad to hear of your enjoyment on your journey to our proud state. If you came via Route One, you would have missed our summer cottage by 8 miles. If any of you plan a journey to Maine, PM me and we'll try to meet. Over the years I have learned........
You have to fight a boiled lobster to eat one.....
Lobster pie doesn't require a fight and is tastier .....
Many tourists are from Massachusetts.......
Many Mainers call them "Massholes.......
eAt& eAt& tiphat: eAt& eAt&
-
When I first saw the 2016 rules changes, I predicted that this would be the shortest Rules Changes thread on record.
Boy, was I wrong.
I thought that once in a discussion in another football forum about the meaning of "is touching". By the end, that thread needed a two drink minimum to be comprehensible.
-
Some proposals that came close and I'm sure that we'll see again :
(3) Removing face guarding from PI -- more than 1/3 felt our rule was fair; less than 2/3 felt it wasn't.
Just attended the GHSA Officiating camp this past weekend where we were notified that the GHSA is instructing officials that face guarding will no longer be considered a category of pass interference. All fouls must now involve contact.
They also asked that if any official has a play in which they feel like DPI for Face Guarding would have been called prior to this change they are to fill out a report and send it in to the state so they may review, preferably with film.
-
Just attended the GHSA Officiating camp this past weekend where we were notified that the GHSA is instructing officials that face guarding will no longer be considered a category of pass interference. All fouls must now involve contact.
They also asked that if any official has a play in which they feel like DPI for Face Guarding would have been called prior to this change they are to fill out a report and send it in to the state so they may review, preferably with film.
Correct, Georgia is an "experimental state" on eliminating face guarding as a foul.
But when was the last time you actually called it? I don't expect many/any of those reports to be filed with the GHSA.
-
Correct, Georgia is an "experimental state" on eliminating face guarding as a foul.
But when was the last time you actually called it? I don't expect many/any of those reports to be filed with the GHSA.
Think that's sorta the point of why their wanting reports sent in - so that they can show that it never really happens. I think in my eight years as a deep official I've called it once.
-
Think that's sorta the point of why their wanting reports sent in - so that they can show that it never really happens. I think in my eight years as a deep official I've called it once.
Is it possible, that players know instinctively that "face guarding" type behavior is NOT something they should be doing, which might be the main reason we see so little of it, or have a need to call it. This rule is CLEARLY something that isn't broken, why should it be "fixed"
Eliminating it, will be a sure sign that it's a behavior that it is allowable SO it will be worth trying, and we'll get to see a lot more of it -BUT if the rule is changed, we won't be able to do anything about it. The real question might be, "Why would anyone want to encourage face-guarding"?
-
Is it possible, that players know instinctively that "face guarding" type behavior is NOT something they should be doing, which might be the main reason we see so little of it, or have a need to call it. This rule is CLEARLY something that isn't broken, why should it be "fixed"
Eliminating it, will be a sure sign that it's a behavior that it is allowable SO it will be worth trying, and we'll get to see a lot more of it -BUT if the rule is changed, we won't be able to do anything about it. The real question might be, "Why would anyone want to encourage face-guarding"?
Anecdotally I believe that if you polled all high school defensive backs in the entire country <5% would even know that face guarding is/was a foul. So I disagree with the entire premise of your point.
There's no rationale reason in my mind why face guarding should be a foul. Defensive pass interference without any contact whatsoever is absurd on its face. The NCAA and NFL games have been going for years without face guarding being a foul, and I'd like anyone to show me how it has been a detriment to the game.
-
Never called it, only seen it called once. I did not have a good look at the play, so I don't know if it was a good call or not.
-
Anecdotally I believe that if you polled all high school defensive backs in the entire country <5% would even know that face guarding is/was a foul. So I disagree with the entire premise of your point.
There's no rationale reason in my mind why face guarding should be a foul. Defensive pass interference without any contact whatsoever is absurd on its face.
Sounds like we agree, leaving things as they are, or eliminating this prohibition completely isn't likely to make much of a meaningful difference either way. A lot of things that rarely break ever get fixed.
-
Is it possible, that players know instinctively that "face guarding" type behavior is NOT something they should be doing, which might be the main reason we see so little of it, or have a need to call it. This rule is CLEARLY something that isn't broken, why should it be "fixed"
Eliminating it, will be a sure sign that it's a behavior that it is allowable SO it will be worth trying, and we'll get to see a lot more of it -BUT if the rule is changed, we won't be able to do anything about it. The real question might be, "Why would anyone want to encourage face-guarding"?
Players know they shouldn't hold, clip, block below the waist, rough the QB or commit an unsporting act, too. That hasn't slowed some of them down. :)
-
I was unaware that face guarding wasn't a foul. Then again, I'm an umpire so the PIs that I have the privilege of calling usually go against the offense, I had always assumed that we were going by the Rogers Redding rule, that if you're not playing the ball and you don't look back for the ball, then 9 times out of 10 it's going to be caught or called for pass interference.
-
I was unaware that face guarding wasn't a foul. Then again, I'm an umpire so the PIs that I have the privilege of calling usually go against the offense, I had always assumed that we were going by the Rogers Redding rule, that if you're not playing the ball and you don't look back for the ball, then 9 times out of 10 it's going to be caught or called for pass interference.
Face guarding is still a foul under NFHS code. Georgia's just an experimental state in doing away with it.
-
I've never called a PI for face guarding. I've only seen it once, and I'll admit that I kicked it years and years ago, and SHOULD have flagged it, though.