RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Ralph Damren on January 31, 2024, 06:24:49 AM
-
.......BE HERE ANY DAY NOW tiphat:. Remember, last year the released on Groundhog Day. Will history repeat itself ??? :o ::) :!#. This Friday is Groundhog Day :bOW.
-
Did you intentionally use the singular? :sTiR:
-
Usually it's around Valentines day. But I'm ok with earlier!
-
pray:;
-
Ralph, I think this friday which is groundhog day. The release of the new 2024 football rule. Just like last year.
-
(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:240/format:webp/0*7zdGvAQnXfHaFzcq.jpg)
-
.......BE HERE ANY DAY NOW tiphat:. Remember, last year the released on Groundhog Day. Will history repeat itself ??? :o ::) :!#. This Friday is Groundhog Day :bOW.
A cleanup of 10-4 and 10-5 ?
-
Sorry to say but Groundhog Day has come and gone :-[. I'll still stand by "any day, now" tiphat: Other notable upcoming days in February :
12 - Abe Lincoln's birthday
14 - St. Valentine's Day (also Ash Wendesday)
19 - Presidents' Day
22 - George Washington's birthday
24 - full moon
29 - leap day
TODAY'S TRIVIA : How is leap year determined ??? ??? ??? ???
-
Sorry to say but Groundhog Day has come and gone :-[. I'll still stand by "any day, now" tiphat: Other notable upcoming days in February :
12 - Abe Lincoln's birthday
14 - St. Valentine's Day (also Ash Wendesday)
19 - Presidents' Day
22 - George Washington's birthday
24 - full moon
29 - leap day
TODAY'S TRIVIA : How is leap year determined ??? ??? ??? ???
..the atomic clock is off by fractions of a second everyday....every 4 years it catches up to 24 hours so an extra day is added to the year
-
It has nothing to do with atomic clocks. Centuries ago, long before anybody knew about atoms or atomic characteristics, the smart people of the time figured out that the astronomical year ain’t exactly 365 days. By hours (somewhere around 1/4 day per year), it is slightly more. So, they decided to add an extra day, every four years, to get the ‘people’ calendar back on track with the actual universe. This causes traditional dates like Christmas, which normally advance by one day of the week each year, to advance an extra day of the week, e.g., Christmas was on a Sunday in 2022, then Monday in 2023; in leap year 2024, Christmas Day will ‘leap’ forward to Wednesday (instead of Tuesday).
Enjoy the extra day. It ought to be an international holiday, IMHO.
-
As I recall, a bunch of smart dudes approched Pope Gregory some 500 years ago with a calandar problem. The seasons were getting out of line and , unlike today with Trump or Biden around, he needed to fix it. Pope Gregory did, skipped over several days to fine-tune, and the Gregorian Calendar began with the following ground rules :
(1) Every year divisible by four will have an extra day'
(2) Except Century Years -1900, 1800,-etc.
(3) Except Century Years divisible by 400, which will also have an extra day. (2000 had a leap day, 2100 will not)
This may be useless knowledge excepting the fact that even a pope can have exceptions, or to win a drink on Leap Day tR:oLl.
-
..the atomic clock is off by fractions of a second everyday....every 4 years it catches up to 24 hours so an extra day is added to the year
Just to finish the math on this... in 4 (normal) years, there are 365*4 = 1460 days. 1 day has 24*60*60 = 86400 seconds. In order for the clock to be off one full day after 4 years, that's 86400 seconds / 1460 days = 59.17 seconds.
That's not fractions of a second. That's a whole minute.
If my *atomic clock* was off by a minute a day, I'd be building a new clock.
Anyway, the correct answer is what Elvis said -- it takes the Earth slightly more than 365 days to make one complete circuit around the Sun.
-
As I recall, …
What? Were you there?😳
-
What? Were you there?😳
I read and remember things that are totally useless. I also recall reading that there was a Square Damon that died at the Alamo. I don't believe he was a relative.
-
Ralph, I think between 2/12/14-2/14/24. Between abe lincoln's birthday & st.valentine's day.
-
As I recall, a bunch of smart dudes approched Pope Gregory some 500 years ago with a calandar problem. The seasons were getting out of line and , unlike today with Trump or Biden around, he needed to fix it. Pope Gregory did, skipped over several days to fine-tune, and the Gregorian Calendar began with the following ground rules :
(1) Every year divisible by four will have an extra day'
(2) Except Century Years -1900, 1800,-etc.
(3) Except Century Years divisible by 400, which will also have an extra day. (2000 had a leap day, 2100 will not)
This may be useless knowledge excepting the fact that even a pope can have exceptions, or to win a drink on Leap Day tR:oLl.
Really interesting clip of Neil Degrasse Tyson explaining this when he was on Joe Rogan's show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sZQ7gTNBmQ
-
As I recall, a bunch of smart dudes approched Pope Gregory some 500 years ago with a calandar problem. The seasons were getting out of line and , unlike today with Trump or Biden around, he needed to fix it. Pope Gregory did, skipped over several days to fine-tune, and the Gregorian Calendar began with the following ground rules :
(1) Every year divisible by four will have an extra day'
(2) Except Century Years -1900, 1800,-etc.
(3) Except Century Years divisible by 400, which will also have an extra day. (2000 had a leap day, 2100 will not)
This may be useless knowledge excepting the fact that even a pope can have exceptions, or to win a drink on Leap Day tR:oLl.
We are celebrating my daughter's 8th birthday this leap day. We have already celebrated her daughter's 11th birthday. ;D I give crap to the people who tell her Happy Birthday on Feb 28th, If It hadn't been a leap year, she would have been born on March 1st not February 28th.
-
We are celebrating my daughter's 8th birthday this leap day. We have already celebrated her daughter's 11th birthday. ;D I give crap to the people who tell her Happy Birthday on Feb 28th, If It hadn't been a leap year, she would have been born on March 1st not February 28th.
She may only be 8, but she's mature for her age.
-
Interestingly enough, there are 3 "usual" leap years in every 400 years that are actually not leap years.
All years divisible by 100 and not by 400 are not leap years. We wouldn't have noticed a difference, cause 2000 was divisible by 400 and, therefore, a leap year. 1900 wasn't, 2100 wasn't, etc. I guess it'll never affect me, since I won't be alive for the next exception.
-
(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1024/1*qmfBRxIg3ViZ0hSeXYIN7g.jpeg)
A visual representation of this thread...COMPLETELY OFF THE RAILS!!!
-
That’s what people do while they wait. Mindless chit-chat. Guilty. And I an’t even a NFHS guy!
It’s rather like being beamed up by an alien. aBdUcT
Oh, would that we actually had that technology, maybe in ball-point pen form. Coach gets on the field uninvited - click, beam him at least 6’ off the field!
-
https://www.nfhs.org/articles/home-team-uniform-requirements-clarified-in-high-school-football-rules/?fbclid=IwAR1iF4fdkv6y7hQziIaEW2_TyZNPXoH6bDouef7H8pjhfwrWyIiNY1QF8ZQ
-
https://www.nfhs.org/articles/home-team-uniform-requirements-clarified-in-high-school-football-rules/?fbclid=IwAR1iF4fdkv6y7hQziIaEW2_TyZNPXoH6bDouef7H8pjhfwrWyIiNY1QF8ZQ
.... that's it?
I'm glad they're focusing on the major problems in the rule book.
There better be more coming.
-
After thinking more, I guess "editorial changes" don't count a "rule changes" ... so a complete revamp of the wording in Rule 10 doesn't have to be voted as a "new rule"?
And, as per usual, nobody gets to see the editorial changes until the rule books are released halfway through the summer.
-
.... that's it?
(https://gifdb.com/images/high/major-league-498-x-275-gif-bl8qt4ggc8qscc66.webp)
-
Honest question, yes it was a loophole... but was it ever exploited?
I could see that there was some situation were the team buys some new BFBS jerseys... and then one of them just torn to shreds or blood on it and they didn't have a midgame replacement, but they do have their normal red jerseys for the guy to switch into. That situation wouldn't really be exploiting the rule to gain an advantage ...
I guess the other way *could* be? Defense is used to seeing opponents in red, but now there's some reciever who is wearing black and is less visible...
Again... did it happen, or is just preemptive?
-
In retrospect, I agree with the committee - the rules and game are in a pretty good place, especially when I compare them to when I started officiating in the early 90s.
And some changes must take multiple years to process and put in place.
I've already told me crew there's no meaningful changes, although I am hopeful there's one big editorial change coming.
Ralph, when do people meet on mechanics? Is it the same meeting?
-
"McWhirter noted that while this was the only rules proposal that was approved by the committee, there was considerable discussion related to the other eight proposals that advanced to the full committee. He said there was considerable discussion dealing with sportsmanship, particularly unsporting acts in dead-ball situations.
“There was solid agreement by the committee that the rules of the game are in good shape,” McWhirter said. “There was great discussion regarding the need for consistent enforcement of the existing rules specifically in regard to equipment and sportsmanship. Several proposals garnered substantial interest and discussion and may merit further consideration in future committee meetings.”"
Holy Cow...
I'm speechless.
😳🫣🤦♂️
-
Say it ain't so, Ralph.
-
Say it ain't so, Ralph.
It's so, and accolades to 'Bama for noticing the singular 'rule' in my topic. The one change was to address the possibility of a home team wanting to have a different dark color of jersey for : captaiins, seniors, positions or whatever. IMHO, it will fall into a bin with 9-9-3 (the pregnant fullback) or 9-6-4e (the sleepy slotback) of fouls that are seen less as often as Haley's Comet. I agree with the Chair, Richard McWhirter, that the game is on solid footing and not in need of massive changes. Of the eight other proposals that came to the floor, I favored three and they may return in future years. The Rule 10 review was fully in the hands of the Editorial Committee to 'clarify' (a soft word that wasn't used in many discussions :o ) last year's revamp.
I haven't yet heard what editorial changes to expect. I'll pass in on to you guys as soon as I learn. Now ,at your Super Bowl parties, you can brag that you know of the new NFHS football rule ! tiphat:
-
Ralph,
Your contributions extend beyond the borders of Maine and this forum and are greatly appreciated.
tiphat:
-
Ralph, Of the eight other proposals that came to the floor, I favored three and they return in future years. What were the 3 you favored this year.
-
(1) Adding AFD to DPI - IMHO, failed as only AFD that wasn't a PF and LTG exceeds 15 yds, not deserved.
(2) Forward fumble > OOB > returned to spot of fumble - IMHO, failed on complexity.
(3) Reducing IP fouls for A/R stepping on sidelines to 5 yards - IMHO, failed on complexity.
Requiring 2/3 to pass, it doesn't take alot of skeptics to derail a proposal. Steve Shaw, a NCAA rules leader, spoke at the start of our meeting and stressed the importance of keeping our rules simple. His speech may have had an impact on some. I do expect to see the above three to return to the floor in the future. One of the POE's will stress the importance of knee pads.
Enjoy the Super Bowl and now you can brag about knowing the new NFHS football rule !! nAnA
-
Just had a good potstirrin' thought
Ain't nothing in the rule book says they can't wear different colored pants though.
:sTiR:
-
Interesting. Thanks Ralph.
-
So, nobody on the rules committee thought Rule 10 was a trainwreck?
-
So, nobody on the rules committee thought Rule 10 was a trainwreck?
I think this comes back to my previous post on the matter -- fixing Rule 10 is an "editorial change" not a "rule change", so it's in a different category/press release?
The fundamental reasoning behind Rule 10 isn't being changed, so there was no need to vote on it or make it a "new" rule, just fix the wording... *all* of the wording.
-
I think this comes back to my previous post on the matter -- fixing Rule 10 is an "editorial change" not a "rule change", so it's in a different category/press release?
The fundamental reasoning behind Rule 10 isn't being changed, so there was no need to vote on it or make it a "new" rule, just fix the wording... *all* of the wording.
We're putting our faith in the same incompetent editorial committee that gave us the table. Hopefully they don't double down and keep the table and bring back all-but-one with exceptions.
-
Ralph, would you mind listing the eight proposals that made it to the full committee? Otherwise, this board may not make it ‘till July. cRaZy
-
I think this comes back to my previous post on the matter -- fixing Rule 10 is an "editorial change" not a "rule change", so it's in a different category/press release?
The fundamental reasoning behind Rule 10 isn't being changed, so there was no need to vote on it or make it a "new" rule, just fix the wording... *all* of the wording.
The fundamental reasoning of rule 10 IS the problem. 😂
-
Just had a good potstirrin' thought
Ain't nothing in the rule book says they can't wear different colored pants though.
:sTiR:
Or helmets.
-
We're putting our faith in the same incompetent editorial committee that gave us the table. Hopefully they don't double down and keep the table and bring back all-but-one with exceptions.
Agreed, except now they have had a year to think about a revision.
-
We're putting our faith in the same incompetent editorial committee that gave us the table.
Exactly! What could go wrong? They are also the same group that said, No the table is right, you just don't understand it well enough... hEaDbAnG
-
The fundamental reasoning of rule 10 IS the problem. 😂
Do you mean to say you don't approve of the Expanded All But One principle where All Penalties are Enforced from the Basic Spot except for the singular unique one case where:
1) A fouls behind the basic spot, then the enforcement spot is the spot of the foul
1a) Unless (with no change of possession) the resulting enforcement spot is behind the previous LOS, then it is enforced from the LOS
1a(i)) Unless unless that foul was for illegal kicking, batting or forward pass or illegal participation
One) Or Unless the foul qualifies under Rule 10-5 for Special Enforcement Rules
I'm not against the *philosophy* of the rule change... it was just the mangled nature of how they actually wrote it down that is the problem. They can fix it without changing what the rule should have been last year.
We're putting our faith in the same incompetent editorial committee that gave us the table. Hopefully they don't double down and keep the table and bring back all-but-one with exceptions.
Yeah, I'm a bit worried that they're going to try to add to the current rule wording to patch the mistakes rather than just burn the whole thing down and start over.
I think they *can* bring back the ABO principle and modify it correctly, kind of like how I mentioned it above. They really should bring back ABO as a general philosophy -- or just straight up copy the Three-And-One principle from NCAA or NFL as those also contain the caveats for fouls in the offensive backfield as well.
-
Do you mean to say you don't approve of the Expanded All But One principle where All Penalties are Enforced from the Basic Spot except for the singular unique one case where:
1) A fouls behind the basic spot, then the enforcement spot is the spot of the foul
1a) Unless (with no change of possession) the resulting enforcement spot is behind the previous LOS, then it is enforced from the LOS
1a(i)) Unless unless that foul was for illegal kicking, batting or forward pass or illegal participation
One) Or Unless the foul qualifies under Rule 10-5 for Special Enforcement Rules
I'm not against the *philosophy* of the rule change... it was just the mangled nature of how they actually wrote it down that is the problem. They can fix it without changing what the rule should have been last year.
i suppose you're right. I do like your version better..
-
So, nobody on the rules committee thought Rule 10 was a trainwreck?
The following editorial changes were made : 10-3-1c NOTE; 10-4; 10-5; NFHS OFFICIAL FOOTBALL SIGNALS; PENALTY SUMMARY; INDEX.
So work was done. We now need to wait until the books show up to see if it is to the finished results :sTiR:
-
Ralph, would you mind listing the eight proposals that made it to the full committee? Otherwise, this board may not make it ‘till July. cRaZy
Beyond the three I favored and have mentioned, the remaining five were:
2 dealt with eye shade ,what could / couldn't be done.
Excuse a player trying to punch the ball loose, if he unintentionally punched opponent.
Dead ball contact fouls to be treated as USC.
USC on B = AFD
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
-
Excuse a player trying to punch the ball loose, if he unintentionally punched opponent.
I'm surprised that one would even make it out of committee. That's a terrible idea. :puke:
-
In retrospect, I agree with the committee - the rules and game are in a pretty good place, especially when I compare them to when I started officiating in the early 90s.
And some changes must take multiple years to process and put in place.
I've already told me crew there's no meaningful changes, although I am hopeful there's one big editorial change coming.
Ralph, when do people meet on mechanics? Is it the same meeting?
The Officials' Manual Committee's starts once full meeting ends. It is made up of active officials, some not on the rules committee. This being a publish year, their meeting may go late into the evening and sometimes into the following morning. I've served three terms of four years on the committee and a lot of thought is put into it. Remember, guys, that the book is only a guideline, not a rule.
-
I'm surprised that one would even make it out of committee. That's a terrible idea. :puke:
My wording "excused" was misleading, it would still be a PF just not DQ. I didn't think that it was a terrible idea, I just didn't think it was a good idea :).
-
My wording "excused" was misleading, it would still be a PF just not DQ. I didn't think that it was a terrible idea, I just didn't think it was a good idea :).
Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks.
-
POE's will stress the importance of knee pads.
Will coaches take ownership on this and ensure-enforce that knees are covered?
-
POE's will stress the importance of knee pads.
Will coaches take ownership on this and ensure-enforce that knees are covered?
IMHO, a walk-thru in pre-game should be able to correct any problem areas. It will be stressed tothe coaches that it is a safety issue and in high school safety comes first.
-
IMHO, a walk-thru in pre-game should be able to correct any problem areas. It will be stressed tothe coaches that it is a safety issue and in high school safety comes first.
One need only look at NCAA and Texas high school football to see that is just pie in the sky. I guarantee you, yall will have the exact same problem - and complaints - that we have with knee pads if you don’t have a strong enforcement mechanism.
Or, just make it optional and make everybody happy.
-
My wording "excused" was misleading, it would still be a PF just not DQ. I didn't think that it was a terrible idea, I just didn't think it was a good idea :).
I’d like to think that most officials can tell the difference between “punching at the ball” and “throwing a punch in anger.” I wouldn’t even consider DQing a player for the former.
-
Ralph, thankyou for the other 5 propose rule changes for 2024. Ralph, do think the encroachment on free-kicks will be on the 2025 propose rule changes. It seem to generate some interest in changing the rule to live-ball offside from dead-ball-encroachment. The coaches seem to like this propose change 55%. pct. Officials 57%. pct. Ralph even you like this propose rule change. What are the changes of this being on 2025 football questionnaire.
-
Ralph, thankyou for the other 5 propose rule changes for 2024. Ralph, do think the encroachment on free-kicks will be on the 2025 propose rule changes. It seem to generate some interest in changing the rule to live-ball offside from dead-ball-encroachment. The coaches seem to like this propose change 55%. pct. Officials 57%. pct. Ralph even you like this propose rule change. What are the changes of this being on 2025 football questionnaire.
IMHO, the downfall of live-ball offside on free kicks was that other free kick violations such as not having at least 4 on both sides of the kicker and such remaining dead ball fouls would cause some confusion. It may be back in modified form to include other free kick fouls.
-
POE's will stress the importance of knee pads.
Will coaches take ownership on this and ensure-enforce that knees are covered?
Nope.
-
We've been doing walk-hru's during pre-games for years, looking for knee pads uncovered, eye shade turned into war paint, knots on jerseys and the like. R & LJ take the home, U & BJ take the visitors while HL deals with chain crew. Problems are pointed out ot their coaches and seem to quickly corrected. I don't foresee a problem here, but I'm not there, were you guys are.
-
The Officials' Manual Committee's starts once full meeting ends. It is made up of active officials, some not on the rules committee. This being a publish year, their meeting may go late into the evening and sometimes into the following morning. I've served three terms of four years on the committee and a lot of thought is put into it. Remember, guys, that the book is only a guideline, not a rule.
Where I am, we're expected to follow the book. For example, moving the U to the backfield will just not be allowed here until that's an option in the manual. Also, we handle kick mechanics by the manual here as well - the U never goes under an upright here unlike some neighboring states.
I'm fine with how things are decided, but we've had a lot of Us rolled up the last few years and I'd love to see optional coverages in place.
-
Ralph, why not add illegal formation on kicking team as a live ball foul. Then add live-ball offside on the kicking team. Then both would be live ball fouls.
-
Ralph, why not add illegal formation on kicking team as a live ball foul. Then add live-ball offside on the kicking team. Then both would be live ball fouls.
I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen. IMHO, blowing the ball dead as soon as it's kicked still causes contact. This would prevent it.
-
Where I am, we're expected to follow the book. For example, moving the U to the backfield will just not be allowed here until that's an option in the manual. Also, we handle kick mechanics by the manual here as well - the U never goes under an upright here unlike some neighboring states.
I'm fine with how things are decided, but we've had a lot of Us rolled up the last few years and I'd love to see optional coverages in place.
IMHO, following the book keeps everyone on the same page. While there are some states experimenting with U in the backfield and U having a pipe on kicks, I feel, that in 5 man, you are losing a good view of the line's initial charge which is a lot of illegal stuff can occur. Most roughing the snapper calls occur on PAT kicks, where R players are usually jammed up in attempt to block. U ill not get a good view of that from the pipes and his focus will be on the kick not the contact.
-
IMHO, following the book keeps everyone on the same page. While there are some states experimenting with U in the backfield and U having a pipe on kicks, I feel, that in 5 man, you are losing a good view of the line's initial charge which is a lot of illegal stuff can occur. Most roughing the snapper calls occur on PAT kicks, where R players are usually jammed up in attempt to block. U ill not get a good view of that from the pipes and his focus will be on the kick not the contact.
I don't disagree. Would be harder to see chop blocks on the line, for certain. I am mainly considering the safety of our Us, who have gotten beaten up the last few years.
-
I don't disagree. Would be harder to see chop blocks on the line, for certain. I am mainly considering the safety of our Us, who have gotten beaten up the last few years.
There's a certain "it" factor that comes with being a good umpire. I've worked with the same one for the past 15 years, and he's never been close to being hit. He has the awareness that can't be taught. As to the topic, I would much rather have him in the traditional position, because of everything that has been mentioned.
-
Very true, I've been Umpire for 28 years, so much better on the defensive side to be able to see things you'll miss on the other side....the main thing I teach new guys is not to be moving around over there....they see you, they will move if they are coming right at you. If you move...too much of a chance you're moving into someone's path. Gotta learn to Pirouette! sNiCkErS I've been knocked down 3 times in my career....but one of them was by Micah Parsons, so I'm taking a pass on that one :bOW...he was at RB, and LB stepped on my foot and I had nothing to do but get trucked....I have the pic....I have to get him to sign it someday!
-
On my way to becoming a white hat I umped for 5 years. I took the advise of an ole' vet ,who stressed read the guards as they will tell you where the play is going. His advise was:
(1) IF the guard pulls, focus on him as he will be the key blocker to the play where a foul is possible.
(2) IF the guard retreats, move up as a pass is coming.
(3) If the guard charges, git otta' town as the play is coming your way.
(4) Your most important duty is to stay safe. You don't need to be on top of the play, or the play may end up on top of you.
Oh, I got still a few bumps and bruises and enjoy R much more as the players seem to be running away from you than at you. z^
-
That's why umpires get paid more.
(Don't they?)
-
Paid more? NO! :!# BUT...I have been doing it long enough that I get to call long or short sleeves on Friday nights!
-
On my way to becoming a white hat I umped for 5 years. I took the advise of an ole' vet ,who stressed read the guards as they will tell you where the play is going. His advise was:
(1) IF the guard pulls, focus on him as he will be the key blocker to the play where a foul is possible.
(2) IF the guard retreats, move up as a pass is coming.
(3) If the guard charges, git otta' town as the play is coming your way.
(4) Your most important duty is to stay safe. You don't need to be on top of the play, or the play may end up on top of you.
Oh, I got still a few bumps and bruises and enjoy R much more as the players seem to be running away from you than at you. z^
As an Umpire, you also get the opportunity to whisper special (private) words of "guidance" & "patience" into helmet ear holes, to hopefully avoid unnecessary issues &/or problems.
-
Ralph. could you propose a 2025 rule change making illegal formation on free-kicks a live ball foul as well as free-kick live ball offside too.
-
Ralph. could you propose a 2025 rule change making illegal formation on free-kicks a live ball foul as well as free-kick live ball offside too.
I'll leave that to the author of this year's failed proposal.
-
That's why umpires get paid more.
(Don't they?)
We do? Which state(s) do that? ;D
-
Ralph. could you propose a 2025 rule change making illegal formation on free-kicks a live ball foul as well as free-kick live ball offside too.
I was told by a 40 veteran R in Rhode Island that the NFHS has always frowned on "free plays" potentially resulting in do-overs which is the primary reasoning on calling fouls that occurred before the ball becomes live DB fouls. Why would they pick 1 or 2 to change that?
-
I was told by a 40 veteran R in Rhode Island that the NFHS has always frowned on "free plays" potentially resulting in do-overs which is the primary reasoning on calling fouls that occurred before the ball becomes live DB fouls. Why would they pick 1 or 2 to change that?
NFHS rules prioritize safety. The theory is that kickoffs are inherently more dangerous than scrimmage plays, so the live-ball fouls would lessen the number of kickoffs.
-
Ralph, would you favor illegal fomation & encroachment on free-kicks live-ball fouls.
-
NFHS rules prioritize safety. The theory is that kickoffs are inherently more dangerous than scrimmage plays, so the live-ball fouls would lessen the number of kickoffs.
Except if you kill the play immediately with the DB foul there is no real "kick-off" and no "re-play".
-
NFHS rules prioritize safety. The theory is that kickoffs are inherently more dangerous than scrimmage plays, so the live-ball fouls would lessen the number of kickoffs.
How in the world would it lessen them? It would increase the number of kicks. You would be re-kicking on these penalties often. Instead shut it down and don't have the first kick.
-
You don’t have the ability to enforce kicking team fouls that occur during the kick play portion of the down at the succeeding spot (technically, the “spot where the dead ball belongs to the receiving team”)? If not, that’s too bad. Then you don’t have to re-kick, and the kicking team still gets penalized. That would apply to any foul by the kicking team (offside, illegal formation, blocks below the waist, blocks in the back - anything) that happens between the time the toe hits the ball until the point where somebody catches/recovers the ball, or it goes OB. Of course, fouls by either team during the runback are penalized per “all but one.”
Something to think about, if you don’t already have that ability.
-
How in the world would it lessen them? It would increase the number of kicks. You would be re-kicking on these penalties often. Instead shut it down and don't have the first kick.
The perceived problem is that by the time the calling official realizes that K has encroached and blown his whistle, contact has often already occurred.
I suppose that NFHS could do away with kickoffs altogether, if they really wanted. Spot the ball at some arbitrary yard line, unless K wants to attempt an onside kick.
-
ElvisLives, If you change the rule on illegal formation and encroachment to live-ball fouls it would be added to the kick just like the other fouls on kicking team.
-
ElvisLives, If you change the rule on illegal formation and encroachment to live-ball fouls it would be added to the kick just like the other fouls on kicking team.
Then why not? 🤷🏻♂️
-
The perceived problem is that by the time the calling official realizes that K has encroached and blown his whistle, contact has often already occurred.
Except that in my experience it's just that a "perceived problem" problem. In reality the whistle is blown long before any serious contact occurs. I see not real need to "fix" a rule when we rarely see the foul occur.
-
IMHO, you would still have a situation where 6-1-3b would shut the play down if a K non-kicker is behind his 35 after RFP but before the kick. 6-1-4 : "At the time the ball is kicked, at least 4 K players must be on each side of the kicker." tells us the ball has to be kicked before the ^flag throw & blow. I learned my lesson last year by authoring fouls by B when run ends behind the LOS = previous spot. With the complexity that then developed, left me feeling like Dr. Frankenstien after his invention turned into a monster. :o Now K fouls prior to/at time of kick are dead ball fouls. We Mainers say: "Ayuh, 'spect best to let a sleeping dawg lay :!# " I think I'll stay away from this one.
-
Ralph, even you said you like the propose rule change on kickoffs making it a live-ball offside. Also the coaches & officials like that propose rule change. I know it offside on kicking team would be rare to call. But when PSK came in 2003. In 21 years I worked high school football I only seen it called 3 times. The nfl you seen it on almost every punt. The same thing if you change illegal formation & encroachment on kickoffs. To live-ball fouls. It would be rare call but still have in the rule book.
-
Y'all say 'rare,' regarding offside by the kicking team. Really? OK, it is a dead-ball foul in NFHS. But I would have a very difficult time believing that it is rare. I can't be specific about statistics, but I'd venture to guess that offside (by the kicking team) occurs on about 10% of onside kick attempts. (A bit less on other free kicks.) Infrequent, but hardly rare. Are NFHS players so good that they are 'rarely' offside on onside kick attempts (which, by current rule, would seem to cause the ball to remain dead, and a penalty enforced)? I suppose that could be the case. But I am skeptical.
-
Y'all say 'rare,' regarding offside by the kicking team. Really? OK, it is a dead-ball foul in NFHS. But I would have a very difficult time believing that it is rare. I can't be specific about statistics, but I'd venture to guess that offside (by the kicking team) occurs on about 10% of onside kick attempts. (A bit less on other free kicks.) Infrequent, but hardly rare. Are NFHS players so good that they are 'rarely' offside on onside kick attempts (which, by current rule, would seem to cause the ball to remain dead, and a penalty enforced)? I suppose that could be the case. But I am skeptical.
In my experience, encroachment by K on “regular” kickoffs is flagged about twice a season in games I call. Considering the number of kickoffs, I’d say that’s fairly rare.
I’m sure the percentage rises on onside kickoffs, since K is trying desperately to recover the kick. However, contact between opposing players is rarely as violent due to the limited distance between opposing players.
-
While in Maine we have 78 schools with football, 29 are of the 8-man variety. A high pct. of free kicks in 8-man seem to be squib/onside variety. A vet coach told me that is the safest route then to kick to a good broken field runner. Encroachment is more prevalent there and the BJ is reminded to be ready. not having 4 (3 in 8-man) on each side of the kicker is also considered encroachment per 2-8 and can't occur until the ball is kicked and remember R can also encroach on a free kick. Only the kicker can be beyond 5 yards behind K's restraining line after RFP and that, like a false start, is a dead ball foul upon occurance.
Confused, anyone ??? ??? :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
-
I'd tend to focus on fixing things that really need to be fixed? Rule 10 anyone?
-
I'd tend to focus on fixing things that really need to be fixed? Rule 10 anyone?
The repair crew (Editorial Committee) worked diligently on that and the finished product will be unvailed (published) when the 2024 Rules Book arrives. I'll keep my eyes/ears open and pass on to your guys if I hear/see anything. yEs:
-
The repair crew (Editorial Committee) worked diligently on that
Same ones that wrote it wrong to start with...
-
ElvisLives, If you change the rule on illegal formation and encroachment to live-ball fouls it would be added to the kick just like the other fouls on kicking team.
Which would be another change. Tack on now is at the option of the offended team, so not an automatic tack on. We don't have automatic tack on now which is why there could be more re-kicks.
-
Which would be another change. Tack on now is at the option of the offended team, so not an automatic tack on. We don't have automatic tack on now which is why there could be more re-kicks.
Which is another reason that I like the "keep it simple" mantra. Simply keep all fouls that occur prior to the ball becoming live as DB fouls. Simply enforce the penalty at the offended teams option and move on. No replays, re-kicks, or other things to sort out. Again, I believe that if it's not broken it doesn't need to be "fixed". For the very few times a year that the foul on free kicks actually occurs IMHO it's not worth even discussing.
-
Which is another reason that I like the "keep it simple" mantra. Simply keep all fouls that occur prior to the ball becoming live as DB fouls. Simply enforce the penalty at the offended teams option and move on. No replays, re-kicks, or other things to sort out. Again, I believe that if it's not broken it doesn't need to be "fixed". For the very few times a year that the foul on free kicks actually occurs IMHO it's not worth even discussing.
"Keep it simple", what a novel concept.
-
The repair crew (Editorial Committee) worked diligently on that and the finished product will be unvailed (published) when the 2024 Rules Book arrives. I'll keep my eyes/ears open and pass on to your guys if I hear/see anything. yEs:
I do wish rule books were made available earlier than July though. Where I am, we register with the state and they mail us books when available, and it's not uncommon that our first rules clinics start up a week or two before books arrive. I know the logistics of printing and shipping aren't necessarily simple to solve, but starting the whole process a week or two earlier to get the end result in our hands a week or two earlier seems like it might be worth looking into -- at least on my end.
Of course, those officials that wait until July (or August...) to register, and therefore get their books even later is a different problem.
At the very least, maybe the specific editorial changes could be published online when done and heading to the printers? And I mean more than just "There will be an editorial change to Rule 10-4" like they do now, and not the whole book, just the new verbiage.
-
In this day and age I have one word for rules makers and books
DIGITAL
-
In this day and age I have one word for rules makers and books
DIGITAL
Yeah, we got access to the NFHS app with the rule books for free the last few years, but they still have the same publication date. The updated ebooks weren't out any earlier -- or, at least our free access through the state was authorized when they shipped the books, which may have been the state's doing and it was available from NFHS earlier.
Of course, last year they changed the app they were using and it turned into a completely unusable pile of garbage... also a different problem.
-
They need to bake the cost into MFHS membership dues and just make it freely available as PDF. Problem solved, no special app or DRM needed.
-
They need to bake the cost into MFHS membership dues and just make it freely available as PDF. Problem solved, no special app or DRM needed.
But all of the states would have to universally do that for that to work.
-
They need to bake the cost into MFHS membership dues and just make it freely available as PDF. Problem solved, no special app or DRM needed.
Some wise man noted "Life's a bitch, then you die" & "patience" is still a virtue. Christmas is still only once a year, but generates a lot of useful anticipation and focus waiting for the big day.
-
While we are waiting and have already figured out leap year, how about when does Easter occur ??? ??? ???
-
It's on a Sunday I believe? ;D
-
It's on a Sunday I believe? ;D
You've got 1/3 of the factor of when the Easter bunny comes a hopin'....who' has the other two ??? ???
-
You've got 1/3 of the factor of when the Easter bunny comes a hopin'....who' has the other two ??? ???
If I'm not wrong, Easter is the first Sunday after the First full moon after the Spring equinox...
-
Calhoun NAILED IT aWaRd.
The back story that I heard/read was:
Roman Emperor Constantine was the first emperor to embrace Christianity. However, he was bothered by many Christians taking different days off from work to pilgramage to Calvary. The AFL/CIO had not yet formed, so Constantine was in charge and asked the Christian leaders to meet and decide on a fixed day. The leaders met ,argued, but couldn't agree (sorta' like our congress). So Consty stepped in and issued the following decree (sorta' like an excitive order):
(1) Easter should be on a Sunday as that was the Christian day of worship.
(2) The Resurrection is symbolic of re-birth. Spring is also symbolic of re-birth. Easter should be after the turn of Spring.
(3) The mode of travel of most Romans on their Pilgramage was walking day and night. There was very few street lights back in Rome then. Walking under a full moon would be easier.
There you have it and no Elvis, I wasn't in town yet back in 300 AD ;) . Like our rules book there has to be an exception:
Full moons differ, depending on where on our planet you call home. In case the moon is full in part of the planet but not the other when Spring comes, the tie breaker is if full over Greewich meridian after Spring equinox.
:angel: :bOW :bOW :angel:
-
There you have it and no Elvis, I wasn't in town yet back in 300 AD ;)
Fibber. I'm pretty sure I saw you hangin' out at the Colosseum, waiting to officiate the gladiator matches. I believe I heard you telling some poor, doomed gladiator that you were on the rules committee.
-
Fibber. I'm pretty sure I saw you hangin' out at the Colosseum, waiting to officiate the gladiator matches. I believe I heard you telling some poor, doomed gladiator that you were on the rules committee.
I'm unsure that the gladiators had any rules other the emperor's signal upon completion of :thumbup (the vanquished can stick around" or pi1eOn
(off with his head or whatever) aBdUcT. Oh'but those were the daze tR:oLl .
-
Ralph, are any state associations using expermentation football propose rules in 2024 season.
-
Ralph, any recent rumor mill updates on when to expect the official 2024 editorial changes to be posted?
-
Sorry, Gu5ys, on my slow esponse as I've been on vacation in sunny NC. Ole' Dell is a desktop and doesn't make road trips. I'm unaware of any experimental rules being applied for and I'm with you guys on waiting for the 'clairifications' on Rule 10.