RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Rulesman on May 04, 2015, 09:11:38 AM
-
POEs for 2015 are attached.
-
There is an inconsistency between the Point of Emphasis and the rulebook regarding sideline interference. The POI says "All coaches must leave this area (the sideline safety area) when the ball is about to become live, such as when the snapper is approaching the ball, and no one may be in this area while the ball is live."
The rulebook simply says “No player, nonplayer or coach shall be in the restricted area when the ball is live.” I believe the rulebook used to say "about to become live" but it doesn't say that any longer.
In our area, administration of this rule is inconsistent. Some officials say things like "I used to be a coach, so I give them plenty of leeway." Other officials are more strict. Even if we wanted to get consistent here, what should we be telling coaches? The POI says "when the ball is about to become live" and the rulebook says "when the ball is live."
-
IMHO, if the coach isn't moving out of the moat when the ball is about to become live, he won't be out of the moat when the ball becomes live. It won't be a ^flag until the ball becomes live.
Preventave officiating : "Coach, ya' gotta' move outa' here, the ball's about to become live z^!"
Happy coach : " :D Thank you very much, Mr. wingman, that was very thoughtful of you :D!"
....we can always dream yEs:...
-
"About to become live" is subjective, "live" is objective. Objective rules are always better than subjective ones.
Last year, we had a game where we were slowing down our offense and milking all the clock we could, at a field where there were no play clocks. I started my watch on the RFP, and would step into the restricted area while the snapper had his hands on the ball. The QB would watch me, and when I stepped back, he knew he could start his cadence. Wing says to me:, "Coach, you need to step back, the ball about to be live."
"No, sir, it's not. They aren't going to snap it until I move back."
He sneered, but he left me alone.
-
"About to become live" is subjective, "live" is objective. Objective rules are always better than subjective ones.
Last year, we had a game where we were slowing down our offense and milking all the clock we could, at a field where there were no play clocks. I started my watch on the RFP, and would step into the restricted area while the snapper had his hands on the ball. The QB would watch me, and when I stepped back, he knew he could start his cadence. Wing says to me:, "Coach, you need to step back, the ball about to be live."
"No, sir, it's not. They aren't going to snap it until I move back."
+1 - great example AB.
-
Seems slightly inconsistent, but the way I read it, it's just saying what Ralph said. If the coach isn't moving out just before the ball is snapped, he's not going be out by the time the ball is live. It's still not a foul unless the ball is live, and if AB knows exactly when the ball will be snapped, for instance, everything should be fine!
In most cases, instructing the coaches to start moving back as the ball is about to be snapped will be good for everyone, which is probably why it made it into the points of emphasis.
-
AB,
I agree that rules need to be objective, however many rules are not. The new POI on what is considered excessive...who gets to decide that? The official. It can obviously be a different call for different officials. I think the main point is when you ^flag, be sure you can back it up. If not, keep that flag in your pocket.
-
Objective rules are always better than subjective ones.
So I guess we should call holding on every play. :sTiR:
-
"About to become live" is subjective, "live" is objective. Objective rules are always better than subjective ones.
Last year, we had a game where we were slowing down our offense and milking all the clock we could, at a field where there were no play clocks. I started my watch on the RFP, and would step into the restricted area while the snapper had his hands on the ball. The QB would watch me, and when I stepped back, he knew he could start his cadence. Wing says to me:, "Coach, you need to step back, the ball about to be live."
"No, sir, it's not. They aren't going to snap it until I move back."
He sneered, but he left me alone.
I'm truly not looking to be picky, but maybe you should devise another signal. Keep in mind the PRIMARY PURPOSE of the sideline restrictions and subsequent warnings is to avoid Coach/Official collisions which is a very sound safety precaution. There are any number of alternative areas to split hairs on a football field during a game.
-
If we were running a "normal" offense, or if we are on defense, yes, as soon as the snapper even approaches the ball, we need to get out of the restricted area, and we do. But I also know what the rule says and when I HAVE to be out. With our system, I was assuring I would be out before the ball became live, and before any official or coach was in a position to collide. No need for an alternative signal.
As for the "new" excessive rule:
1. I don't think there is anything "new".
2. I think the FED Rules Committee has mucked this up and created a mess. That POE is as clear as mud.
3. I have already talked with the top training official for our state. We agreed that veteran officials already know what shouldn't and shouldn't be a foul. The problem is going to come from the young guys and the "rule book officials" that read one thing, and don't have the experience or knowledge to apply it to the game.
-
If we were running a "normal" offense, or if we are on defense, yes, as soon as the snapper even approaches the ball, we need to get out of the restricted area, and we do. But I also know what the rule says and when I HAVE to be out. With our system, I was assuring I would be out before the ball became live, and before any official or coach was in a position to collide. No need for an alternative signal.
As for the "new" excessive rule:
1. I don't think there is anything "new".
2. I think the FED Rules Committee has mucked this up and created a mess. That POE is as clear as mud.
3. I have already talked with the top training official for our state. We agreed that veteran officials already know what shouldn't and shouldn't be a foul. The problem is going to come from the young guys and the "rule book officials" that read one thing, and don't have the experience or knowledge to apply it to the game.
Far too often, being technically correct proves far less satisfactory than anticipated. There is NO signal, visual or audible, that cannot be conveyed exactly as effectively from the near edge of the Team box, than from within the restricted area.
Insisting on doing so is NOT a foul, but adhering to a reasonable request from a wing official, designed to insure both coach and official personal safety, is usually viewed as a constructive, cooperative effort that helps establish and maintain a positive communication connection that benefits both coach and official in the exercise of their responsibilities.
-
Far too often, being technically correct proves far less satisfactory than anticipated. There is NO signal, visual or audible, that cannot be conveyed exactly as effectively from the near edge of the Team box, than from within the restricted area.
Insisting on doing so is NOT a foul, but adhering to a reasonable request from a wing official, designed to insure both coach and official personal safety, is usually viewed as a constructive, cooperative effort that helps establish and maintain a positive communication connection that benefits both coach and official in the exercise of their responsibilities.
Actually, when you stand IN the team box, you blend in much more than if you stand apart, next to the official. It's MUCH easier for the QB to see me.
And that cooperative effort is a two way street. As long as I explain what I am doing and am sure to be out of the way when required, the official should have no problem with what I'm doing.
-
Just an observation and random thought. The team box is 50 yards long. Even if the ball is spotted on the 50, there are still 25 yards in either direction to maneuver. I would hope the cooperative effort would include standing far enough away from the wing official that this never becomes an issue. Standing next to the official to make it "easy on the QB", to me, also makes it "easy" to have issues. I've seen coaches wear fluorescent vests to make them easy to spot on the sideline. That looks like a "win-win" all the way around. Fair assessment?
-
The signal giving coaches on our sideline wear the opposite color as the team, while other coaches wear the same color. So if we are in our home green jerseys, signal giving coaches are in white, other coaches, attendants, and players are in green. We do the opposite on road games. So without wearing florescents, we can be spotted.
I stand near (to the backfield side) of the wing because that's where the QB is. I don't want him to have to look backward, I don't want him to have to look downfield. I was to make it easy for him to look directly to the side, to a known spot (just behind the official). As long as I step back before he turns to the snapper, how is it any different than "when the ball is about to become live"? Until I step back, it's not going to become live.
My job is to coach within the rules. Sure sounds like I'm doing so.
-
The "excessive" part is very difficult to explain to coaches. If a player lays a big hit on someone and it is below the head, above the waist, and in the front, then people believe all of it is legal. I hope that mindset is changing but I still expect dissent when I do throw that rare flag for it.
-
The "excessive" part is very difficult to explain to coaches. If a player lays a big hit on someone and it is below the head, above the waist, and in the front, then people believe all of it is legal. I hope that mindset is changing but I still expect dissent when I do throw that rare flag for it.
Rather than see scholastic football games descend into endless arguments between adults, the rule makers long ago settled this issue. NF:1-1-6 "The Referee has authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, on any situation not specifically covered by the rules. The Referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game."
That imparts a great deal of authority, which includes a matching amount of responsibility which may require a considerable amount of patience and careful explanations, but in the final analysis, "is what it is".
-
Sunday evening....while perched in my Attila the Hun rocker, sipping on American Honey (Wild Turkey Bourbon & honey), puffing on a 60-ring Churchill w/madro wrap (big cigar), huntin' dawg at my feet (yellow Lab named Mercedes) ,one eye on those Boston Red Sox gittin' yanked by them ther' Yanks, the other eye on 2015 FOOTBALL POINTS OF EMPHASIS; I came to the following conclusions........
RISK MINIMIZATION : We need to do all we can to minimize the risk of injury - if I'm not rocking in my rocker, I won't accidentally rock on Mercedes' tail :o.
WHAT IS EXCESSIVE ? : Overaggressive action, unneeded to get the same results. Certainly a very subjective call, can we apply the basketball ref's analogy of, "No harm,no foul?" - in overaggressive action, I cussed my TV when the Sox got behind the Yanks 8-0....same results... Sox lost. :( :( :(
FACILITATING NFHS FOOTBALL RULES : We do much more in Windy Indy than to drink beer and tell war stories and a lot of thought, discussion and debate is put into each rule change. Note that NOT included in the list is...Will it be more exciting for the fans? Will it sell more tickets? Will it draw more media coverage? Can they sell more advertisements? Can the Snack Shack prices go up? nAnA
FREE-BLOCKING ZONE : If you're snapping from the shotgun, the BBW has gotta' be awfully quick. yEs:
ILLEGAL EQUIPMENT : It can be dangerous, let's catch in pregame yEs:.
SIDELINE INTERFERENCE : It's a live ball foul as it doesn't produce a danger until the ball is alive. On the show Star Trek, one could say "Beam me up ,Scotty". One would then disappear from the Starship Enterprise and find themselves in the boudoir of a beauty from Venus - or something there such . Coaches don't move as quickly and should start their journey before the snap.
Those are my opinions(or lack thereof), I welcome yours.... tiphat:
-
NC made it easy...when the RFP is blown , coaches need to be backing out.
As I recall from previous discussions, I think AB disagrees with our supervisors interpretation but it gives a definite point of reference and besides anytime from then the ball is eligible to be snapped.
As for excessive, I hope the Fed provides us with some video examples of HIGH SCHOOL hits THEY deem excessive. I don't want to see NCAA clips borrowed from some conference office.
The ruling on low block from two point stance and 3-4 point stance is consistent with what we have been told the past few years
-
As for excessive, I hope the Fed provides us with some video examples of HIGH SCHOOL hits THEY deem excessive. I don't want to see NCAA clips borrowed from some conference office.
This is an interesting comment. If there is high definition video available that will provide the examples needed what difference does it make if it is from a high school or college game?
-
Because I've watched ACC video before, Matt. I've watched two different videos and Doug deems one hit bad and one hit good and I can't tell the difference. I'm not an NCAA official so I don't need their interpretations in some of these instances.
-
I'm not an NCAA official so I don't need their interpretations in some of these instances.
AMEN!!!
-
Because I've watched ACC video before, Matt. I've watched two different videos and Doug deems one hit bad and one hit good and I can't tell the difference. I'm not an NCAA official so I don't need their interpretations in some of these instances.
So what if you had NCAA video and a NFHS interpretation of the act? I have learned NFHS officiating by watching NCAA video and I have learned NCAA by watching NFHS video. If it is the interpretation you don't like coming from an NCAA guy I understand but what if he/she works both? The initial comment led me to believe you were not interested in any video that included an NCAA play. My misunderstanding, I think.
-
At the NFHS Rules Meeting, several high school video scenes were shown with vicious - but then legal - hits. The hitter was cheered wildly by his teammates and his team's fans, while the "hittee" was often helped or carried off the field. I'm sure these will become available via some outlet. some points I took from the viewing :
(1) Tackles/sacks can be made and blocks can be carried out without vicious acts.
(2) Teammates don't congratulate a player whose been ^flag.
(3) Fans don't wildly cheer a player whose been ^flag.
(4) Coaches aren't happy with a player whose been ^flag.
(5) Promoting safety at our level is the top priority P_S.
(6) A picture is worth a thousand words. tiphat:
-
This is an interesting comment. If there is high definition video available that will provide the examples needed what difference does it make if it is from a high school or college game?
Watching video of excessive hits, at any level, with instructional advice on what about the hit may have been problematic, can be helpful, but they are NOT the hit that you may be looking at and have to determine is legal, or illegal. It is ABSOLUTE, no two plays are exactly alike.
Understanding the rule, it's purpose, it's history, it's objective and being in the proper position to thoroughly see, and focus on, what happened, including the set up and lead up to the contact is what helps make the right call. It's not easy, or guaranteed, to factor in intent and purpose, but that's often part of the evaluation process.
EXCESS:" that which passes the ordinary, reasonable or required limit" is a judgment call related to what you are seeing in the specific situation you are looking at. It is unique to the play you are looking at, may be different than all the plays you've seen before, or will see after. (From the NFHS POE, "The game official must draw distinction between contact necessary to make a legal block or tackle and that which targets a defenseless player".
It's an individual judgment and decision specific to the contact you are looking at, and what's happened before (live, or what may have been seen on a video(s) of some previous play(s)) isn't going to make the call. As with ANY foul, it there is ANY doubt that it was, then it wasn't, and we need to be sure of that difference and be willing to make the call and stand by it.
The clear cut calls, either way, are usually easy. It's those borderline, bang bang calls you can be sure will bring challenge and complaint, and what happened before, somewhere else, doesn't take the monkey off your back alone, then and there.
-
My issue is if I, a fairly overall well rated official at the HS level, have difficulty discerning some legal vs. illegal hits, other, maybe not so adept, yet working, high school level officials may struggle with it. "Polluting" the issue in the minds of high school officials with college video does not render itself to be helpful in this particular circumstance, in my opinion. If the Fed wants to carve out a new ruling/interpretation on this, I think it behooves them to provide exclusive training content for us and not rely on work already done that may or may not apply.
However, if they want to say "look at these NCAA videos, we want you to respond in like manner" then so be it. We are being expected to "modernize" our approach to officiating with way more limited resources than the NCAA provides to its officials. The NFHS is going to have to begin to do the same.
After flagging the "excessive" hit, the coach is going to demand an explanation. We need to keep our knowledge base and training exclusive to our level or we going to dig a giant hole for ourselves, particularly when we try to explain it. They can sit through all the state clinic presentations this summer they can stomach. Come Friday nights in August, none of that is going to mean anything.
I hope I am explaining this. I know what I'm trying to say, maybe just not articulating it very well.
-
I don't care about the source of the video, I care about the source of the interpretation. I see video from an NCAA D3 game, and I really can't tell if it's college or big high school, there isn't that much difference.
If the NFHS wants to use NCAA plays with comments such as, "Under FED rules, this is excessive, this is not", fine. But the potential for extreme differences in interpretation is going to make this rule a huge mistake. This is ten times more vague than the definition for targeting, and that got butchered by many officials last year.
-
This will truly become a subjective call, but we have been dealing with many subjective calls . I work two sports and, IMHO, here is my perceived breakdown :
BASEBALL FOOTBALL
Objective calls.... Objective calls.....
Ball/ strike ??? Catch/ no catch ???
Fair/foul ??? In bounds/OOB ???
Out/safe ??? Down/ or not ???
FG/PAT good or not ???
Subjective calls.... Subjective calls......
Balk :o ??? ::) Pass Interference :o ??? ::)
Interference/obstruction :o ??? ::) Roughing passer/snapper/kicker/holder :o ??? ::)
Holding/when to call :o ??? ::)
EXCESSIVE CONTACT :o :o ??? ??? ::) ::)
....and the list goes on....
IMHO, 90% of baseball calls are objective. IMHO, <50% of football calls are .
Like other subjective calls that we make, I feel we all will be able to subjectively rule on this. It's for the good of our sport.
.....on another football note, as a member of Patriot Nation, I can only say :
WE WON THE SUPER BOWL aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd
..they cheated >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D: (deflated footballs)
Fickle fan's formula : "WE" = win; "they" = lost nAnA
-
But this subjective call comes with 15 yards plus possible ejection. Lot more to lose than catch/no catch, unless its the winning pass into the end zone with 0:00.
It is going to cause huge credibility problems with coaches IMO. There will be officials that nail it and will persevere. There will be some that will struggle, take heat, catch crap from the assignor or supervisor and then live in perpetual doubt as to whether or not they can or will make the right call. This is not a fix that one season will solve.
-
Perfect explanation of which I wholeheartedly agree! :thumbup
-
This will truly become a subjective call, but we have been dealing with many subjective calls .
Like other subjective calls that we make, I feel we all will be able to subjectively rule on this. It's for the good of our sport.
WE WON THE SUPER BOWL aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd
..they cheated >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D: (deflated footballs)
In reverse order; every ball used by either team in the Super Bowl passed through the hands of 2 game officials, the wing who tossed in, and the Umpire who subsequently placed it, both of whom ABSOLUTELY understand the "feel" of a defective ball. So whatever "defects" discovered after the fact raised questions are insignificant and didn't make a material difference.
The Patriots won the game because they scored more points in the allotted time. On to the 2016 season.
Contact calls have always been subjective, are subjective and will always be subjective. One size never has, never will fit all. Coaches, Administrators, fans and pundits are entitled to their opinions, even to the point of expressing them, as long as doing so respectfully and civilly to avoid unnecessary and foolish consequences.
Perceived "credibility problems" with some Coaches is an occupational hazard, and unfortunate reality. The best was to minimize, and hopefully avoid, such problems is know what you're looking for, be in the optimum position to fully observe what you're looking at and have the presence to render your decision clearly and emphatically. When asked for explanation (respectfully and civilly) being able to succinctly and directly address the question is a big help in eliminating unnecessary discussion or problematic perceptions.
By far, the most important person to understand that you made the correct call, IS YOU.
-
I heard, unofficially, from one state that their rule of thumb :thumbup of excessive contact
will be blindside contact where the initial contact by the defender WASN'T with the hands. At first blush, it would appear to add some objectivity to a subjective call. Your opinions please.....
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
-
I heard, unofficially, from one state that their rule of thumb :thumbup of excessive contact
will be blindside contact where the initial contact by the defender WASN'T with the hands. At first blush, it would appear to add some objectivity to a subjective call. Your opinions please.....
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
Are you talking about the "Oregon Rule"? That's supposed to be an true experimental RULE, not just an interpretation, correct?
-
Are you talking about the "Oregon Rule"? That's supposed to be an true experimental RULE, not just an interpretation, correct?
Yes, it would be an experimental rule for Oregon, but could certainly be an interpretation for the frenzied masses in the other 47 states. An Oregonian buddy called me @ 8 PM PDT Friday night. It was 11 PM EDT deep into Friday night. I had retired my bifocals for the evening but was intrigued by their experimental rule. I felt my buddies on the forum might have opinions,too.
-
That makes sense to me. It would be easy to coach, easy to officiate, and would remove most of the subjectivity.
-
1. What is "blindside"?
2. Leading with the hands doesn't stop the hit from being excessive. I can put my hands in front of me, balled up against my chest, and blast the H#$l out of someone, especially if I extend through the hit.
3. What happens if I bump shoulders with someone with whom I'm running alongside, and it throws him off stride or runs him out of the play? It's "blindside" (I guess), it's a block, and it's not leading with the hands. But obviously, it's not excessive either.
This is a highly subjective issue that will not be made objective very easily.
-
This is a highly subjective issue that will not be made objective very easily.
Holy Cow, I agree with AB. What's the world coming to? LOL
-
I like the interpretation as one example of "excessive". But (remembering that NFHS rules are also used by subvarsity and middle school teams) I can see 250-lb Bubba using his hands to decleat 160-lb Billy Bob 20 yards behind the ball as also being excessive.
-
Hummmmm....I wonder how the lawyers will define "excessive"..... ???
-
Hummmmm....I wonder how the lawyers will define "excessive"..... ???
Easy. Look at their fees.
-
When the ball is snapped to a back in shotgun formation, however, the ball leaves the zone, and the zone
disintegrates almost immediately. To be legal, a block below the waist must occur immediately after, and nearly
simultaneously with, the snap. Any delay would cause the block to occur after the ball has left the zone. It is
nearly impossible for a lineman in a two-point stance to legally block below the waist in this situation
Nearly impossible basically makes it illegal to ever BBW from a 2 point stance so why not just have the rules say that????
-
Nearly impossible basically makes it illegal to ever BBW from a 2 point stance so why not just have the rules say that????
That's exactly what Georgia did years ago. No low blocks from a 2 pt stance when the QB is not under center. A few other states have followed (NC is one), but apparently they couldn't get a 2/3 majority to pass it at the rules conference. So this is the next best way when the Committee won't pass the rule.
-
Kinda like Slapping the ball is not encroachment!!!
LOL
-
On the other hand, Virginia has interpreted such that if the QB is not under center, the offensive line can legally block low if that's their first move. If they retreat or stand up, THEN go low, we have a flag for an illegal low block.
Personally, I still think we should get rid of the FBZ entirely and not have to split these metaphorical hairs about how quickly the ball leaves the zone, but the committee doesn't seem to agree with me enough...
-
but the committee doesn't seem to agree with me enough...
I have this same problem with the United States Congress. Go figure!
-
If the cobwebs of my murky memory are correct, two years ago eliminating the FBZ on anything other than hand to hand snaps failed by only a vote or two. I fully expected to see it on the docket again this year. It wasn't - only a proposal to remove the FBZ entirely. That proposal failed to make it out of committee. I felt deflated ;).
IMHO, the Oregon attempt to add some guidelines to what is probably the high profile rule change is welcomed. If we want to preserve our game, as we know it, we need to reduce the violence. Will future guidelines arise as this and future seasons approach ???- I'm sure yEs:
IMHO, this change has yet to receive much publicity outside of our inner circles, but once it does; it'll rival the two most influential changes in my z^ lifetime:
(1) Restriction of FBZ in 1981;
(2) Allowance of open-hand "retreat" blocking in 1988;
In your opinion, what were the rule changes in your career that had the biggest impact????
-
so now if I (MLB) blast a receiver who is not trying to block me just to reroute or take him out of the play could I be flagged for IUH and UNR and ejected if the official felt it was flagrant??
-
so now if I (MLB) blast a receiver who is not trying to block me just to reroute or take him out of the play could I be flagged for IUH and UNR and ejected if the official felt it was flagrant??
Fouls deemed to be flagrant are already an ejectionable offense. Your example is nothing different than what's already on the books: Rules 2-16-2c and 9-4 PENALTY.
-
Nearly impossible basically makes it illegal to ever BBW from a 2 point stance so why not just have the rules say that????
Perhaps, because officials have enough common sense to realize that there are different ways to SAY THE SAME THING, so as long as the message is understood as intended, either phrasing is acceptable.
Shakespeare tried to advise us, suggesting, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", which also seems to apply to "Excessive", "Flagrant", "Unnecessary", "Cheap Shot" and other judgment affecting words included in the football game official's vocabulary.
-
Perhaps, because officials have enough common sense to realize that there are different ways to SAY THE SAME THING, so as long as the message is understood as intended, either phrasing is acceptable.
While that may be true for the upper levels of NCAA or the NFL, unfortunately, the vast majority of high school officials do not. That's why the rules are written to the lowest common denominator.
-
...basically makes it illegal to ever BBW from a 2 point stance...
No it doesn't. Read your quote again: "To be legal, a block below the waist must occur immediately after, and nearly simultaneously with, the snap."
IOW, on the initial charge, with no delay.
-
I am vehemently opposed to eliminating low blocking. The rule is fine the way it is. If the only thing we have to argue about is what constitutes "immediate" from the shotgun, then I'm ok with that.
It's easy - if they stand up out of their stance, then low block - foul
If they fire straight out without getting up, no foul.
-
While that may be true for the upper levels of NCAA or the NFL, unfortunately, the vast majority of high school officials do not. That's why the rules are written to the lowest common denominator.
Although I've had the opportunity, and pleasure, to officiate in several States, I don't feel competent to speak for "the vast majority of high school officials", but those I have worked with, by and large, had a pretty solid grasp of NFHS rules and their application.
-
I am vehemently opposed to eliminating low blocking. The rule is fine the way it is. If the only thing we have to argue about is what constitutes "immediate" from the shotgun, then I'm ok with that.
It's easy - if they stand up out of their stance, then low block - foul
If they fire straight out without getting up, no foul.
I'm in agreement with you, Bossman. To eliminate totally the FBZ would adversely impact the smaller O-linemen ,or so I'm told by many coaches. IMHO, the coaches are not well represented on the NFHS Football Rules Committee (only VT. & coaches assoc.) and have the most to lose. IMHO, it would make the job of officiating easier if we removed the FBZ. IMHO, it would hurt the game if we did.
-
To eliminate totally the FBZ would adversely impact the smaller O-linemen ,or so I'm told by many coaches.
Hear it all the time. I also hear all the time about how the NFHS is ALL ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE STUDENT/ATHLETE, well except in this one little thing.
I understand the philosophies involved but serious knee injuries have long term health effects too.
-
Hear it all the time. I also hear all the time about how the NFHS is ALL ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE STUDENT/ATHLETE, well except in this one little thing.
I understand the philosophies involved but serious knee injuries have long term health effects too.
I've said this many times on here - I've been around football my whole life and played OL / DL my whole career and I've never seen anybody get hurt with a LEGAL cut block in close line play.
-
"Never" is a very long time. Just saying...
-
I've said this many times on here - I've been around football my whole life and played OL / DL my whole career and I've never seen anybody get hurt with a LEGAL cut block in close line play.
I see it EVERY year. Unfortunately, some of them have been my kids. If cut blocks were only allowed straight ahead, there might not be many injuries. But the ones from the side are the ones that take out ligaments.
-
When the POE says that it is nearly impossible It is saying most could never do it fast enough to beat the ball out of the zone. Initial charge means nothing in that light!
-
It absolutely does when your state interpreter tells you that's how he wants it called.
-
IMHO, the FBZ may disappear in the near future for anything outside of hand-to-hand snaps. I haven't seen any medical results showing that more knee leg injuries occur in the FBZ then elsewhere on the field. In the split-second (unless the snapper snaps a pop-up :!#) it take a ball to leave the FBZ on a shotgun, it's a stretch to assume that the low block occurred before.
IMHO, not all of my "IMHOs" have been correct :
The Red sox will win the World Series yEs:...now seems unlikely :'(
Tom "Shady" Brady won't be suspended yEs:....now seems unlikely :'(
Global warming will give Maine a warm, easy winter yEs:....NOT :'(
^good ^no ^TD
-
In the split-second (unless the snapper snaps a pop-up) it take a ball to leave the FBZ on a shotgun, it's a stretch to assume that the low block occurred before.
I disagree, Ralph. On a legal low block, the blocker will have likely made initial contact before the ball leaves the FBZ. The lineman are only a yard (or less) apart.
In addition, the defensive linemen are expecting (or at least anticipating) such a block.
-
I disagree, Ralph. On a legal low block, the blocker will have likely made initial contact before the ball leaves the FBZ. The lineman are only a yard (or less) apart.
In addition, the defensive linemen are expecting (or at least anticipating) such a block.
Thanks for your opinion, 'Bama , I'm sure it'll be deeply discussed when it again appears on the docket. To me, coaches opinions should be weighed as to the necessity of redoing blocking schemes that come with such rule changes. From an officiating perspective, eliminating the FBZ would make our job easier as we would then have one less thing to worry about. The impact it would have on the kids playing the sport, primarily the smaller O-linemen, is my major worry with any change.
The gravitational pull on snaps in Maine may be less that that in Alabama as per your closeness to the Equator :)
-
I disagree, Ralph. On a legal low block, the blocker will have likely made initial contact before the ball leaves the FBZ. The lineman are only a yard (or less) apart.
Sorry, bama, not even close. By the time the offense reacts to the snap, the ball is out of the zone. On a good snap, the ball leaves the zone in less than .25 second. There isn't an NFL linemen, let alone a HS kid, that can react to the snap and make below the waist contact with a player across from him in that .25 second, particularly from a 2 point stance.
In addition, the defensive linemen are expecting (or at least anticipating) such a block.
Not if we make them illegal in a shotgun formation!
I'm not for eliminating the FBZ. That would also mean that all contact from behind would be a foul, and that kind of contact is going to happen on run plays up the middle. And as much as I don't like low blocks, I wouldn't even vote to eliminate them on plays where the QB is under center.
But if an offense wants the advantage of getting the QB further from the line (for numerous reasons), then I'm all for taking away the advantage they get with low blocks. If you want one, you should give up the other.
-
But the blocks don't hurt less if the QB is in a shotgun or under center... They drew up the FBZ rule when 90% of plays were run from under center. The rule wants linemen to block low on their initial block. If they do that, I'm fine with it.
What I don't want is to eliminate the low block from shotgun for the sake of "ease of administration", which is exactly what this argument sounds like.