Post by: Ralph Damren on January 10, 2019, 10:05:24 AM
What can we do to make free kicks safer ?
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun ?
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS ?
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement ?
40 " clock ?
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ?
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance ?
Your suggestions or opinions will help me defend or rebut potential rule changes. Thanks in advance....
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: : :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
Post by: scrounge on January 10, 2019, 10:34:40 AM
I'm off to Windy Indy on Sunday (will arrive for the 2nd half of the Patriot game) and would welcome any suggestions\ opinions you may have of the following topics: It's absolutely great to have the opportunity to offer our $0.02, thanks
What can we do to make free kicks safer ? When the day comes that eliminating the KO is seriously on the table, then I'd propose that the receiving team get the ball on 25 UNLESS the kicking team chooses to onside kick. Then, treat the R40 yd line just like the goal line - if the ball goes past it, it's a touchback and R gets the ball on the 50. It preserves the onside for for the rare situations needed, mollifying coaches, but cuts way down on number of kicks. If this isn't that time, one tweak could be that all K players have to be motionless till the ball is kicked, like the new NFL rule, to reduce runup velocities.
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun ? YES!! Making it immediate is already a requirement, no difference there
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS ? Sure, but I share the concern over ease of judgment across the full range of HS officials. Not a huge priority IMO.
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement ? Generally yes, but not if it involves a ton of exceptions, for the same ease of administration reasons.
40 " clock ? Allow by state adoption....if LA wants it, don't force it on ME
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ? YES. Not only aligns with other codes but makes administration easier
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance ? It doesn't much matter, we're all asking the coach in reality anyway :D
Your suggestions or opinions will help me defend or rebut potential rule changes. Thanks in advance....
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: : :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 10, 2019, 11:23:00 AM
I'm off to Windy Indy on Sunday (will arrive for the 2nd half of the Patriot game) and would welcome any suggestions\ opinions you may have of the following topics:
What can we do to make free kicks safer ? NO COMMENT
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun ? YES
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS ? YES
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement ? YES
40 " clock ? NO NO NO!
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ? YES
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance ? YES
Your suggestions or opinions will help me defend or rebut potential rule changes. Thanks in advance....
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: : :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Morningrise on January 10, 2019, 11:35:32 AM
Post by: bawags06 on January 10, 2019, 11:44:25 AM
I have come to the conclusion that allowing the passer to throw the ball away is probably the best solution in keeping with our emphasis on player safety. The loss of down with no gain will have to be victory enough for the defense. Stopping a run for no gain is treated as a success, so this should be too.
Of course, enforcement will be the issue, as usual. I presume it will be up to the WH to determine that the passer was outside of the "tackle box"--which we will now have to define. But, who's job is it to make sure the ball passes the LOS? Still the WH? I guess, but he's not actually on the LOS. I suppose that he has the LOS for any other IFP calls, so it makes sense, but it will be pretty tough in five-man. We will also need a new set of "When in doubt" rules...
Post by: FLAHL on January 10, 2019, 12:01:54 PM
I'm off to Windy Indy on Sunday (will arrive for the 2nd half of the Patriot game) and would welcome any suggestions\ opinions you may have of the following topics:
What can we do to make free kicks safer ? I'm OK with any changes the committee makes, or no changes at all.
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun ? Yes
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS ? No - very difficult to enforce with 5 man mechanics.
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement ? No - solution in search of a problem.
40 " clock ? No. We'll be in for 2+ years of confused officials, coaches, and players. Another solution in search of a problem.
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ? I've been in favor of this for years. Asking this is like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. Is THIS the year that is happens? I doubt it. hEaDbAnG
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance ? Already do this, so would be nice if I had rule support. >:D
Your suggestions or opinions will help me defend or rebut potential rule changes. Thanks in advance....
Thanks for reaching out for input Ralph. Have fun in Indy!
Post by: ncwingman on January 10, 2019, 12:03:18 PM
I'm off to Windy Indy on Sunday (will arrive for the 2nd half of the Patriot game) and would welcome any suggestions\ opinions you may have of the following topics:
What can we do to make free kicks safer ?
If there's any serious discussion to removing the free kick entirely, have a serious discussion about the Schiano Rule. You should not reduce high school down to youth leagues where you just award the ball at a certain yard line, like an automatic touchback.
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun ?
No. Outside of laziness, there's no reason for this to be considered. The "Well, my QB never goes under center" is not convincing to me... and really, it would make the fake spike play easier to pull off.
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS ?
If and only if "outside the tackle box" is obviously defined. If there is any question of whether or not the QB was outside the tackle box, then he's still in the tackle box. I don't want R/U having to nitpick where the tackles lined up.
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement ?
Yes. Offensive holding ending up being a 15+ yard penalty when it occurs behind the LOS seems excessive.
40 " clock ?
Absolutely no. Solution in search of a problem, and will likely make more problems in terms of implementation. I work at schools that don't have 25" clocks still, and I don't know if the ones that do have the ability (technology or financing) to upgrade.
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ?
Yes. Yes. Yes. 4 backs + 6 linesmen is not an advantage for the offense.
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance ?
Your suggestions or opinions will help me defend or rebut potential rule changes. Thanks in advance....
It's what we do 90% of the time there's a complex call anyway. Might as well put it in writing.
Post by: Ralph Damren on January 10, 2019, 12:05:28 PM
I am in favor of any rule change that brings NFHS rules closer to NCAA. Sincerely, a Massachusetts official ;DEven the 40" clock :)? I understand that when adopted by the NCAA in 2007, the MIAA chose not to use it. I started under NCAA back in Connecticut in 1969 for two years. Connecticut was a NCAA state until 1979. Moving to Maine, I didn't find learning the NFHS code too challenging - there was (and is today) fewer exceptions that are needed to grasp. I've several friends that have moved to the college level and tell me that learning the difference was much more challenging then learning the NFHS at the start. If you are a white hat, the biggest challenge will be in penalty enforcement for, as of a few years ago, NCAA had 70+ exceptions while NFHS had 18. If you are not refereeing, you may wish to focus on the differences that deal with your coverages. Feel free to PM me if I can help.
Post by: bossman72 on January 10, 2019, 12:07:35 PM
They're already about as safe as you can get.
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun ?
Yes. The argument that he could read the defense vs a hand to hand snap is not realistic at the high school level. If there is any hesitation, it's a foul for ING. Just like a hand to hand snap.
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS ?
I actually like the current rule. Rewards the defense for a good play. We don't need to protect the QB from legal hits. Plus there is a lot of communication that needs to happen between LOS officials (and I guess the U in 5 and 4 man) and the R to properly rule. Then you have to define "tackle box." Then you also have to define "neutral zone extended" because often times the pass crosses the sideline behind the LOS but lands beyond the LOS. But, if it changes, it would cut down on the rabble rabble from coaches and fans since the majority of them don't know the rule.
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement ?
I like the previous rule I had drawn up where if the run ends behind the LOS, the basic spot is the previous spot. Won't solve the problem for offensive fouls, but will solve it for defensive fouls. Will also clean up definitions of loose ball and run. All fumbles and backward passes would be runs.
A fouls being previous spot creates too many exceptions to all-but-one.
40 " clock ?
States that tried it seem to like it a lot, and I would be good with it. I won't be sad if they never change it though.
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ?
Absolutely! It's actually easier to officiate because you don't have to worry about the offensive count.
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance ?
Absolutely!!! Put into rule the practice that has been done for years.
Post by: Ralph Damren on January 10, 2019, 12:13:18 PM
Thanks for reaching out for input Ralph. Have fun in Indy!I fully enjoy the friendships kindled and the football knowledge gained in Indy, BUT this time of year I would prefer St. Pete Beach :)!
Post by: Ralph Damren on January 10, 2019, 12:17:28 PM
I have gone back and forth on the IG outside the tackle box issue. On one hand, I think that the defense should be rewarded for playing well enough to force a sack or a risky pass. On the other hand, a quarter back who is on the run and looking to throw is very vulnerable--as are any receivers near the area of a desperation pass. If a receiver needs to jump up or dive, he is especially at risk. We have taken steps in other areas of the game to eliminate unnecessary hits--especially hits to vulnerable players.
I have come to the conclusion that allowing the passer to throw the ball away is probably the best solution in keeping with our emphasis on player safety. The loss of down with no gain will have to be victory enough for the defense. Stopping a run for no gain is treated as a success, so this should be too.
Of course, enforcement will be the issue, as usual. I presume it will be up to the WH to determine that the passer was outside of the "tackle box"--which we will now have to define. But, who's job is it to make sure the ball passes the LOS? Still the WH? I guess, but he's not actually on the LOS. I suppose that he has the LOS for any other IFP calls,
so it makes sense, but it will be pretty tough in five-man. We will also need a new set of "When in doubt" rules...
In NCAA 7 man mechanics , one of up wings holds the LOS and aids in the call. State championship games excluded, the only way we have 7 man crews is if we count the chain gang ^talk ^talk ^talk yEs: !
Post by: Derek Teigen on January 10, 2019, 12:27:07 PM
It seems to me the only way is to slow down the play but the fields are faster and so are the kids. There doesn’t seem to be as many issues on punts. The ball hangs in the air longer and doesn’t go as far.
1. make the free kicks into punts?
2. If not punts then kick as usual but make the ball dead upon r or k possessing. This would encourage kicker development to kick the ball deeper.
Also it would introduce more strategy like kick the 10 yard line for example. Receiver must decide to possess or let go for possible touchbacks
It’s a problem I agree as the game, the players and the equipment have made for faster play.
Post by: bossman72 on January 10, 2019, 12:36:12 PM
The NFHS sucks at writing new rules.
So we will have the first year of the rule be a s*** show. Then MAYBE it gets revised in year 2, and usually all of the kinks don't get worked out.
(See tack on rule this year)
Post by: riffraft on January 10, 2019, 01:25:26 PM
I'm off to Windy Indy on Sunday (will arrive for the 2nd half of the Patriot game) and would welcome any suggestions\ opinions you may have of the following topics:
What can we do to make free kicks safer ? No real Idea
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun ? Wishy washy on this one
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS ?No, too much advantage to the offense and would be inconsistently judge
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement ? Like the enforcement they way it is
40 " clock ? NO
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ?ABSOLUTELY
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance ?No need it is already done without the rule
Your suggestions or opinions will help me defend or rebut potential rule changes. Thanks in advance....
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: : :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
Post by: Grant - AR on January 10, 2019, 01:27:51 PM
If and only if "outside the tackle box" is obviously defined. If there is any question of whether or not the QB was outside the tackle box, then he's still in the tackle box. I don't want R/U having to nitpick where the tackles lined up.
What if the rule said "Outside the hash marks" instead of tackle box? There would be advantages and disadvantages of this, but the hash marks would give a definite boundary that would be easier to officiate.
Post by: Willis on January 10, 2019, 01:37:47 PM
Do you make an exception for fouls in the end zone? Say A snaps from their own 1, their offense has little incentive not to hold when protecting a QB trying to pass from his own end zone if the only penalty is half-the-distance.
Post by: FLAHL on January 10, 2019, 01:48:50 PM
What if the rule said "Outside the hash marks" instead of tackle box? There would be advantages and disadvantages of this, but the hash marks would give a definite boundary that would be easier to officiate.
That would work if they snapped the ball from the middle of the field. It wouldn't work if they snapped from either hash. The QB could take one step right or left and be outside the hash.
Post by: bawags06 on January 10, 2019, 01:56:08 PM
That would work if they snapped the ball from the middle of the field. It wouldn't work if they snapped from either hash. The QB could take one step right or left and be outside the hash.
Not to mention the fact that some of our more rural schools seem to have trouble painting the hash marks in such a way that they are visible during live action play from field level. They can be hard enough to find when spotting the ball for a new play!
Post by: prab on January 10, 2019, 02:24:14 PM
I'm off to Windy Indy on Sunday (will arrive for the 2nd half of the Patriot game) and would welcome any suggestions\ opinions you may have of the following topics:
What can we do to make free kicks safer ? Leave as is
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun ? NO! If this is considered to be a good idea, why not simply allow QB to tell Ref that he wants to trade a down for a clock stoppage and not even snap the ball?
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS ? NO!
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement ? NO
40 " clock ? State adoption
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ? YES!!!
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance ? YES!
Your suggestions or opinions will help me defend or rebut potential rule changes. Thanks in advance....
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: : :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
Post by: OSU65 on January 10, 2019, 02:26:05 PM
Post by: prab on January 10, 2019, 02:41:06 PM
Just curious. Is the NFHS definition of "tackle box" different from the NCAA one as described in the attachment?As of now, the NFHS does not define "tackle box". But then, the NFHS doesn't define "in bounds" either.
Post by: ncwingman on January 10, 2019, 04:41:25 PM
What if the rule said "Outside the hash marks" instead of tackle box? There would be advantages and disadvantages of this, but the hash marks would give a definite boundary that would be easier to officiate.
I was trying to come up with a good suggestion to put there, but couldn't state it succinctly, or a scenario that could really be universal. As FLAHL pointed out, if the ball is snapped from the hash mark, then outside the hash marks doesn't make much sense. In that case, maybe outside the numbers on that side of the field, but outside the hash on the other... but what if the ball is more middle of the field? Then that seems inconsistent at best.
I know I don't have a solid solution, but just want to avoid coaches screaming about the tackle box (either way) based on interpretation (and how the coach on the sideline really has the best view of lateral field position, and not the official in the backfield... ::))
Post by: Regno71 on January 10, 2019, 05:44:55 PM
What can we do to make free kicks safer ? No running start on K, they line up on the free kick line stationary.
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun ? No
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS ? NO, too difficult with 5 man mechanics.
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement ? Please no, just stick with All-but-one
40 " clock ? Eh, neutral on this.
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ? YES
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance ? Yes
Post by: GA Umpire on January 10, 2019, 06:06:17 PM
I'm off to Windy Indy on Sunday (will arrive for the 2nd half of the Patriot game) and would welcome any suggestions\ opinions you may have of the following topics:1. KOs: Can make a fair catch and get the ball at the 20.
What can we do to make free kicks safer ?
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun ?
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS ?
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement ?
40 " clock ?
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ?
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance ?
Your suggestions or opinions will help me defend or rebut potential rule changes. Thanks in advance....
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: : :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
2. QB from Shot gun: No.
3. Outside T/B: Leave as is. It may be easy with 6 or 7 man crews, but not with 4 or 5.
4. Fouls behind los: No. Leave as is.
5. 40 Sec Clock: Not nationwide, but by state adoption only.
6. 5 Backs: Yes.
7. Ask capt or coach: As others have said, we do that already.
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 10, 2019, 06:08:07 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: AlUpstateNY on January 10, 2019, 08:38:31 PM
1. KOs: Can make a fair catch and get the ball at the 20.
2. QB from Shot gun: No.
3. Outside T/B: Leave as is. It may be easy with 6 or 7 man crews, but not with 4 or 5.
4. Fouls behind los: No. Leave as is.
5. 40 Sec Clock: Not nationwide, but by state adoption only.
6. 5 Backs: Yes.
7. Ask capt or coach: As others have said, we do that already.
Generally agree with the above:
1. Kick offs: Let the recent adjustments sink in, a while.
2. QB from Shot gun: No, he can always take a knee, a fair price for wanting/choosing to kill a play. Avoid new "arguments".
3. Outside the tackle box: NO, it would deprive the defense of reward for making a great play and doing their job.
4. Fouls behind the LOS: Leave as is, otherwise motivates the Offense to foul when really being forced to (deep) retreat.
5. 40 sec. clock: NO, "WE" have all the control necessary to regulate excessive wasted time, when "we" decide to exert it.
6. 5 backs: No big deal
7. Involve coach: Why not allow Capt. to "consult" with Coach, "We" can manage that & STILL value the Capt.
Post by: NVFOA_Ump on January 11, 2019, 06:51:01 AM
2. Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun? No
3. No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS? Yes
4. A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement? Yes, although I'd stick with the spot of the foul if we ruled a "flagrant foul/takedown".
5. 40 " clock? No
6. Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ? Yes
7. Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance? Yes
Post by: Morningrise on January 11, 2019, 08:04:56 AM
Even the 40" clock :)? I understand that when adopted by the NCAA in 2007, the MIAA chose not to use it. I started under NCAA back in Connecticut in 1969 for two years. Connecticut was a NCAA state until 1979. Moving to Maine, I didn't find learning the NFHS code too challenging - there was (and is today) fewer exceptions that are needed to grasp. I've several friends that have moved to the college level and tell me that learning the difference was much more challenging then learning the NFHS at the start. If you are a white hat, the biggest challenge will be in penalty enforcement for, as of a few years ago, NCAA had 70+ exceptions while NFHS had 18. If you are not refereeing, you may wish to focus on the differences that deal with your coverages. Feel free to PM me if I can help.
You are correct that MA never abandoned the 25-second play clock. And the number of MA schools with visible play clocks is roughly 0%, and the number willing to pay for PCOs is somehow even less.
And yet, even though the burden would fall entirely on a back judge who definitely does not own a watch with two separate countdown settings, I actually DO like the idea of a 40-second play clock. White hats around here don't like to throw DOG flags if they can avoid it, so if the QB is over chatting with the coach, the WH will slow the RFP by a few seconds... and then coaches get used to the extra time and they stretch their QB chats even longer... It's just gradually gotten slower over the years, and now when it's a late-game situation and you start giving the RFP on time, it takes the whole offense by surprise and none of the kids or coaches know how to call and run a play that quickly.
Switching to a 40-second play clock would eliminate those bad habits - both the coaches' and the WHs' bad habits. This way, sympathetic WHs can't give both teams an extra couple seconds in the first three quarters, only to jolt the teams in the 4th into a faster rhythm that they're not accustomed to. And coaches will have to learn how to run an offense faster than they're used to. Maybe the QB can't run all the way over to the sideline after every single play anymore.
Post by: FLAHL on January 11, 2019, 08:27:14 AM
Maybe the QB can't run all the way over to the sideline after every single play anymore.
I'll never understand why coaches do this. Do they think having their QB run an extra 2 miles during the game is NOT going to take a toll by the 4th quarter?
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 11, 2019, 08:39:11 AM
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 11, 2019, 08:40:48 AM
I'll never understand why coaches do this. Do they think having their QB run an extra 2 miles during the game is NOT going to take a toll by the 4th quarter?Whether they do so or not is of no consequence to me. I blow the RFP when the ballistic spotted and my guys are in position.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: Morningrise on January 11, 2019, 09:04:38 AM
1. What can we do to make free kicks safer?
Given a choice between modifying kickoffs and eliminating them entirely, I would choose modifying them as the lesser of two unfortunate options.
My preferred choice:
What makes kickoffs more dangerous than punts? The collisions with running starts. So, let's force R to line up similarly to a punt play. Mandate 7 players within five yards of their restraining line (or whatever it's called, sorry, I'm new at this NFHS stuff) and an additional 2 players within fifteen yards. Allow only 2 deep players. Result: kickoff return coverage involves retreating and THEN blocking, rather than getting a full head of steam while ALSO letting K get a full head of steam. Only the return man and one lead blocker get to start off deep.
Alternate choice:
The Schiano rule. I think Schiano recommended 4th and 15. That sounds a tad too easy, though. I would do 4th and 20. But then again, the precise yard line and distance to go should depend on research. We should decide we want a certain touchback rate and a certain onside kick recovery rate, say 15-20%, and use some empirical research to figure out where the "kickoff punt" should be snapped from and where the LTG should be to achieve those percentages. I know this ain't the NFL and statistics for aggregate onside-kick success percentages across 49 states is hard to come by, but it's important not to imbalance the game by choosing the wrong numbers. We want onside kick attempts to be rare and surprising in non-desperation situations. We want the game to be such that it makes more sense to kick the ball *to* the other team after scoring. I would support an NFHS guideline that, if the number of "kickoff punts" that are onside kick attempts ever goes above 10% of total kickoffs, that's proof that the onside kick is too appealing, too powerful, and the distance to go should be lengthened for the next season. The danger of calibrating these numbers incorrectly is one reason why this is my second choice, not my first.
2. Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun?
I think this is a very minor issue. I don't think either answer is superior to the other. Spikes only happen in the two-minute drill with no timeouts, when Team A is sprinting into position. The location of the QB when he received the snap is pretty irrelevant. I would say, sure, let him spike it.
3. No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS?
Not needed in HS. Reward the defense for making a good play. Legalizing IG would have the effect of giving coaches a stronger incentive to call rollout, mobile plays. There's already plenty of that; we don't need to tilt the scales even further in that direction.
4. A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement?
Yes. 1st and 24 after a hold is excessive. You might think "but OLs will hold more if the penalty is less." But also consider, the harsh penalty leads to officials giving too much leeway because they don't want to call that many 13-18-yard penalties. Reduce the penalty and you'll increase the willingness to call those fouls. The two effects might offset each other.
5. 40 " clock?
Yes for reasons stated in an earlier comment. Stop the feedback loop of slower and slower RFPs and slower and slower coach-QB chats.
6. Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ?
YES. There is literally no drawback to this change.
7. Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance?
YES. In general, whenever the rules fail to reflect the game's *universal practice,* one of those two should change. Here, nobody has any problem with coaches accepting penalties, so let's let the rules reflect reality.
Which reminds me, here are two additional cases where I'd like the rules to change to reflect reality:
Codify legal BBW on a shotgun snap. If the philosophy says that it's legal for a 3/4-point stance OL to cut a heads-up DL at the shotgun snap, then the rules should say so.
Moreover, I think such BBW should be legal even if the DL is lined up in a gap instead of heads-up. It's legal when the QB is under center, after all. NFHS likes to brag about having very few exceptions and special cases? Well, here's a special case they can fix to make simpler. A BBW at the snap, during an OL's initial charge, should be equally legal regardless of whether the QB is under center or in shotgun.
Secondly, although this one is nobody's high priority:
Allow encroaching players who are *lined up* in the NZ by accident to get moved back by the wing officials. After all, that is what we do in reality: "44, get back." Only if the snap is imminent do we blow and throw. I'm not gonna die on the "NCAA offside" hill - if B44 jumps into the NZ on a hard count, then sure, let's blow and throw. I'm just saying if B44 is in press coverage and he doesn't realize his WR is off the line and he wanders slowly into the NZ as he leaves the huddle, what the wing does in real life is tell him to get back, and therefore, the rules should agree with that.
Post by: Ralph Damren on January 11, 2019, 09:28:17 AM
Would you favor to start clock on RFP on OOB plays (excepting the last 2 minutes of each half)?
.....unless I hear from you to the contrary . I'll assume you think it's a good idea pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP (5-man crew) ^TD
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 11, 2019, 09:40:36 AM
Thanks, guys, for all of your opinions so far. I inadvertently left off an assumed popular one....
Would you favor to start clock on RFP on OOB plays (excepting the last 2 minutes of each half)? GREAT IDEA
.....unless I hear from you to the contrary . I'll assume you think it's a good idea pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP (5-man crew) ^TD
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: AlUpstateNY on January 11, 2019, 10:30:42 AM
Switching to a 40-second play clock would eliminate those bad habits - both the coaches' and the WHs' bad habits. This way, sympathetic WHs can't give both teams an extra couple seconds in the first three quarters, only to jolt the teams in the 4th into a faster rhythm that they're not accustomed to. And coaches will have to learn how to run an offense faster than they're used to. Maybe the QB can't run all the way over to the sideline after every single play anymore.
In football, as in "general Life" ignoring (tolerating, condoning, excusing) bad habits has NEVER accomplished anything, but encouraging MORE bad habits.
Consistently declaring the ball "RFP" when all of the game officials signal "ready", starting the 25 second countdown (3-6-1) EXCEPT when some legitimate situation requiring delay is NECESSARY allows ample time.
NFHS 3-5-8-i has LONG dictated "For a one-minute delay (as in 60 seconds) between the 1st-2nd, 3rd-4th periods and following a try, successful FG, safety and prior to succeeding KO". (There is no provision for a "Free-Kick review, discussion or clinic after each score and/or period change)
There is NO PROVISION for allowing the 25 second RFP to be extended to allow the QB to travel to/from the sideline between plays for personal instructions, and subsequently sharing them with his team. That's part of the 25 second count.
A single Charged TO (3-5-3) "Shall not exceed 1 minute (as in 60 seconds)".
WE currently have the authority and necessary power to control and eliminate "Bad habits" when WE choose.
Post by: Ralph Damren on January 11, 2019, 11:34:16 AM
tiphat: pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP tiphat:
Post by: FLAHL on January 11, 2019, 12:32:31 PM
Thanks, guys, for all of your opinions so far. I inadvertently left off an assumed popular one....
Would you favor to start clock on RFP on OOB plays (excepting the last 2 minutes of each half)?
.....unless I hear from you to the contrary . I'll assume you think it's a good idea pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP (5-man crew) ^TD
Definitely in favor of this one!!
Post by: prab on January 11, 2019, 12:53:46 PM
Thanks, guys, for all of your opinions so far. I inadvertently left off an assumed popular one....
Would you favor to start clock on RFP on OOB plays (excepting the last 2 minutes of each half)?
.....unless I hear from you to the contrary . I'll assume you think it's a good idea pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP (5-man crew) ^TD
I would favor starting the clock on the RFP for all OOB plays or on no OOB plays. I don't like the idea of having different timing rules for different parts of the game. (I also still vote for Millard Fillmore for president, so I admit that I tend to be a bit behind the cutting edge of officiating innovation.)
Post by: Grant - AR on January 11, 2019, 01:13:45 PM
(other than ones that would violate the "one week" rule)
Not sure why there was a "one week" rule out there (must be standard for the software). I changed that to one hour instead. :thumbup
Post by: SCline on January 11, 2019, 03:41:08 PM
Game clock on the RFP after an IW but both teams have the choice of it starting on the snap. This would negate the IW from unfairly affecting a team late in a half.
Have the so called tackle box for a grounding to conserve yardage be the top of numbers on both sides of the field. Sure it is unbalanced if the snap is on a hash but that seems fine for me since if the QB is able to scramble all the way to the top of the numbers they haven’t made that great of a play.
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 11, 2019, 04:04:26 PM
Thanks, guys, for your input. Your responses will be traveling with me to Indy and may provide me some ammo in voicing our opinion. I've gone through and "cheered" all of you (other than ones that would violate the "one week" rule) for your help. Thank you.
tiphat: pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP tiphat:
Thanks for the cheer. I need all the help I can get.. :angel:
Post by: BIG DON on January 11, 2019, 06:34:15 PM
at one time I was in favor of letting the receiving team bring kick out of the end zone but now for safety reasons leave it Dead
Also Eliminate Offside kicks accept in the last 2-5 minutes of the 4th quarter and only if you are behind I have seen teams onside on every kickoff
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun ? Yes
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS ? Yes
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement ? Yes
40 " clock ? Let me think about this No it is hard enough already to the CO in my state to run the clock right, most of the time we have only one operator to run the whole scoreboard and its hard for them to keep up. Although this year I would say that in my games the 25 sec clock was run better then any other year.
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ? yes
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance ? No preference already asking coaches most of the time.
Would like to see automatic 1st down brought back on DPI. Also have DPI Mirror NCAA Rules
Also just to save the heartache All PF Automatic first Down
and Breaking the Huddle with 12 as a foul
What are the feeling on restraining fouls by the defense become live ball fouls unless the defender has a unimpeded shot then its a dead ball foul
Post by: HLinNC on January 12, 2019, 07:04:34 AM
At the same time that the Fed is churning out a media narrative about fan and unsporting behavior causing a shortage of officials, surely they can see the incongruity of passing rule changes that really require an INCREASE in the number of on-field officials. Add in there are apparently some states that still don't require a minimum of five officials for high school level play, (note I didn't state just varsity), and I really don't see how a continued move to college or pro style rules sets can be adequately implemented.
For my entire career, I've always heard how h.s rules are made for the age player we are dealing with plus an alleged simplicity to enforce with few exceptions. Every year, the exceptions continue to expand, the tack on rule being the latest.
That being said, +4 in the backfield is certainly easier to officiate. The tackle box is a bad idea. I can live with the :40 sec clock as the BJ is going to keep it in the majority of games. IG in the shotgun should remain. We don't need to skew a rules change to more offense because a system was developed that keeps QB's from learning a fundamental element of the game.
Are we really seeing an increased risk of injury on h.s. level kickoffs? We already disallow returns from kicks crossing the goal line and virtually eliminated the running start by K and recent rule changes at higher levels have almost killed the chance of a successful onside kick. Is there actual data that supports such change?
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 12, 2019, 09:57:33 AM
I'm really tired of the thought that the NFHS needs to rewrite rules for people who get their rules knowledge by watching games on t.v.
AGREE 100%
Are we really seeing an increased risk of injury on h.s. level kickoffs? We already disallow returns from kicks crossing the goal line and virtually eliminated the running start by K and recent rule changes at higher levels have almost killed the chance of a successful onside kick. Is there actual data that supports such change?
WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE DATA ON THIS. IN 30 YEARS OF OFFICIATING I DONT REMEMBER EVER HAVING TO STOP THE GAME TO TEND TO A PLAYER AFTER A KICKOFF. I KNOW IT HAPPENS, BUT THATS OVER 300 CONSECUTIVE GAMES WITHOUT A RECORDED INJURY. I REALIZE NOT ALL INJURIES ARE INSTANTLY RECOGNIZABLE, BUT STILL....
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: ref4e on January 12, 2019, 09:46:06 PM
Eliminate running start altogether...K players (except kicker) must be stationary until the kick
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun ?
No.
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS ?
Absolutely not. Difficult to judge and penalizes good defense. (Yeah, I know what we hear from the sidelines every week, but don't dumb it down)
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement ?
This would make enforcement of A fouls behind the LOS more equitable, but unless an exception is made for holding by A in its own end zone, there's nothing to deter an A blocker from tackling a pass rusher if he gets beat.
40 " clock ?
I can see the advantages in consistency of game pace, but this would be tough in a 3 or 4 man crew if no visible play clock unless R has one of those buzz box gizmos
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ?
YES, PLEASE!! This is long overdue. Makes determining legal/illegal formation easier. Having 10 on the field and 6 on the line is already a disadvantage, so why rub salt in the wound with a flag?
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance ?
No big deal, as this is what is already taking place.
AND HERE ARE A COUPLE I'D LIKE TO SEE:
1) Define a player as out of bounds if he is airborne and his last status was out of bounds (no IP for airborne player last touching out of bounds to catch pass...just an incomplete pass)
2) Restore automatic first down for defensive pass interference
3) Start clock on RFP on OOB plays (excepting the last 2 minutes of each half)?
Post by: bama_stripes on January 13, 2019, 07:48:27 AM
1) 4 in backfield
2) Define OOB airborne player
3) Start clock on OOB *and* incomplete passes outside of 2 minutes both halves.
If there’s truly a push for 40” clock, make it a state adoption option.
Post by: Patrick E. on January 13, 2019, 08:15:51 AM
eliminate running start for K (except kicker), kick must be from center of the field with 5 players on each side of kicker with a player (other than the kicker) positioned:
- at the hash
- at the 9-yard mark
- between the hash and 9-yard mark
- between the 9-yard mark and sideline
- between the position of the ball and the hash
players cannot by closer that 1 yard to one another (except for a holder on a free kick)
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun?
yes (passer must have clear possession of ball prior to throwing forward into the ground)
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS?
how about below the 9-yard marks and beyond the LOS in the field of play
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement?
yes with the exception of A (or B on a COP) in its own end zone
40" clock?
yes
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen?
yes, no advantage gained
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance?
yes
Enjoy Indy. Go to NCAA HOC (if you haven't already).
Post by: ilyazhito on January 14, 2019, 11:09:17 AM
I'm off to Windy Indy on Sunday (will arrive for the 2nd half of the Patriot game) and would welcome any suggestions\ opinions you may have of the following topics:
What can we do to make free kicks safer ? Prevent players from running until the kick is made.
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun ? Yes, this restriction seems anachronistic.
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS ?
Yes, tackle box should coincide with the free-blocking zone and extend indefinitely backwards.
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement ?
Yes, this would prevent any 1st and 23 situations, or the defense not being punished on an illegal tackle for loss.
40 " clock ?
Yes, this will speed up the game, and rely on an objective criterion (ball becoming) dead, not on a white hat's subjective decision to blow the whistle. CO, MI, IN, and other states have adopted or experiment with a 40-second play clock for a reason, so this is not something unfeasible to implement at the HS level.
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ?
Yes, this would simplify counting.
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance ?
Yes, this would make the rule more realistic.
Your suggestions or opinions will help me defend or rebut potential rule changes. Thanks in advance....
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: : :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
I would also suggest making DPI, personal fouls, and unsportsmanlike conduct automatic 1st downs, if committed by the defense and not in conflict with other rules. This would punish the strategic use of DPI to prevent a score, a defender acting dumb after a sack or key tackle for loss, or an illegal tackle for loss (dragging a player in the backfield down by the facemask).
Post by: scrounge on January 14, 2019, 11:28:21 AM
This would mitigate what I consider one of the greatest inequities in the current rule, one which I've seen in person in my games at least twice and that played a big part in one of the state championship games here in OH this past year.
Situation: 4th and goal from the 12, 5 mins left in game, A is losing by 4 points. Slot receiver breaks away for what would be a wide open catch - but DB recognizes it and grabs him. He didn't tackle him or anything, not enough to rise to the level of calling intentional DPI, but interfered in a very strategic way nonetheless. So instead of 1st down or at least 4th and goal from the 1 or 2, it's 4th and goal from the 6. Of course they go for it, but gain 5 yards when they needed 6. So a very wise penalty indeed.
Simply exempting DPI from the half the distance provision, stopping at the 1 or 2, would mitigate the use of the strategic DPI deep in the red zone.
Post by: HLinNC on January 14, 2019, 01:21:54 PM
Post by: ilyazhito on January 14, 2019, 02:05:44 PM
Oh, that reminds me of another one. While like many, I also think that DPI should have an automatic 1st down, if the will to do so isn't there, can we at least exempt DPI from going half the distance?Exactly, this is why any DPI foul inside the 2 when the line of scrimmage is between the 17 and the 2 moves the ball to the 2 yard line in NCAA rules. I would scrap half the distance on DPI for this reason as well.
This would mitigate what I consider one of the greatest inequities in the current rule, one which I've seen in person in my games at least twice and that played a big part in one of the state championship games here in OH this past year.
Situation: 4th and goal from the 12, 5 mins left in game, A is losing by 4 points. Slot receiver breaks away for what would be a wide open catch - but DB recognizes it and grabs him. He didn't tackle him or anything, not enough to rise to the level of calling intentional DPI, but interfered in a very strategic way nonetheless. So instead of 1st down or at least 4th and goal from the 1 or 2, it's 4th and goal from the 6. Of course they go for it, but gain 5 yards when they needed 6. So a very wise penalty indeed.
Simply exempting DPI from the half the distance provision, stopping at the 1 or 2, would mitigate the use of the strategic DPI deep in the red zone.
Post by: bossman72 on January 14, 2019, 02:42:22 PM
I don't think the two are equal, as 15 and loss of down is the most punitive foul in all of football. Worse than a personal foul, if you think about it. It makes sense to bring back auto 1st only for DPI because of the defensive strategies mentioned.
Offensive fouls enforced from the LOS will probably not happen. It creates an exception to the all-but-one. Actually 2 exceptions, since fouls in the end zone would be a safety. So we have an exception to the exception, which is the original rule. Actually, 3 exceptions if you're only going to penalize certain fouls from the LOS (eg: OH is previous spot, but intentional grounding and illegal touching are still all-but-one). Plus, think about it... in true NFHS fashion, they'll do this, but make it incredibly stupid as they always do on their first iteration of any new rule. First year will be a dumpster fire.
I actually came up with a rule (that never made it to my state office to get on the docket) where the basic spot for all runs behind the LOS would be the previous spot. This would help with the defensive facemask on the QB sack, but wouldn't help with the offensive hold behind the LOS. But, it keeps all-but-one in tact and solves at least one inequity. It can also clean up the definition of run and loose ball plays. All fumbles and backward passes would now be RUNS. So really, the only time you have a loose ball play is a legal pass or legal free or scrimmage kick. Makes it much simpler.
Post by: bama_stripes on January 15, 2019, 06:36:48 AM
Scrounge, now you're changing Fundamentals though.
But it’s very easy to administer. Start walking off 15 yards. If you reach the spot of the foul or the 2 yard line first, stop there.
Post by: mb98football on January 15, 2019, 04:34:48 PM
Post by: TampaSteve on January 15, 2019, 05:19:31 PM
EXCEPT FOR ELIMINATING THEM - WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE ANY ANSWER, I DO NOT HAVE AN IDEA....
Should we allow QB to spike from the shotgun?
I DO NOT THINK SO. IT WOULD LEAD TO QB MERELY SHOVING THE BALL TO THE GROUND VS HANDLING THE BALL, THEN SPIKING IT.
No IG if QB outside tackle box & pass goes over LOS ?
DISAGREE. IT WOULD BE CALLED TOO INCONSISTENTLY
A fouls behind LOS = previous spot enforcement ?
I WOULD SUPPORT THIS
40 " clock ?
SUPPORT THIS IN THEORY...BUT IN REALITY FOR 5MAN OR LESS IT WOULD BE MUCH CHALLENGING ESP IF BJ WAS CLEANING UP AN OOB PLAY OR GETTING ANOTHER BALL IN THE GAME, ETC
*FURTHER ANYONE TO FIND A BALL BOY AND GET ANOTHER BALL ON INC AND SET IS DAUNTING ENOUGH AS IT IS.
**LASTLY AT THE HIGHER LEVELS WHEN THERE IS INC AND ALL WR ARE 25 YD DOWNFIELD THEY MOSTLY GET A SUB FOR THE WR ANYWAY WHEREAS HS WHICH MIGHT HAVE 1 WR SUB WHO HAS HIS HELMET ON THE BENCH AND/OR TO HAVE A KID GET BACK TO THE HUDDLE WHO WAS 25YD DOWNFIELD IS JUST GOING TO LEAD TO MORE DOG...AND WITH DOG COMES MORE IDLE TIME WHERE THE CLOCK IS ALREADY STOPPED FOR INC AND NOW STOPPING MORE FOR THE DOG
Foul for 5 backs , not 6 linesmen ?
I SUPPORT THIS. I.E. IF A ONLY HAS 10 ON THE FIELD WITH 4 IN THE BACKFIELD THERE'S NO ADVANTAGE.
Ask EITHER captain or coach on penalty acceptance ?
I SUPPORT THIS. - IT WILL SPEED THE GAME UP AND THE CAPTAIN - IF YOU CAN ROUND HIM UP - RELLY NEVER GIVES ANY ANSWER TO ACCEPTANCE OR NOT UNTIL HE LOOKS AT YOU, LOOKS AT THE COACH, LOOKS AGAIN AND STILL IS NOT SURE WHAT PLANET HE IS ON.
Post by: TampaSteve on January 15, 2019, 05:41:29 PM
Thanks, guys, for all of your opinions so far. I inadvertently left off an assumed popular one....
Would you favor to start clock on RFP on OOB plays (excepting the last 2 minutes of each half)?
.....unless I hear from you to the contrary . I'll assume you think it's a good idea pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP pHiNzuP (5-man crew) ^TD
absolutely favor this.
Post by: ilyazhito on January 15, 2019, 05:59:18 PM
Loss of down for OPI is unnecessary, because there is no situation where the offense could benefit from deliberately committing OPI. Therefore, I would support AFD for DPI without LOD for OPI. This is a situation where imbalance would actually be the more balanced thing.
I would also support a 40 second play clock for the same reason that I support a shot clock in basketball; it replaces a rule that is arbitrarily enforced by officials (the ready-for-play whistle, and the 5-second closely guarded count on the dribble) with an objective criterion for enforcement (ball becomes dead on preceding play; a specific team gains possession of the ball).
Post by: bossman72 on January 15, 2019, 09:15:46 PM
40 " clock ?
SUPPORT THIS IN THEORY...BUT IN REALITY FOR 5MAN OR LESS IT WOULD BE MUCH CHALLENGING ESP IF BJ WAS CLEANING UP AN OOB PLAY OR GETTING ANOTHER BALL IN THE GAME, ETC
*FURTHER ANYONE TO FIND A BALL BOY AND GET ANOTHER BALL ON INC AND SET IS DAUNTING ENOUGH AS IT IS.
**LASTLY AT THE HIGHER LEVELS WHEN THERE IS INC AND ALL WR ARE 25 YD DOWNFIELD THEY MOSTLY GET A SUB FOR THE WR ANYWAY WHEREAS HS WHICH MIGHT HAVE 1 WR SUB WHO HAS HIS HELMET ON THE BENCH AND/OR TO HAVE A KID GET BACK TO THE HUDDLE WHO WAS 25YD DOWNFIELD IS JUST GOING TO LEAD TO MORE DOG...AND WITH DOG COMES MORE IDLE TIME WHERE THE CLOCK IS ALREADY STOPPED FOR INC AND NOW STOPPING MORE FOR THE DOG
Well if it eases your mind at all, our friends in Europe, who routinely work 5 man and have no play clocks, don't really have a problem with any of the concerns you listed.
Post by: peterparsons on January 16, 2019, 09:32:47 AM
On INCs we expect one of the wings to secure a new ball. We still use the 20s rule on getting a new ball down. Again, despite the variability in ball persons we experience, this is rarely an issue. If the old ball's gone anywhere downfield, BJ's job is to get it out to the sideline.
Post by: Ralph Damren on January 16, 2019, 11:47:28 AM
SOME RULES PASSED
SOME RULES THAT PASSED YOU WILL LIKE aWaRd
SOME RULES THAT PASSED YOU WON'T LIKE :puke:
SOME RULES THAT DIDN'T PASS WILL DISAPPOINT :puke:
SOME RULES THAT DIDN'T PASS YOU'LL CHEER nAnA
I about 2 weeks the NFHS will issue a press release to list them. We then will have plenty of time to debate them before the season starts. Thanks ,again, for your opinions. I used several during rule debates.
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (5 man crew)
Post by: TampaSteve on January 16, 2019, 12:26:29 PM
As someone who regularly works 5-man BJ in Europe, I echo and support bossman's comments. Running the play clock isn't an issue. I find it easier from there than upfield as R when we work 4. The first season we moved to the 40s clock, it took the teams a little while to adjust with a few DOGs, but they soon got used to it.THX for your feedback..
On INCs we expect one of the wings to secure a new ball. We still use the 20s rule on getting a new ball down. Again, despite the variability in ball persons we experience, this is rarely an issue. If the old ball's gone anywhere downfield, BJ's job is to get it out to the sideline.
Curious: what is the age of the players?
Post by: Kalle on January 16, 2019, 02:51:31 PM
THX for your feedback..
Curious: what is the age of the players?
13 to 40 (here in Finland but I guess it is about the same in UK).
Post by: peterparsons on January 17, 2019, 03:43:45 AM
Post by: bama_stripes on January 17, 2019, 05:40:30 AM
Back from Windy Indy. I can only say :
SOME RULES PASSED
SOME RULES THAT PASSED YOU WILL LIKE aWaRd
SOME RULES THAT PASSED YOU WON'T LIKE :puke:
SOME RULES THAT DIDN'T PASS WILL DISAPPOINT :puke:
SOME RULES THAT DIDN'T PASS YOU'LL CHEER nAnA
I about 2 weeks the NFHS will issue a press release to list them. We then will have plenty of time to debate them before the season starts. Thanks ,again, for your opinions. I used several during rule debates.
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (5 man crew)
Thanks for giving us a voice, Ralph. tiphat:
Post by: stevegarbs on January 18, 2019, 02:57:25 PM
Post by: bama_stripes on January 19, 2019, 08:10:31 AM
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 19, 2019, 10:22:44 AM
Any chance the rules language and Case Book plays could be vetted here before publication?
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
RETWEET
Post by: Ralph Damren on January 22, 2019, 07:27:22 AM
Any chance the rules language and Case Book plays could be vetted here before publication?Rules language : YES
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
Case plays : Not currently on the Editorial Committee, I don't see them until you see them.
Post by: Ralph Damren on January 22, 2019, 07:30:32 AM
Thanks, Ralph. Can you give us a hint as to whether this is a rule change "heavy" or "light" year?
Question : How many players on an ice hockey team ?
Answer : The same number as potential rule changes. :)
Post by: markrischard on January 22, 2019, 08:11:34 AM
Post by: prab on January 22, 2019, 10:52:22 AM
Post by: Ralph Damren on January 22, 2019, 12:12:40 PM
While we all wait for the 2019 rule changes to be announced, I would like to mention that this is the 9 year anniversary of the 2010 rule change that declared that, "The hash marks shall be marked so that they bisect the yard lines." Coincidently, this also marks the 8 year anniversary of the 2011 rule change regarding hash marks, that declared that, " The lines shall be marked so that each 5-yard line bisects the hash mark." I wonder if artificial turf fields that were installed using the 2010 rule, were grandfathered in when the rule changed back in 2011? Just something to ponder while we await the 2019 announcement.My fav is still ...
1982 : Exception to the numbering requirement allowed during scrimmage-kick formation by reporting to the sNiCkErS umpire sNiCkErS to speed up the period before a scrimmage kick.
As the nerds in the 4-wheel drive hitting a speed bump in a mall parking lot said......
WHOOPS!!!
1983 : REPORTING TO UMPIRE ELIMINATED FROM NUMBERING EXCEPTION.
tR:oLl :puke: tR:oLl :puke:...
Post by: KWH on January 22, 2019, 01:49:33 PM
1982 - "Pants Required"
Post by: Ralph Damren on January 23, 2019, 09:24:50 AM
1982 was also the year when this big (huge) addition to required equipment was added:This may have been in response to a rumored fad spreading through some college campuses of co-ed nude whiffle ball. tR:oLl
1982 - "Pants Required"
PS: don't worry, the new rules will be out soon :)
Post by: ncwingman on January 23, 2019, 07:47:33 PM
On the roster, or on the ice?
More importantly, can we veto them by denoting a few healthy scratches?
Post by: Ralph Damren on January 29, 2019, 11:27:59 AM
aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd.........? aWaRd?
Post by: HLinNC on January 30, 2019, 09:16:09 AM
Enjoy the sun-n-fun.
Anybody but the Pats.
Post by: riffraft on February 01, 2019, 12:56:00 PM
I'm off to sunny Florida, while ole' Dell is not. You should see the new rules any day now posted on NFHS.org. Hope you'll enjoy some, sure you won't enjoy all. While watching the New England Invitational in Florida (some still call it the Super Ball), I'm sure I will in the deep minority. Hope you guys all enjoy.
aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd.........? aWaRd?
Well the Volleyball and field hockey rule changes came out yesterday and today. Still no football.
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 02, 2019, 01:43:05 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 07, 2019, 09:18:17 AM
SINCE THE TURN OF THE CENTUARY........
PATRIOTS aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd
RED SOX aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd
CELTICS aWaRd
BRUINS aWaRd
...Sorry, guys, I couldn't resist :puke: :puke:!!
Post by: ncwingman on February 07, 2019, 09:48:17 AM
nAnA
Post by: Curious on April 20, 2019, 10:17:19 AM
1. I know at some point "post new rules", you reminded us that the NFHS does NOT provide for a defensive "match-up" accommodation by holding the snap when the offense subs at the "last second". Could you give us the Committee's rationale for not wanting to give us this option between downs?
2. Also, why does the Committee continue to reject the "spike" from the shot-gun/pistol formation?
Thanks
Post by: Ralph Damren on April 22, 2019, 07:38:22 AM
Ralph, two questions (forgive me if I have missed threads on these):
1. I know at some point "post new rules", you reminded us that the NFHS does NOT provide for a defensive "match-up" accommodation by holding the snap when the offense subs at the "last second". Could you give us the Committee's rationale for not wanting to give us this option between downs?
2. Also, why does the Committee continue to reject the "spike" from the shot-gun/pistol formation?
Thanks
(1) This was never addressed during the 25" clock era, and may be discussed now that we've entered the 40" clock arena.
(2) The same two basic reasons that that were there in 1995 : 1. QB would have expanded vision from gun which could impact his decision to spike/pass; 2. pop-up snap may result in spike to save yardage. While it still appears often on proposals, it lost some luster a couple of years ago, when it was learned that the NFL doesn't allow spiking from the shotgun for the same reasons. When a coach moans that he doesn't run any plays from under-center snaps, just remind him of the victory formation.
Post by: Magician on April 22, 2019, 09:43:04 AM
(1) This was never addressed during the 25" clock era, and may be discussed now that we've entered the 40" clock arena.(1) has nothing to do with which play clock is used. It's just as much an issue with 25 as it is 40/25. People think they are related because the NCAA instituted both around the same time. I think it would be a good change though. Even if the sub isn't late in the play clock it still gives the defense a chance to match up if they try to sub and then run a play quickly. I've never had a situation where it resulted in a DOG but it is possible if the sub is late.
(2) The same two basic reasons that that were there in 1995 : 1. QB would have expanded vision from gun which could impact his decision to spike/pass; 2. pop-up snap may result in spike to save yardage. While it still appears often on proposals, it lost some luster a couple of years ago, when it was learned that the NFL doesn't allow spiking from the shotgun for the same reasons. When a coach moans that he doesn't run any plays from under-center snaps, just remind him of the victory formation.
Post by: bama_stripes on April 23, 2019, 07:06:01 AM
(1) has nothing to do with which play clock is used. It's just as much an issue with 25 as it is 40/25. People think they are related because the NCAA instituted both around the same time. I think it would be a good change though. Even if the sub isn't late in the play clock it still gives the defense a chance to match up if they try to sub and then run a play quickly. I've never had a situation where it resulted in a DOG but it is possible if the sub is late.
How many HS teams would actually have the ability to match up? Most of the ones around here wouldn’t — they already have many of their starters playing both ways.
This would be a lot of trouble for 4- or 5-man crews to officiate for very little benefit.
Post by: Magician on April 23, 2019, 09:04:49 AM
How many HS teams would actually have the ability to match up? Most of the ones around here wouldn’t — they already have many of their starters playing both ways.
This would be a lot of trouble for 4- or 5-man crews to officiate for very little benefit.
I don't think it would be that hard to officiate. The wings on the offensive side would be able to recognize if the offense subs between downs and can communicate that to the R. The R will often notice as well. Even if a team uses the same starters on both sides, they still may match up if the offense runs a power set for short yardage. They may want to bring in an extra big guy or two rather than having 4 DBs.
Post by: bossman72 on April 23, 2019, 10:20:32 AM
(1) has nothing to do with which play clock is used. It's just as much an issue with 25 as it is 40/25. People think they are related because the NCAA instituted both around the same time. I think it would be a good change though. Even if the sub isn't late in the play clock it still gives the defense a chance to match up if they try to sub and then run a play quickly. I've never had a situation where it resulted in a DOG but it is possible if the sub is late.
I think Kalle posted somewhere that the 40 sec clock was implemented in 2008, but the sub matchup rule was implemented in 2004 in NCAA
Post by: scrounge on April 23, 2019, 11:35:46 AM
How many HS teams would actually have the ability to match up? Most of the ones around here wouldn’t — they already have many of their starters playing both ways.
This would be a lot of trouble for 4- or 5-man crews to officiate for very little benefit.
I vehemently agree with this. There just aren't the large, specialized platoons in the vast majority of high schools. This is a solution in search of a problem, adding unnecessarily complexity and pre-snap burden for very little benefit. Plus, imagine new officials in a JV game trying to think of all the things they need to watch, and then we add this on them? No, it's not worth it. Even at varsity, why? I don't see the need for this rule, other than 'be like college'.
Post by: Magician on April 23, 2019, 02:24:44 PM
I think Kalle posted somewhere that the 40 sec clock was implemented in 2008, but the sub matchup rule was implemented in 2004 in NCAAI started officiating college in 2008 and I'm pretty sure both came in after I started. I started working umpire in 2011 and I know the iron cross started no earlier than that. If the substitution rule existed we weren't using that mechanic to communicate it.
Post by: ElvisLives on April 23, 2019, 03:27:39 PM
I started officiating college in 2008 and I'm pretty sure both came in after I started. I started working umpire in 2011 and I know the iron cross started no earlier than that. If the substitution rule existed we weren't using that mechanic to communicate it.
Definitely instituted in NCAA in 2008. Anybody remember the 15-second play clock on NCAA kickoffs in 2007? What a pain in the behind. Lasted one season. in 2007, we were already supposed to keep team A from snapping the ball if they substituted, to let Team B get subs into position. Don't think we had the "iron cross" signal that season. Can't recall when we started using that, but I can do some research. Like Magician, I'm sure it wasn't before 2011, and it may have been 2012.
***After further review, the "t" signal (iron cross) was prescribed in a CFO bulletin 6/25/2011.
Post by: Kalle on April 24, 2019, 02:03:02 AM
I started officiating college in 2008 and I'm pretty sure both came in after I started. I started working umpire in 2011 and I know the iron cross started no earlier than that. If the substitution rule existed we weren't using that mechanic to communicate it.
If you don't believe me, go and check the 2004 and 2008 rule book changes :)
From page 7 of the 2004 book (Committee Action for 2004):
"3-5-2-e Snapping the ball no longer necessary when Team A rushes quickly to line of scrimmage to create a defensive disadvantage"
From page 6 of the 2008 book (Committee Action for 2008):
"2-2-4, 2-29-2, 3-2-4, 4-1-5 40/25-second play clock system instituted"
Post by: Magician on April 24, 2019, 07:02:13 AM
"3-5-2-e Snapping the ball no longer necessary when Team A rushes quickly to line of scrimmage to create a defensive disadvantage"What does this mean?
Post by: Kalle on April 24, 2019, 07:18:13 AM
What does this mean?
From 2000 to 2003 it was a dead ball foul when team A snapped the ball. The 2004 change was to take away the foul and have the officials prevent the snap.
Post by: Magician on April 24, 2019, 09:37:02 AM
From 2000 to 2003 it was a dead ball foul when team A snapped the ball. The 2004 change was to take away the foul and have the officials prevent the snap.
It also sounds like that is a different rule too. It talks about rushing to the line. The current substitution rule is much broader than that (any substitution made by A will allow B to match up). Maybe that's what changed in 2011 and introduced the iron cross mechanic.
Post by: ElvisLives on April 24, 2019, 09:59:46 AM
It also sounds like that is a different rule too. It talks about rushing to the line. The current substitution rule is much broader than that (any substitution made by A will allow B to match up). Maybe that's what changed in 2011 and introduced the iron cross mechanic.
The part about "rushing to the line" was the primary rule until 2016, when they added the broader language to include any time A substituted. "...rushing to the line" is still there, but, while still valid, that language is somewhat obviated by the "...any time..." language.