Recent Posts

1

National Federation Discussion / Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).

« Last post by NVFOA_Ump on Yesterday at 02:10:53 PM »

Would be REALLY SIMPLE to clarify this rule by just using the words INTENTIONAL TOUCHING.  While I agree that understanding and knowing Rule 2 is critical not being clear in the specific rule wording IMHO is a serious omission.

2

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by ElvisLives on Yesterday at 11:50:54 AM »

Oh, and I see no UIL action on other editorial changes:
1-4-2-d
Player has to report to the referee if he enters the game wearing a number other than that on the "game day roster." WTF is a "game day roster"? Never saw one in my years in FBS, and certainly not in UIL football. By taking no other action, is the UIL accepting this change? Are they going require schools to provide us with an official "game day roster"? What a mess.

12-3-3-d-3 is a Replay rule, and there is no reason not to accept it, for those 12 annual games using replay.

12-3-6-i and j is a Replay rule, and there is no reason not to accept it, for those 12 annual games using replay.

I'll see what I can find out about those.

3

NCAA Discussion / Re: Rules Question on a Punt Play

« Last post by ElvisLives on Yesterday at 11:41:45 AM »

Quick question on a scrimmage kick play. 4/10 @ A-30. B1 makes a fair catch at the B-30. A45 is flagged for holding before the kick, and
B52 clips at the B-40 during the kick. What are the options?

A, 4/10, A-30, snap (25), or

10-1-4 Exception 1
B, 1/10, B-15, snap (25)

This is known as the "clean hands" exception. Normally, live-ball fouls by both teams during a down become offsetting fouls, and the down is repeated at the previous spot. However, in this case, Team B had not fouled BEFORE gaining possession (their "hands were clean"); therefore, Team B MAY invoke this rule and refuse offsetting fouls. By doing so, they decline the penalty for Team A's foul, and then Team A has the option to accept or decline the penalty for Team B's foul. Then, the next down is played from the spot where Team B's penalty leaves the ball, with Team B snapping (in this case, following PSK enforcement). (Note: That down could be in an extended period, if time in the 2nd/4th period expired during the previous down.)
I have seen teams elect to accept offsetting fouls, to have the down repeated (for field position or scoring attempt purposes), but those are unusual, if not rare.
While there are technical scenarios where Team A might decline Team B's penalty (after Team B invokes the 'clean hands' exception), they are extremely rare, and I won't get into them, here.

4

NCAA Discussion / Re: Rules Question on a Punt Play

« Last post by Legacy Zebra on Yesterday at 11:33:24 AM »

All of the criteria for post scrimmage kick enforcement are met (Team B’s foul was during the kick, the kick crossed the neutral zone, Team B will next put the ball in play, not a successful try, in OT or on a try). So Team A’s foul is treated as if it happened after the change of team possession. That means Team B has the option. They can choose offsetting fouls and replay the down, or they can decline the penalty for Team A’s foul and retain possession after completion of the penalty for their foul. The basic spot for this foul is the PSK spot. The PSK spot for this down is the spot where the fair catch was made. So the basic spot is the B-30 and the spot of the foul is the B-40. Because the basic spot is behind the spot of the foul, the penalty is enforced from the basic spot. The 15 yard penalty for clipping would make it Team B’s Ball, 1/10 @ B-15. Regardless of what Team B chooses, the play clock is at 25 and the game clock starts on the snap.

5

NCAA Discussion / Rules Question on a Punt Play

« Last post by Sturdy6 on Yesterday at 11:12:49 AM »

Quick question on a scrimmage kick play. 4/10 @ A-30. B1 makes a fair catch at the B-30. A45 is flagged for holding before the kick, and
B52 clips at the B-40 during the kick. What are the options?

6

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by dammitbobby on Yesterday at 08:31:07 AM »

Yes, we get the fact that the UIL is trying to get the coaches to put all of their 'rushers' in 3 or 4 point stances. Would that they would. But they won't.

So what problem are they trying to solve here? Wouldn't a rule simply stating that anyone within the confines of the tackle box, +2 or +3 yards, must be in 2 or 3-point stance, if Team A is in a scrimmage kick formation, achieve the same thing, and be much simpler?

7

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by ElvisLives on Yesterday at 08:27:07 AM »

I guess my brain filled in that gap without noticing that part of the rule was gone.

I did the same regarding the part about a muff/fumble/fake/broken play before the defensive contact. We’re humans with human brains, all far from perfect. My most respected former boss used to say, “He who ain’t screwin’ up ain’t doin’ anything.” Words to live by.

I am still seeking clarification on the various scenarios. And, I want somebody to ‘admit’ that the language “…the snap is muffed or fumbled…” is clearly improper, as written. (A snap can’t be fumbled.)

Will advise when/if I learn more.

8

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by Legacy Zebra on Yesterday at 07:45:09 AM »

Wow, good catch Elvis. I guess my brain filled in that gap without noticing that part of the rule was gone. That does make the part about muffs and fakes more relevant.

 I would like TASO or UIL to issue guidance on offense initiated contact when an upright player crosses the neutral zone. We see this a lot in 1A football. A player who is attempting to rush off the edge is blocked by a wing back who crosses the formation and blocks a rusher who didn’t know the block was coming until after he rushed. We also sometimes see it occasionally in 11-man when a wing back reaches out and blocks a defender coming off the edge. Last year there was some debate about whether or not these situations were a foul. The rule says that the defense cannot “initiate contact (indicated by forward movement of the defensive player)”. So some were saying it’s on the defense to avoid that contact. Others said that if the offense initiated the block, there was no foul. It would be great if we could get an official interpretation.

9

National Federation Discussion / Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).

« Last post by Ralph Damren on Yesterday at 06:23:00 AM »

Rule 2, rule 2, rule 2. All three of those words are defined in rule 2

NFHS Football Rules : Rule 2 is most informative
                                Rule 10 is most challanging
                                Rule 1-7 state's rights

U.S. Bill of Rights :    10 Amend. State's Rights 

10

National Federation Discussion / Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).

« Last post by SCline on May 12, 2024, 09:18:15 PM »

Why isn't it illegal touching?  thanks!   (rules states if he bats, muffs, or catches a pass).  I guess hitting him in the back isn't considered a muff.

Rule 2, rule 2, rule 2. All three of those words are defined in rule 2