NFHS New Rules 2016

[younggun]

Just ideas for new NFHS rules for 2016. 3/5 of these are safety related.

[Atlanta Blue]

Voting only allows one choice.  I would support a couple of these.

WR OOB and touches ball, Illegal Touching not IP - YES!
List Targeting/Helmet fouls as Automatic First Downs - No
Fouls on K on free kick enforce at dead ball spot. Reduce free kicks. - Yes, but not for the reason given
'A' Foul behind the LoS enforced from the previous spot. - Yes, but it's been brought up and voted down before
Enforce dead ball UNRs away from 'game action' as UNSs. - OK, but a meaningless distinction.

And before anyone argues that's it's not meaningless under the the "2 UNS and you're out" theory, you already have the option of ejecting for ANY foul you deem flagrant.   If a player has a second dead ball UNR, that's flagrant, toss him.

[RMR]

The option to choose more than one would be good.

WR OOB and touches ball, Illegal Touching not IP - yes, but to take it a step further, how about just do like I think the NCAA does now - incomplete at the spot of touching

List Targeting/Helmet fouls as Automatic First Downs - how about just make personal fouls auto firsts, half the coaches think they are already

Fouls on K on free kick enforce at dead ball spot. Reduce free kicks. - Yes

'A' Foul behind the LoS enforced from the previous spot. - Yes

Enforce dead ball UNRs away from 'game action' as UNSs. - No

How about adding back the automatic first down to DPI?

[Ralph Damren]

From my memory :
  1. Been proposed several times but I don't believe made it out of subcommittee (+50% needed). There hasn't seemed to have been much support for this.
  2. I don't feel that helmet hits are called enough now. To add AFD, may reduce that number. The "balance police" would want LOD if by offense.
  3. Support 100% -much smoother than current. "Tack-ons" have been up before and have made it to floor for final vote. Support has been around 50% (need 67%) - I need to convince 8 more!
  4. Strongly opposed...ABO is both fair and easy.
  5. Some DBPFs are unintentional - would require more paperwork for us - we can toss for cheap shot w/o counting to two, too.  (using "to, two ,too" is nearly as rare as a free kick FG).

[ncwingman]

Enforce dead ball UNRs away from 'game action' as UNSs. - OK, but a meaningless distinction.

And before anyone argues that's it's not meaningless under the the "2 UNS and you're out" theory, you already have the option of ejecting for ANY foul you deem flagrant.   If a player has a second dead ball UNR, that's flagrant, toss him.

What happens when the player is just not letting up at the whistle in a chippy rivalry game? All game long, he's consistently getting an extra hit or shove after the whistle. He might be racking up the PFs (and he'd had a pretty dumb coach to leave him in there to keep getting more), but no one particular incident is "flagrant" enough to warrant an ejection.

If you decide enough is enough and you toss the kid, then two questions come up when dealing with the coach (or higher ups on Monday) --  1) Why did THAT hit warrant an ejection when the first four did not? and 2) If you didn't know it was his fifth PF, would the out of context video of that one hit make you think "That's not flagrant, he shouldn't have been ejected!"

In a situation like that, I'd like to have the *option* of calling a "contact" UNS that's actually supported by rule. I wouldn't want it to be mandatory, as it needs to be a judgement call based on the game situation -- a one off late hit shouldn't be a UNS, but repeated late hits should be.

[Atlanta Blue]

What happens when the player is just not letting up at the whistle in a chippy rivalry game? All game long, he's consistently getting an extra hit or shove after the whistle. He might be racking up the PFs (and he'd had a pretty dumb coach to leave him in there to keep getting more), but no one particular incident is "flagrant" enough to warrant an ejection.

If you decide enough is enough and you toss the kid, then two questions come up when dealing with the coach (or higher ups on Monday) --  1) Why did THAT hit warrant an ejection when the first four did not? and 2) If you didn't know it was his fifth PF, would the out of context video of that one hit make you think "That's not flagrant, he shouldn't have been ejected!"

In a situation like that, I'd like to have the *option* of calling a "contact" UNS that's actually supported by rule. I wouldn't want it to be mandatory, as it needs to be a judgement call based on the game situation -- a one off late hit shouldn't be a UNS, but repeated late hits should be.

If the multiple PFs aren't enough to toss him, then simply shooting his mouth off or trash talking or taunting shouldn't be either.  In fact, the multiple unnecessary, cheap contact fouls are WORSE than multiple  trash talking or taunting fouls.

[Ralph Damren]

If the multiple PFs aren't enough to toss him, then simply shooting his mouth off or trash talking or taunting shouldn't be either.  In fact, the multiple unnecessary, cheap contact fouls are WORSE than multiple  trash talking or taunting fouls.

"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me." - A life lesson learned from my dad...after he returned from the "barber shop" (referenced in another topic).

[ncwingman]

If the multiple PFs aren't enough to toss him, then simply shooting his mouth off or trash talking or taunting shouldn't be either.  In fact, the multiple unnecessary, cheap contact fouls are WORSE than multiple  trash talking or taunting fouls.

I agree that it should be enough to toss him, the issue is that the rule doesn't explicitly allow for it. PFs are not cumulative (multiple non-flagrant PFs don't add up to one flagrant PF) and UNS are only for non-contact fouls by rule.

I mean, you could argue that after the 2nd/3rd/4th late hit, the official tells the kid "Stop doing that" and if he does it again, he's "refusing to comply with a game officials request" and he earns an UNS. That just feels like you're exploiting a loophole to kick the kid out.

[wvoref]

If the multiple PFs aren't enough to toss him, then simply shooting his mouth off or trash talking or taunting shouldn't be either.  In fact, the multiple unnecessary, cheap contact fouls are WORSE than multiple  trash talking or taunting fouls.

I agree 100% that the multiple cheap shot fouls are worse than the multiple trash talks which is why many people want an Unsp Cond PF to be created. Not all dead ball personal fouls would fall under this category just the ones that would qualify as cheap shots but not rise to the level of flagrant enough to eject. Whether it was a plain DB PF or a DB UC PF would be discretionary with some guidelines. Then there would be rules book support. I agree it makes no sense that a player is ejected for calling the opponent a name twice but not for taking non flagrant cheap shots. Not totally familiar with NCAA rules but it seems they have some form of UC PFs. 

[theunofficialofficial]

From my memory :
...
  3. Support 100% -much smoother than current. "Tack-ons" have been up before and have made it to floor for final vote. Support has been around 50% (need 67%) - I need to convince 8 more!
...

What about making the new "encroachment" fouls - I.E. 4 on each side of kicker, 10 within 5 of restraining - live ball? Give coach of R option to either accept result or penalize?

[Ralph Damren]

The accepted live ball foul would call for a re-kick , and no one would favor that. IMHO, the "tack-on" would be the smoothest as current requires the kick to be made before you can shut it down. In those few seconds , many things can happen and few are good.

[Ralph Damren]

FYI, I submitted one rules and two mechanics proposal :

 RULE :  10-4-2  The basic spot is the previous spot....

                (NEW) d. When the related run ends behind the neutral zone before
                             a change of team possession. (ghostwritten by Bossman - thanks) 

  This would provide a more equitable result than current rule where previous spot enforcement if ball is passed or FUMBLED but not if runner kept possession. The scenario of a receiver being held that resulted in a QB sack would also be corrected. Where the basic spot is being changed, there would be no impact on ABO.

 MECHANICS CHANGE :
     Adopt the Victory Formation Protocol that I had posted earlier

     Adopt setting the chains to establish a neutral zone on free kicks after a fair catch.

FAN(ATIC) CHANGE :
     In lieu of cheering for the Bruins, I've decided to cheer for the Red Wings, Lighting , or Black Hawks -as they all have former U-Maine goalies.     

[AlUpstateNY]

 1. WR OOB and touches ball, Illegal Touching not IP
 2. List Targeting/Helmet fouls as Automatic First Downs
 3. Fouls on K on free kick enforce at dead ball spot. Reduce free kicks.
 4. 'A' Foul behind the LoS enforced from the previous spot.
 5. Enforce dead ball UNRs away from 'game action' as UNSs.

1. The simplest, most direct and most logical answer to this question is to simply define a player, who has   
    established himself as being OOB continues to be OOB, until he legally re-establishes his status as being
    In-Bounds(the current interpretation requiring maintaining "touching the ground" is just SILLY)

2. Don't see the advantage, but wouldn't oppose.

3. Makes sense.

4. Oppose. DEPRIVES the defense of an advantage they gained fairly by their play.

5. Don't see ANY advantage or purpose.  SINGLE incident Disqualification is currently a purely JUDGMENT
    call   

[younggun]

FYI, I submitted one rules and two mechanics proposal :

 RULE :  10-4-2  The basic spot is the previous spot....

                (NEW) d. When the related run ends behind the neutral zone before
                             a change of team possession. (ghostwritten by Bossman - thanks) 

  This would provide a more equitable result than current rule where previous spot enforcement if ball is passed or FUMBLED but not if runner kept possession. The scenario of a receiver being held that resulted in a QB sack would also be corrected. Where the basic spot is being changed, there would be no impact on ABO.

 MECHANICS CHANGE :
     Adopt the Victory Formation Protocol that I had posted earlier

     Adopt setting the chains to establish a neutral zone on free kicks after a fair catch.

FAN(ATIC) CHANGE :
     In lieu of cheering for the Bruins, I've decided to cheer for the Red Wings, Lighting , or Black Hawks -as they all have former U-Maine goalies.   

Can we add in the editorial change to include a player who looses his helmet. Add to the IP rule with injured player who has to sit out a play.

[Atlanta Blue]

1. The simplest, most direct and most logical answer to this question is to simply define a player, who has   
    established himself as being OOB continues to be OOB, until he legally re-establishes his status as being
    In-Bounds(the current interpretation requiring maintaining "touching the ground" is just SILLY)

That's not what's being addressed here.  Currently, if a receiver steps on the sideline, even accidentally, and then returns to the field (even if he re-establishes himself inbounds) and catches a pass, it's a foul for Illegal Participation, 15 yards from the previous spot.  This makes it Illegal Touching (5 yards and LOD).  I could see even going a step farther and just making it an incomplete pass.

[Atlanta Blue]

Adopt the Victory Formation Protocol that I had posted earlier

And what was the Victory Formation protocol?  PLEASE tell me it doesn't involve telling the defense anything about what the offense is going to do, or make it foul if the offense says they are going to take a knee and doesn't.

[GA Umpire]

That's not what's being addressed here.  Currently, if a receiver steps on the sideline, even accidentally, and then returns to the field (even if he re-establishes himself inbounds) and catches a pass, it's a foul for Illegal Participation, 15 yards from the previous spot.  This makes it Illegal Touching (5 yards and LOD).  I could see even going a step farther and just making it an incomplete pass.

I agree partially with AB.  My suggestion:  If the receiver goes oob without being blocked oob by the defense, the pass should simply be ruled incomplete.  That should be enough of a penalty to stop a receiver from going oob on purpose.

 

[FLAHL]

PLEASE tell me it doesn't involve telling the defense anything about what the offense is going to do, or make it foul if the offense says they are going to take a knee and doesn't.

You're not going to like the response to this one AB, but here is the proposal:

 VICTORY FORMATION PROTOCOL

 A. Coach of leading team informs wing official on his side that his QB will be taking a knee.
   1. Wing official will verbalize and hand signal by tapping knee to official on opposite sideline.
   2. If the lead is less than nine or trailing team has timeouts left, that coach can inform official
      that his team will continue to play.
     a. That official will use signal #10 to communicate to R,U and opposite sideline that B still
         will be playing.
     b. leading coach,R & U will remind offense that defense is still coming and to be ready.
     c. If trailing coach agrees to harness defense, official will signal "thumb's up"

 B. When the lead is nine or greater and defense has no time outs remaining.
   1. The trailing coach will be informed that the QB will be taking a knee and he needs to
       harness his defense.
   2. R & U will inform the defense to stay out of contact and QB to go down as soon as snap
      is received.

 C. Potential fouls.
   1. Player contacting a defenseless player (9-4-3g) would be a personal foul.
   2. QB failing to quickly take a knee (9-10-1) would be an unfair act -unsportsmanlike
      conduct with previous spot enforcement.

NOTE: In the interest of improving safety and promoting good sportsmanship, it is felt that
         providing consistent game-ending procedures was needed.

[Ralph Damren]

Thanks, FLAHL, I was a' digging thru my mothball posts as you came through! We used it as an experimental mechanic in Maine this Fall and didn't have any problems. Often the trailing coach would yell: "STAY OUT OF THERE, GUYS, BE SMART" and their captains would echo that. A very few of the coaches chose to "continue to play" and with a reminder to A, those went clean. At our recent state officials' meeting, it was voted as strongly successful. The lone opponent stated : "If they don't wanta' play anymore, let them go home." We all knew what was coming and what the reaction would be. In the past we didn't.

[bama_stripes]

 VICTORY FORMATION PROTOCOL

(R & U):  "Offense, protect your QB."
               "Defense,  don't do anything stupid."

It's worked for me for 30 years.

[wvoref]

That's not what's being addressed here.  Currently, if a receiver steps on the sideline, even accidentally, and then returns to the field (even if he re-establishes himself inbounds) and catches a pass, it's a foul for Illegal Participation, 15 yards from the previous spot.  This makes it Illegal Touching (5 yards and LOD).  I could see even going a step farther and just making it an incomplete pass.

The bigger problem with the current rule as I see it is that it isn't a foul for the receiver to step accidentally on the sideline and then catch the pass. He has committed a 15 yd foul for merely stepping on the sideline and continuing to run his route whether the pass is thrown to him or not. I have been campaigning for the illegal touching or some similar change to this rule for years. But at this point I would even accept calling IP for touching the pass as long as we didn't call it for simply continuing to play.

[Atlanta Blue]

(R & U):  "Offense, protect your QB."
               "Defense,  don't do anything stupid."

It's worked for me for 30 years.

EXACTLY.

A thousand times no to that other nonsense.  If you are going to do all that, just end the damn game.

In the past 17 years of coaching, I have seen exactly ONE problem in a game with players taking a knee, and that was one hot headed player in a JV game.  This is a solution looking for a problem.

If you're going to play football, play until the end, protect your QB, and play smart.

[VALJ]

(R & U):  "Offense, protect your QB."
               "Defense,  don't do anything stupid."

It's worked for me for 30 years.

Here we go again...   

And FWIW, I agree with those who oppose this.  If we're going to do this, we should just have the coaches shorten the quarter and end the darn game already.

[GAHSUMPIRE]

(R & U):  "Offense, protect your QB."
               "Defense,  don't do anything stupid."

It's worked for me for 30 years.

I would only add 1 thing to what Bama Stripes said: "Quarterback, be smart."

Assuming the quarterback does what he is supposed to do and takes a knee immediately, we blow it dead quickly (and repeatedly), moving in to mixed colors as necessary.

Both teams can still "play to the whistle", but (the knee and) the whistle should be immediate.

[HLinNC]

We need a "down the rabbit hole" emoji.

And I rise in opposition along with the Gentlemen from the bordering states of Georgia and Virginia.