Suggestion Box

[ilyazhito]

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?

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.

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.

[bossman72]

If you guys want automatic first down for DPI, are you prepared to bring back loss of down for OPI?  Some people on the committee feels that it preserves the balance between offense and defense, which the NFHS likes to have.

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.

[bama_stripes]

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.

[mb98football]

I would like to see the clock start on the RFP when the ball goes OOB, except in the last 2 minutes of the half.

[TampaSteve]

What can we do to make free kicks safer ?
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.

[TampaSteve]

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  (5-man crew) 

absolutely favor this.

[ilyazhito]

Yes, I would be in favor. It would lessen the confusion between NFHS and NCAA rules.

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).

[bossman72]

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.

[peterparsons]

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.

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.

[Ralph Damren]

Back from Windy Indy. I can only say :

   SOME RULES PASSED
   SOME RULES THAT PASSED YOU WILL LIKE 
   SOME RULES THAT PASSED YOU WON'T LIKE   
   SOME RULES THAT DIDN'T PASS WILL DISAPPOINT 
   SOME RULES THAT DIDN'T PASS YOU'LL CHEER 

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.

                                            (5 man crew)

[TampaSteve]

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.

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.

THX for your feedback..
Curious: what is the age of the players?

[Kalle]

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).

[peterparsons]

GB age ranges are similar to those Kalle said. We use this mechanic for the play clock in our U19 (HS Junior/Senior), College (mostly 18-22) and Adult Semi-Pro (18+) competitions. It's the standard IFAF mechanic for international football when we don't (as is common) have visible play clocks (BJ times and gives visible signals).

[bama_stripes]

Back from Windy Indy. I can only say :

   SOME RULES PASSED
   SOME RULES THAT PASSED YOU WILL LIKE 
   SOME RULES THAT PASSED YOU WON'T LIKE   
   SOME RULES THAT DIDN'T PASS WILL DISAPPOINT 
   SOME RULES THAT DIDN'T PASS YOU'LL CHEER 

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.

                                            (5 man crew)

Thanks for giving us a voice, Ralph.   

[stevegarbs]

Thanks, Ralph. Can you give us a hint as to whether this is a rule change "heavy" or "light" year?

[bama_stripes]

Any chance the rules language and Case Book plays could be vetted here before publication?
    

[CalhounLJ]

Any chance the rules language and Case Book plays could be vetted here before publication?
    

RETWEET

[Ralph Damren]

Any chance the rules language and Case Book plays could be vetted here before publication?
    

Rules language : YES
Case plays : Not currently on the Editorial Committee, I don't see them until you see them.

[Ralph Damren]

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. 

[markrischard]

On the roster, or on the ice?

[prab]

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.

[Ralph Damren]

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  umpire  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.

  ...

[KWH]

1982 was also the year when this big (huge) addition to required equipment was added:

1982 - "Pants Required"

[Ralph Damren]

1982 was also the year when this big (huge) addition to required equipment was added:

1982 - "Pants Required"

This may have been in response to a rumored fad spreading through some college campuses of co-ed nude whiffle ball. 

PS: don't worry, the new rules will be out soon 

[ncwingman]

On the roster, or on the ice?

More importantly, can we veto them by denoting a few healthy scratches?