2023 NFHS Rule Interpretation Meeting

[Legacy Zebra]

I’m not and never have been an NFHS official, so I know my opinion holds no weight, but here it is anyway. Having been a member of this forum for a long time, I’ve seen quite a few discussions of fed changes that bring y’all’s rules closer to or totally in line with NCAA. Penalty enforcement on kicks, tackle box exception for grounding, and now this. One thing that always sticks out to me is that NFHS always seems to try to reinvent the wheel. Rather than just say “We want our rule to be like NCAA, so we’re going to use their rule” they have to try to do it themselves and make it way more complicated, convoluted, or vague than it needs to be. It’s almost like they go out of their way to not use the blueprint that NCAA has already laid out just for the sake of being able to say they didn’t copy NCAA. And then invariably they miss something or don’t use the best language and it’s a mess. Again, I know y’all probably don’t care what an outsider says, but I feel like y’all would be better off if you just copied the language from NCAA and left it at that.

[george7244]

When i started calling in 1970 we were calling in Texas and Arkansas and the NCAA and the Fed rules were miles apart.  Over my 39 year career they got a lot closer together over the years.  I havent looked at a rule book since 2009 but  would venture to guess that they are even closer now.

[JasonTX]

When i started calling in 1970 we were calling in Texas and Arkansas and the NCAA and the Fed rules were miles apart.  Over my 39 year career they got a lot closer together over the years.  I havent looked at a rule book since 2009 but  would venture to guess that they are even closer now.

Last year a coach from Oklahoma called and was wanting a crew from Texas to come work one of his games.  When I explained to him over the phone that we couldn't cross state lines due to us being "certified" to work only in Texas and also due to the fact we didn't know NFHS rules as we used NCAA.  In regard to the rules part, he responded with, "Nobody would notice the difference if you just officiated with NCAA rules."

[AlUpstateNY]

I’m not and never have been an NFHS official, so I know my opinion holds no weight, but here it is anyway. Having been a member of this forum for a long time, I’ve seen quite a few discussions of fed changes that bring y’all’s rules closer to or totally in line with NCAA. Penalty enforcement on kicks, tackle box exception for grounding, and now this. One thing that always sticks out to me is that NFHS always seems to try to reinvent the wheel. Rather than just say “We want our rule to be like NCAA, so we’re going to use their rule” they have to try to do it themselves and make it way more complicated, convoluted, or vague than it needs to be. It’s almost like they go out of their way to not use the blueprint that NCAA has already laid out just for the sake of being able to say they didn’t copy NCAA. And then invariably they miss something or don’t use the best language and it’s a mess. Again, I know y’all probably don’t care what an outsider says, but I feel like y’all would be better off if you just copied the language from NCAA and left it at that.

Although completely adopting NCAA rules, for NFHS,  games might well be convenient to some extent, the significant differences between the two environments still exists; in player maturity, physicality and experience. Completely ignoring those inherent differences would needlessly increase some very practical, and prudent, safety, comprehension and environmental natural realities that exist between the two levels of play.  Although "the differences" may have been reduced somewhat in training, physical capabilities and most importantly, maturity, in recent generations, American Football remains a contest of extreme physical conflict and ever expanding complicated strategy requiring extensive training and patient development and instruction.

12-18 year old children, still don't mature to the point of matching capabilities of 18-24+ year old adults in highly personal, direct & physical confrontation, at least not as a standard.  "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander" simply does not apply the the sport of American Football.  American Football is (thankfully) a multi-level sport that requires long and gradual development to advance through the multi levels of; Youth, High School, Collegiate and Professional (which has it's own progressive levels).  At each level game rules are very similar, with subtle differences applied to each progressive level to support and apply to the physical and maturity capabilities of participants at each level.

Constant consideration of rule developments, on a by-level basis, is, and has long been the practice for generations, to practically and safely minimize "significant" differences, but as long as the natural differences between players at the different levels continues to exist, player safety & maturity difference are absolutes that must take precedence.

[dammitbobby]

You completely missed his point.

Everyone is aware that there are some valid reasons for differing from the NCAA rulebook.  I don't think a single person would argue that.  Even Texas has exceptions.  BUT - differing penalty enforcements and spot definitions do not, in any sense, increase safety for players.  It just creates needless complexity and confusion.

Just my opinion.

[AlUpstateNY]

You completely missed his point.

Everyone is aware that there are some valid reasons for differing from the NCAA rulebook.  I don't think a single person would argue that.  Even Texas has exceptions.  BUT - differing penalty enforcements and spot definitions do not, in any sense, increase safety for players.  It just creates needless complexity and confusion.

Just my opinion.

Bobby, I'm not suggesting EVERY exception/difference is "Golden", but I see no benefit in "Throwing the baby out with the bath water", either when creating adjustments, or terminating them.  As we know, on both the NFHS and NCAA levels, some revisions have much shorter lifespans than others, once given the test of practical application.  A successful process includes consideration of  legitimate disagreement, as well as support and the additional experience (and perspective) of practical application. and should be subject to potential review and/or retention.

As with any rule adjustment, the final element of acceptance  is proven by the success/failure provided by actual application.

[refjeff]

Got my Rules and Case Books in the mail today.  I'm going to lightly review the Basic Spot changes until after our state interpreters clinic in 3 weeks.

Actually I plan to go to four clinics in the span on nineteen days.   I will either be a new rules guru or irreparably confused.

[bossman72]

Any news/clarification from the meeting?

[HLinNC]

It’s almost like they go out of their way to not use the blueprint that NCAA has already laid out just for the sake of being able to say they didn’t copy NCAA.

I worked nearly 30 years in government.  An agency has to justify its existence.  If they copied the NCAA, eventually some would begin to ask, "what do we need you for?"  Its as simple as that.

[GA Umpire]

I worked nearly 30 years in government.  An agency has to justify its existence.  If they copied the NCAA, eventually some would begin to ask, "what do we need you for?"  Its as simple as that.

 

7-Man crew.

[Ralph Damren]

I discussed the Interp Meeting with an attendee and have a better understanding of what we consider confusing re-write of the end of Rule 10. Our rule change on fouls by A behind the LOS on runs that ended beyond the LOS, would no longer be covered by the
'Aii-But-One' Principle, as it would be enforced from the previous spot. The Editorial Committee then removed the ABO and replaced it with what we now have. There is a good chance that it will be re-written for clairity in 2024. A soon to be released clarification may help.

[theride]

Would it be safe to simplify it this way (other than just a few exceptions already noted)

1. We will not penalize A or B from behind the previous spot
2. No All-but-One Principle for Team A behind the previous spot
3. If the run ends behind the previous spot, all fouls by A and B that occur anywhere will be penalized from the previous spot

All other Loose Ball Play fouls and Running play fouls will be enforced same as last year.

[bossman72]

Would it be safe to simplify it this way (other than just a few exceptions already noted)

1. We will not penalize A or B from behind the previous spot
2. No All-but-One Principle for Team A behind the previous spot
3. If the run ends behind the previous spot, all fouls by A and B that occur anywhere will be penalized from the previous spot

All other Loose Ball Play fouls and Running play fouls will be enforced same as last year.

Too many gaps in that.  You WILL penalize A from the spot when they commit fouls like Intentional Grounding, Illegal kicking, Illegal Batting, etc. 

Keep all but one.  Give these as exceptions:

1) If the run ends behind the LOS, the basic spot is the previous spot.  (ABO still in-tact for defensive fouls).
2) These fouls by the offense will be penalized from the previous spot, if the ABO enforcement spot is behind the LOS and in the field of play:  Holding, Chop Block, Illegal Block in the Back, Illegal Use of Hands, and any personal foul.
3) All other offensive fouls follow strict all but one.

More editorial: The rule book constantly confuses basic spot and enforcement spot in rule 10.  They need to start using enforcement spot.
Even more editorial:  In the definition of Loose Ball Play, remove backward passes and fumbles from the LOS and treat those as runs. 

The quick and dirty mnemonic for offensive fouls in the offensive backfield:
Fouls against the PLAYER = previous spot.
Fouls against or with the BALL = spot foul.
Safety if in the end zone.

I'm working on my rule 10 re-write that I will submit through the portal that will surely be read by no-one.

[Snapper]

Too many gaps in that.  You WILL penalize A from the spot when they commit fouls like Intentional Grounding, Illegal kicking, Illegal Batting, etc. 

Keep all but one.  Give these as exceptions:

1) If the run ends behind the LOS, the basic spot is the previous spot.  (ABO still in-tact for defensive fouls).
2) These fouls by the offense will be penalized from the previous spot, if the ABO enforcement spot is behind the LOS and in the field of play:  Holding, Chop Block, Illegal Block in the Back, Illegal Use of Hands, and any personal foul.
3) All other offensive fouls follow strict all but one.

More editorial: The rule book constantly confuses basic spot and enforcement spot in rule 10.  They need to start using enforcement spot.
Even more editorial:  In the definition of Loose Ball Play, remove backward passes and fumbles from the LOS and treat those as runs. 

The quick and dirty mnemonic for offensive fouls in the offensive backfield:
Fouls against the PLAYER = previous spot.
Fouls against or with the BALL = spot foul.
Safety if in the end zone.

I'm working on my rule 10 re-write that I will submit through the portal that will surely be read by no-one.

This is good.  And I hope that they do consider your suggestions, because it's obvious that you would do a good job helping the editors.

I'm also going to take a crack at describing the changes, because if people see it phrased a couple of different ways, maybe one of the descriptions clicks for them. 



Here is what was intended by the rule change.  Keep doing everything that you were doing, EXCEPT:

     1)  Enforce Team A fouls "against a Player" (eg Holding, Illegal Block, Personal Foul) that occur behind the LOS, in the field of play, and prior to a change of possession, from the PREVIOUS SPOT.

     2)  The Basic Spot for runs that end behind the LOS prior to a change of possession is the PREVIOUS SPOT.



That's it.  That's all there really is to it.  Here are a few examples:

a)  A76 holds 5 yds behind the LOS and the play gains 16 yds for an apparent first down.  Bring it back and enforce 10 yds from the Previous Spot.  (In the past, you would have enforced from the spot of the foul.)

b)  A76 holds in the endzone and the play gains 16 yds for an apparent first down.  Even though this happened behind the LOS, it did not happen in the field of play.  It happened in the ez.  So just like last year, enforce this as a safety.

c)  A15 intentionally grounds the ball 7 yds behind the LOS.  Although A committed a foul behind the LOS, this is a "foul against the ball" and not against a player.  So the new rule doesn't apply.  And you enforce it from the spot of the foul, just like last year.

d)  B45 sacks the QB 10 yds behind the line, but in doing so, he facemasks him.  Because this is a foul by the defense, both last year and this year, you enforce it from the Basic Spot.  But last year, that basic spot was the end of the run, so you would have enforced from the sack.  This year, because the run ends behind the line, the new Basic Spot is the Previous Spot.  And soo we enforce from the Previous Spot.

e) A34 cracks off a nice 20 yd run for an apparent first down, but A76 was holding 5 yds downfield.  Nothing has changed.  The run ended beyond the line, so the Basic Spot is still the end of the run.  And A did not foul behind the line, so that new exception doesn't come into play.  You just use the normal All-But-One for a foul by A behind the basic spot.  Bring it back to the spot of the foul and mark off 10 yds.

[AlUpstateNY]

T

     1)  Enforce Team A fouls "against a Player" (eg Holding, Illegal Block, Personal Foul) that occur behind the LOS, in the field of play, and prior to a change of possession, from the PREVIOUS SPOT.
     2)  The Basic Spot for runs that end behind the LOS prior to a change of possession is the PREVIOUS SPOT.
That's it.  That's all there really is to it.  Here are a few examples:
a)  A76 holds 5 yds behind the LOS and the play gains 16 yds for an apparent first down.  Bring it back and enforce 10 yds from the Previous Spot.  (In the past, you would have enforced from the spot of the foul.)

Considering the "Advantage/Disadvantage" balance between Offense  & Defense;  When "B" penetrates the "A" defensive line and causes "A", in possession of the ball to retreat (in order to avoid "B's" penetration.  "A'" has the option to elude "B" to avoid additional loss.  When "B's" successful legal penetration causes "A" to foul to avoid suffering that additional loss of yardage, due to "B's" legal efforts, why reward "A" for allowing the successful, legal penetration, by eliminating the legally gained advantage "B" has accomplished by enforcing the penalty from the Previous Spot?

Especially, in the situation of a "scrambling" passer retreating to avoid the (successful) pursuit of "B" necessitating "A" to foul, in order to avoid additional yardage loss to negate the pursuit. Why reward "A", by moving the enforcement spot, for their foul, by moving the spot back to the previous spot, when "A" is TOTALLY responsible for repositioning the spot of the foul?

[CalhounLJ]

I fully agree, Ilyazhito, that should be the result of the play. Stating that the enforcement spot is the succeeding spot sends us back to 2-41-10 :
"..The succeeding spot is the where the ball would next be snapped or kicked if a foul had not occurred."

 

We now wait with baited breath for the 'clairfication'   

Ah, yes. The time tested definition of succeeding spot. Except when it’s not…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bossman72]

Ah, yes. The time tested definition of succeeding spot. Except when it’s not…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also don't like them using succeeding spot, because usually that is synonymous with "live ball foul treated as dead ball foul", which is not the case (like the tack on enforcement).

[SCline]

Ah, yes. The time tested definition of succeeding spot. Except when it’s not…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

…I’m so glad you’re back Calhoun

[Snapper]

... Why reward "A"...?

You're making a philosophical argument here.  One that you've made on here many times before.

Whether people agree or disagree with your position, the practical matter is that the 50+ member football rules committee voted unanimously to change the rule.  I assume that their main reasoning was that they felt it gave a better balance between Offense and Defense.

Regardless, although I expect that they'll eventually clarify these rules, I don't expect them to go back to the old way things were enforced.  So it's pretty much a moot argument at this point.

[Patrick E.]

I discussed the Interp Meeting with an attendee and have a better understanding of what we consider confusing re-write of the end of Rule 10. Our rule change on fouls by A behind the LOS on runs that ended beyond the LOS, would no longer be covered by the
'Aii-But-One' Principle, as it would be enforced from the previous spot. The Editorial Committee then removed the ABO and replaced it with what we now have. There is a good chance that it will be re-written for clairity in 2024. A soon to be released clarification may help.

Here is the clarification from the NFHS which Ralph speaks of -

"In compiling the multitude of changes to Rule 10 necessitated by the discussion around the proposed 2023 NFHS football rules change that was approved unanimously, there remains two additional clarifications to be made for coaches, administrators and game officials for the upcoming 2023 high school football season.
 
To summarize, if on-field game situations involving a loss of possession create a conflict between the end of the run or related run and the succeeding spot, game officials should apply the standard related to the end of the run as intended by the cleanup in Rule 10-4-8.  This does not apply to fouls as detailed in Rule 10-4-5a through 10-4-5d which explicitly call for succeeding spot enforcement (the spot where the ball will next be put in play per Rule 2-41-10).  Rule 2-41-9b will help clarify those situations in which conflict might exist."

[CalhounLJ]

Here is the clarification from the NFHS which Ralph speaks of -

"In compiling the multitude of changes to Rule 10 necessitated by the discussion around the proposed 2023 NFHS football rules change that was approved unanimously, there remains two additional clarifications to be made for coaches, administrators and game officials for the upcoming 2023 high school football season.
 
To summarize, if on-field game situations involving a loss of possession create a conflict between the end of the run or related run and the succeeding spot, game officials should apply the standard related to the end of the run as intended by the cleanup in Rule 10-4-8.  This does not apply to fouls as detailed in Rule 10-4-5a through 10-4-5d which explicitly call for succeeding spot enforcement (the spot where the ball will next be put in play per Rule 2-41-10).  Rule 2-41-9b will help clarify those situations in which conflict might exist."

I’m going to withhold my comments until I can better understand this, but my initial reaction is sh**! This is like the twilight zone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

I’m going to withhold my comments until I can better understand this, but my initial reaction is sh**! This is like the twilight zone.

As Gunny Highway said "its a clusterflop" (edited for TV version).  We've all got guys that couldn't get ABO right.  This- - - this really bakes me.  I'm tired of the double talk that comes out of the Fed.  I'm tired of getting blasted with e-mails once a week about recruiting new officials and fan behavior and then they go and pull a stunt that REALLY makes this "hobby" harder.

I answered a case play on the NFHS Officials FB page yesterday.  I had to edit it after discussion and I was still ostensibly wrong.  Later last night the answer had circled back around to the fact that my edited answer may have actually been correct but who the *&#@ knows at this point.

 

[refjeff]

Here is the clarification from the NFHS which Ralph speaks of -

"In compiling the multitude of changes to Rule 10 necessitated by the discussion around the proposed 2023 NFHS football rules change that was approved unanimously, there remains two additional clarifications to be made for coaches, administrators and game officials for the upcoming 2023 high school football season.
 
To summarize, if on-field game situations involving a loss of possession create a conflict between the end of the run or related run and the succeeding spot, game officials should apply the standard related to the end of the run as intended by the cleanup in Rule 10-4-8.  This does not apply to fouls as detailed in Rule 10-4-5a through 10-4-5d which explicitly call for succeeding spot enforcement (the spot where the ball will next be put in play per Rule 2-41-10).  Rule 2-41-9b will help clarify those situations in which conflict might exist."

 

[Snapper]

Here is the clarification from the NFHS which Ralph speaks of -

"In compiling the multitude of changes to Rule 10 necessitated by the discussion around the proposed 2023 NFHS football rules change that was approved unanimously, there remains two additional clarifications to be made for coaches, administrators and game officials for the upcoming 2023 high school football season.
 
To summarize, if on-field game situations involving a loss of possession create a conflict between the end of the run or related run and the succeeding spot, game officials should apply the standard related to the end of the run as intended by the cleanup in Rule 10-4-8.  This does not apply to fouls as detailed in Rule 10-4-5a through 10-4-5d which explicitly call for succeeding spot enforcement (the spot where the ball will next be put in play per Rule 2-41-10).  Rule 2-41-9b will help clarify those situations in which conflict might exist."

Hmmm, well ok….   

I suppose I should just fall back on this great advice: 

https://youtu.be/9fYngTUZeUQ

[bama_stripes]

I don’t think any official would allow a team to profit after committing a foul.  It wouldn’t ever cross my mind to enforce from the succeeding spot on a B TD after a face mask foul caused A to fumble.

P.S.: Whoever wrote that for the NFHS should be sentenced to a week at Northwestern’s football / baseball camps.