2023 NFHS Rule Interpretation Meeting

[bossman72]

Hmmm, well ok….   

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

https://youtu.be/9fYngTUZeUQ

[ncwingman]

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

[CalhounLJ]

Whoever wrote this rule change has absolutely no concept of the difference between basic spot and spot of enforcement (or spots in general.) How can people like that be allowed to write rules? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

Lets no even go there Brian - Just replace Succeeding Spot End of the Run or Related Run

Why do we not need to go there? It’s a legit question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

Whoever wrote this rule change has absolutely no concept of the difference between basic spot and spot of enforcement (or spots in general.) How can people like that be allowed to write rules? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe whomever created this rule revision could ask Kamala Harris to assess and explain it.

[sj]

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."

Is this online anywhere in the form of an announcement? Thanks.

[ncwingman]

Maybe whomever created this rule revision could ask Kamala Harris to assess and explain it.

Was that necessary? Can we keep political comments off of this board?

[Patrick E.]

Is this online anywhere in the form of an announcement? Thanks.

This language was provided in a supplemental interpretation PP slide provided by the NFHS to state offices.

[AlUpstateNY]

Was that necessary? Can we keep political comments off of this board?

No "Political" inference intended, just a recent & clearly recognizable example of double-talk.

[HLinNC]

Is this online anywhere in the form of an announcement? Thanks.

Clarifications normally get released on the NFHS website, just like when the rule changes come out.  I've been keeping a check on it since after the 4th of July when all this correction talk began to pick up, but so far nothing has been updated there.

[CalhounLJ]

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.

I’ve been NFHS official over 30 years and have seen many rule changes. You are spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VALJ]

I’ve been NFHS official over 30 years and have seen many rule changes. You are spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I always say that year 1 is when they put in what they want, then year 2 fixes the unintended consequences of the verbiage from year one, then year 3 is usually when the tweak enough of THOSE unintended consequences and get the rule where they wanted it in the first place.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I’ve been NFHS official over 30 years and have seen many rule changes. You are spot on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a 25 year + official who for 20 of those years worked NCAA rules exclusively I agree.  When we're changing the rules to effectively be virtually identical to NCAA rules why try to invent totally different language to describe?  I'd be happy to pay $12.00 as a "NFHS Membership Fee" and simply use the NCAA rulebook with an NFHS addendum defining the real differences.

[HLinNC]

I just took a look at Georgia HSA training power point for 2023 and the last page mentions this statement-

 Fouls by B in A End Zone 
   These are currently under editorial review. Disagreements exist
   as Rule 10-4-7 clearly conflicts with new rule 10-4-2d.

Overall a pretty good rule change training tool.    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1TtnNBnm9XsWb50HNpvNpwBlh0FQHGEjM/edit?pli=1#slide=id.p10

[CalhounLJ]

As a 25 year + official who for 20 of those years worked NCAA rules exclusively I agree.  When we're changing the rules to effectively be virtually identical to NCAA rules why try to invent totally different language to describe?  I'd be happy to pay $12.00 as a "NFHS Membership Fee" and simply use the NCAA rulebook with an NFHS addendum defining the real differences.

UPDATE: Our assigning secretary just told me the best way to navigate this nightmare is to buy an NCAA rulebook and enforce penalties according to it...

That's what is going to happen across the country if this ineptitude is allowed to continue in NFHS.

[Patrick E.]

I just took a look at Georgia HSA training power point for 2023 and the last page mentions this statement-

 Fouls by B in A End Zone 
   These are currently under editorial review. Disagreements exist
   as Rule 10-4-7 clearly conflicts with new rule 10-4-2d.

Overall a pretty good rule change training tool.    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1TtnNBnm9XsWb50HNpvNpwBlh0FQHGEjM/edit?pli=1#slide=id.p10

It seems 10-4-7 should apply only after a change of possession.
1. A-B-A : A is responsible for forcing the ball across its own goal line and B fouls
2. A-B : B is responsible for forcing the ball across its own goal line and A fouls
 

[HLinNC]

UPDATE: Our assigning secretary just told me the best way to navigate this nightmare is to buy an NCAA rulebook and enforce penalties according to it...

One used to be able to download a PDF version for free.  Its been a while since I tried.

The "clarification" issued yesterday was as clear as mud.  I told my umpire last night after the meeting that some of this is going to get fouled up bad in a game but in reality, we'll be the only ones that will know it.  Bad attitude, I know.

[Snapper]

One used to be able to download a PDF version for free.  Its been a while since I tried.

The "clarification" issued yesterday was as clear as mud.  I told my umpire last night after the meeting that some of this is going to get fouled up bad in a game but in reality, we'll be the only ones that will know it.  Bad attitude, I know.

Yes, you can download it for free:   https://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4669-2023-ncaa-football-rules-book.aspx

The NCAA is, IMO, a very greedy organization.  But even they seem to realize that there is value to getting their rulebook out to everyone that may need it.  Unlike the NFHS, which if you try to download their rule change powerpoint, wants $60 bucks!  (Talk about greed...)

[bossman72]

One used to be able to download a PDF version for free.  Its been a while since I tried.

The "clarification" issued yesterday was as clear as mud.  I told my umpire last night after the meeting that some of this is going to get fouled up bad in a game but in reality, we'll be the only ones that will know it.  Bad attitude, I know.

I updated my Penalty Enforcement For Beginners doc for the new rule change.  I keep all but one in there and teach the exceptions.  This makes more sense.  They are highlighted in yellow.  If you focus on those, you'll be ok.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OZnNQj7o-fX6lM5I0s3_n2HTD7hBHgegIZI1ZarEtDQ/edit

[CalhounLJ]

I updated my Penalty Enforcement For Beginners doc for the new rule change.  I keep all but one in there and teach the exceptions.  This makes more sense.  They are highlighted in yellow.  If you focus on those, you'll be ok.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OZnNQj7o-fX6lM5I0s3_n2HTD7hBHgegIZI1ZarEtDQ/edit

Thanks bossman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

The NCAA is, IMO, a very greedy organization.  But even they seem to realize that there is value to getting their rulebook out to everyone that may need it.  Unlike the NFHS, which if you try to download their rule change powerpoint, wants $60 bucks!  (Talk about greed...)

Stay tuned.  NC usually posts a link for it after the state clinics are done.  I normally post it when they do.