RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: younggun on November 04, 2015, 08:12:00 AM
-
Just ideas for new NFHS rules for 2016. 3/5 of these are safety related.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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" tiphat: is nearly as rare as a free kick FG).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 deadhorse: :sTiR: pi1eOn hEaDbAnG
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.
-
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
-
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 deadhorse: :sTiR: pi1eOn hEaDbAnG
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :thumbup "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.
-
Thanks, FLAHL, I was a' digging thru my mothball posts as you came through! tiphat: 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.
-
VICTORY FORMATION PROTOCOL
(R & U): "Offense, protect your QB."
"Defense, don't do anything stupid."
It's worked for me for 30 years.
-
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.
-
(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.
-
(R & U): "Offense, protect your QB."
"Defense, don't do anything stupid."
It's worked for me for 30 years.
Here we go again... deadhorse:
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.
-
(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.
-
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.
-
As long as we are discussing possible rule changes for 2016, I would like to see the definition of "in bounds" added to the rules. Now, we only have "out of bounds" and by inference, "not out of bounds". I would also like to have a rule change to define the in/out of bounds status of an airborne player to be the same as where he last touched the ground.
-
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.
Apologies for not being as clear as I hoped. My intention was to suggest, what you have stated by simply re-wording NF: 2-29-1 to read, "A player or other person is OOB when any part of the person has touched or is touching anything........that is on or outside the sideline or end line."
-
Apologies for not being as clear as I hoped. My intention was to suggest, what you have stated by simply re-wording NF: 2-29-1 to read, "A player or other person is OOB when any part of the person has touched or is touching anything........that is on or outside the sideline or end line."
"Has touched" could imply some fairly broad interpretations.
-
I like 4 of the 5 original proposals, especially the illegal touching vs illegal participation. Save IP for willful, egregious acts, not the accidental stepping on the line.
I'd also propose allowing immediate spikes to conserve time from the shotgun. A big % of teams these days never get under center, just let 'em spike it if done immediately.
And I will be out of step charlie and vote in favor of the victory formation protocol.
-
Sorry, guys, for rehashing deadhorse: the "taking a knee" issue. When the manual was last published, I promised you guys that I would get them to take a stance on that stance. Some seemed excited :bOW, some seemed hungry eAt& for the info. When the manual was published in was nowhere to be found :( :o :'(. Some wanted to know "HOW COME ??? :o. I also wanted to know "how come ??? ???? ? I was told that felt it was addressed in the previous publication under " have a happy game ending" or something there such.......
FAST FORWARD TO 2015....A PUBLICATION YEAR....
Feeling that I was lazy on my previous request, and was asking the Manual Committee to make one up, I should submit a proposal.
Not wanting to invent the wheel, if it had already been invented; I found a reasonable mechanic in the Ohio Gold Book.
I introduced it to our officials and coaches.
I received nothing but positive feedback from all.
In their post season meeting, the Maine Principals' Association (our governing body) gave it full approval.
I then submitted it to the NFHS and told you guys >:( :( :o ??? ::) :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( about it.
If we all agreed on everything, it wouldn't be a very fun forum. pi1eOn hEaDbAnG tiphat:
-
"Has touched" could imply some fairly broad interpretations.
I am absolutely positive there are an abundance of "wordsmiths" far better qualified to design bulletproof verbiage to effectively tighten the language to avoid endless interpretations.
-
I could see even going a step farther and just making it an incomplete pass.
AB has a good :thumbup idea on this one, incomplete pass with no other penalty seems equitable for the infraction.
But, unlike Georgia and its neighboring states, Illinois (not officially) supports yEs: some type of language to help us deal with the victory formation.
Illinois (again unofficially) supports the gentleman from Maine with the rule change. nAnA
-
WR OOB and touches ball, Illegal Touching not IP
Fouls on K on free kick enforce at dead ball spot. Reduce free kicks.
'A' Foul behind the LoS enforced from the previous spot.
Enforce dead ball UNRs away from 'game action' as UNSs.
I like these.
The targeting, I think the fed's or the state's need to do a much better job educating officials on what is targeting. I've seen some guys throw just because the helmets touched or as they said "clicked".
-
We need a "down the rabbit hole" emoji.
And I rise in opposition along with the Gentlemen from the bordering states of Jawja and Virginny.
FIFY. nAnA
-
Apologies for not being as clear as I hoped. My intention was to suggest, what you have stated by simply re-wording NF: 2-29-1 to read, "A player or other person is OOB when any part of the person last touched or is touching anything........that is on or outside the sideline or end line."
This might be the most elegant fix. And I would support this - though as much as I agree it's silly that a player can be standing out of bounds, jump into the air, and be considered by rule NOT "out of bounds", that's what we have right now.
-
But this still doesn't address the fact that under our current rules if a receiver accidentally steps on the sideline and continues down field he has already committed IP no matter what happens later
-
But this still doesn't address the fact that under our current rules if a receiver accidentally steps on the sideline and continues down field he has already committed IP no matter what happens later
Including the exception of being forced OOB by an opponent, under current rules, A or K is EXPECTED to KNOW where he is regarding the sideline. At one point the mechanic was to beanbag where A or K went OOB (which is nothing but identifying a fact) and flag him if/when he CHOSE to come back in-bounds. "FORGET ACCIDENTALLY, unless you've been forced OOB by an opponent, going OOB is the players responsibility and it takes him out of the play AND HE CANNOT LEGALLY PARTICIPATE
The game is played BETWEEN THE LINES, and A or K CHOOSES how close he wants to play to the sideline, and it's his RESPONSIBILITY to avoid taking himself out of the game by being careless.
-
Including the exception of being forced OOB by an opponent, under current rules, A or K is EXPECTED to KNOW where he is regarding the sideline. At one point the mechanic was to beanbag where A or K went OOB (which is nothing but identifying a fact) and flag him if/when he CHOSE to come back in-bounds. "FORGET ACCIDENTALLY, unless you've been forced OOB by an opponent, going OOB is the players responsibility and it takes him out of the play AND HE CANNOT LEGALLY PARTICIPATE
The game is played BETWEEN THE LINES, and A or K CHOOSES how close he wants to play to the sideline, and it's his RESPONSIBILITY to avoid taking himself out of the game by being careless.
Maybe I'm mistaken but I don't think the purpose of the OP's suggested rule change was just to deal with a case where a player goes OOB then jumps in the air and touches or catches a pass. I think the suggested rule change was to eliminate the IP foul when a player inadvertently steps on the sideline but still retain some penalty for them being first to touch a forward pass. The current 15 yard IP penalty for inadvertently stepping on the sideline strikes me as killing a gnat with a sledge hammer Now that being said I would still retain the IP foul for intentionally going out of bounds.
-
deadhorse: pi1eOn deadhorse: Just once more, guys, and I'll go for my lobster chowder & nap....
IMHO, the major effect our victory formation mechanic had was coach involvement. In our preseason coaches meetings, I stressed the importance of cleaning up our game as best as we could. The shoving/ pushing / cussing that occurs several times each year, after a B player cracks into an A player while the QB was taking a knee didn't give that impression. While our haphazard : "It's a play", "Play smart", "Be good sports" and the like were well intentioned, some players didn't listen.
This year, with the lead under 9 or with timeouts remaining, some B coaches advised that they were going to "play". Often the A coach would yell : "BE READY ,GUYS, THEY'RE COMING" ,while the B coach would instruct : "BE CLEAN, MEN, BE CLEAN". If B was to be harnessed, B's coach would yell : " STAY OUT ,GUYS, STAY OUT AND_________ THAT MEANS YOU, TOO!!". The coach will know who his potential troublemakers are!
My apologizes, guys, for belaboring this; but it worked well for us to regain control of game-ending situations as we realized that the players will listen to their coach better than us. Statewide no problems was reported.
deadhorse: :sTiR: deadhorse: :sTiR: deadhorse: :sTiR: pi1eOn hEaDbAnG
.....that chowder will taste good, and that nap will be needed. Wish all of you an enjoyable Friday Night Lights tiphat:.
-
Ralph:
If you had a problem, I contend it was because it either wasn't being coached or officiated properly before. As I said earlier, in 17 seasons, I have seen ONE instance of a player trying to take a cheap shot on a kneel down play, and that was in a JV game. I NEVER saw it happen in a Varsity game, not once. In that JV game, the player was ejected, and his own teammates literally grabbed him and pulled him off the field.
It's a non-issue, and I don't like officials injecting themselves into plays in this manner. We already have rules for these situations. In your scenario, why even bother going through the formality of kneeling? Coach A says we're taking a knee, Coach B says we won't rush - OK, the game is over. The coaches have mutually agreed to end the game early, again, something that is allowed by rule.
Going through the 9 points or less, check with each sideline, agree not to rush or play - needless waste of time. And if a kid is bound and determined to be a hothead and blast a kneeling QB with a cheap shot, this rule isn't going to stop it, in fact, it might make it easier because the offensive line will relax based on the "agreement".
Want to really discourage these actions? Make mandatory suspensions for players that are ejected, the ejection is doubled if it's in the last minute of play. We have the mandatory suspension part now ( but not the doubling in the last minute), and if you are a senior and you can't serve your suspension in football, it carries over to the next sport you play. So now you are sitting out the first two basketball or baseball games. The only players with "nothing to lose" are seniors in their last game that play no other sports. That's a small enough percentage that we can deal with those.
Again, if this is a problem in Maine, just end the game. That's the only real way to stop it.
-
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.
I agree with AB for all above. Especially, the IP foul change and Previous Spot Enforcement.
I would also like to add that the clock start on the RTP for incomplete passes with the exception of within two minutes of the end of a half and an intentional "spike".
-
Want to really discourage these actions? Make mandatory suspensions for players that are ejected, the ejection is doubled if it's in the last minute of play. We have the mandatory suspension part now ( but not the doubling in the last minute), and if you are a senior and you can't serve your suspension in football, it carries over to the next sport you play. So now you are sitting out the first two basketball or baseball games. The only players with "nothing to lose" are seniors in their last game that play no other sports. That's a small enough percentage that we can deal with those.
You're right, it seems (in many ways) we've forgotten that punishment is supposed to HURT. It's the "HURT" that motivates the offender NOT TO REPEAT what caused the HURT.
-
No double penalty for last minute fouls but if you get ejected whether player or coach, you are out the next game too. If it is the last game of the season and you play another sport like basketball it carries over.
-
...if you get ejected whether player or coach, you are out the next game too. If it is the last game of the season and you play another sport like basketball it carries over.
The National Federation will NEVER agree (i.e.: write it into a rule book) to carry penalties over from one sport to another. That's the responsibility of the governing body of each state.
-
allow K to advance kicks on legal possession
-
Enforce sideline interference as a live ball foul according to ABO
-
The current 15 yard IP penalty for inadvertently stepping on the sideline strikes me as killing a gnat with a sledge hammer Now that being said I would still retain the IP foul for intentionally going out of bounds.
There is NO PENALTY for stepping on a sideline, deliberately or inadvertently, the penalty is for what may be done AFTER stepping on a sideline. The suggested change of adding "has touched" to "is touching" clears up a silly "wordsmithing" problem, that can create silly arguments and simply codifies what most officials understood for 100 years.
It's OK to take yourself OOB, but once you do (no matter how YOU do) you're OOB for the remainder of that play. - and there are consequences (IP) if YOU decide to return.
As for the "sledge hammer"; the game is intended to be played between the lines, if you take yourself across the line inadvertently (accidentally, not meaning to, didn't see it, etc.) THAT'S ON YOU. You haven't fouled, but if you come back in, there's a sledge hammer waiting for you. Everyone needing to know where they are, isn't (shouldn't be) an unreasonable burden.
Currently, there is one rational exception; if a player is FORCED OOB by an opponent, and returns ASAP, his being OOB is ignored, which makes perfect sense.
Do we really want to ADD deciding whether a player's going OOB "on his own" was intentional, accidental, inadvertently, didn't really mean to or any of the other 657 excuses players and coaches can create to excuse a player not paying attention to where he is?
-
allow K to advance kicks on legal possession
I've never seen this proposed before, but extended action after a kick ...running kicks outa' end zone...has never gone far.
-
Enforce sideline interference as a live ball foul according to ABO
Live ball fouls that are treated as dead ball fouls, such as sideline interference, are so handled as they didn't have any effect on the actual play. I can't see any changes to this.
-
Live ball fouls that are treated as dead ball fouls, such as sideline interference, are so handled as they didn't have any effect on the actual play. I can't see any changes to this.
I agree with Ralph. yEs: Here is an occurrence I once observed, Team B had not scored and there was a 40 pt. differential and it was late in the 4th quarter. Team B returned a kick-off for a TD ^good. During the return an overly excited Team B coach was jumping up and down with excitement inside the no-enter zone of the sideline. The HL z^ did not see him and they collided, no one was injured. Bringing that TD back ^no would have not served any purpose. Tack the penalty ^flag onto the next play.
-
I like all but the targeting and "DB away from the play as UNS" suggestions.
If I can have only one, let's make all fouls by K tack-ons
-
allow K to advance kicks on legal possession
I've never seen this proposed before, but extended action after a kick ...running kicks outa' end zone...has never gone far.
FREE KICKS:
- Touchback when crosses goal line remains.
- K may advance legally recovered onside kick.
SCRIMMAGE KICKS:
- Touchback when crosses goal line IF UNTOUCHED BY R.
- K may advance legally recovered muffed kick (including endzone recovery for TD).
The biggest issue here is the muffed punt that goes into endzone then recovered by K. Error by R cannot be taken advantage of by K. It's a major R mistake with no consequence. We've not only all seen it, but we've also all seen it with unskilled BJ's who go up with the TD signal (hopefully another crew member corrects). As a BJ myself, this situation has separated me from other BJ's who do not handle correctly. Nevertheless, I'd sacrifice the kudos for more equitable result for K.
I do not know how this would be worded, but it should be addressed (IMO).
-
FREE KICKS:
- Touchback when crosses goal line remains.
- K may advance legally recovered onside kick.
SCRIMMAGE KICKS:
- Touchback when crosses goal line IF UNTOUCHED BY R.
- K may advance legally recovered muffed kick (including endzone recovery for TD).
The biggest issue here is the muffed punt that goes into endzone then recovered by K. Error by R cannot be taken advantage of by K. It's a major R mistake with no consequence. We've not only all seen it, but we've also all seen it with unskilled BJ's who go up with the TD signal (hopefully another crew member corrects). As a BJ myself, this situation has separated me from other BJ's who do not handle correctly. Nevertheless, I'd sacrifice the kudos for more equitable result for K.
I do not know how this would be worded, but it should be addressed (IMO).
I wouldn't support this myself. It'll introduce complexity unnecessarily for very little benefit.
I would like to fouls by K on free kicks to be 'tack ons' rather than having a re-kick option. Keep it moving and avoid more kicks if not necessary.
-
I wouldn't support this myself. It'll introduce complexity unnecessarily for very little benefit.
I would like to fouls by K on free kicks to be 'tack ons' rather than having a re-kick option. Keep it moving and avoid more kicks if not necessary.
I agree with Scrounge on this. The issue of a muffed kick going into the end zone has been discussed several times with very little support. To allow only a muffed kick to remain alive in the end zone would require a string of exceptions loaded with "ifs, howevers, but onlys, and the like". It is both simpler and safer to kill the kick that crosses the goal line. I also fully agree with adopting the "tack-on" rule for both free and scrimmage kicks for fouls by K.
In responding to a :o ??? ::) coach : "Coach, by RULE..."
-
... To allow only a muffed kick to remain alive in the end zone would require a string of exceptions
Isolating to only a punt recovered in EZ would require many exceptions, agreed, but that's not what I'm suggesting; I only noted that as the most egregious example.
I don't know; just odd to me that NFHS prohibits K from advancing legally recovered kick.
I'm suggesting K can advance any ball LEGALLY RECOVERED (both scrimmage and free).
FREE KICKS:
- Touchback when crosses goal line remains.
- K may advance legally recovered onside kick.
SCRIMMAGE KICKS:
- Touchback when crosses goal line IF UNTOUCHED BY R.
- K may advance legally recovered muffed kick (including endzone recovery for TD).
Except for touchback provision, mirror NCAA wording.
-
I don't know; just odd to me that NFHS prohibits K from advancing legally recovered kick.
Do the other two major rule codes?
-
As far as I know K cannot advance a Kick in any code (for sure Fed. and NCAA)
Why not make it like NCAA, (to paraphrase) It is a TB if ball touches ground in EZ with the ball not touched by B.
-
Live ball fouls that are treated as dead ball fouls, such as sideline interference, are so handled as they didn't have any effect on the actual play. I can't see any changes to this.
Ralph,
Thanks I understand this philosophy. However, I suggest this as a safety issue...to officials.
The largest problem my crew has experienced with sidelines is on a big or sudden change play when an overzealous non-player steps out and an ensuing serious collision occurs.
The penalty in this case really doesn't sufficiently reinforce the ongoing POE of safety on the sidelines. Pull a few big plays back and I would submit coaches will better self enforce the sideline
-
As far as I know K cannot advance a Kick in any code (for sure Fed. and NCAA)
Why not make it like NCAA, (to paraphrase) It is a TB if ball touches ground in EZ with the ball not touched by B.
K cannot advance a kick in the NFL either.
-
For my two (three with inflation) cents worth....
Any change that would add more action to kick plays (K advancing /kicks live in EZ/ etc) would be strongly discouraged.
Any change to sideline interference that would change the tradition of not penalizing the action if the foul had no baring on the play itself, would also be fighting an uphill battle. A few years ago a proposal to treat USC fouls during the play to be treated live ball fouls ( A ,heading for paydirt, starts to "moonwalk" at B's 5 = TD erased, A's ball @ 20) was strongly defeated. Sometimes adding more teeth to a rule, that isn't always called, acts as a determent and results in it being called even less.
-
K can not advance a recovered kick under any code - NFHS, NCAA or NFL. While I'm not one of those who think NFHS code should mirror the others, I don't know that I'd support allowing K to advance a recovered kick, either. K is already benefiting by getting possession when they legally recover a kick.
-
For my two (three with inflation) cents worth....
Any change that would add more action to kick plays (K advancing /kicks live in EZ/ etc) would be strongly discouraged.
Any change to sideline interference that would change the tradition of not penalizing the action if the foul had no baring on the play itself, would also be fighting an uphill battle. A few years ago a proposal to treat USC fouls during the play to be treated live ball fouls ( A ,heading for paydirt, starts to "moonwalk" at B's 5 = TD erased, A's ball @ 20) was strongly defeated. Sometimes adding more teeth to a rule, that isn't always called, acts as a determent and results in it being called even less.
Agree on the sideline int/UNS thing....very little upside but lots of headaches. A sideline INT on a TD is now an annoyance but accomplishes the objective. Call back a TD and you're on the front page of Deadspin as 'that guy'.
I just think the 15 yd IP is too heavy a penalty for inadvertent, touched for a second and reentered kind of actions (and let's be honest - VERY few of us are calling that dirty end of the stick). I'd propose structuring it like the illegal sub/illegal participation tiers. 5 yds for inadvertent stepping out of bounds, 15 yds for purposefully doing so with intent to deceive. The gunner who steps on foot barely gets a mild penalty, the one that runs 10 yds while out of bounds gets the more severe one.
Totally agree on the free kick...in fact, I'd consider adding the NCAA-like rule of allowing fair catches on one immediate bounce, maybe even KCI too. It actually simplifies enforcement - that high bounding kick then wouldn't require the BJ or whoever's on the K line to know if it was immediately grounded or kicked off the tee. If it goes up right at the kick - either directly or off an immediate bounce, who cares - then R is protected. May make onsides safer.
-
The IP rule can be an overkill when a receiver's big toe touches the sideline, but the complexity of adding different levels of IP might not be worth the effort. The NCAA version reached the floor a few years ago and garnered very little support. The major perceived drawback was the challenge to a 4 or 5 man crew; compared to a 7 man crew In NCAA/NFL games.
Prior to NFHS adding PSK enforcement, there was always a very high % of committee members that had seen/worked/heard about a play(s) in their states that reflected the need to change. When discussing the sideline touch = IP rule, a VERY few could ever recall of it occurring. I've been on the field since 1969 and have seen it twice. Is something that may occur every 20 years or so in your game worth the complexity needed to make it "fairer"? Most would say no.
For those who favor K being able to advance a kick...In NFHS, B couldn't advance a backward pass or fumble until 1950 (NCAA changed many years after)...so, there's still hope :).
-
With embarrassment, I completely withdraw the advance muff punt suggestion.
Sadly, I honestly thought muffed punts could be advanced in both NCAA and NFL; if no advance permited there then shouldn't be in HS; apologies for my ignorance.
-
Ralph et al, thanks for the perspective.
interested in a PAT 5-man mechanics change that would move U under goalpost and leave wings to cover pylon. Thought being coverage of pylon on a broken/fake PAT.
-
The IP rule can be an overkill when a receiver's big toe touches the sideline, but the complexity of adding different levels of IP might not be worth the effort. The NCAA version reached the floor a few years ago and garnered very little support. The major perceived drawback was the challenge to a 4 or 5 man crew; compared to a 7 man crew In NCAA/NFL games.
If it ever comes up again, you might let them know that Europe calls NCAA rules with mostly crews of 4 and 5; and I've seen a lot of rookies have a lot of problems with a lot of rules, but the receiver who steps on the sideline (for whatever reason) and then does something interesting has not yet been one of them.
-
The IP rule can be an overkill when a receiver's big toe touches the sideline, but the complexity of adding different levels of IP might not be worth the effort. The NCAA version reached the floor a few years ago and garnered very little support. The major perceived drawback was the challenge to a 4 or 5 man crew; compared to a 7 man crew In NCAA/NFL games.
What I would like to see happen with this rule is to eliminate the penalty for inadvertently touching the sideline completely and only making it a foul if he is the first to touch a forward pass. Retain the IP foul if the player goes OOB intentionally. Agree its not something you see often. Had it once in 34 years. Receiver stepped on endline on a 2 point conversion. Will confess I planned on "not having seen it" when QB began running around end to try to scramble for the conversion. Unfortunately at last second he pulled up and threw to receiver who had stepped on endline and then I "remembered" seeing him step on endline. Of course as Back Judge I was the only one in stadium who knew the flag was about two seconds late in being thrown. As far as 5 man crew versus 7 man crew not sure how much difference that makes. Either you see him step on sideline or you don't, then you keep track as to whether he is first to touch pass.
-
Ralph et al, thanks for the perspective.
interested in a PAT 5-man mechanics change that would move U under goalpost and leave wings to cover pylon. Thought being coverage of pylon on a broken/fake PAT.
A high % of roughing the snapper fouls occur on PAT kicks. A very high % of those fouls are ^flag by the sNiCkErS umpire sNiCkErS. Roughing the snapper is a preventative safety foul. While some states do this, I can't see it going national.
-
Ralph et al, thanks for the perspective.
interested in a PAT 5-man mechanics change that would move U under goalpost and leave wings to cover pylon. Thought being coverage of pylon on a broken/fake PAT.
I agree with Ralph. The U can prevent a lot, but not by being on a post. If the R sets up wide enough to the open side he can cover the pylon on a broken play to that side. It's really not that difficult.
-
Ralph et al, thanks for the perspective.
interested in a PAT 5-man mechanics change that would move U under goalpost and leave wings to cover pylon. Thought being coverage of pylon on a broken/fake PAT.
I'd just insist that your line judge can run a 30 yard dash... with a 90 degree turn... sideways... in two seconds flat.
-
A high % of roughing the snapper fouls occur on PAT kicks. A very high % of those fouls are ^flag by the sNiCkErS umpire sNiCkErS. Roughing the snapper is a preventative safety foul. While some states do this, I can't see it going national.
Again,thanks. I personally agree with this. This has been a debatEd topic in our area this season. The national perspective is very helpful.
-
Wondering how the "experiment" went on Oregon and Hawaii with blocks on blindside/defenseless and whether there might be more direction on how these techniques might have to be controlled by rule...and whether that will enter the discussion?
-
Mechanically, I'd like to see the NFHS adopt the NCAA protocol of allowing the defense time to change personnel if the offense changes personnel. This mechanic doesn't allow A/K to "game" the 25 second clock.
A slight editorial revision for 2-6-2(b) - change "b. Between the 9-Yard Mark Conference" to "b. Between the Hash Marks Conference". Hash marks are already defined in 1-2-3(e).
-
Wondering how the "experiment" went on Oregon and Hawaii with blocks on blindside/defenseless and whether there might be more direction on how these techniques might have to be controlled by rule...and whether that will enter the discussion?
In Hawaii it went great. Noticeable change in how blocking is initiated in the open field and how receivers are contacted when defenseless. 2015 video training series is at www.RefereeClinic.com/videos (http://www.RefereeClinic.com/videos)
-
What I would like to see happen with this rule is to eliminate the penalty for inadvertently touching the sideline completely and only making it a foul if he is the first to touch a forward pass. Retain the IP foul if the player goes OOB intentionally.
Forgive my cynicism, but have you considered the can of worms that would be created arguing about what was actually intentional versus what was inadvertent, and what crystal ball you were using to tell the difference. The rule makers have avoided that entire issue by leaving the difference as "forced out" or "on your own", for which you are responsible whether you meant it, or not.
-
In Hawaii it went great. Noticeable change in how blocking is initiated in the open field and how receivers are contacted when defenseless. 2015 video training series is at www.RefereeClinic.com/videos (http://www.RefereeClinic.com/videos)
Sumstine,
Thanks. I think the game is going to have to adopt this type of change in philosophy on defenseless/blindside hits. More direction on officiating proper blocking techniques will be important.