New rules, anyone ???

[Ralph Damren]

I've submitted the following two rule change proposals and would like you opinions, both negitive and positive, on these. This will provide me with fire power or prepare for at our rules meeting...........

(1) 6-1-10 : If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines touched inbounds by  R,  OR IS TOUCHED BY OUT OF BOUNDS  R WHILE THE KICK IS IN OR ABOVE THE FIELD OF PLAY,the ball is put in play by R at the inbounds spot.

(2) 7-5-10 : It is forward pass interference if any player of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with  an opponent's opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass. IF THE FOUL IS ON B A FIRST DOWN IS AWARDED.

(Capital letters  = additions to current rule)

HAVE AT IT ..........  

 

[CalhounLJ]

I would be overjoyed and extremely satisfied if the rules committee would just focus on fixing rule 10.

[dch]

I like defensive Pass Interference as a Spot Foul and awarded 1st down with a maximum yardage penalty of 15 yards.
This may entice officials to call P.I. when it happens on those short button hooks and slants when the official doesn't think it warrants a full 15 yards.

[Snapper]

I've submitted the following two rule change proposals and would like you opinions, both negitive and positive, on these. This will provide me with fire power or prepare for at our rules meeting...........

(1) 6-1-10 : If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines touched inbounds by  R,  OR IS TOUCHED BY OUT OF BOUNDS  R WHILE THE KICK IS IN OR ABOVE THE FIELD OF PLAY,the ball is put in play by R at the inbounds spot.

(2) 7-5-10 : It is forward pass interference if any player of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with  an opponent's opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass. IF THE FOUL IS ON B A FIRST DOWN IS AWARDED.

(Capital letters  = additions to current rule)

HAVE AT IT ..........  

 

(1) is unnecessarily wordy IMO.  And I don't see where too many high school players would go out of bounds and then reach back into the field to touch a free kick.  Yes, it could happen, but it should be rare.

Instead, I would adopt the following language:

"If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines untouched by an inbounds player of Team R, it is a foul."


(2)  I support a 1st down for DPI wholeheartedly.


(3)  To add to your changes, my personal pet peeve with the high school rules is flagging a receiver who accidentally goes out of bounds and returns inbounds with an Illegal Participation foul.  That penalty is just all out of proportion to the offense.  It makes no sense to me.  I would prefer that you adopt the college rule of a loss of down if a receiver goes out on his own, comes back in and is the first to touch a pass.

[Ralph Damren]

I would be overjoyed and extremely satisfied if the rules committee would just focus on fixing rule 10.

I expect much work to be made on Rule 10, I also expect the Patriots to win more than two games  .

[Ralph Damren]

I like defensive Pass Interference as a Spot Foul and awarded 1st down with a maximum yardage penalty of 15 yards.
This may entice officials to call P.I. when it happens on those short button hooks and slants when the official doesn't think it warrants a full 15 yards.

One of our goals is to make changes simple and not add to the complexity of the rule.I feel a simple "..add auto 1st down" is enough of a request for this. year.

[Ralph Damren]

(1) is unnecessarily wordy IMO.  And I don't see where too many high school players would go out of bounds and then reach back into the field to touch a free kick.  Yes, it could happen, but it should be rare.

Instead, I would adopt the following language:

"If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines untouched by an inbounds player of Team R, it is a foul."


(2)  I support a 1st down for DPI wholeheartedly.


(3)  To add to your changes, my personal pet peeve with the high school rules is flagging a receiver who accidentally goes out of bounds and returns inbounds with an Illegal Participation foul.  That penalty is just all out of proportion to the offense.  It makes no sense to me.  I would prefer that you adopt the college rule of a loss of down if a receiver goes out on his own, comes back in and is the first to touch a pass.

Where I tried to add on to 6-1-10 in lieu of rewriting it, Ilike your rewritten version better. PROBLEM : My rocket is already in the air (already emailed in) I'll keep your suggestion offer it to Editorial if it passes.. A concern is your proposal could be argued not to cover airborne kics caught by R while straddling the sideline.

[Fatso]

I've submitted the following two rule change proposals and would like you opinions, both negitive and positive, on these. This will provide me with fire power or prepare for at our rules meeting...........

(1) 6-1-10 : If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines touched inbounds by  R,  OR IS TOUCHED BY OUT OF BOUNDS  R WHILE THE KICK IS IN OR ABOVE THE FIELD OF PLAY,the ball is put in play by R at the inbounds spot.

(2) 7-5-10 : It is forward pass interference if any player of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with  an opponent's opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass. IF THE FOUL IS ON B A FIRST DOWN IS AWARDED.

(Capital letters  = additions to current rule)

HAVE AT IT ..........  

 

Is (1) specifically to do away with R player hopping out of bounds and touching the inbounds ball?  If so, I like it - doesn't happen often but it's kind of a chicken little move.... Seems like it's an exploitation of regular out of bounds rules.

[Ralph Damren]

Is (1) specifically to do away with R player hopping out of bounds and touching the inbounds ball?  If so, I like it - doesn't happen often but it's kind of a chicken little move.... Seems like it's an exploitation of regular out of bounds rules.

Yes, K didn't kick the ball OOB, R caused it to be OOB by rule.

[bossman72]

Instead, I would adopt the following language:

"If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines untouched by an inbounds player of Team R, it is a foul."

The problem with that is FED has compounded case book plays and dumb IP rules, so Ralph's proposal works to fix the rule the way FED wants it called.

FED doesn't want the play where the ball is rolling in bounds and the returner puts one foot on the sideline and touches the ball to get a cheap KOB foul.

Case book 6.1.9C seems to only want to call KOB when the ball is over OOB territory when touched.
Case book 9.6.2C wants this play as IP, but it's unclear if they want it to offset with KOB.

Ralph's proposal eliminates the confusion and gets rid of that dumb IP rule.
Here's a similar one I've proposed:

Art 9 … A free kick shall not be kicked out of bounds between the goal lines untouched inbounds by R.  It is only a foul if the ball becomes out of bounds while on or above out of bounds territory. If it is kicked out of bounds and R does not accept a penalty for kick-catch interference on the same kick as in 6-5-4, R has the following choices: …

[ilyazhito]

I agree with both proposals.

[Ralph Damren]

The problem with that is FED has compounded case book plays and dumb IP rules, so Ralph's proposal works to fix the rule the way FED wants it called.

FED doesn't want the play where the ball is rolling in bounds and the returner puts one foot on the sideline and touches the ball to get a cheap KOB foul.

Case book 6.1.9C seems to only want to call KOB when the ball is over OOB territory when touched.
Case book 9.6.2C wants this play as IP, but it's unclear if they want it to offset with KOB.

Ralph's proposal eliminates the confusion and gets rid of that dumb IP rule.
Here's a similar one I've proposed:

Art 9 … A free kick shall not be kicked out of bounds between the goal lines untouched inbounds by R.  It is only a foul if the ball becomes out of bounds while on or above out of bounds territory. If it is kicked out of bounds and R does not accept a penalty for kick-catch interference on the same kick as in 6-5-4, R has the following choices: …

Thanks, Bossman, for your support. This will give rule support to to the interp that we Mainers have used since the rule change since 200  and the debates we've had on this forum over theyears.

[Ralph Damren]

I agree with both proposals.

Thanks, ilyazito, I agree with your agreeing.

[bama_stripes]

(1)  I don’t think I’ve ever had this happen, but I’m 99% sure that if I did, I’d “forget” both the KOB and IP considerations and just give the ball to R at the OOB spot.

(2)  When AFD was dropped as part of the penalty for DPI, I was dead set against it, as I thought it would lead to abuse by defenses in goal-to-go situations.  That hasn’t happened.  Also, in most cases, the 15-yard penalty is enough to give A a new series anyway.

That said, I’d vote for it since it would lessen the arguments with coaches who think it’s still part of the penalty.

[Ralph Damren]

(1)  I don’t think I’ve ever had this happen, but I’m 99% sure that if I did, I’d “forget” both the KOB and IP considerations and just give the ball to R at the OOB spot.

(2)  When AFD was dropped as part of the penalty for DPI, I was dead set against it, as I thought it would lead to abuse by defenses in goal-to-go situations.  That hasn’t happened.  Also, in most cases, the 15-yard penalty is enough to give A a new series anyway.

That said, I’d vote for it since it would lessen the arguments with coaches who think it’s still part of the penalty.

Thanks, 'Bama, #1 was our goal when rule was changed in 2000, hopefully now it is clairfied. #2 came from a state championship game last Fall. 4/goal -pass in EZ where A had B beaten, B tackled  A to prevent TD - 4/goal after short penalty failed. Several coaches at game thought  it was a great idea to teach their  D-backs.I believe all other codes have AFD on DPI, why be the lone wolf.

[refjeff]

1. Yes.  Really good officials cannot agree on what the current rule means.  Simple clarification is needed.

2.  Sure.  I too did not like it when the AFD was dropped, but it has be OK, most of the time.  Near the goalline is problematic, as in you state finals example.  I too like the college rule, AFD at the spot of the foul with a maximum of 15 yards.

3.  Possibly no one understands or uses the multiple basic spots and exceptions in the new rule 10.  It is so complicated I have no idea how new officials ever memorize all that or how to teach it to them.  I still use the all-but-one-principle and know the few exceptions to it.   Maybe everyone does.

KISS, fewer words are always better.

[Ralph Damren]

1. Yes.  Really good officials cannot agree on what the current rule means.  Simple clarification is needed.

2.  Sure.  I too did not like it when the AFD was dropped, but it has be OK, most of the time.  Near the goalline is problematic, as in you state finals example.  I too like the college rule, AFD at the spot of the foul with a maximum of 15 yards.

3.  Possibly no one understands or uses the multiple basic spots and exceptions in the new rule 10.  It is so complicated I have no idea how new officials ever memorize all that or how to teach it to them.  I still use the all-but-one-principle and know the few exceptions to it.   Maybe everyone does.

KISS, fewer words are always better.

Thanks, Jeff, for the support on this. Responding to your #3, I stressed to our guys the 3 things they have to know:

(1) Fouls behind the LOS by A = previous spot.
(2) Foulsby B when play ends behind the LOS =previous spot.
(3) 'ball fouls' - ill. pass,kick,bat -=spot fouls.

[bossman72]

Thanks, Bossman, for your support. This will give rule support to to the interp that we Mainers have used since the rule change since 200  and the debates we've had on this forum over theyears.

Ralph (or anyone else), have you had any issues with the nfhs.org website form to submit rule changes?  I tried punching them in last night and this morning and I'm getting an error on the website after I hit submit.

https://www.nfhs.org/RuleChangeProposal

[Ralph Damren]

Ralph (or anyone else), have you had any issues with the nfhs.org website form to submit rule changes?  I tried punching them in last night and this morning and I'm getting an error on the website after I hit submit.

https://www.nfhs.org/RuleChangeProposal

Yes, I got the error message and called NFHS. They told me that the error message was in error and they had my proposal.

[bossman72]

Yes, I got the error message and called NFHS. They told me that the error message was in error and they had my proposal.

Ok.  So they are actually going through then?

[Ralph Damren]

Ok.  So they are actually going through then?

Ayuh, 'spect so 

[dch]

Being a long time official that is very big on definitions and proper penalty enforcement I am mostly baffled by current rule 10 stuff.  It seems that the term "basic spot" is now used interchangeably (most of the time) with "enforcement spot".  I remember fondly, when the "basic spot" was a step along the way to determine the "enforcement spot" for live ball fouls that occurred during the down (3 & 1).  I do find the new 10-4 Table helpful in sorting it out.  But, I think it would be perfectly clear and less confusing if the Column Heading of "Basic Spot" was just changed to "Enforcement Spot".  Then the term "basic spot" could be entirely deleted from the Rules Book and we could just focus on learning the "Enforcement Spot" for the various situations.  Isn't "basic spot" now a historical term and no longer relevant?

[ted skoundrianos]

Ralph, I like to see 2 propose rules changes in 2024. I like to see personal fouls & unsportmanlike fouls by B automatic 1st down for A. exception on 4th down If doesn't get 1st after the down has ended for A. If we have a dead ball personal by B. mark of the penalty set the chains for B. 1st & 10 for B.  I do like the college DPI spot of foul with a maximum of 15 yards. Automatic 1st down.

[bossman72]

Ralph, I'm assuming they're going to fix rule 10, so would it be worth putting a proposal in to fix it?

[Ralph Damren]

Ralph, I like to see 2 propose rules changes in 2024. I like to see personal fouls & unsportmanlike fouls by B automatic 1st down for A. exception on 4th down If doesn't get 1st after the down has ended for A. If we have a dead ball personal by B. mark of the penalty set the chains for B. 1st & 10 for B.  I do like the college DPI spot of foul with a maximum of 15 yards. Automatic 1st down.

AFD on B's PFs & USCs has been on the docket several times with little support. NFHS goal is to keep an even balance between O & D. NFL goal is to sell more tickets, NCAA goal is to gain more $$ alumni support.
Our goal is to try to keep the rules as simple as possible.  NCAA is too complex for us.