Anyone Have a NFHS Mechanic for the Umpire to Allow Defensive Substitutions?

[blandis]

After reading Case Book 3.6.1 Comment 1 that explains "2) The umpire will need to be alert to substitutions and not leave the ball too quickly after placing it down without observing both teams to prevent possible substitution advantages and fouls."
    This is a new area for high school umpires. Anyone have anything out there appropriate for NFHS? Is there a foul for a snap that occurs when the umpire is over the ball? Anyone have examples from NCAA? 

[NVFOA_Ump]

NCAA uses the "Iron Cross" mechanic where the U steps in near or over the ball with his hands in a fist and arms extended out to the side on a late offensive substitution.  We've been told that there will be no such mechanic in NFHS and it was simply up to us to insist with both coaching staffs that any developing pattern of "late substitutions" adhere to the "fairness" concept and not give their team an advantage or they would be flagged for a substitution infraction.  It now seems that NFHS has changed their tune and added a case play which will in fact require a U mechanic to hold the snap until teams have had time to respond to a late substitution?

[CalhounLJ]

Good grief. This is like an oyster. The more we chew it the bigger it gets.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

Good grief. This is like an oyster. The more we chew it the bigger it gets.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is what happens when you open a can of worms, thinking there's only 1 worm inside.  Stabilizing the pace of play, for a more  consistent pace, was far more easily available by simply reinforcing long existing common sense Referee management procedures and practices. 

Not all practices, appropriate at upper (adult) levels, translate as well, or are automatically beneficial or practical at lower (Interscholastic)levels.

[FLAHL]

Good grief. This is like an oyster. The more we chew it the bigger it gets.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

+1

[Magician]

That's an unusual thing to state in the case play because there is nothing in the 40-second clock rule that allows for defensive match up for subs. If the defense is late with their subs and the ball is ready for play that's on them. The sub match-up rule in NCAA has nothing to do with the 25 or 40-second play clock. Generally you won't be stepping away from the ball significantly sooner than you would have blown the whistle for a 25-second play clock.

One thought is did they put this in here because they didn't want the U to spot the ball quickly and step away immediately if a run ended at his feet and the ball is on the ground. You still need to make sure your crew is ready to definitely take your time. If the ball is RFP by the U stepping back at 25-30 you are fine.

The editorial committee was probably trying to be helpful and tell us not to hurry, but they shouldn't have used substitution as the reason. They should have just said make sure the crew is ready before making the ball ready for play just like you did with a 25-second play clock.

[ncwingman]

That's an unusual thing to state in the case play because there is nothing in the 40-second clock rule that allows for defensive match up for subs.

Exactly. There's nothing stating that we're going to hold for late subs... but to be honest, the introduction of the 40 second play clock isn't going to influence the ability of the offense to substitute late. They could have done it before with a 25 second play clock. The could have previous waited for the RFP, then subbed a player and snapped quickly -- as long as everybody was set and inside the numbers momentarily, that was fine and legal before and it's the exact same situation now, except the play clock starts sooner.

Until a new rule change comes down or I get word from the state office that we're going to introduce our own new rules, we didn't hold for subs before and we're not holding for subs now either. It's simply irrelevant to the 40 second play clock.

[Magician]

Exactly. There's nothing stating that we're going to hold for late subs... but to be honest, the introduction of the 40 second play clock isn't going to influence the ability of the offense to substitute late. They could have done it before with a 25 second play clock. The could have previous waited for the RFP, then subbed a player and snapped quickly -- as long as everybody was set and inside the numbers momentarily, that was fine and legal before and it's the exact same situation now, except the play clock starts sooner.

Until a new rule change comes down or I get word from the state office that we're going to introduce our own new rules, we didn't hold for subs before and we're not holding for subs now either. It's simply irrelevant to the 40 second play clock.

I would look at it this way. With the 25-second clock if a play ended at the feet of the U and the ball was on the ground he could possibly have it spotted within 3-5 seconds of the previous play ending. The R would probably hold the RFP a little longer than normal so as not to go to fast. This may just be saying the same thing but putting it on the umpire now to delay stepping away. I agree that flow shouldn't change with the new rule. The intent of the 40-second play clock isn't to run around like crazy to be ready to go ASAP. Make sure the crew has plenty of time to process dead ball activity and get ready for the next play.

[CalhounLJ]

I’ve slowly come around to the idea of the :40, but I swear, the more we talk about it the more it sounds like what we’ve already been doing. Are we sure we haven’t tried to fix something that wasn’t broken?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Magician]

I’ve slowly come around to the idea of the :40, but I swear, the more we talk about it the more it sounds like what we’ve already been doing. Are we sure we haven’t tried to fix something that wasn’t broken?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It depends entirely on the crew. Some crews probably had a fairly consistent pace and that won't change. But even the most consistent pace probably still varied 3-5 seconds on the front end throughout the game. For them the two main changes will be a lot fewer RFP whistles (saves the R's ears and allows him to worry about other things between snaps) and a very consistent back end of the play clock especially at the end of a half when one team wants thinks you are going too fast (trying to burn time) or too slow (wanting to get the ball back).

It will force some crews to go a little faster if they either just moved slow or intentionally delayed the RFP until the offense was ready with their play call and getting into formation. That's what the coaches appreciated the most. They had the same amount of time to get the ball snapped week to week. It also just seems to flow better. I had to work a game last winter with only a 25-second play clock and it felt clunky. Great technical analysis huh?

The good news is everyone who has done adapted quickly and loved it. I think everyone else will feel the same way this Fall.

[blandis]

It seems like another case of the NFHS changing a rule but not seeing how all the others are affected. I honestly wonder if these committees in Indianapolis actually read the entire rule book and understand how one rule affects others?! We're left cleaning up the chicken Sh__ and are expected to make chicken salad with the leftovers and the proverbial know-it-all reply from them, "You know what we meant!"   

[NVFOA_Ump]

It will force some crews to go a little faster if they either just moved slow or intentionally delayed the RFP until the offense was ready with their play call and getting into formation. That's what the coaches appreciated the most. They had the same amount of time to get the ball snapped week to week. It also just seems to flow better. I had to work a game last winter with only a 25-second play clock and it felt clunky. Great technical analysis huh?

The good news is everyone who has done adapted quickly and loved it. I think everyone else will feel the same way this Fall.

So with a "blind" clock with the crews that "....either just moved slow or intentionally delayed the RFP …." do we really think that this will make any difference?  Unless the keeper of the play clock is right on it on every play then the variation in play clock timing will still be similar to what it has always been.  It will just be harder to notice it since there is no visible/audible signal.

[bama_stripes]

From what I’ve been told, we’re going to have the R give a signal of some sort to the U when all crew members are in place.  He’ll then step back, and the ball can be snapped.

I’m also confused about the Case Book comment.  The U is the least likely crew member to observe “substitution advantages and fouls.”  I think the best thing is for us to totally ignore that Comment.

[markrischard]

I brought 3.6.1 to our state rules interpreter. His response was...
"We are very much aware of that misleading case play situation and have brought it to the attention of the Indianapolis folks - we are anticipating a short list of case book mistakes very soon that will be posted on the NFHS website and then ultimately on our OSSAA website - we DO NOT have the NCAA substitution matchup component in our new rule change!"

[AlUpstateNY]

From what I’ve been told, we’re going to have the R give a signal of some sort to the U when all crew members are in place.  He’ll then step back, and the ball can be snapped.

I’m also confused about the Case Book comment.  The U is the least likely crew member to observe “substitution advantages and fouls.”  I think the best thing is for us to totally ignore that Comment.

Despite what seems like a rush to "Change, for change sake", does it make sense to simply continue what's worked (fairly well) for the past 100 years, or so, and simply continue what EVERYONE already clearly  recognizes; where the Referee, upon observing the Umpire place the ball on the ground, and step safely out of harm's way,  simply continues LOUDLY sounding his whistle while giving the (tired, old & immediately recognized & understood ) RFP signal that's worked so well all these years.

[Magician]

So with a "blind" clock with the crews that "....either just moved slow or intentionally delayed the RFP …." do we really think that this will make any difference?  Unless the keeper of the play clock is right on it on every play then the variation in play clock timing will still be similar to what it has always been.  It will just be harder to notice it since there is no visible/audible signal.

It will probably not be as consistent as with visible play clocks, but you also have more flexibility without visible play clocks. If they are about to snap it and the visible clock would have expired for a second or two you can let it go. We don't have that "luxury" with visible play clocks. We also don't have a lot of DOGs either. I'll have to go back and look at my data, but I don't believe it changed significantly.

What you will see though is a lot less variability during the game and especially game to game. One play a team could be given 35 second and another play they could be given 60. That's a huge swing. Even if you have some variability without a play clock the range will probably be 40-42. That's where the real benefit comes into play. Plus at the end of a half (assuming you have visible game clocks), the coaches and players and fans will be much more in tune with the clock if a team is trying to burn time. If a play ends with 1:22 on the clock, they'll know the ball will need to be snapped on or around 0:42. With a 0:25 play clock it totally depended on how quickly you got the ball started and when the R blew his RFP. If the RFP was blown with 1:12 left on the game clock the offensive team is going to say you went too fast. If there was a delay and it wasn't blown until 1:04 the defense will say you took away valuable seconds from them. With a 40 second play clock you aren't going to reset the latter example to 25 because you did nothing to impact the ability of the offense to snap the ball before the play clock ended. Don't get TOO technical with the reset if it's only a couple seconds.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I've been through this twice, first for NCAA and then for our experiment. Most of these questions and concerns were brought up in both of those situations and both turned out to be non-issues. It's perfectly normal and acceptable to have these questions and concerns. Just know that once you start doing this it will be very smooth and you'll more than likely love it.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I've been through this twice, first for NCAA and then for our experiment. Most of these questions and concerns were brought up in both of those situations and both turned out to be non-issues. It's perfectly normal and acceptable to have these questions and concerns. Just know that once you start doing this it will be very smooth and you'll more than likely love it.

The NCAA change has no bearing whatsoever here.  They always had a visible play clock AND a dedicated play clock operator.  His job is to watch and push a button.  We in most cases have no visible play clock and a 5 man crew with a BJ who for many plays is the busiest guy on the field along with the other 4 officials who all have duties prior to and after the ball being ready for play.  I don't see how a 40 second play clock provides any advantage at all and in my opinion is simply another change for changes sake - nothing more, nothing less.

[Magician]

The NCAA change has no bearing whatsoever here.  They always had a visible play clock AND a dedicated play clock operator.  His job is to watch and push a button.  We in most cases have no visible play clock and a 5 man crew with a BJ who for many plays is the busiest guy on the field along with the other 4 officials who all have duties prior to and after the ball being ready for play.  I don't see how a 40 second play clock provides any advantage at all and in my opinion is simply another change for changes sake - nothing more, nothing less.

That's fine and I completely understand your position. It's valid. I'm just telling you the officials who went through this (including those without visible play clocks) had the same opinion at this point. After using the 40-second play clock without visible clocks they love it and they do not want to go back. I'm sure someone out there doesn't love it, but 100% of the people I've talked with (coaches and officials...players don't notice as much) feel that way. And they are speaking on behalf of the colleagues in their states. It doesn't revolutionize or change the game, but it just creates a better flow and actually takes away one thing we no longer have to worry about (starting the play clock at some variable point during the dead ball period).

[KWH]

Despite what seems like a rush to "Change, for change sake", does it make sense to simply continue what's worked (fairly well) for the past 100 years, or so, and simply continue what EVERYONE already clearly  recognizes; where the Referee, upon observing the Umpire place the ball on the ground, and step safely out of harm's way,  simply continues LOUDLY sounding his whistle while giving the (tired, old & immediately recognized & understood ) RFP signal that's worked so well all these years.

No Alf, it does not make sense to use last years rule.
You personally not being a fan of a rule change is of no consequence.  The rule has changed, so, we work the 100 year old game under the new rule or we get the rule change back..

[NVFOA_Ump]

I brought 3.6.1 to our state rules interpreter. His response was...
"We are very much aware of that misleading case play situation and have brought it to the attention of the Indianapolis folks - we are anticipating a short list of case book mistakes very soon that will be posted on the NFHS website and then ultimately on our OSSAA website - we DO NOT have the NCAA substitution matchup component in our new rule change!"

Interesting, since we have been told that casebook revisions/additions related to rules changes are "carefully written" to address specific rules changes that require our attention and go through a careful vetting process before being approved for final issue.

[AlUpstateNY]

No Alf, it does not make sense to use last years rule.
You personally not being a fan of a rule change is of no consequence.  The rule has changed, so, we work the 100 year old game under the new rule or we get the rule change back..

For the record KWH, I wasn't suggesting NOT adhering to the new rule change, but simply applying some basic common sense to how we adapt to the new rule, in certain ever present situations.  Apparently you, and others, have difficulty understanding that implementation with 5 man crews (much less 4 man) coupled with the absence of a field play clock is unrealistically cumbersome, and a simple, rational adjustment may help avoid totally unnecessary confusion

Of course if you could provide some relevant insight as to some actual problem associated with using, the previously UNIVERSALLY acceptable signal to start the, still significant 25 second RFP count, to avoid confusion, it may be helpful.

[Magician]

For the record KWH, I wasn't suggesting NOT adhering to the new rule change, but simply applying some basic common sense to how we adapt to the new rule, in certain ever present situations.  Apparently you, and others, have difficulty understanding that implementation with 5 man crews (much less 4 man) coupled with the absence of a field play clock is unrealistically cumbersome, and a simple, rational adjustment may help avoid totally unnecessary confusion

Of course if you could provide some relevant insight as to some actual problem associated with using, the previously UNIVERSALLY acceptable signal to start the, still significant 25 second RFP count, to avoid confusion, it may be helpful.

A few states have been experimenting with it the past 2-3 years with resounding success! That included states without visible play clocks. It wouldn't surprise me if we took a poll in our state and it would be approved at 95% to keep it from both coaches and officials. There were talks of giving up our NFHS rules committee seat if it didn't pass so we could continue with it. Everyone felt it was that much better. I have still not talked with one coach or official who has used the 40-second play clock that didn't prefer it over the 25-second play clock. I'm not sure if you do primarily game clock or play clock, but if you are on the play clock you will find it much easier as well. You can start it when the current play ends rather than tracking the R for 10-20 seconds to determine when he's going to blow the RFP.

The issue it was solving an inconsistent back end to the play clock. Even a good, consistent crew is going to vary 3-5 seconds most of the time during the course of a game. There could be bigger swings due to things within or beyond their control. Coaches would feel you were going too fast or two slow at the end of the half when they are trying to consume time or get the ball back. All of that goes away. I'll be surprised if there is much negative about it once crews have worked 3-4 games.

[CalhounLJ]

Just an observation- if this has been an experiment for at least three years it seems like stuff like umpire mechanics, substitution allowance and all these questions should have been addressed during that period. At the very least there has been a lack of communication between the ones conducting the experiment, the rules committee and the rest of us. I work in the people business and understand change is difficult because most are fearful of the unknown. The best way to overcome that fear is communication ad nauseum. We have to talk about it until everybody is sick of talking about it. This change didn’t happen like that we just had it dropped in our laps. It will take a while to chew on it and swallow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

The best way to overcome that fear is communication ad nauseum. We have to talk about it until everybody is sick of talking about it. This change didn’t happen like that we just had it dropped in our laps. It will take a while to chew on it and swallow.

Somewhat like Army chow, It is what it is, is not going to change, but the smart Mess Sgt makes sure there is ALWAYS ENOUGH CATSUP available to allow everyone the opportunity to "adapt".

[TampaSteve]

from ncaa perspective, if A is subbing then C stands over the ball while R gives iron cross. Once R is satisfied that B has matched or chooses not to, the R will waive off the C.
BUT, if A is not subbing, then there is no iron cross signal & C steps away from the ball once he sets it.
All this said, if NFHS has no subbing rule for B to match up, then I'm confused why U needs to stay on the ball.