RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Rulesman on February 06, 2014, 12:24:25 PM
-
The link to the press release can be found here: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes (http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=10392)
-
My immediate thoughts:
1st down on DPI not "fixed" as originally rumored.
Are we going to have to revise the 5 man free kick mechanics AGAIN?
Not sure how targeting is any different than existing illegal helmet contact or illegal use of hands.
-
As weird as it sounds I do not think we will have a problem with the new free kick rules. I have noticed over the last 2 years that 80% of the schools we were at the teams were doing it already. Goes back to them NOT knowing the rules and just doing what they see on TV.
-
The only overload situations I see are in obvious onside kick plays.
The blocking restrictions imposed a few years ago were overblown. On most normal free kicks, early blocking by K isn't a problem, even squibs.
Another rule change in search of a problem.
-
Also... What does this mean... I take this to mean two different things...
"In addition, roughing the passer fouls now include all illegal personal contact fouls listed in Rule 9-4-3, which result in automatic first down in addition to a 15-yard penalty."
-
If I am reading this correctly all illegal personal contact fouls are now an automatic first down. For the NFHS this is a major change.
-
Also... What does this mean... I take this to mean two different things...
"In addition, roughing the passer fouls now include all illegal personal contact fouls listed in Rule 9-4-3, which result in automatic first down in addition to a 15-yard penalty."
Poorly written, but I think all personal fouls are now automatic first downs.
Will this apply to dead ball fouls on 4th down when the line to gain has not been attained?
-
In other words, when a coach incorrectly wishes to apply a college rule, he will now be correct >:D
-
I think you are misreading it although the wording in the release is not the most clear. Pretty sure the intent is that if a passer is fouled by an act that is also a PF other than RTP (face mask for example), that foul will be treated as a roughing the passer foul. This means that the penalty for that particular act, when it is committed against the passer, will include an automatic first down just as RTP would.
-
So, any PF on a passer is now a RTP. I'm good with that.
Does that definition of targeting bring us back to trying to divine intent, since it includes "aiming"? And is targeting only possible on the new defenseless player, or on any player?
-
That was my thought jg.
-
I have a hard time understanding the NFHS mindset. We give auto first downs for QBs, holders, long snappers, and kickers because they are 'defenseless'. Even though that wording has never been used we all know that is why they had the auto first down applied to their fouls. Why do they continue not to apply it to helmet fouls, like the three in the past and addition to the new targeting foul for this year. Just does not make sense to me. If you dont want to give it on all PFs I get that, but at least make all defenseless player fouls equal.
-
Another rule change in search of a problem.
Really surprised that the "4 in the backfield" proposal didn't pass.
-
There really is no change when it comes to targeting. It's just a personal foul that we would probably have called all along. If you want to stop targeting an automatic DQ would work
-
Really surprised that the "4 in the backfield" proposal didn't pass.
Yeah, pretty much anything I support goes down in flames. Maybe I need to get into coaching?
-
Really surprised that the "4 in the backfield" proposal didn't pass.
That one and adjusting the timing rules on runs OOB. Our games have gotten longer and longer and I've got a very fast pace as a WH.
The NFHS is so loathe to make any substantial changes - they just disappoint year after year. No offense, Ralph.
-
That one and adjusting the timing rules on runs OOB. Our games have gotten longer and longer and I've got a very fast pace as a WH.
The 4 in the backfield rule makes sense, I don't see why it would fail.
OOB timing changes SHOULD fail. There is no reason for it. There is nothing wrong with the time of a HS game. If it takes a little longer than it used to (and we haven't had a substantial change in game time in the 14 years I've been tracking it), fine, then it takes a little longer.
It kills me when I'm working a baseball game, and my partner is all worried about how quickly we can get the game done. If you're that worried about getting out of there, don't take the game!
-
The 4 in the backfield rule makes sense, I don't see why it would fail.
OOB timing changes SHOULD fail. There is no reason for it. There is nothing wrong with the time of a HS game. If it takes a little longer than it used to (and we haven't had a substantial change in game time in the 14 years I've been tracking it), fine, then it takes a little longer.
It kills me when I'm working a baseball game, and my partner is all worried about how quickly we can get the game done. If your that worried about getting out of there, don't take the game!
Thank you... I love being out there I dont care how long the game lasts. Being out on the field is the best part of my week.
-
The 4 in the backfield rule makes sense, I don't see why it would fail.
OOB timing changes SHOULD fail. There is no reason for it. There is nothing wrong with the time of a HS game. If it takes a little longer than it used to (and we haven't had a substantial change in game time in the 14 years I've been tracking it), fine, then it takes a little longer.
It kills me when I'm working a baseball game, and my partner is all worried about how quickly we can get the game done. If you're that worried about getting out of there, don't take the game!
Eh, feel free to think I hate being out there because I'd like games to feel crisp and end in 2:10 and not 2:30. Couldn't be farther from the truth. If I hated it so much, I'd give up working freshman and JV games and I still do those every week even though there's no requirement for me to do so.
I just read an article recently (and I can't find it now) that game times have increased by about 15 minutes in the last 10 years or so. To me, that's substantial. My personal experience bears that out, too.
I work college football too. I had HS games that took longer this past season than some non-televised college games. And we play the equivalent of 5 HS quarters.
These questions were on the list for discussion, so I'm not the only one asking the questions.
-
My immediate thoughts:
Not sure how targeting is any different than existing illegal helmet contact or illegal use of hands.
What seems a significant difference between the 3 existing "helmet contact" violations and this "targeting" definition is the inclusion of "the shoulder" as a weapon meriting this foul. It seems since the targeting focus at upper levels has received to much attention in recent years, there have been far more efforts to complete the targeted collision with the shoulder, hopefully avoiding the foul. Those shoulder contacts have often been equally dangerous to a helmet to helmet collision.
-
I could live with no changes to timing if my state would implement a "mercy rule" instead of leaving it to the whim of coaches to agree. There's always the one coach who wants to "teach my kids a lesson" or "we're a passing offense", but not a very good one) when they're down 63-7 in the third quarter. We are not even supposed to bring up the topic in the game but wait for one of the coaches to mention it and then relay to the opposing sideline and wait for an answer. I feel like I ought to be working for the State Department.
-
I think you are misreading it although the wording in the release is not the most clear. Pretty sure the intent is that if a passer is fouled by an act that is also a PF other than RTP (face mask for example), that foul will be treated as a roughing the passer foul. This means that the penalty for that particular act, when it is committed against the passer, will include an automatic first down just as RTP would.
If any of these fouls occurred against a passer, when, historically, would RTP not have been called?
Also, so now if a defensive player hurdles the QB to avoid hitting him, is THAT RTP? :!# :!#
Ralph, what is going on in Indy?
-
Also... What does this mean... I take this to mean two different things...
"In addition, roughing the passer fouls now include all illegal personal contact fouls listed in Rule 9-4-3, which result in automatic first down in addition to a 15-yard penalty."
Basically, the old RPS rule was that it's only RPS when you hit the QB late. So, if you hit the QB helmet to helmet, but it was immediately after he had thrown the ball, technically by the letter of the law, this was just a normal personal foul and not RPS, since it wasn't a late hit. The new rule book language changes that.
-
If any of these fouls occurred against a passer, when, historically, would RTP not have been called?
RTP was ONLY charging into a passer after the ball was released. That was it. If the defense grabbed the passer's face mask, or pulled the QB down from behind, that was NOT RTP, even though most officials INCORRECTLY called it that way anyway.
-
I just read an article recently (and I can't find it now) that game times have increased by about 15 minutes in the last 10 years or so. To me, that's substantial. My personal experience bears that out, too.
If true (and it's not in our case), then time has increased 11%. In the last 10 years, game fees have climbed 15% in Georgia, so officials are now getting paid MORE per hour than before!
Get rid of the ridiculous mandatory 3 minute warm up. Mandate halftimes of no more than 15 minutes. Make sure your mechanics have the kickoff coming in more than 60 seconds after the try. Set the ball in 12 seconds from the end of the last play. Allow officials to get a new ball from the ball boy as soon as the play ends and let ball boys chase incomplete passes. There are plenty of ways to "speed up" a game that don't require new timing rules.
These questions were on the list for discussion, so I'm not the only one asking the questions.
So were allowing a fair catch on kickoffs that bounce once, allowing balls to be spiked from a shotgun, eliminating face guarding, changing dead ball contact fouls to be USC instead of PFs, automatic first downs on PFs, dead balls fouls on both teams offsetting, previous spot on defensive fouls in the offensive backfield, and numerous others.
Why? Because they are NCAA rules, not because they are right for FED. There are many FED people that want FED to be more like the NCAA. That doesn't make them good ideas.
-
RTP was ONLY charging into a passer after the ball was released. That was it. If the defense grabbed the passer's face mask, or pulled the QB down from behind, that was NOT RTP, even though most officials INCORRECTLY called it that way anyway.
Maybe TECHNICALLY (although 9-4-3b certainly could be interpreted to apply). If a Passer, by definition, remains a passer until the pass the pass ends or he moves to participate, common sense would be the act is RTP. The change only brings the code into "reality".
-
Maybe TECHNICALLY (although 9-4-3b certainly could be interpreted to apply). If a Passer, by definition, remains a passer until the pass the pass ends or he moves to participate, common sense would be the act is RTP. The change only brings the code into "reality".
9-4-3b doesn't apply anymore to a passer than it does to anyone else, which is why that action was a PF, not RTP.
-
Mandate halftimes of no more than 15 minutes.
Now you're messin' with the band. DUCK !!!!! :sTiR:
-
I don't like the untimed down change. I suppose I can live with the rest.
Also HLinNC, do you not ask coaches to run the clock for state purposes or because of the local association? I'm in NC and have asked on numerous occasions (and everytime the coach says "Clearly we have work to do, we're gonna play")
-
Over the years I have noticed that Fed (IMO) isn't as thorough in their final print as the NCAA seems to be. In the event they don't cite examples of exactly who should be considered defenseless here are some guidelines especially since the language in the rule itself is exactly the same.
Straight from the NCAA rule book:
Defenseless Player ARTICLE 14. A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury.
Examples of defenseless players are:
a. A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
b. A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
d. A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
e. A player on the ground.
f. A player obviously out of the play.
g. A player who receives a blind-side block.
h. A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
i. A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
-
Straight from the NCAA rule book:
Defenseless Player ARTICLE 14. A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury.
Examples of defenseless players are:
a. A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
b. A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
d. A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
e. A player on the ground.
f. A player obviously out of the play.
g. A player who receives a blind-side block.
h. A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
i. A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
Even detailed lists of examples can create confusion. In "c" above is a kicker chasing a return of his kick automatically defenseless?
In "i" is a QB (or perhaps more precisely a "passer" defensless when standing between someone who intercepted a pass and the goal? Are these players defenseless because of who they are, or because of what they might be doing? Does a "kicker" who has regained his balance and has decided to participate in chasing a return man, remain exempt from contact, or a passer who has escaped any sort of contact related to his vulnerability associated with his passing, and decides to participate in the play, chasing an opponent who has intercepted a pass, or recovered a subsequent fumble and is advancing, remain "defenseless"?
Lists of examples are usually intended to be representation od what "might" happen, not strictly limited specifics.
-
Even detailed lists of examples can create confusion. In "c" above is a kicker chasing a return of his kick automatically defenseless?
In "i" is a QB (or perhaps more precisely a "passer" defensless when standing between someone who intercepted a pass and the goal? Are these players defenseless because of who they are, or because of what they might be doing? Does a "kicker" who has regained his balance and has decided to participate in chasing a return man, remain exempt from contact, or a passer who has escaped any sort of contact related to his vulnerability associated with his passing, and decides to participate in the play, chasing an opponent who has intercepted a pass, or recovered a subsequent fumble and is advancing, remain "defenseless"?
Lists of examples are usually intended to be representation od what "might" happen, not strictly limited specifics.
Defenseless doesn't mean you can't contact them. You just can't target them. On a return a high hit could be legal against other players, but it would be targeting against a kicker or passer. You may recall the hit against I think the Saints punter this year. The NFL rule may be similar. The NCAA rule is providing a little extra protection to these players throughout the down, not just when they are truly defenseless. Don't think of defenseless in the true definition of the word. A better choice would probably be "protected".
-
Over the years I have noticed that Fed (IMO) isn't as thorough in their final print as the NCAA seems to be. In the event they don't cite examples of exactly who should be considered defenseless here are some guidelines especially since the language in the rule itself is exactly the same.
Straight from the NCAA rule book:
Defenseless Player ARTICLE 14. A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury.
Examples of defenseless players are:
a. A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
b. A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
d. A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
e. A player on the ground.
f. A player obviously out of the play.
g. A player who receives a blind-side block.
h. A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
i. A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
The Fed will have guidelines written. Bank on it.
-
The Fed will have guidelines written. Bank on it.
How well they are written is what scares me. My confidence in their editing process is not high.
-
How well they are written is what scares me. My confidence in their editing process is not high.
Check your PM inbox.
-
Also HLinNC, do you not ask coaches to run the clock for state purposes or because of the local association?
My recollection is that comes from Chapel Hill but I could be wrong.
-
Check your PM inbox.
What scares me about targeting is I've watched CFO and ACC video clips and there are plays I can't tell a difference when Redding and Doug say this one is targeting and that one isn't. Now I fully admit I do not remotely work at that level of football. If those that do can discern the difference in real time then tiphat:
-
34% of targeting calls were overturned by replay. So in real time, a THIRD of targeting calls that are made are incorrect.
What we don't know is how many were passed on by the crew that replay would have supported as targeting.
It's my contention that even the best college officials don't know targeting in real time. How is a HS official supposed to get it right?
-
How well they are written is what scares me. My confidence in their editing process is not high.
+1
How many rules over the years have been revised over the next couple of years to correct oversights or mistakes? And Ralph, are we any closer to having the verbiage vetted her at RefStripes yet? :)
-
And Ralph, are we any closer to having the verbiage vetted her at RefStripes yet?
Don't bother Ralph right now, he should be doing his PT.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/37/377412c74badd813c9fd74ec4fd14b90a1b2cfc5b094d64e3b6fd527f2705256.jpg)
-
9-4-3b doesn't apply anymore to a passer than it does to anyone else, which is why that action was a PF, not RTP.
Or any less! ^flag ;)
-
Defenseless doesn't mean you can't contact them. You just can't target them. On a return a high hit could be legal against other players, but it would be targeting against a kicker or passer.
Is language the problem, or is the constant search for relieving the responsibility of judgment the issue? I don't argue with your conclusion, but that simply is NOT what the NCAA "Samples List" says. The list STATES: (c).......or during the kick or the return. (i).......any time after a change of possession.
When a kicker or a passer is finished their unique and defined action and chooses to participate in whatever is then happening, he becomes a PLAYER and all players are subject to the same consequences and responsibilities, or at least should be.
What we do is all about perception, interpretation and judgment, and how well (or not) we apply those traits. Sample lists can be extremely helpful, to form our perceptions and interpretations but they only contribute to our final perceptions and interpretations, along with all sorts of additional inputs, including mistakes, challenges, arguments and a lot of serious study and experience
If only there was a "Silver Bullet" or a magic pill.
-
34% of targeting calls were overturned by replay. So in real time, a THIRD of targeting calls that are made are incorrect.
What we don't know is how many were passed on by the crew that replay would have supported as targeting.
It's my contention that even the best college officials don't know targeting in real time. How is a HS official supposed to get it right?
Quite a few of the calls that were reversed should not have been reversed according to the powers that be so for me that 34% number is a little higher than it really should be.
-
Quite a few of the calls that were reversed should not have been reversed according to the powers that be so for me that 34% number is a little higher than it really should be.
All the more evidence that even learned officials can't agree on what is or isn't targeting!
SJ: That's targeting!
RO: No, it's not!
Super: Yes, it is!
-
All the more evidence that even learned officials can't agree on what is or isn't targeting!
SJ: That's targeting!
RO: No, it's not!
Super: Yes, it is!
So get rid of the replay official? aWaRd
-
With this change, in order to extend or not extend a period with an untimed down, time must expire during the down.
Am I the only one who thinks this should have read:
With this change, in order to extend or not extend a period with an untimed down, time must expire during the down.
-
Or any less! ^flag ;)
I agree, but that's why it wasn't RTP. It was a PF that many officials mistakenly called RTP. By rule, RTP was ONE thing, charging into a passer.
If they changed the rule because the old rule was poorly written and we shouldn't differentiate between PFs and the traditionally defined RTP, OK, good reason to do it.
If they changed it because, "That's the way officials call it anyway", then shame on them. Teach officials the rules!
-
When a kicker or a passer is finished their unique and defined action and chooses to participate in whatever is then happening, he becomes a PLAYER and all players are subject to the same consequences and responsibilities, or at least should be.
The NCAA disagrees with you.
-
The NCAA disagrees with you.
That may well be true, and certainly is their right to determine that. At the NFHS level, once an individual assumes the duties of a player, and chooses to then participate as a player, he enjoys all the benefits of a player and accepts all the responsibilities and consequences of being a player.
As for RTP under the NFHS code, I would consider any and all "roughing" fouls (Slapping, unecessarily knocking down, Grasping the face mask, any of the hemet contact violations, (otherwise legally) blocking and illegally blocking an individual who is acting in the capacity of a "Passer" (NF:2-32-11) 'A player who throws a legal forward pass. He continues to be a passer until the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play.", as RTP, as the individual, by rule, is still a passer.
-
As for RTP under the NFHS code, I would consider any and all "roughing" fouls (Slapping, unecessarily knocking down, Grasping the face mask, any of the hemet contact violations, (otherwise legally) blocking and illegally blocking an individual who is acting in the capacity of a "Passer" (NF:2-32-11) 'A player who throws a legal forward pass. He continues to be a passer until the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play.", as RTP, as the individual, by rule, is still a passer.
Under the new rule in 2014, that would be correct. Under the previous rule, the ONLY thing that was RTP was "charging into the passer". But many officials incorrectly applied the RTP penalty (AFD) to what were actually personal fouls.
That is why the rule was changed to what you are now quoting.
-
Under the new rule in 2014, that would be correct. Under the previous rule, the ONLY thing that was RTP was "charging into the passer". But many officials incorrectly applied the RTP penalty (AFD) to what were actually personal fouls.
That is why the rule was changed to what you are now quoting.
Sorry, I just can't accept your assessment that, "Under the previous rule, the ONLY thing that was RTP was "charging into the passer", nor do I believe believe the vast majority of NFHS officials would either. I do hope the revised language will eliminate those who believed that prohibition to be so limited.
-
Sorry, I just can't accept your assessment that, "Under the previous rule, the ONLY thing that was RTP was "charging into the passer", nor do I believe believe the vast majority of NFHS officials would either. I do hope the revised language will eliminate those who believed that prohibition to be so limited.
You can refuse to accept my assessment only if you ignored the rule book.
9-4-4: Roughing the passer. Defensive players must make a definite effort to avoid charging into a passer, who has thrown the ball from in or behind the neutral zone, after it is clear the ball has been thrown. No defensive player shall charge into the passer who is standing still or fading back, because he is considered out of the play after the pass.
All of the other things you mentioned are in 9-3-3, not 9-4-4 and are personal fouls, NOT roughing the passer. Personal fouls do not carry an AFD, RTP does. In most cases, no one knew there was a problem, because in most case, the LTG is less than 15 yards away, so it was a first down anyway. But there were those few cases were the LTG was more than 15 yards, or half the distance, and in those cases, the penalty was being incorrectly applied.
The committee saw this was a problem, and fixed the rule. Perhaps those should have been RTP all along, but they were not. Some officials were ruling incorrectly and calling the PFs RTP. Officials that were calling it correctly were catching h#ll, even though they were correct. If it wasn't a problem or wasn't a "loophole", why did they have to pass a new rule to fix it?
It's no longer an issue. Next, they need to apply the same standard to roughing the kicker and roughing the holder as well.
-
AB you are correct, but I would argue that this is a case where "spirit" and "intent" of the rule was being enforced previously. Now the rule matches the intent and purpose and will only make it easier to enforce the rule correctly.
You can argue whether "spirit" and "intent" should be enforced, but now the rules committee has taken that argument away and the rule is clear.
This was a good rule change.
-
AB you are correct, but I would argue that this is a case where "spirit" and "intent" of the rule was being enforced previously. Now the rule matches the intent and purpose and will only make it easier to enforce the rule correctly.
You can argue whether "spirit" and "intent" should be enforced, but now the rules committee has taken that argument away and the rule is clear.
This was a good rule change.
I understand "spirit of the rule". I have taught new baseball umpires at many levels for many years. One of the things I always teach is, "know what the rules MEANS, not just what it SAYS". But you have to be careful there as well. While knowing what it means and how to apply it is important, we can't ignore what it says and rule how we THINK it should be called, especially when it comes to enforcing a penalty. We can apply judgment in cases where judgment is an issue, but penalty enforcement isn't one of those. Under the old rule, awarding a automatic first down on a PF against a passer wasn't judgment, it was an enforcement error.
It would have been just as wrong to award an automatic first down on a face mask penalty against a runner. The NFL and the NCAA do, so some feel the spirit of the rule is it should be a first down. But in cases of penalty enforcement, "spirit" can't rule, for penalty enforcement, you have to use what is written.
But as we have both said, it's no longer an issue in this case, the rule has been changed.
-
Although I have no stats to back this up, I'm guessing that the vast majority of illegal acts against a passer involve some version of charging into the passer. While a face mask foul in and of itself would not have been roughing the passer, I doubt the new wording of the rule is going to have a noticeable effect from the way games have been administered in the past.
-
You can refuse to accept my assessment only if you ignored the rule book.
It's no longer an issue. Next, they need to apply the same standard to roughing the kicker and roughing the holder as well.
Thank you, actually I haven't ignored the Rule Book, and understand, and agree, it was the choice of those who wrote NFHS:9-4-4 NOT to define specifically what was meant by "charging into a passer", leaving the judgment of what that entailed to the common sense of the covering official. The rule does add specific details about their reasoning suggesting the penalty is considered, " because he (the passer) is considered out of the play after the pass."
It has always seemed reasonable that the added consequences of RTP (above and beyond PF) are a response to the passer being "out of the play" and additionally vulnerable and worthy of whatever additional protection more severe consequences would provide. Since its inception, the additional consequences associated with RTP have been far more consistently applied to ANY PF type actions leveled at a "Passer" (or "Kicker" and more recently "Holder" and "Snapper") for one consistent and focused reason, that of increased vulnerability of that player due to the unique actions of players involved in those specific actions.
This year's correction is welcome as it will hopefully eliviate the concerns of those who would prefer strict documentable permission, rather than reliance on personal judgment from direct observation, which NFHS rule makers have long seemed comfortable relying on, and will extend the broader application of added protection, as originally designed, more consistently by satisfying those officials preferring specific documentable instruction. This adjustment seems more a clarification of what was thought to be universally understood, than a change.
-
This adjustment seems more a clarification of what was thought to be universally understood MISUNDERSTOOD than a change.
Fixed it for you. Any official that "judged" that pulling the face mask of as passer was "charging into" clearly doesn't belong calling Varsity football.
You can dress it up as "judgment" all you want, that's not judgment, that's failure to know the old rule. If it was simply a "clarification", it would have been an editorial change or a case book play. This was a change to a playing rule in order to close a loophole.
-
Any official that "judged" that pulling the face mask of as passer was "charging into" clearly doesn't belong calling Varsity football.
To me it seems that AB is guilty of using a little hyperbole here, and I would kind of like to know who appointed him the "decider" of who belongs officiating varsity football and who does not.
After 20 some years officiating at the R position, I have never seen a defender do anything to the passer except charge into him that caused me to call RTP. I suppose that if a defender was running by, stuck out his hand and twisted the passer's facemask, I probably would have mistakenly called this RTP even though I do know the text of the rule. By the strictest of definitions this would have been an error.
I believe what the previous posters were trying to convey is that very rarely would this happen. In the case of a passer, it is much more likely that someone would "charge into" the passer, and also twist the facemask (in this case you could call 2 fouls one for FM and one for RTP-but that is kind of silly in my opinion and common sense says to make this a RTP). This sort of multiple foul situation is much more likely.
Now if in the next 20 years or so I see the very rare twist of the facemask without the charging into, I have rules support to get the call right.
-
John-AB is a fairly respected poster in this community. He is an asst football coach at the HS level and a baseball umpire. He does commonly bring a coaches perspective to threads. Many times, he's more right than wrong, which is not common with most coaches that I come across.
He is not the "decider" of anything but given what I know of him and his rules knowledge, I'd take him on a crew any day.
Plus he's the only guy here with a movie credit :bOW
-
I knew all of that. However in this particular case I think he is coming on a little bit strong. Just my opinion, but like him I am allowed to have one.
I really do not think that because someone might call a play that may happen once in 40 years a certain way that should disqualify the person from working a varsity game. RTP as described without a "running into" component is not going to happen very often (Again based on my limited experience of 20 plus years at the R position), and when you figure in that it is only really going to make a difference if the LTG is more than 15 yards away the does it make a difference factor goes up even more.
-
John-AB is a fairly respected poster in this community. He is an asst football coach at the HS level and a baseball umpire. He does commonly bring a coaches perspective to threads. Many times, he's more right than wrong, which is not common with most coaches that I come across.
He is not the "decider" of anything but given what I know of him and his rules knowledge, I'd take him on a crew any day.
Plus he's the only guy here with a movie credit :bOW
+1000
You beat me to it, "HL".
John, not to beat a dead horse, but while I periodically have had philosophical differences (including this situation) with AB, I rarely read anything from him that is not soundly "rules-based". His experience and willingness to put his opinions (as a coach) out there for us zebras to think about has been very valuable - and should be respected. yEs:
-
...when you figure in that it is only really going to make a difference if the LTG is more than 15 yards away the does it make a difference factor goes up even more.
Not so. It would also make a difference (maybe even a BIG difference) when half-the-distance is involved.
PLAY: 4th-and-goal from the B8. B77 twists and turns passer A14's face mask, but does not charge into him. A14's pass is incomplete.
2013 RULING: Half-the-distance to the B4, 4th-and-goal.
2014 RULING: Half-the-distance to the B4, 1st-and-goal.
-
Fixed it for you. Any official that "judged" that pulling the face mask of as passer was "charging into" clearly doesn't belong calling Varsity football.
You can dress it up as "judgment" all you want, that's not judgment, that's failure to know the old rule. If it was simply a "clarification", it would have been an editorial change or a case book play. This was a change to a playing rule in order to close a loophole.
Thank you for your opinion AB, as is always the appropriate way for a Referee, at any level, to deal with respectful input from Coaches regarding the application of penalties, or any relevant question regarding some aspect of the game, to, in-turn, respectfully listen to the input offered, consider it seriously and then render, what will be the final decision with appropriate explanation.
In the case of a "passer" (as opposed to a "player") suffering a grasping the face mask foul, my response would very likely be, "Thank you for your input, Coach, but RTP is the call we're going with and your team will be charged with the Time Out"(presuming one was requested to challenge the initial indication).
-
I knew all of that. However in this particular case I think he is coming on a little bit strong. Just my opinion, but like him I am allowed to have one.
I really do not think that because someone might call a play that may happen once in 40 years a certain way that should disqualify the person from working a varsity game. RTP as described without a "running into" component is not going to happen very often (Again based on my limited experience of 20 plus years at the R position), and when you figure in that it is only really going to make a difference if the LTG is more than 15 yards away the does it make a difference factor goes up even more.
I think you missed my point. If an official makes a legitimate error in enforcement, no, one error does not nor should not disqualify him from working Varsity games. If it did, we wouldn't have any officials!
But that's not what was stated in the situation above. In that case, the official said that even though he knew the rule, he would "judge" that a face mask foul was "charging into", and call it RTP. An official that knowingly manipulates the rules to produce the outcome he desires has no business on a Varsity field, if any field at all. We don't get to make up our own rules or enforcements, just because we think they are more fair. To do so means you have no integrity whatsoever, and place yourself above the rules.
If you can stand behind a support an official that says, "I know what the rule is, but I'm not calling it that way, I'm making up my own interpretation to fit what I THINK should happen", then you and I have very different opinions on what makes a good official. And in fact, I'll bet we both have a pretty good idea what makes a good official.
-
In the case of a "passer" (as opposed to a "player") suffering a grasping the face mask foul, my response would very likely be, "Thank you for your input, Coach, but RTP is the call we're going with and your team will be charged with the Time Out"(presuming one was requested to challenge the initial indication).
In 2014, you wouldn't have had to explain it to me, I never would have questioned it.
Had you been on the field and given me that explanation in 2013, it would have been in my report to the state office on Saturday morning. I submitted two reports this season. We don't have to go into the details, but the reports were well received and acted upon. I don't complain just to complain, or when I think an official is "bad", I complain when there is documented proof that they are in error, and would not correct it. You just gave it to me.
Even those that disagree with my interpretation here may not understand my position. Let me make it clear. I'm not saying those personal fouls SHOULDN'T have been RTP all along, I'm saying by rule, many of them they WEREN'T RTP, they were simply personal fouls. The Rules Committee agreed with me, which is why we have a RULE change, not an EDITORIAL change which is used to make minor revisions, or even a case play which is used to correct questionable or possible misinterpretations. In order to get this right, the RULE had to be changed, and it was.
And HL and Curious, I appreciate your kind words and support, even if we disagree. Respectful disagreement is how we learn, and how we get things changed.
-
AB, based on your last post we probably agree more than disagree. One of the disadvantages of message boards and electronic media in general is the loss of tone. I agree that if an official consistently changes the rules to suit their own purpose, they need to seriously reevaluate their "style." Our job is to enforce the rules as they are presented to us. If a rule change is needed there is a procedure in place to make that happen, but until it does we are stuck with what we have.
Many officials in my area "change" the timing rules in blow out situations. I steadfastly insist that is not our place to do. We simply do not have that authority and to take it is to place yourself above the game, and that is never a good idea.
-
AB, based on your last post we probably agree more than disagree.
I'm pretty sure we do.
-
I think you are misreading it although the wording in the release is not the most clear. Pretty sure the intent is that if a passer is fouled by an act that is also a PF other than RTP (face mask for example), that foul will be treated as a roughing the passer foul. This means that the penalty for that particular act, when it is committed against the passer, will include an automatic first down just as RTP would.
JG nailed it... unabridged version reads : "...any illegal personal contact foul listed in Rule 9-4-3 against THE PASSER..."
-
My immediate thoughts:
1st down on DPI not "fixed" as originally rumored.
Are we going to have to revise the 5 man free kick mechanics AGAIN?
Not sure how targeting is any different than existing illegal helmet contact or illegal use of hands.
Addressing HL's first immediate thought : The on-line questionnaire that many of us took had the following results on the revision of the PI rules..coaches - 2149-778 (73%) favor; officials - 5150-2510 (67%) favor ; state - 31-9 (78%) favor. The proposal to reinstate auto first down died on the vine.
-
Addressing HL's first immediate thought : The on-line questionnaire that many of us took had the following results on the revision of the PI rules..coaches - 2149-778 (73%) favor; officials - 5150-2510 (67%) favor ; state - 31-9 (78%) favor. The proposal to reinstate auto first down died on the vine.
Seems awfully strange that the states favored the change 31-9, yet the proposal dies on the vine... ???
-
Seems awfully strange that the states favored the change 31-9, yet the proposal dies on the vine... ???
They didn't favor a change, they favored the current rule.
But that was the function of a TERRIBLY written survey. A much better question would have been, "Do you favor the current rule with no AFD, or an AFD on DPI?"
-
Don't bother Ralph right now, he should be doing his PT.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/37/377412c74badd813c9fd74ec4fd14b90a1b2cfc5b094d64e3b6fd527f2705256.jpg)
So far my therapists have all been female, but none resembled her! To me, PT is goal setting...your goal can be shuffling out to shuffleboard or running to the goal line, I choose the latter :) I only yak, argue, vote and fly back to Maine. The press releases are beyond my control pi1eOn
-
The theme of this year's rule changes could certainly be labeled "player safety". Some of my hopefuls and many of yours fell by the wayside ,but the emphasis was on attempting to make the game that we all love as safe as possible. That should always be our top priority.
-
Really surprised that the "4 in the backfield" proposal didn't pass.
This was bogged down by the impact on the "5 w/# 50-79" rule. need 34 votes to pass and only 17 to fail.
-
That one and adjusting the timing rules on runs OOB. Our games have gotten longer and longer and I've got a very fast pace as a WH.
The NFHS is so loathe to make any substantial changes - they just disappoint year after year. No offense, Ralph.
The timing proposal eas modified to RFP on all OOB plays w/no exceptions for last 2 mins of half. There wasn't big support for length of game issues.
-
This was bogged down by the impact on the "5 w/# 50-79" rule. need 34 votes to pass and only 17 to fail.
I don't understand. The rule requiring 7 on the line could be changed to limiting Team A to 4 backs without affecting the numbering requirements.
The difference would be that we wouldn't penalize Team A beyond the inherent disadvantage of playing with less than 11 players.
-
The timing proposal was modified to RFP on all OOB plays w/no exceptions for last 2 mins of half. There wasn't big support for length of game issues.
I wouldn't be in favor of that either, if I were a coach.
-
I wouldn't be in favor of that either, if I were a coach.
As a coach, I will say, there is nothing wrong with the time of games, leave the timing rules alone! This isn't a race, the sideline is part of clock management all the time, not just in the last two minutes.
-
This was bogged down by the impact on the "5 w/# 50-79" rule. need 34 votes to pass and only 17 to fail.
That's an easy fix.
ART. 5 . . . Player formation and numbering requirements include:
a. At the snap, no more than four A players shall be off their line of scrimmage.
b. At the snap, all A players on their line of scrimmage must be numbered
50-79, unless they are on the end of the line.
-
Addressing HL's first immediate thought : The on-line questionnaire that many of us took had the following results on the revision of the PI rules..coaches - 2149-778 (73%) favor; officials - 5150-2510 (67%) favor ; state - 31-9 (78%) favor. The proposal to reinstate auto first down died on the vine.
When you say "favor", do you mean they favor the current rule or they favor a change to the current rule?
-
When you say "favor", do you mean they favor the current rule or they favor a change to the current rule?
I took it to mean they favored a change to the current rule. Obviously that wasn't the case.
-
I took it to mean they favored a change to the current rule. Obviously that wasn't the case.
So 73% of coaches dislike the DPI rule as it's currently written?
-
I took it to mean they favored a change to the current rule. Obviously that wasn't the case.
The first third of the questionnaire deals with last year's rule changes and are you in favor of them . The response indicated that a strong majority felt the rule change was good.
-
That's an easy fix.
ART. 5 . . . Player formation and numbering requirements include:
a. At the snap, no more than four A players shall be off their line of scrimmage.
b. At the snap, all A players on their line of scrimmage must be numbered
50-79, unless they are on the end of the line.
With the 2/3 super majority required to pass a new rule, it doesn't take much to muddy the waters. I gave the pitch of "why flag a team for having 10 players?" ; one with an opposing opinion brought up the 5 50-79 issue. The "nays" had more than the 17 votes needed.
-
The "nays" had more than the 17 votes needed.
How much of that is, "Well, we've always done it that way"?
-
How much of that is, "Well, we've always done it that way"?
Probably at lot. TR once said : "Outlaw the flying wedge or I'll outlaw football"... or something theresuch :). Some of the opponents to this rule change may still remember that. Excluding the "why flag 10 men ???" argument, the only other that surfaced was that it would make it easier for the officials. Few rules are passed solely for that reason. :(
-
I'm off to sunny Florida tommorrow for two weeks of R & R. My trusty computer, Ole' Dell, will not be making the journey with me . So if you don't see any posts for a while, it's not because I don't have anything to say - it's just that I don't have any way to say it. With my doctor's blessing, it'll be much more enjoyable walking in the warm sun of St Pete Beach than slipping on the frozen tundra of Bangor,Maine :).
-
The first third of the questionnaire deals with last year's rule changes and are you in favor of them . The response indicated that a strong majority felt the rule change was good.
Many of the questions on the survey are not worded well. For example, there are several that start with "Is there a problem in your area with..." Many of them are situations that aren't a problem, but the rule should be updated. For example, the 7 on the line vs. 4 in the backfield options. It's not a problem, but it's logical to me to make that change.
If I recall correctly the OPI/DPI rule change was part of the same question. If people are happy that OPI LOD was removed they may have picked that option. I kept an unofficial survey of officials and coaches and it was 100% against it. Nobody I talked to though removing AFD on DPI made sense.
-
Excluding the "why flag 10 men" argument, the only other that surfaced was that it would make it easier for the officials. Few rules are passed solely for that reason. :(
Yeah, why in the world would they want to make it easier for us to get the calls right? :sTiR:
-
Many of the questions on the survey are not worded well. For example, there are several that start with "Is there a problem in your area with..." Many of them are situations that aren't a problem, but the rule should be updated. For example, the 7 on the line vs. 4 in the backfield options. It's not a problem, but it's logical to me to make that change.
If I recall correctly the OPI/DPI rule change was part of the same question. If people are happy that OPI LOD was removed they may have picked that option. I kept an unofficial survey of officials and coaches and it was 100% against it. Nobody I talked to though removing AFD on DPI made sense.
Wait until a Texas team loses a championship because of not getting an auto 1st on DPI. Heck, I heard that's how the force out got taken out of the HS rule book! haha
-
Wait until a Texas team loses a championship because of not getting an auto 1st on DPI. Heck, I heard that's how the force out got taken out of the HS rule book! haha
A Texas team DOES get an auto 1st on DPI. It's the rest of us (minus Massachusetts) that don't.
-
Probably at lot. TR once said : "Outlaw the flying wedge or I'll outlaw football"... or something theresuch :). Some of the opponents to this rule change may still remember that. Excluding the "why flag 10 men ???" argument, the only other that surfaced was that it would make it easier for the officials. Few rules are passed solely for that reason. :(
Ralph. I know the "Why make it easier on the officials" sentiment is not your point of view. But to those that did feel that way and used it as an excuse to not pass this change I find that insulting and short-sighted on their part. This change would have gone a long way to providing more competitive fairness. There is no way a team gains an advantage playing with 10 players but we still penalize them for only having 6 on the line. Also I don't understand how this couldn't still be combined with five 50-79 on the line. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Also what is so magical about having 5 50-79 on the line. Why not just have a rule allowing no more than 6 players not numbered 50-79 on offense at any time.
As to the kick rule changes at this point they seem to be more of a solution looking for a problem at our level. But if they prevent future problems I guess its better to be proactive than wait for a problem and be reactive.
-
That's an easy fix.
ART. 5 . . . Player formation and numbering requirements include:
a. At the snap, no more than four A players shall be off their line of scrimmage.
b. At the snap, all A players on their line of scrimmage must be numbered
50-79, unless they are on the end of the line.
AB, why is it necessary to add " unless they are on the end of the line". The rule still states that there must be 5 on the line numbered 50-79. If there are more than that fine, regardless of what numbers they are wearing. Shouldn't it just read that "at least 5 players on their line of scrimmage must be numbered 50-79.
-
AB, why is it necessary to add " unless they are on the end of the line". The rule still states that there must be 5 on the line numbered 50-79. If there are more than that fine, regardless of what numbers they are wearing. Shouldn't it just read that "at least 5 players on their line of scrimmage must be numbered 50-79.
If you leave the "5 between 50-79", here's the problem: the only time it would NOT be a foul for having 6 on the line would be if you forgot an eligible numbered end. That shouldn't be the point. If we are going to say it's not a foul to play with 10 as long as there aren't more than 4 in the backfield, they we shouldn't care if the missing lineman is #50-79, or an eligible number.
No matter how many are on the line, a maximum of 2 of them are going to be eligible, so playing with 6 on the line, no matter what numbers they are, is not going to disadvantage the defense. Now, we don't want to go to go the way of the A-11 and have everyone wearing an eligible number, so that's why I said all interior linemen must wear 50-79, without putting a number on it. But someone pointed out a problem with my rule: if a team has an 8 man line, or covers a TE, now it would be a foul. Don't want that either, so I need to work on the wording.
-
If you leave the "5 between 50-79", here's the problem: the only time it would NOT be a foul for having 6 on the line would be if you forgot an eligible numbered end. That shouldn't be the point. If we are going to say it's not a foul to play with 10 as long as there aren't more than 4 in the backfield, they we shouldn't care if the missing lineman is #50-79, or an eligible number.
No matter how many are on the line, a maximum of 2 of them are going to be eligible, so playing with 6 on the line, no matter what numbers they are, is not going to disadvantage the defense. Now, we don't want to go to go the way of the "The offense that shall not be named" and have everyone wearing an eligible number, so that's why I said all interior linemen must wear 50-79, without putting a number on it. But someone pointed out a problem with my rule: if a team has an 8 man line, or covers a TE, now it would be a foul. Don't want that either, so I need to work on the wording.
AB, what am I missing in your interpretation. I still don't understand the insistence on interior lineman being numbered 50-79. You can have a 7,8,9 or 10 man line, however unlikely, and have them all numbered 50-79. Where does it say the ends must be eligible. There is no foul, only ineligible receivers. If the rule change would be no more than 4 in the backfield I don't see how it would affect the numbering (50-79) on the line. You would still need a minimum of 5 (50-79) no matter where they are lined up.
-
Because ends and backs are eligible by position also, thus they need to have an eligible number or your offense becomes extremely limited. There are six eligible positions, leaving five that are not, thus the 5 numbered 50-79 so the defense knows who those five are. Otherwise, we're back to the Kurt Bryan offense-placing a bunch of eligible numbers on the field and shifting in and out to confuse the defense.
If you run an offensive formation with 7, 8, 9, 10 players wearing ineligible numbers on the line , pretty easy to figure for the defense what is coming at you.
-
AB, what am I missing in your interpretation.
Let's say we go to the no more than 4 in the backfield rule, so as not to penalize a team for playing with 10. Unless they missing player on the line is an eligible receiver, there would still be a foul. THAT foul is what I'm trying to eliminate. Why should we care if the missing player is an end (eligible number) or an interior lineman. There is still no advantage gained by the offense by playing with ten.
So if we change to no more than 4 in the backfield and don't change the 5 numbered between 50-79, we've really accomplished nothing in terms of not penalizing a short handed team. However, if we go so far as to eliminate the 50-79 numbering altogether, we are back to the A-11, and no one rational person wants to go there.
I think wvoref may be on to the answer. We don't require at least 5 players numbered 50-79, we require no more than 6 players with eligible numbers. That way, if a team has 4 in the backfield, 6 on the line, and the missing player is an interior lineman, there is still no foul. If a team has 11 players, and wants to use an 8 man line and cover up an eligible number, that's OK too, which would have been a problem with my suggestion.
So, the new 7-2-5 should read:
ART. 5 . . . Player formation and numbering requirements include:
a. At the snap, at no more than four A players shall be off their line of scrimmage.
b. At the snap, at no more than 6 A players may be numbered 1-49 or 80-99.
-
AB, so your 7-2-5b example would then eliminate the numbering exception rule. Correct?
-
A Texas team DOES get an auto 1st on DPI. It's the rest of us (minus Massachusetts) that don't.
Ah, yes. Must have been another state where that happened...
-
AB, so your 7-2-5b example would then eliminate the numbering exception rule. Correct?
No you would still need the numbering exception. It would just be an exception allowing more than 6 eligible numbers rather than less than 5 ineligible numbers on the line.
-
I complain when there is documented proof that they are in error, and would not correct it. You just gave it to me.
The Rules Committee agreed with me, which is why we have a RULE change, not an EDITORIAL change which is used to make minor revisions, or even a case play which is used to correct questionable or possible misinterpretations. In order to get this right, the RULE had to be changed, and it was.
Thankfully, the 2014 revision will eliminate whatever confusion, by some, about what had seemed like a pretty clear understanding of what was the purpose of the RTP foul. Clarification is always a good thing. I have no idea whether the revised language was intended as a revision of the Rule, or an Editorial change or why one might be selected over the other, as the benefit of clarification seems to be what is really important.
I do not consider myself competent to render an assessment of any football coach's capabilities, although I admit to questioning some, because I have yet to walk in a professional football coaches shoes, and despite many years of close proximity have never personally experienced the rigors and stresses unique to coaching football. I understand the nature of the inherent differences between coaching and officiating, the same sport.
Contemplating the philosophy directing and reasons for any rule has always been a serious consideration in helping me achieve proper execution of rules based on their common sense application. Any doubt, or possible confusion has been been eliminated by consistent dialogue with designated "interpretors" and fellow experienced officials at the High School and upper levels. Although my personal experience is limited to only 46 years working in 4 Chapters in 3 States, at the High School level, I have yet to work, or consult, with any official anywhere who has strictly limited illegal contact with a "Passer" to whatever might be interpreted to the undefined/under defined term of "charging into".
In recent years, I was similarly gratified by the inclusion of a definition for the term "Flagrant", which althought fairly universally understood, previously, was improved by specific clarification.
As I've stated, I respect the input of any challenge, appropriately raised by any Coach, and deem such challenge worthy of consideration prior to rendering my judgment. However after such consideration, being aware of NFHS 1-1-6 and 1-1-9 I I have accepted those responsibilities and whatever consequences may follow. In the scenario being discussed, my respose, "Thank you for your input, Coach, we're going to go with RTP", meets my understanding of a respectful, appropriate response, after which I expect the game to continue.
-
I will provide an example I see many times where the 50-79 does not apply. On extra points, 4-5 times a year in varsity games, a player will forget he is on the EP team resulting in 10 on the field and only 6 on the line. We penalize the team and make them redo the play. Mostly just a waste of time. The no more than 4 in the backfield would benefit this scenario. We seldom see 10 on the field during normal offensive plays.
-
I believe we are overthinking the no more than 4 in the backfield rule. The NCAA has had this rule for years and still has the 5 on the line requirement. There are very few issues and you simply call the foul the few times that there are ten players and fewer than 5 of them are "on the line." Most of the time if there are 10 players there are still 5 numbered 50-79 on the line.
-
But if the philosophy is to not penalize a team for playing shorthanded as long as they are not deceiving the defense, why should we care if the missing lineman is an eligible or ineligible number?
-
AB you won't like the answer but in the NCAA the reality is if you don't have 5 and are only 10 the officials would pass and no one would say a word.
You would have more issues if you nit picked the rule. That is how college coordinators think and it is really best for the game. You can argue the point but that is reality and generally it works.
-
Opinion of opinions : (1) Removing LOD & AFD from the PI fouls was passed as a single rule change so it was presented as a single rule change on this year's questionnaire. I've been on the Rules Committee since 1994 and the only time I can recall of a negitave majority appearing on the previous year's rule change was in 1997 regarding starting clock on snap after COP -- coaches, officials & state administrators alike all voted against the change. it's repeal was on the 1997 docket --it had passed 34-16 the previous year (by one vote) so 18 members would need to change their minds. It becomes very tough to change a rule back. (2) I didn't mean to imply that some voters were against the "5 backs drawing a flag" proposal because it would make it easier for the officials, just that isn't a reason for votes (other than from we officials) . Hope this helps to clearify . Like our crews on the field, I'm part of the Rules Committee's team and stand by their decisions even if I don't agree with them all.
-
(2) I didn't mean to imply that some voters were against the "5 backs drawing a flag" proposal because it would make it easier for the officials, just that isn't a reason for votes (other than from we officials) .
So they were against the proposal because they wanted to further punish a team who can't even get 11 players on the field?
I'm thinking there are some RC members who never vote for a change. hEaDbAnG
-
Some proposed changes pass with a unanimous vote, so on occasion everyone has a "yea" vote in them. There are some that won't support a change unless they feel it is necessary to improve the game and enough felt it wasn't necessary . The passing of ten new rules this year is on the high end of our average and the emphasis was on safety. I supported it , as my criteria is : (1) Is it good for the game? -yes, why penalize a team for playing a man short ^flag ; (2) Will it be easy to officiate? - yes, it's easier to count to 5 than to 7 yEs: ; (3) Will it be easy to teach new officials? - see reason #2 yEs:.
-
Not only is it easier to count to 5 than 7, typically it's easier to see those 5 that are spread out, than the 7 that are bunched together.
-
Agreed, AB. I lobbied harder to pass a proposed change to treat all fouls by B behind the LOS as previous spot fouls, but that failed ,too. My lone "success" from an officiating perspective was the passage of modifying the untimed down rule to only be applied if time expired during the play.
-
I don't like the untimed down change. I suppose I can live with the rest.
Also HLinNC, do you not ask coaches to run the clock for state purposes or because of the local association? I'm in NC and have asked on numerous occasions (and everytime the coach says "Clearly we have work to do, we're gonna play")
It was easy to trip over the old untimed down rule...I know, as been there....this occurred in my game several years ago :
(1) A flagged and penalized for illegal formation with 20 sec to go in 3rd period.
(2) Started clock on RFP, B encroached with 10 sec left.
(3) Enforced dead ball foul & started clock on RFP.
(4) Clock hits 0:00.
(5) :P Period can end on dead ball foul ??? :-[ -I think- pray:;
(6) Teams huddle on sidelines, chains move to opposite end,clock resets,band plays,etc.
(7) Teams break their huddle as I blow RFP...and pi1eOn I recall the last play included
an accepted live ball foul :( :o cRaZy :!# :'(....
(8) I kept that secret to myself :-[...until our post game...and bought the first round ::).
Our revised rule won't be tripped over as easily :)!
-
Sorry to bring this thread back from the dead - Ralph, how much consideration has there been towards the elimination of all low blocks? Head shots and helmet contact have gotten so much attention lately - and rightly so - but low blocks can be pretty dangerous, too.
-
There were proposals to eliminate low blocks entirely and to eliminate low blocks while in the shotgun. The shotgun elimination came out of committee for a floor vote but failed.
-
I really think that should be the next step, safety wise. Thanks!