2019 Rule Changes

[NVFOA_Ump]

This goes against over 100-years of football rules and will take some getting used to.

Not really, this should actually simplify making the call and result in fewer flags.  I believe that this is another of the tweaks in the rules designed to minimize the number of potential flags that we would have where the rules makers believe that there is no real advantage/disadvantage.

[ucanfindmj]

whoops.

[ucanfindmj]

Sustitute "can" for may in this instance.  It is best to read NFHS exam questions in the context of what is being asked at the moment, not in the realm of the possible.  And you may still be wrong.  They've been known to toss out questions after the exams are all in.

That is the first I have heard to just change words.  We only use the NFHS exam to qualify for taking the state exam at the clinic.  However, that question was on our state exam as well, and I needed to see if common sense had gone by the wayside.  It had. 

Yes, I had seen the question before and knew what answer they were looking for.  I also know that we "may not" judge illegal helmet contact to be flagrant and that is why we do not eject a player for every instance it happens.

[CalhounLJ]

That is the first I have heard to just change words.  We only use the NFHS exam to qualify for taking the state exam at the clinic.  However, that question was on our state exam as well, and I needed to see if common sense had gone by the wayside.  It had. 

Yes, I had seen the question before and knew what answer they were looking for.  I also know that we "may not" judge illegal helmet contact to be flagrant and that is why we do not eject a player for every instance it happens.

My two cents: Words have meaning in context. "May not" in some circumstances can mean "not allowed." Example: "Mrs. Smith, may I go to the restroom?" "No, you may not." That is the sense in which I read the statement. The answer to the question is false because it's not true if you interpret "may not" as "not allowed," because we ARE ALLOWED to judge illegal helmet contact to be flagrant.
 

[ucanfindmj]

My two cents: Words have meaning in context. "May not" in some circumstances can mean "not allowed." Example: "Mrs. Smith, may I go to the restroom?" "No, you may not." That is the sense in which I read the statement. The answer to the question is false because it's not true if you interpret "may not" as "not allowed," because we ARE ALLOWED to judge illegal helmet contact to be flagrant.

Exactly, my point, "if you interpret..."  We shouldn't have to interpret these rules.  You are stating that they changed the meaning of "may" from the definition to the question... It is a play on words that doesn't belong in football rules.  At least they fixed the, Illegal equipment: eye shields which are neither, not, nor transparent.  I would like to see more of this as we progress through these changes.

The covering official shall judge if the illegal helmet contact was flagrant when reporting the foul to the Referee.   Or allow the meaning of the word may to stay the same in the question as it is intended in the rule.

[CalhounLJ]

I feel your frustration but I’m afraid it’s a vain pursuit. Interpretation is an essential cog in communication. You can’t read, understand, or even debate without interpreting the words being used. And for what it’s worth, my interpretation of the use of “may” in the rule and the test question is consistent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kleiny]

This board...  Does that mean you are on it?  And who is this respected official to which you refer?  If there is a respected official on the rules committee, I lost respect to him 3 years ago.  My quote was "seemingly has no concept of the game of football."  I'm going to stick behind it, and would like to add, concept of the English language.  Use it as constructive criticism and do better.  Personal abuse...laughable.  I hope you are not on the board.  If you feel personally abused, you do not belong there.

For crying out loud.  🤦‍♂️

[KWH]

It would be nice if the rules committee would apply the rule changes throughout the book in regards to all affected rules.  These past few years have been a nightmare studying as this was not done, nor caught up with in the post rule change years. 

Secondly, simply changing a rule to read that a team must have 5 on the LoS and no more than 4 in the backfield, also changes the number of participants a team may play with if fewer than 11 (which used to be 8, including a back to snap to, now this number is 6.)  Technically, rewriting this rule cleared nothing up and did not make anything easier in identifying legal or illegal formations.  The rules committee tried to fix what was not broken.  However, I would like an example of how it was broken, in their opinion.

Then we run into the situation of having "at least 4 on each side of the kicker for a free kick."  While I understand that this rule is intended to avoid an unbalanced side for an onside kick, it now means that a team cannot continue to participate with fewer than 9 players for its kickoff.  This rule should have been rewritten to say that "at the time of the kick, no more than 6 players may be on either side of the kicker."  Stating it this way, in no way changes how few players a team may participate with, if fewer than 11 as well as keeps one side from being overloaded.  It is obvious that if 6 on one side, there must be a kicker and 4 on the other side of the kicker making 11 and also allows for 5 and 5. 

So, as written, a team may play with 6 (new) until they have to kickoff.  At that point, the game is forfeited.

SMH at the rules committee for the past 3 years.  Seemingly, they have no concept of the game of football, much less how to properly implement rule changes and everything affected by them.  Rules should be black and white, like the shirts we wear.  However, it is easy to get 3 different interpretations out of veteran officials because of the way the rule book is now written.  I am also guessing these guys never had to study these rules for an exam or to go out and actually work a game.  If they had, they would/should know.

Mike

Actually Mike, unfortunately, you are misreading the Rules Book!
In both NFHS and NCAA, Team A can legally snap the football with 5 players. (And, last year, NFHS could legally snap with 7)
 
NFHS 2-40-2, 2-40-3, 7-2-5a
NCAA 2-23-1b, 2-23-1c, 4-1-1, 7-4-3

Additionally, you last paragraph can best be described with the simple phrase "We mock what we don't understand!"

Keep throwing out all the negative comments, it should really help you climb the ladder of officiating success way more rapidly than most. 

[ucanfindmj]

Yes, a Tackle can recover a snap and advance free of penalty.  According to 7-2-8, I would not allow a Guard to recover, as any instance of only having 5 lineman would be a planned loose ball play.  I appreciate you clarifying.


We mock what we don't understand.  Great line from Spies Like Us.


What would your solution be to not have 3 different interpretations to a rule by veteran officials?

[Ralph Damren]

It would be nice if the rules committee would apply the rule changes throughout the book in regards to all affected rules.  These past few years have been a nightmare studying as this was not done, nor caught up with in the post rule change years. 

Secondly, simply changing a rule to read that a team must have 5 on the LoS and no more than 4 in the backfield, also changes the number of participants a team may play with if fewer than 11 (which used to be 8, including a back to snap to, now this number is 6.)  Technically, rewriting this rule cleared nothing up and did not make anything easier in identifying legal or illegal formations.  The rules committee tried to fix what was not broken.  However, I would like an example of how it was broken, in their opinion.

Then we run into the situation of having "at least 4 on each side of the kicker for a free kick."  While I understand that this rule is intended to avoid an unbalanced side for an onside kick, it now means that a team cannot continue to participate with fewer than 9 players for its kickoff.  This rule should have been rewritten to say that "at the time of the kick, no more than 6 players may be on either side of the kicker."  Stating it this way, in no way changes how few players a team may participate with, if fewer than 11 as well as keeps one side from being overloaded.  It is obvious that if 6 on one side, there must be a kicker and 4 on the other side of the kicker making 11 and also allows for 5 and 5. 

So, as written, a team may play with 6 (new) until they have to kickoff.  At that point, the game is forfeited.

SMH at the rules committee for the past 3 years.  Seemingly, they have no concept of the game of football, much less how to properly implement rule changes and everything affected by them.  Rules should be black and white, like the shirts we wear.  However, it is easy to get 3 different interpretations out of veteran officials because of the way the rule book is now written.  I am also guessing these guys never had to study these rules for an exam or to go out and actually work a game.  If they had, they would/should know.

Mike

In defense of my fellow brothers on the rules committee, I offer the following :

All approved rule proposals are screened closely prior to publication. An intent is to make the reading as short and clear is possible. The final wordage comes from the Editorial Committee, who spend nearly a full day of proof-reading and review. While I can't speak to the background of all it's members, I can say that I know and fully respect the superior rule knowledge of Steve Hall (NH) and Tyler Cerimeli (AZ) , who are both very active and highly-rated field officials. I haven't had a chat with Mark Uyl but where he represents the National Association of Sports Officials, I assume he, too, is both very active and very knowledgeable about the game we all love. He is also a member of our Editorial Committee.

We don't have any Ivy League English Professors on the NFHS Football Rules Committee. That may be a good thing.
 

[ucanfindmj]

In defense of my fellow brothers on the rules committee, I offer the following :

All approved rule proposals are screened closely prior to publication. An intent is to make the reading as short and clear is possible. The final wordage comes from the Editorial Committee, who spend nearly a full day of proof-reading and review. While I can't speak to the background of all it's members, I can say that I know and fully respect the superior rule knowledge of Steve Hall (NH) and Tyler Cerimeli (AZ) , who are both very active and highly-rated field officials. I haven't had a chat with Mark Uyl but where he represents the National Association of Sports Officials, I assume he, too, is both very active and very knowledgeable about the game we all love. He is also a member of our Editorial Committee.

We don't have any Ivy League English Professors on the NFHS Football Rules Committee. That may be a good thing.

I appreciate that input.  However, I am still looking for the solution to why we have so many different interpretations from the veteran officials.  Some of us feel like these rules can be written much more simply and clear. 

[CalhounLJ]

The vast majority of the rules, when read slowly and deliberately, using common rules of grammar, are simple and clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

The vast majority of the rules, when read slowly and deliberately, using common rules of grammar, are simple and clear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably true 75-85% of the time, but the real problem is very few rules implementations can be correctly understood from a single location within the rule book.  Many of them have seriously overlap areas, most of those involving rules 2, 6, 9, and 10, making the simple straightforward read & understand impossible.  If these books were being reviewed by the same people who reviewed my work with the FDA and NRC they would have so much red it would take a superhuman effort to fix it.  The repeatedly stated idea that NFHS rules have few if any exceptions is a mirage, they just have literally dozens of overlapping wording in the rules attempting IMHO to cover exceptions without using the word.  A good example is the definitions section where a brief, clear and concise definition is provided for many terms and then changed later in the books.  That violates every concept of technical writing and should not happen.

A good example of words with no specific meaning is 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."  I was told and have read here many times that the case book is analogous to the interpretations section of the NCAA rule book and gives specific guidance for specific sets of conditions during the game.  How does the " … The umpire will need to be alert …"  give us any real guidance?

[KWH]

A good example of words with no specific meaning is 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." 

You are correct. Keep your eyes peeled for a correction from the NFHS on that one.
I believe it to be a work product issue that erroneously got placed in the Case Book and the Pre-Season Guide.
It has no Rules book support whatsoever.
Stay tuned on that one.

[NVFOA_Ump]

You are correct. Keep your eyes peeled for a correction from the NFHS on that one.
I believe it to be a work product issue that erroneously got placed in the Case Book and the Pre-Season Guide.
It has no Rules book support whatsoever.
Stay tuned on that one.

I would be careful with the "It has no Rules book support whatsoever." since it's has been stressed several times, via after the after game video followup, that it is up to the crew to make sure that Team A does not gain a clear advantage via direct use of the substitution process.  That takes some due diligence from the entire crew to pick up the kinds of subterfuge using subs and let the U know since he is the only one who has any real chance of preventing the snap.  If the stated goal of many of the recent rules changes is to minimize the calling of fouls I would expect that the intent here is to prevent the snap before we have to throw a flag for using the substitution process to deceive.

[HLinNC]

I agree, NVFOA, that the rule book is becoming unwieldy, poorly written, and utilizes too much extrapolation to come to a ruling in a lot of instances.  The NFHS should seriously initiate a review committee to hack it down and clean it up.  I think most of the problem, much like law making governmental bodies, is that changes are made without reviewing all the adjoining and conjoining statutes it effects.  Sometimes its just plain old error.

I agree also with the sentiment about "exceptions".  They continue to decry them but the book is slowly being made chock full of them.  I prefer not to have them myself.  At the rate they are going, eventually we just will need to merge with NCAA rules and get it over with.

What has sort of puzzled me this summer is the push for the :40 clock, despite the other elephant in the room which is the declining number of officials.  I've read many accounts from those in states that experimented with the rule about how it has not been that difficult.  However, I can foresee a few issues- 4 man crews or less, lack of ballboys and trained chaincrew at the sub-varsity level- come to mind.  In reality, the "pace of play" complaint was geared to those coaches that think they're going to run a track meet out there and the NFHS played right into their hands.  Meanwhile an aging and lessening workforce of officials is expected to go faster.  I don't see that aiding in recruitment or retention.

[Magician]

I agree, NVFOA, that the rule book is becoming unwieldy, poorly written, and utilizes too much extrapolation to come to a ruling in a lot of instances.  The NFHS should seriously initiate a review committee to hack it down and clean it up.  I think most of the problem, much like law making governmental bodies, is that changes are made without reviewing all the adjoining and conjoining statutes it effects.  Sometimes its just plain old error.

I agree also with the sentiment about "exceptions".  They continue to decry them but the book is slowly being made chock full of them.  I prefer not to have them myself.  At the rate they are going, eventually we just will need to merge with NCAA rules and get it over with.

What has sort of puzzled me this summer is the push for the :40 clock, despite the other elephant in the room which is the declining number of officials.  I've read many accounts from those in states that experimented with the rule about how it has not been that difficult.  However, I can foresee a few issues- 4 man crews or less, lack of ballboys and trained chaincrew at the sub-varsity level- come to mind.  In reality, the "pace of play" complaint was geared to those coaches that think they're going to run a track meet out there and the NFHS played right into their hands.  Meanwhile an aging and lessening workforce of officials is expected to go faster.  I don't see that aiding in recruitment or retention.

The impetus behind this rule has NOTHING to do with being able to go fast on the front end. It's all about consistency on the back end. That does involve better consistency on the front end for crews that took their time to allow the offense to call their play or were just slow. But it doesn't allow teams to go significantly faster than they did before. Coaches are going to think that now but ultimately they don't go a lot faster than they did before. Even if the ball is ready for play with 32-34 seconds on the play clock (rare but possible) the offense is very rarely going to be ready, set, and snapping the ball before 28-30. Both times I went through this the coaches thought they would be able to go much faster. They forget the limitation of them to be able to call the next play, relay it to the offense and them to get ready for the snap.

[AlUpstateNY]

The impetus behind this rule has NOTHING to do with being able to go fast on the front end. It's all about consistency on the back end. That does involve better consistency on the front end for crews that took their time to allow the offense to call their play or were just slow.

I've really tried to see the benefit of what, thus far, sounds like a lot of misdirected effort to fix something, that may not have been perfect, but wasn't broken. Granted some (perhaps many) of us have slipped into bad habits allowing time to slip by during the proper management of the game, affecting some sense of consistency of pace. 

The reality (and elephant in the room) is still NFHS is dealing with teenagers, and below, rather than young adults and/or seasoned professional athletes and there is an actual difference in attention span, maturity and experience that often creates both subtle and non-subtle differences.  Thus far, as more ancillary issues continue to surface, the realities of officiating crew size, playing field accouterments and facilities as well as the consistency and/or maturity of mostly volunteer, but necessary, support personnel (chain crews, ball boys, etc.) seem to be generating more concern than originally anticipated, or since provided for, exacerbating the inherent difficulty and danger of presuming "One size can fit all".

Identifying specific causes of general "time wasting habits" and establishing specific on-field game management corrective mechanics may prove to be a more effective and consistent adjustment process, better and more universally applicable to the wide variety of NFHS venues and circumstances.   

[Magician]

I've really tried to see the benefit of what, thus far, sounds like a lot of misdirected effort to fix something, that may not have been perfect, but wasn't broken. Granted some (perhaps many) of us have slipped into bad habits allowing time to slip by during the proper management of the game, affecting some sense of consistency of pace. 

The reality (and elephant in the room) is still NFHS is dealing with teenagers, and below, rather than young adults and/or seasoned professional athletes and there is an actual difference in attention span, maturity and experience that often creates both subtle and non-subtle differences.  Thus far, as more ancillary issues continue to surface, the realities of officiating crew size, playing field accouterments and facilities as well as the consistency and/or maturity of mostly volunteer, but necessary, support personnel (chain crews, ball boys, etc.) seem to be generating more concern than originally anticipated, or since provided for, exacerbating the inherent difficulty and danger of presuming "One size can fit all".

Identifying specific causes of general "time wasting habits" and establishing specific on-field game management corrective mechanics may prove to be a more effective and consistent adjustment process, better and more universally applicable to the wide variety of NFHS venues and circumstances.   

You'll be happy to know that every official I have talked to and every online post I've seen by officials who have worked the 40-second play clock have preferred it. There has to be a reason for that. If there are any out there who don't like it they are awfully quiet. This includes officials who have worked with and without play clocks, with 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 man crews, with good or poor ball boys and chain crews. That has to mean something. Ultimately it's a better flow, one less distraction, and consistent time for teams to get the ball snapped. No amount of training of crews will get a  perfectly consistent dead ball to DOG. Even the best crews I've watched vary 3-5 seconds play to play and even more with some outliers. This ELIMINATES that variability within games and game to game.

[KWH]

I've really tried to see the benefit of what, thus far, sounds like a lot of misdirected effort to fix something, that may not have been perfect, but wasn't broken. Granted some (perhaps many) of us have slipped into bad habits allowing time to slip by during the proper management of the game, affecting some sense of consistency of pace. 

The reality (and elephant in the room) is still NFHS is dealing with teenagers, and below, rather than young adults and/or seasoned professional athletes and there is an actual difference in attention span, maturity and experience that often creates both subtle and non-subtle differences.  Thus far, as more ancillary issues continue to surface, the realities of officiating crew size, playing field accouterments and facilities as well as the consistency and/or maturity of mostly volunteer, but necessary, support personnel (chain crews, ball boys, etc.) seem to be generating more concern than originally anticipated, or since provided for, exacerbating the inherent difficulty and danger of presuming "One size can fit all".

Identifying specific causes of general "time wasting habits" and establishing specific on-field game management corrective mechanics may prove to be a more effective and consistent adjustment process, better and more universally applicable to the wide variety of NFHS venues and circumstances.

The NFHS acquired 10 years of 40/25 Clock experimentation data before the change was adopted:
(Indiana - 3 years; Michigan - 3 years; Colorado - 3 years; Tennessee - 1 year)
While there are other benefits, in my opinion, one of the biggest benefit is it takes the White Hat "RFP - Chop" differences (which were huge) completely out of the equation. Without a doubt, this change makes the game management more consistent from week to week.
I agree 100% with Brian that this change ELIMINATES the variability within games, and from game to game.

[ucanfindmj]

https://ready-ref.com/nfhs-rule-change/

[refjeff]

... in my opinion, one of the biggest benefit is it takes the White Hat "RFP - Chop" differences (which were huge) completely out of the equation.

  Except that there are still a bunch of plays when the Ref chops the ball RFP. 

Like a lot of states, Ohio still has many fields without a play clock and the BJ uses a Ready-Ref.  Sometimes he has to start a 40 second clock, sometimes a 25 second clock, and sometimes when the play ends he has more immediate and pressing things to deal with.   The BJ is going to have the biggest adjustment to make

In Ohio, when the offense gains a first down we are going to stop the game clock to move the chains and not start it until the down box is set.  Which means the 40 second clock will be running and we may have to reset it to 25 and stand over the ball if the offense is ready to go and the down box hasn't caught up yet.  It is my understanding that is not how other states handle it. 

And Ohio has decided to continue use the 25 sec. rule in all sub-varsity games. 

[scrounge]

  Except that there are still a bunch of plays when the Ref chops the ball RFP. 

Like a lot of states, Ohio still has many fields without a play clock and the BJ uses a Ready-Ref.  Sometimes he has to start a 40 second clock, sometimes a 25 second clock, and sometimes when the play ends he has more immediate and pressing things to deal with.   The BJ is going to have the biggest adjustment to make

In Ohio, when the offense gains a first down we are going to stop the game clock to move the chains and not start it until the down box is set.  Which means the 40 second clock will be running and we may have to reset it to 25 and stand over the ball if the offense is ready to go and the down box hasn't caught up yet.  It is my understanding that is not how other states handle it. 

And Ohio has decided to continue use the 25 sec. rule in all sub-varsity games.

Per the state clinic this past weekend, Beau said we're not waiting on the down box to be ready after a 1st down. The H can drop a beanbag if he needs to, but once that ball is down by the highly mobile and agile U, we're going with the silent wind unless it's a truly unusual delay.

[Magician]

During our experiment we would not have the U step away until the box and/or back stake was set. Very rarely did this ever cause a delay and the H never had to place his bean bag to hold the spot. I would try to avoid that if possible. If it becomes a problem I would talk about replacing the box guy. It doesn't take that long for them to move from the previous spot to the new spot even on long gains.

[CalhounLJ]

In my experience running it the old way, we very rarely had to wait on the box guy. By the time we got to the spot, the teams got down there, it was just a matter of seconds before the box got there as soon as he arrived we chopped it in and we’re waiting on the teams to get the play in. I don’t foresee a problem. Even in the longest of cases we were able to have it ready for play in 10-12 seconds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk