hEAR YE, HERE YE..IT'S GROUNDHOG DAY, HERE THEY ARE......

[Ralph Damren]

As predicted, here are the changes.....

(1) Teammates can wear different colored towels.
(2) OOB player leaps ,catches pass while airborne, lands inbounds =OOB, incomplete pass.
(3) Only guy that takes snpa can legally intentional ground.
(4) You'll se Halley's Comet before intentional PI called.(5)
(5) Receiver ,that has yet to become a runner, can be contacted only if:
     (a) as a result of making a play on the ball;
     (b) initated with open hands;
     (c) an attempt to tackle by wrapping arm(s) around the receiver.
(6) Fouls by A behind LOS have previous spot enforcement (excepting illegal kick, bat ,pass & some IP). Fouls by B  carry previous spot enforcement if run end behind LOS.

LET THE DEBATES BEGIN....

 

PS to KWH : Make my koolaide of the Porter or Stout flavor 

[ncwingman]

I definitely want to see the wording of the rules before getting into any arguments on the internet, especially for:

(2) OOB player leaps ,catches pass while airborne, lands inbounds =OOB, incomplete pass.

How does that jive with illegal participation? If this is an A player doing this, he went OOB and then influenced play... I'm cool with that just being OOB, but want to know what potential loophole/technicality may or may not exist.

Edit -- After reading the press release, it sounds like the new rule just means the ball is dead, but it is still illegal participation as it had been.

(5) Receiver ,that has yet to become a runner

Oh, that better be defined with seven case plays and three hours of video examples... otherwise, "inconsistent enforcement" will be the understatement of the year.

[Ralph Damren]

The OOB player could include an A player pushed OOB and is returning at first chance or B accidentally steping on the sideline.. Three states ran the added protection for the receiver as an experiment and strongly supported it. A video will be produced to help illustrate these situations where 'lighting up' the receiver with the intent of causing him to drop the pass is now illegal. I'm sure that #5 will cause the most discussionby both coaches and officials.

[HLinNC]

Well, all the complainers that just couldn't accept the NFHS definition of passer are vindicated I guess.

Woohoo, no more towel police!

[Snapper]

Not bad changes.  We’ll see how the editorial committee actually writes them, because sometimes that’s a bit disappointing.

I was surprised to read that the new enforcement spot was approved unanimously.  Do major changes often get passed unanimously with a big committee like that?

I’m not a huge fan of the “blowing up” the receiver rule, as it might take a year or two for consistency.  But I suppose you can’t really argue too strongly against a safety rule.

[refjeff]

The OOB player could include an A player pushed OOB and is returning at first chance or B accidentally steping on the sideline.. Three states ran the added protection for the receiver as an experiment and strongly supported it. A video will be produced to help illustrate these situations where 'lighting up' the receiver with the intent of causing him to drop the pass is now illegal. I'm sure that #5 will cause the most discussion by both coaches and officials.

  Maybe so, but it shouldn't.

Coaches need to teach defenders to shove the receiver OOB with two hands or wrap up when they make the tackle.

They can still tackle as hard as they want, but it eliminates that "blow the guy up" cheap shot.

I like it.

[KWH]

Coaches need to teach defenders to shove the receiver OOB with two hands or wrap up when they make the tackle.

They can still tackle as hard as they want, but it eliminates that "blow the guy up" cheap shot.

I like it.

Jeff - You nailed it!
That is exactly what the rule change accomplishes!

[Ralph Damren]

Not bad changes.  We’ll see how the editorial committee actually writes them, because sometimes that’s a bit disappointing.

I was surprised to read that the new enforcement spot was approved unanimously.  Do major changes often get passed unanimously with a big committee like that?

I’m not a huge fan of the “blowing up” the receiver rule, as it might take a year or two for consistency.  But I suppose you can’t really argue too strongly against a safety rule.

Unanimous is rare on a major change. There was a group that favored the fouls by B when the run ended behind the LOS as previous joining a majority group that favoredA fouls behind the LOS being previous spot. The other closest to unanimous was deleting intentional PI ,whch passed 46-3 (3 voters were absent) and I was one of the 3 that voted to keep it.

Blowing up the reciever is now a law  (rule  ). Like any new law  (rule  ) some will behave  and some won't  . After a few arrests  (flags  ) ...more and more will abide.

[CalhounLJ]

You da man Ralph! Thanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ted skoundrianos]

Ralph, have you ever seen a  major rule change voted unanimous before.  I like that they changed  fouls by A behind LOS with fouls by B on running play behind the LOS to previous spot enforcement. Over all I like all 6 football changes this year.

[ncwingman]

The OOB player could include an A player pushed OOB and is returning at first chance or B accidentally steping on the sideline..

I didn't mean to imply that it's always IP, but more noting (after my edit) that the new rule doesn't overrule the previous penalty.

Three states ran the added protection for the receiver as an experiment and strongly supported it. A video will be produced to help illustrate these situations where 'lighting up' the receiver with the intent of causing him to drop the pass is now illegal. I'm sure that #5 will cause the most discussionby both coaches and officials.

The problem isn't "lighting up" the guy. It's obvious that a receiver that jumps up to catch the ball while the defender takes his feet out from under him should be a foul. I think everybody should agree with the "obvious" calls.

What I'm concerned about is when does he become a runner? Catch, lands, turns, takes... how many steps? Makes a "football move"? An "act common to the game"? Whatever nonsense phrasing the NFL is using these days? I'm sure, when it doubt, throw the flag, but the borderline is what I want to see guidance on more than anything. As long as the video shows where the line is and everybody knows "This is the line", it should be fine. However, I'm worried the video will show a bunch of big obvious hits and not show the nuance of "becoming a runner".

And, of course, I don't know that that phrase is going to appear in the rule -- it wasn't in the press release either.

Unrelated, but I also think in the longer term the "tackle by hit" should be made illegal, like it is in rugby. If you're not trying to wrap up, it should be a foul. I'm not going to enforce that until it's actually a rule, but I think that's where the rule needs to be. And that's all I'm going to say about that for now.

[refjeff]

I didn't mean to imply that it's always IP, but more noting (after my edit) that the new rule doesn't overrule the previous penalty.

The problem isn't "lighting up" the guy. It's obvious that a receiver that jumps up to catch the ball while the defender takes his feet out from under him should be a foul.

  I'm not throwing a flag just because a guy lands on his butt.

[ncwingman]

  I'm not throwing a flag just because a guy lands on his butt.

I'm not either. I will if it's obvious that the intent was to flip the guy midair when he wasn't expecting it. You know exactly what type of play I mean, and that's my whole point -- the obvious stuff is obvious. The borderline stuff is what we need direct guidance on so we're all on the same page.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Unrelated, but I also think in the longer term the "tackle by hit" should be made illegal, like it is in rugby. If you're not trying to wrap up, it should be a foul. I'm not going to enforce that until it's actually a rule, but I think that's where the rule needs to be. And that's all I'm going to say about that for now.

Not sure how you would word that one but keep in mind that the runner in many cases "avoids the tackle by hitting" and that collision is just as devastating as the "tackle by hit" in some cases.  I don't believe that we have any way to remove all of the serious hits from the game.

[Ralph Damren]

Sometimes it is a challange to put action into words and this is one of those 'sometimes' . The rule change we voted on is:

2-32-16 d : A receiver (as definded in (b) and (c)above) , including the player intercepting the pass, who is forcefully contacted by an opponent that is not:
                  1. Incidental contact as a result of making a play on the ball;
                  2. Initated with open hands;or,
                  3. An attempt to tackle by wrapping arms(s) around thhe receiver.

Will a lobster crate (ole' Mainer saying) of case plays be provided  ?    Ayuh, spect so  .

IMHO, the term 'lite up' is  slang and will not be used.

Former Celtic Coach Red Ahurbach used to 'lite one up' when victory was in hand. 

I don't believe you can still smoke cigars in the Boston Garden. 

[Snapper]

Blowing up the reciever is now a law  (rule  ). Like any new law  (rule  ) some will behave  and some won't  . After a few arrests  (flags  ) ...more and more will abide.

 

Yep, I agree.  Just like targeting and illegal blindside block rules weren’t universally popular (some college fans are still grumbling about targeting), and they took awhile for some consistency, those rules have changed things in a positive manner. 

I’m sure the same will be true with the new rule.

[Ralph Damren]

Our job is to make the game as safe as possible for the kids without reverting to two-hand touch. Football receives a black-eye in the eyes of many as being injury-prone. I've heard that the most dangerous activity in high school sports is pole vaulting, yet I haven't heard of any movement to cut that out of a field event.. IMHO, the rule change shows we care and takes out a violent act.

[ncwingman]

Not sure how you would word that one but keep in mind that the runner in many cases "avoids the tackle by hitting" and that collision is just as devastating as the "tackle by hit" in some cases.  I don't believe that we have any way to remove all of the serious hits from the game.

The rule in rugby is "A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player."

Here's a link to their rule book, line 16. There's a video link next to it with an example of an illegal charge. This hit would be perfectly legal in football today, but it's the jarring (sub)concussive hit that probably needs to be removed for safety reasons.

Again, that's my long term stance. I'm not interpreting anything in the rule book today to make that illegal.

I also agree that there's no way to completely remove all serious hits from the game, but we can reduce the number significantly. The unstated conclusion that since we can't do it completely, we can't do it at all is a false dichotomy.

[AlUpstateNY]

The rule in rugby is "A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player."

Here's a link to their rule book, line 16. There's a video link next to it with an example of an illegal charge. This hit would be perfectly legal in football today, but it's the jarring (sub)concussive hit that probably needs to be removed for safety reasons.

Again, that's my long term stance. I'm not interpreting anything in the rule book today to make that illegal.

I also agree that there's no way to completely remove all serious hits from the game, but we can reduce the number significantly. The unstated conclusion that since we can't do it completely, we can't do it at all is a false dichotomy.

There is a term, I hope we're all familiar with that is not officially defined anywhere, in any Rule book, that is widely understood, "Cheap Shot", which draws a lot of different "crossing points".  This adjustment seems like another attempt to further clarify that this "term" is worthy of clarification efforts.

[NVFOA_Ump]

The rule in rugby is "A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player."

Is there a parallel rule in rugby that says something like:  "A player carrying the ball must not charge or knock down an opponent attempting to grasp that player."?

[ncwingman]

Is there a parallel rule in rugby that says something like:  "A player carrying the ball must not charge or knock down an opponent attempting to grasp that player."?

Let's look at that link I posted:

Rule 9.11: Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler.

So, yes. Yes, there is.

[sczeebra]

It will be interesting to see what happens to 10-6 and pages 81 & 82!

[Ralph Damren]

It will be interesting to see what happens to 10-6 and pages 81 & 82!

The all-but-one principle remains live and well for running plays beyond the LOS and for fouls after COP (kick returns,interceptions,etc). There is a laundry list to the exceptions of the exception:  illegal kick, bat or pass : illegal participation if a player enters during a dowm or aplayer continues to play sans helmet. A fouls in their own end zone is still a saftey. The referee may wish to have a 'cheat sheet' pasted to the under bill of his cap   

[AlUpstateNY]

The all-but-one principle remains live and well for running plays beyond the LOS and for fouls after COP (kick returns,interceptions,etc). There is a laundry list to the exceptions of the exception:  illegal kick, bat or pass : illegal participation if a player enters during a dowm or aplayer continues to play sans helmet. A fouls in their own end zone is still a saftey. The referee may wish to have a 'cheat sheet' pasted to the under bill of his cap 

The more we try and replace/supplement common sense and conclusions with "What if" clarifications, the more we add confusion, endless argument and needless dispute and question into the search for rational answers & clarity.

[refjeff]

The more we try and replace/supplement common sense and conclusions with "What if" clarifications, the more we add confusion, endless argument and needless dispute and question into the search for rational answers & clarity.

No.