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

[ncwingman]

Here are the NEW portions of 10-4 :

10-4-2 The basic spot is the previous spot :
   
   d. For a foul by B when the run or the related run ends behind the line of scrimmage before a change of possession.
   e. For a foul by A that occurs behind the line of scrimmagr when the run or related run ends beyond the line of scrimmage.

10-4-4 (NEW) The basic spot is the spot of the foul for:

   a. Illegal batting or kicking when the foul occurs behind the end of the run or related run.
   b. Illegal participation as in 9-6-4a and 9-6-4g.
   c.  An illegal forward pass as in 7-5-2c and 7-5-2d.
   d. For a foul that occurs beyond the line of scrimmagr durimng a running play as defined in 10-3-2 when the run or related run ends beyond the line of scrimmage.
   e. For a foul that occurs behind the run or related run following a change of possession.

This is the wordage that we voted on. The Editorial Committee may then tweak it.

Maybe it's just me, and I'm arguing half-hypotheticals before we know anything for sure, but the new 10-4-4 (d) and (e) seem unnecessary.

Wouldn't these scenarios fall under the previous ABO enforcement? I can see the idea of (d) is to reinforce that you still go from the spot of the foul if the foul was beyond the LOS, however this opens up Calhoun's scenario of having a basic spot beyond the end of the run. Why not just leave that as it was -- basic spot is the end of the run for a run that ends beyond the LOS and penalties are enforced ABO?

I can sort of understand the idea is to get rid of tack on scenarios, if that was the intent? A7 is grabbed by the facemask 3 yards downfield, but breaks free and runs for 20 more yards -- A doesn't get the additional 15 from the end of the run, they have to choose result of the play (+23 yards) or the penalty (+18)? Seeing as that idea wasn't mentioned in any official release, I doubt that's the case.

In an even more ridiculous scenario, 3rd and 4, A88 and B57 get engaged in an aggressive blocking battle and end up 20 yards down field. As they disengage, A88 throws a punch. A7 meanwhile ran for a 2 yard gain on the play. Enforcing the personal foul from the spot means A gains 3 more yards from the penalty and therefore a first down. Clearly, that can't be allowed to happen.

I'm mostly hoping that the rules Ralph posted aren't 100% accurate and it's not worth hand-wringing over it quite yet. At the very least, I assume (e) is missing a word or two -- it should be "behind *the end of* the run" and not just "behind the run". I've just been assuming it's a simple change that does the obvious thing, but I guess anything's possible with unintended consequences. We'll see.

[Ralph Damren]

I proofread again to sure I gave you what I had. I did. When voting, many of us are voting on the concept of the rule change and not the fineprint. We rely on the editorial committee to insure that the verbage is both clear and correct. They spend several hours in their duty and usually correct what needs to be. I consider what I've posted as the rough draft, let's wait for the finished product. 

[GA Umpire]

Ralph,
Did they give you a target date for the "rule book" language?

[Ralph Damren]

[quote author= I consider what I've posted as the rough draft, let's wait for the finished product.


Ralph,
Did they give you a target date for the "rule book" language?

I'll see them when you'll see them, as the rule books are delivered.

[ncwingman]

I proofread again to sure I gave you what I had. I did. When voting, many of us are voting on the concept of the rule change and not the fineprint. We rely on the editorial committee to insure that the verbage is both clear and correct. They spend several hours in their duty and usually correct what needs to be. I consider what I've posted as the rough draft, let's wait for the finished product.

Having done a bit of committee work in my field as well, it seems utterly bizarre that you vote to approve a rule change but don't have the actual rule you're approving. Most of the time in my meetings are having people debate adjectives and commas to ensure the wording is perfect before we can put it to an approval vote. Otherwise, the thought is that the editorial board could sufficiently change the wording so that what ends up in the rule book isn't quite what you thought you were voting on.

I also think my work takes that to an extreme and could probably dial it back a bit (a lot) too, but that's unrelated.

I also realize that having to go through multiple approval rounds may not be practical during your whirlwind tour of Indianapolis once a year, so there needs to be a little more efficiency along the way.

In any case, the rule books can't get here soon enough.

[Ralph Damren]

Sometimes rule proposaLs are easy to read and understand. Sometimes they are not. EXamples : Rule 2-29-1 ...If you are OOB you are not inbounds until you land there....took 3 lines. Rule 10-4 took 41. Rule 10-4-5e may help to solve our delima :

10-4-5 ..The basic spot is the succeeding spot :
  a. For an unsportsmanlike foul.
  b. For a dead ball foul.
  c.For a nonplayer foul.
  d.When the final result is a touchback.
  e.  FOR A FOUL THAT OCCURS BEYOND THE END OF THE RUN OR RELATED RUN FOLLOWING A CHANGE OF POSSESSION.

That, tied with 10-4-4d, should give us the results that we were hoping to find.   

[bossman72]

Can I apply for the editorial committee?  lol

[AlUpstateNY]

Sometimes rule proposaLs are easy to read and understand. Sometimes they are not.

Unfortunately, sometimes using additional language to clarify confusion caused by additional verbiage, despite the best intentions, only serves to create additional confusion. 

[Snapper]

Unfortunately, sometimes using additional language to clarify confusion caused by additional verbiage, despite the best intentions, only serves to create additional confusion.

Huh?




 

[CalhounLJ]

Huh?




 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ted skoundrianos]

If A 4 called for holding in the endzone the result of the play is a safety. If A 4 is called for holding but fumbles the ball B recovers Can the defense take the result of the which is a touchdown or do the have to take the safety because the penalty for holding was called in the endzone.

[GA Umpire]

If A 4 called for holding in the endzone the result of the play is a safety. If A 4 is called for holding but fumbles the ball B recovers Can the defense take the result of the which is a touchdown or do the have to take the safety because the penalty for holding was called in the endzone.

If all of the above actions occurred during a "live" ball, then yes, Team B has the option to take the result of the play.

[Ralph Damren]

If all of the above actions occurred during a "live" ball, then yes, Team B has the option to take the result of the play.

The ump from GA nailed it.  Ihis would not be a bridge foul as it occurred before the COP.

[CalhounLJ]

Sometimes rule proposaLs are easy to read and understand. Sometimes they are not. EXamples : Rule 2-29-1 ...If you are OOB you are not inbounds until you land there....took 3 lines. Rule 10-4 took 41. Rule 10-4-5e may help to solve our delima :

10-4-5 ..The basic spot is the succeeding spot :
  a. For an unsportsmanlike foul.
  b. For a dead ball foul.
  c.For a nonplayer foul.
  d.When the final result is a touchback.
  e.  FOR A FOUL THAT OCCURS BEYOND THE END OF THE RUN OR RELATED RUN FOLLOWING A CHANGE OF POSSESSION.

That, tied with 10-4-4d, should give us the results that we were hoping to find.   

Question concerning fouls that happen after a change of possession. What is it about the rule change that makes enforcement of these fouls different than they’ve always been? Unless I’m missing something, fouls that occur after COP have always been enforced by all but one- basic spot, end of run, unless committed by team in possession behind the end of the run.

Isn’t this language in (e) the same thing?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, nothing has changed regarding fouls that occurred after COP, it was probably added to offer support to 10-4-4d that fouls by A BEYOND end of run would be enforced from end of run/succeeding spot. In the past, I've always read 'succeeding spot' to reference after the play was over as per 2-41-10; while 'end of run' is where the run ended. That part confused me, it may have confused others, too.
         

[ted skoundrianos]

What do you think about a possible run change on extra points be live like college & NFL. in IL. the umpire is with the back judge on extra points. So the headlinesman & line judge on the LOS. You would have the sidelines covered & referee covering the middle of the field.

[Ralph Damren]

While several states do use the ump with the BJ under the pipes for PAT & FG attempts,We keep our umpires in their usual spot and focusing on potential roughting the snapper calls. If he is under the pipes ,he's going to be following the airborne kick and not wat watching for contacting the snapper. Returning a PAT hasn't been on the docket for several years and probably won't be back. The complexity of fouls occurring after COP was it's prime downfall.

[riffraft]

While several states do use the ump with the BJ under the pipes for PAT & FG attempts,We keep our umpires in their usual spot and focusing on potential roughting the snapper calls. If he is under the pipes ,he's going to be following the airborne kick and not wat watching for contacting the snapper. Returning a PAT hasn't been on the docket for several years and probably won't be back. The complexity of fouls occurring after COP was it's prime downfall.

I have worked it both under the upright and regular position as a U and I would much rather be under the upright and have the sidelines covers.  Since I don't have the crossbar just my upright, I have no issue watching the initial charge against the snapper and then looking up and seeing where the ball is.  Most of the time you know whether your upright is going to be challenged almost from the get-go.  I have seen more problems with a botch snap and the try going to the side of the field that has no official and no one is able to get to a good position to see the play than a missed roughing the snapper foul.

[Ralph Damren]

Being of a lazy nature, I have our guys work by the NFHS Officials Manual, in lieu of trying to develop exceptions. Oregon, and possibility others, have been working with the umpire in the backfield and I'm sure that will become a hot topic next year as that is a print year for the Manual Committee. If from kick formation, K is runnig the 'swinging gate' on the side that has the wing that has the pipe, I'll have him hold the goal line until/if the linesmen reset and then grab his pipe. Your positioning would correct the need for that. Thanks for your comment.

[VALJ]

While several states do use the ump with the BJ under the pipes for PAT & FG attempts,We keep our umpires in their usual spot and focusing on potential roughting the snapper calls. If he is under the pipes ,he's going to be following the airborne kick and not wat watching for contacting the snapper. Returning a PAT hasn't been on the docket for several years and probably won't be back. The complexity of fouls occurring after COP was it's prime downfall.

When a kick is a shorter kick, our association has had the LJ go under the second upright, with the R moving to that side to cover some of the vacated area.  That way the U isn’t giving up the middle, and he’s not too far away to deal with something untoward that happens.  On long FG attempts, the LJ stays home, and the B has the whole thing.  If the long FG is a game-critical one, we still send the LJ under like on a short kick.

Different mechanics for different folks…. *shrug*

[Ralph Damren]

The Officials Manual is only a suggestion , not a decree. So that officiating remains constent across your state, try to work the same. This is especially important if your assgnments are made by individuals (as we in Maine do) and not crews. A strong pregame should reiterate that.

[bossman72]

What do you think about a possible run change on extra points be live like college & NFL.

The amount of penalty enforcement exceptions you have to create in the rules for something that rarely happens isn't worth it, IMO.
Then if you do it for tries, you'd probably have the same argument to do it for OT too.

[Ralph Damren]

While I'm a strong opponent of bringing the 'live ball- PAT' rule, I would favor a blocked PAT kick remaining alive until possession gained by R or kick going OOB or EZ. On a bad snap or muffed snap by the holder we allow the ball to remain alive . Several years ago, in a game between arch rivals, K trailed by 2 with only seconds to go......

(I) K attempted a 20 yard FG to win;
(2) Kick was blocked;
(3) Ref tweeted his tweeter  ;
(4) Time @0:00, R recovered kick. 
(5)  , K given another FGA           
(6) Lewiston HS beat arch-rival by a point.

POSTGAME : Ref sez', "GEEZ, I was so used to tweeting on a blocked PAT, I just did what I was used to. "

NEXT DAY : My phone rang  , and rang  , and rang.........

[ted skoundrianos]

5-man mechanics but with the umpire in the offense backfield. Last year my umpire went down 4 times last season. One of those games he sat out the 1st half. we had to go to 4 person mechanics in the 1st half. He came back to start the 3 quarter. I don't have a alternate to fill in if my umpire get injured during a game. So this year were going to have the umpire in offense backfield 5-7 deep.

[Ralph Damren]

While the ump is safer in the O-backfield- the players are runnung AWAY from you , in lieu of running AT you- I worry about the strong presence  the ump  has at the LOS being lost and that coverage with a 5-man crew .