PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

[Cosmokramer1]

You are right Etref. I apologize for my part in taking this thread in the wrong direction for what it is intended for.
Thank you for the welcome Cosmokramer1. What are your thoughts on this old but new rule?

Zebra Watcher, forgive my ignorance but what old but new rule are you referring too?  I see mention in this thread about the UIL adopting the uniform rule but, as others have asked, what uniform rule?  Or are you referring to something completely different and I've missed it?  So help me out here please and I'll be happy to give you my thoughts. 

[ElvisLives]

Zebra Watcher, forgive my ignorance but what old but new rule are you referring too?  I see mention in this thread about the UIL adopting the uniform rule but, as others have asked, what uniform rule?  Or are you referring to something completely different and I've missed it?  So help me out here please and I'll be happy to give you my thoughts.

Cosmo, the document attached to the lead post in this thread shows a proposed ‘enhancement’ to the enforcement process for uniform rules (applicable to all, but targeted at the knee pad/pants covering the knees rule), that the PROP REJECTED for NCAA football. But, that doesn’t mean the UIL can’t or won’t adopt this, or some other modification of the uniform/equipment rule enforcement process. So, we are awaiting the UIL’s 2024 “Exceptions” to the NCAA rules, to see which, if any, of the proposed and/or approved NCAA rule changes they will approve, or any new rules they will introduce (like they did with the defensive rusher rule on field goal attempts in 2023).

[Zebra Watcher]

Cosmokramer1, the old-new rule that I mentioned was back in 2018 when TASO pushed hard to fix back pad and knee pads but gave us a no leg to stand on to enforce, so the coaches pushed back harder and thus, we have the situation we have had for the past few years. Now with what appears to be an UIL enhanced proposal, the one ElvisLives stated, to combat the knee pads situation with actual penalties to enforce.

[Etref]

You can go back to the 90’s with the sock rule that lasted about a year then went away

[Cosmokramer1]

Cosmokramer1, the old-new rule that I mentioned was back in 2018 when TASO pushed hard to fix back pad and knee pads but gave us a no leg to stand on to enforce, so the coaches pushed back harder and thus, we have the situation we have had for the past few years. Now with what appears to be an UIL enhanced proposal, the one ElvisLives stated, to combat the knee pads situation with actual penalties to enforce.

Thank you, and thank you Elvis (Robert).  So my take on it now is no different than my take on it last year and the year before.  Not being disrespectful to the UIL but when it comes to uniform rules (either theirs or the NCAA) I pretty much don't care anymore.  Why you might ask?  Because too many of us got burned by the UIL several years ago when they implemented rules associated with the uniform color and number color.  The UIL (and TASO) informed officials to enforce the rule that numbers had to be of contrasting colors to the jersey.  So many did only to then watch, that same year, three state championship games being played at AT&T having teams with what was considered illegal jersey/numbers.  And UIL let them play without penalty. 

I will certainly ask a player to cover his knee's or pull his jersey over his back pad, but I absolutely will not remove that player from the field or penalize them for not doing so.  The UIL will tell us they support our enforcement but those actions come with consequences related to the coaches we work for (as Elvis previously mentioned) that counters UIL's supposed support.  So I'm not doing it again!

[dammitbobby]

I've heard that the uniform proposal declined by the PROP committee will not be adopted by UIL this year. That's not official though but on good authority.

[ETXZebra]

https://www.uiltexas.org/files/athletics/2024_NCAA_UIL_Rules_-_Updated.pdf

[dammitbobby]

old rule:
If Team A is in a formation to attempt a place kick (field goal or try) it is illegal for a defensive player to immediately run forward at or just after the snap and initiate contact (indicated by forward movement of the defensive player) with an offensive player within 1 second after the snap.  It is not a foul if the defensive player is in a three or four point stance, and is aligned in a stationary position within one yard of his line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped.  Incidental or slight contact should be ignored.

new rule:
If Team A is in a formation to attempt a place kick (field goal or try), it is illegal for a defensive player who is not in a three or four point stance and aligned in a stationary position within one yard of his line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped, to run forward after the snap and initiate contact (indicated by forward movement of the defensive player) with an offensive player.   Incidental or slight contact should be ignored.   Exception:  There is no foul if, prior to the defensive contact, the snap is muffed or fumbled, or it is obvious there will be no place kick attempt.  (Note: This rule is not intended to prevent a defensive player from pursuing a runner or loose ball during a fake or broken play) 

Is this just rephrasing last year's rule? It hurts my brain tying to figure out if anything in the new rule is substantively different.

[Legacy Zebra]

The red part is just a rewrite. They moved the “not a foul” portion up to the first sentence. So instead of describing a foul and then saying “it’s not a foul if the player…”, they just added the player description to the definition of the foul.

Then below that they added the section about not being a foul if the snap is muffed or it’s a fake.

Of course that’s kind of pointless in my opinion. The rule only applies within 1 second of the snap. To have  a snap, muff by the holder, defensive player see it and then make contact all within 1 second that would be almost impossible. Most high school holders barely get the ball down to the tee within 1 second on a good kick.

[ElvisLives]

I am a somewhat surprised they rejected the “2 Minute Time Out.” So, y’all also working NCAA will have to deal with that.

No change to uniform-equipment rule, despite rumors to the opposite. Status quo. They don’t care, we don’t care.

I’m disappointed they’ll allow TV cameras to come on the field. I despise those clowns, getting in our way. But, it will only affect a relatively small number of games across the state.

We don’t get involved with tablets, other than to report them if they use them on the sideline, and the entire planet can see them doing it.

Easy enough.

[ElvisLives]

The red part is just a rewrite. They moved the “not a foul” portion up to the first sentence. So instead of describing a foul and then saying “it’s not a foul if the player…”, they just added the player description to the definition of the foul.

Then below that they added the section about not being a foul if the snap is muffed or it’s a fake.

Of course that’s kind of pointless in my opinion. The rule only applies within 1 second of the snap. To have  a snap, muff by the holder, defensive player see it and then make contact all within 1 second that would be almost impossible. Most high school holders barely get the ball down to the tee within 1 second on a good kick.

****struck by author**** See next post by this author.

[Legacy Zebra]

I disagree. The new rule says it’s not a foul if *prior to the contact* the ball is muffed or it’s obviously a fake. If the contact occurs first, it’s still a foul.

[dammitbobby]

Legacy, you are certainly not wrong about the timing of blocks related to a muff, etc. But, this rule 'tweak' is intended to absolve an upright Team B player who ignores the principal rule, charges ahead and makes immediate contact with a Team A player within one second, but then the holder muffs the snap, or they snap it directly to the potential kicker who then runs or passes the ball, etc. So, we'll have to 'process' the action, and see if Team A's action is a 'normal' kick, then toss a flag for such a foul, or, perhaps, recognize the muff or fake, and realize 'no foul' because of this rule tweak.

I can think a little more clearly now than i could yesterday.

If this is a safety foul, why would/should B be absolved of the foul - the contact is still the same with a lineman in a comparatively vulnerable position, and even with a muff, he doesn't know that the kick will not occur.  It seems like the same as the wedge rule, which I also don't understand, from a safety perspective (the kick going OOB negates any wedge foul, even after contact).

I think what Elvis describes is what they intended the rule to be, (regardless of my ignorance or confusion), but Legacy is right in that the wording of the exception says otherwise.  Just my opinion.

[ElvisLives]

I disagree. The new rule says it’s not a foul if *prior to the contact* the ball is muffed or it’s obviously a fake. If the contact occurs first, it’s still a foul.

I'm with ya. I overlooked the, "...prior to the defensive contact...," language.
As you state, even a muff of a direct snap to the holder will take about a second, from the start of the snap movement to the ball falling from the holder's hands. So, yeah, kinda moot.
The only scenario that I can see that might fit this language is the ball slipping from the snapper's hands as he is snapping it, and falling loose on the ground. Technically, that is not a 'muff,' but simply a ball that is loose from a backward pass. For these intents and purposes, though, I would think it would fall under the same category as a muff. It will most likely fall under the category of, "...obvious there will be no place kick attempt...," in very short order, anyway.

So as not to influence anybody incorrectly, I will strike the language in my previous post.

Thanks.

[Zebra Watcher]

Like ElvisLives said, I would have thought they would have accepted the 2 Minute Warning and then could sync up timing rules with 10 sec run-off. I think it would be good to follow NCAA first timing rules to keep the game moving.  Maybe next time around. The uniform police...they don't care enough about it, we don't enforce it. Moving on into the season.

[Legacy Zebra]

I don’t think we will see the NCAA first down and out of bounds rules come to UIL as long as we are still running 12 minute quarters. And there’s no reason to have a two minute timeout if there’s no timing rules that change at that point.

[ElvisLives]

I don’t think we will see the NCAA first down and out of bounds rules come to UIL as long as we are still running 12 minute quarters. And there’s no reason to have a two minute timeout if there’s no timing rules that change at that point.

Well, there is one rule change in the last 2-minutes - 3-4-3-b, starting the clock on the snap (at the offended team's option) for a foul by the team ahead in score during the last 2 minutes of a half. Agree, not worth having a timeout for that 'reminder,' alone. We got along just fine without the 2-minute T/O until now. No doubt in my mind this was driven by TV. They love the NFL two-minute warning, and they wanted it for NCAA.

[Zebra Watcher]

Your probably right Legacy Zebra. May never see it with 12 minute quarters. Hopeful wishes...  ElivisLives, I truly believe your right on the NCAA coping with the NFL in 2 Minute Warning was driven by TV revenue. Show Us The Money..

[Legacy Zebra]

There is no foul if, prior to the defensive contact, the snap is muffed or fumbled

Now that we’ve covered the actual meat of the rule, can we go back to this part?

Who is writing this? If it’s from the TASO side, we need to do better. If it’s from the UIL side, it needs to be vetted by people who actually know the rules. A snap cannot be fumbled. Just like a pass cannot be fumbled or a kick cannot be fumbled. Only a ball in player possession can be fumbled. If the ball is loose from a snap, it is a backward pass by definition, not a fumble. That distinction actually matters quite a bit in this context since 99.9999% of place kicks occur either on 4th down or a try.

[ETXZebra]

I’m assuming this is from the UIL. I haven’t seen nor heard from TASO on this. The next webinar, May 22, is covering the new rules. We should get it covered then.

[ElvisLives]

The red part is just a rewrite. They moved the “not a foul” portion up to the first sentence. So instead of describing a foul and then saying “it’s not a foul if the player…”, they just added the player description to the definition of the foul.

Then below that they added the section about not being a foul if the snap is muffed or it’s a fake.

Of course that’s kind of pointless in my opinion. The rule only applies within 1 second of the snap. To have  a snap, muff by the holder, defensive player see it and then make contact all within 1 second that would be almost impossible. Most high school holders barely get the ball down to the tee within 1 second on a good kick.

Legacy, I just now noticed that the "one-second" element of the 2023 UIL rule does not exist in the 2024 language. As it is written, these restricted Team B players, apparently, can't make contact at all, if the snap is caught, the ball is successfully placed, and they kick the ball. What? They gotta stand there and wait to see if:
1) the snap is so bad that Team A won't possibly be able to attempt a place kick, or
2) the snap is muffed, or
3) the holder catches the snap then fumbles the ball while trying to place it, or
4) the holder catches the snap and then rises to run with the ball, or
5) the holder catches the snap but then passes the ball, or
6) the snap goes directly to the kicker who runs/passes the ball?

The timing does not seem to matter, any longer. Without waiting any specific amount of time, those restricted players can run through the line, or around the line, if they either don't make contact or their contact is 'slight' (which is actually not different than 2023).
By this language, though, it seems that the UIL doesn't want upright (at the snap) B players to be able to make any contact with Team A players, if the kick attempt proceeds 'normally.'

I will attempt to get clarification in the very near term.

[ElvisLives]

RE: 2024 UIL Field Goal attempt rule for contact by B players on A players

OK, what I DO know, positively, is that the elimination of the 1-second element is conscious and deliberate. The UIL wanted this rule to apply longer than one second, so they removed the one-second, but added the parts about muff and fumble. So, as it is (and was, in 2023) an upright B player can rush immediately, and without any other restriction, as long as he doesn't contact an A player, or the contact is 'slight.' 

For 2024, an upright B player may not contact an A player, unless the snap has been muffed or fumbled, or it is obvious a place kick will not be attempted. However, there is ambiguity in that part of the rule. For this rule, what amount of 'muff' is required? The ball could be muffed by the holder, but, he could complete the catch before the ball hits the ground, and still successfully place the ball. How does that qualify?
What about a low snap that the holder is able to trap on the ground, but recover quickly and place the ball?
What about a high snap that the causes the holder to rise a bit to catch, but he does (no 'muff' involved), and is still able to place the ball?
What about a ball that bounces to the holder, who is able to recover immediately (no muff involved), and still place the ball?

Yes, we get the fact that the UIL is trying to get the coaches to put all of their 'rushers' in 3 or 4 point stances. Would that they would. But they won't. They'll find ways to push this envelope, and we need clear interpretations of the scenarios I described above to be able to effectively officiate this consistently.

I am seeking clarification on the scenarios.

Stay tuned.

[Legacy Zebra]

Wow, good catch Elvis. I guess my brain filled in that gap without noticing that part of the rule was gone. That does make the part about muffs and fakes more relevant.

 I would like TASO or UIL to issue guidance on offense initiated contact when an upright player crosses the neutral zone. We see this a lot in 1A football. A player who is attempting to rush off the edge is blocked by a wing back who crosses the formation and blocks a rusher who didn’t know the block was coming until after he rushed. We also sometimes see it occasionally in 11-man when a wing back reaches out and blocks a defender coming off the edge. Last year there was some debate about whether or not these situations were a foul. The rule says that the defense cannot “initiate contact (indicated by forward movement of the defensive player)”. So some were saying it’s on the defense to avoid that contact. Others said that if the offense initiated the block, there was no foul. It would be great if we could get an official interpretation.

[ElvisLives]

I guess my brain filled in that gap without noticing that part of the rule was gone.

I did the same regarding the part about a muff/fumble/fake/broken play before the defensive contact. We’re humans with human brains, all far from perfect. My most respected former boss used to say, “He who ain’t screwin’ up ain’t doin’ anything.” Words to live by.

I am still seeking clarification on the various scenarios. And, I want somebody to ‘admit’ that the language “…the snap is muffed or fumbled…” is clearly improper, as written. (A snap can’t be fumbled.)

Will advise when/if I learn more.

[dammitbobby]

Yes, we get the fact that the UIL is trying to get the coaches to put all of their 'rushers' in 3 or 4 point stances. Would that they would. But they won't.

So what problem are they trying to solve here? Wouldn't a rule simply stating that anyone within the confines of the tackle box, +2 or +3 yards, must be in 2 or 3-point stance, if Team A is in a scrimmage kick formation, achieve the same thing, and be much simpler?