Author Topic: Just to be sure everyone noticed this... (Read 11390 times)

VALJ · « **on:** July 19, 2019, 01:22:53 PM »

Because it seems like a pretty important change, but it seems to be getting lost in the noise about the 40 second clock coming in...

According to casebook play 7.2.5.C, a player lining up in "no man's land" does NOT result in an illegal formation, as long as there are still 5 correctly numbered linemen on the LOS. Anyone in "no man's land" is by definition not an end, nor is he a back, and he is INELIGIBLE to receive a forward pass.

Quote

*7.2.5 SITUATION C:

Team A comes to its line of scrimmage with tackles 70 and 71, guards 60 and 61, center 50 all on the line of scrimmage, a quarterback and three other backs in the backfield, and: (a) ends 80 and 89 on the line of scrimmage; (b) end 80 on the line of scrimmage and no other players on the field; (c) end 80 on the line of scrimmage and player 89 meeting neither the definition of a back nor a lineman; or (d) players 80 and 89 on the field meeting neither the definition of a back nor a lineman.

RULING: The formations and numbering in both (a) and (b) are legal because there are five players numbered 50-79 on the line of scrimmage, a minimum of five players on the line of scrimmage, and no more than four players meeting the definition of a back, including the quarterback. In both (c) and (d), the formations are legal because there are five players numbered 50-79 on the line of scrimmage, a minimum of five players on the line of scrimmage, and no more than four players meeting the definition of a back; however, the other players in the game are not eligible receivers in the event of a legal forward pass. (emphasis added)

I've seen several discussions on Facebook where people are saying this in an illegal formation foul. It's not! As long as you've got 5 Bubba's on the the LOS wearing a correct number, and you have 4 or less guys meeting the definition of a back, you can't have an illegal formation foul.

FLAHL · « **Reply #1 on:** July 19, 2019, 01:31:07 PM »

Good catch VA.

Thanks for that.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #2 on:** July 19, 2019, 01:33:42 PM »

What about this?
2.32.3 SITUATION:

A players assume their pre-snap positions. A1 takes a position behind the line of scrimmage as a potential runner. A1 is standing and is turned so he is directly facing the quarterback. At the snap, A1's shoulder and elbow are breaking the plane through the waist of his nearest teammate who is on the line.

RULING: Since A1 is not on the line and is not positioned as a back, it results in an illegal formation foul. To be a back, A1 cannot have any part of his body breaking the plane through the waist of his nearest teammate who is on the line. (7-2-7)

VALJ · « **Reply #3 on:** July 19, 2019, 01:37:02 PM »

Quote from: CalhounLJ on July 19, 2019, 01:33:42 PM

What about this?
2.32.3 SITUATION:

A players assume their pre-snap positions. A1 takes a position behind the line of scrimmage as a potential runner. A1 is standing and is turned so he is directly facing the quarterback. At the snap, A1's shoulder and elbow are breaking the plane through the waist of his nearest teammate who is on the line.

RULING: Since A1 is not on the line and is not positioned as a back, it results in an illegal formation foul. To be a back, A1 cannot have any part of his body breaking the plane through the waist of his nearest teammate who is on the line. (7-2-7)

That's a great question. My thought is that 7.2.3.C is a new casebook play, so that was written specifically for the rule change. 2.32.3 is not a new casebook play, so it's a play that was in the book last year that the casebook writers didn't notice needed to be changed or omitted.

Ralph, feel free to chime in.

Magician · « **Reply #4 on:** July 19, 2019, 01:37:20 PM »

This needs to get corrected. This was not the intent of the that rule change and I have no idea why they would update the case book to match. I'm hoping it was someone mis-understanding the intent of the rule change. I thought I read somewhere the NFHS rules committe had already said this would be a correction issue from the interpreters meeting, but I could be mistaken.

In reality, how often would we leave someone in no-man's land anyway? We are ruling they are either on the line or a back so hopefully this will be a non-issue.

Quote from: CalhounLJ on July 19, 2019, 01:33:42 PM

What about this?
2.32.3 SITUATION:

A players assume their pre-snap positions. A1 takes a position behind the line of scrimmage as a potential runner. A1 is standing and is turned so he is directly facing the quarterback. At the snap, A1's shoulder and elbow are breaking the plane through the waist of his nearest teammate who is on the line.

RULING: Since A1 is not on the line and is not positioned as a back, it results in an illegal formation foul. To be a back, A1 cannot have any part of his body breaking the plane through the waist of his nearest teammate who is on the line. (7-2-7)

The person who wrote 7.2.5 C wasn't aware 2.32.3 was still in there. Now you have conflicting case plays. 2.32.3 should be the correct one.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2019, 01:42:37 PM »

so we have another case of ignoring the black and white print? Just for my information, was the intent of the less than 5 in the backfield rule change to keep from throwing illegal formation fouls? Because this no-man's land situation could happen without that. Let's suppose last year A had 7 bona fide linemen. One of the 4 backs left was in no man's land. This would have been a foul simply because of position. It seems like the INTENT of the no-mans-land reference was to make sure all players were one or the other...
OAN, this is getting ridiculous.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2019, 01:43:58 PM »

Quote from: Magician on July 19, 2019, 01:37:20 PM

This needs to get corrected. This was not the intent of the that rule change and I have no idea why they would update the case book to match. I'm hoping it was someone mis-understanding the intent of the rule change. I thought I read somewhere the NFHS rules committe had already said this would be a correction issue from the interpreters meeting, but I could be mistaken.

In reality, how often would we leave someone in no-man's land anyway? We are ruling they are either on the line or a back so hopefully this will be a non-issue.

The person who wrote 7.2.5 C wasn't aware 2.32.3 was still in there. Now you have conflicting case plays. 2.32.3 should be the correct one.

So you're saying this SHOULD BE an illegal formation foul?

VALJ · « **Reply #7 on:** July 19, 2019, 01:55:57 PM »

Quote from: CalhounLJ on July 19, 2019, 01:42:37 PM

so we have another case of ignoring the black and white print?

With conflicting interpretations, we've got no choice but to ignore one set of black and white print or the other.

VALJ · « **Reply #8 on:** July 19, 2019, 02:01:33 PM »

Quote from: Magician on July 19, 2019, 01:37:20 PM

The person who wrote 7.2.5 C wasn't aware 2.32.3 was still in there. Now you have conflicting case plays. 2.32.3 should be the correct one.

Or, did the person who wrote 7.2.5.C not aware that 2.32.3 needs to be removed?

My gut instinct is that they made sure to include the new case play, so that reflects what Fed wants at this point, and they missed removing an outdated play - which has certainly happened before. I could also be wrong - that's certainly happened before as well.

Magician · « **Reply #9 on:** July 19, 2019, 02:02:30 PM »

Quote from: CalhounLJ on July 19, 2019, 01:43:58 PM

So you're saying this SHOULD BE an illegal formation foul?

Technically yes. The no man's land situation should still be a foul. But we should never call it. Either put them on the line or put them as a back and talk to them after the play about making sure they are clear. The further they are from the snapper the less strict you'll be. You shouldn't go blade of grass separating them like NFL and NCAA do, but if it's clear they are staggered the defense knows who is eligible and all is good. If the wing back though is right next to the TE/T and he's behind the snapper but clearly breaking the waist of the TE/T I would be ok with a flag after 1 warning.

Magician · « **Reply #10 on:** July 19, 2019, 02:07:25 PM »

Quote from: VALJ on July 19, 2019, 02:01:33 PM

Or, did the person who wrote 7.2.5.C not aware that 2.32.3 needs to be removed?

My gut instinct is that they made sure to include the new case play, so that reflects what Fed wants at this point, and they missed removing an outdated play - which has certainly happened before. I could also be wrong - that's certainly happened before as well.

My gut feel is one of two things:

The person who wrote the new case play didn't understand the intent of the new rule change (not making it a foul for the offense to line up with 6 linemen and 4 backs if they play with only 10 players).
- or -
The rules committed intended for no-man's land to be legal and the editor didn't catch the change needed in 2.32.3.

If the latter I think the rules committee didn't understand WHY this change was proposed and the person submitting it didn't make that part clear. I'm guessing it's more likely the latter rather than the former.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #11 on:** July 19, 2019, 02:20:22 PM »

Quote from: Magician on July 19, 2019, 02:02:30 PM

Technically yes. The no man's land situation should still be a foul. But we should never call it. Either put them on the line or put them as a back and talk to them after the play about making sure they are clear. The further they are from the snapper the less strict you'll be. You shouldn't go blade of grass separating them like NFL and NCAA do, but if it's clear they are staggered the defense knows who is eligible and all is good. If the wing back though is right next to the TE/T and he's behind the snapper but clearly breaking the waist of the TE/T I would be ok with a flag after 1 warning.

I'm in agreement with this philosophy. We tell the coaches to tell his players to talk to us as they are lining up. If he wants to be off/on, we are going to get him there if possible. If it's questionable and we know where he wants to be, we are giving him the benefit of the doubt. The biggest problem we have is with that ole guard trying to get back enough to pull quickly. We may tell him one time, but that's it. If he's insistent on lining up deep to get that advantage, we are going to insist by flag he not do that.

I'm not sure what has happened at the rule-writing and editing level at NFHS. I've been reading the rule book for close to 30 years, and while they may have missed one or two throughout, historically they have done a TREMENDOUS job of writing and explaining the intent. My hope is that they can correct whatever problems are going on so they can get back to that level of excellence. I still appreciate all involved in this process. It's easy for guys like me to nitpick after the fact.

KWH · « **Reply #12 on:** July 19, 2019, 08:42:07 PM »

Quote from: VALJ on July 19, 2019, 01:22:53 PM

Because it seems like a pretty important change, but it seems to be getting lost in the noise about the 40 second clock coming in...

According to casebook play 7.2.5.C, a player lining up in "no man's land" does NOT result in an illegal formation, as long as there are still 5 correctly numbered linemen on the LOS. Anyone in "no man's land" is by definition not an end, nor is he a back, and he is INELIGIBLE to receive a forward pass.

I've seen several discussions on Facebook where people are saying this in an illegal formation foul. It's not! As long as you've got 5 Bubba's on the the LOS wearing a correct number, and you have 4 or less guys meeting the definition of a back, you can't have an illegal formation foul.

The ruling of 7.2.5 SITUATION C (Parts c and d) is incorrect
While some of you caught that the play conflicts with Rule 2-32-3, it ALSO clearly conflicts with Rule 7-2-3 which makes it clear that only one player may be in "No mans land" and he has to be in position to receive a snap.
Additionally, (for those of you keeping score at home) the RULING on 7.2.5 SITUATION C conflicts with the RULING of 7.2.3 SITUATION A and 7.2.5 SITUATION B

I would anticipate a correction from the NFHS

blandis · « **Reply #13 on:** July 19, 2019, 11:05:08 PM »

Thus the old adage, make him be on or make him be off!

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #14 on:** July 20, 2019, 06:48:15 AM »

Quote from: VALJ on July 19, 2019, 01:22:53 PM

Because it seems like a pretty important change, but it seems to be getting lost in the noise about the 40 second clock coming in...

According to casebook play 7.2.5.C, a player lining up in "no man's land" does NOT result in an illegal formation, as long as there are still 5 correctly numbered linemen on the LOS. Anyone in "no man's land" is by definition not an end, nor is he a back, and he is INELIGIBLE to receive a forward pass.

I've seen several discussions on Facebook where people are saying this in an illegal formation foul. It's not! As long as you've got 5 Bubba's on the the LOS wearing a correct number, and you have 4 or less guys meeting the definition of a back, you can't have an illegal formation foul.

So the fix is simple, the casebook sections 7.2.5.C and D simply need to be deleted. This seemingly continuing process of adding new rules and/or casebook plays without a detailed review and reconciliation with the existing material indicates that the rulesmakers need a much better understanding of how intertwined, circular, and complicated the current wording is prior to "fixing" things by adding new words that directly conflict with existing words.

Also, we need to be very careful ourselves when we "cherry pick" a single phrase or section that's "clear and concise" and use that to finitely determine how something should be called. That doesn't work very well either and I have found myself doing that more than once. This will be my 3rd season using NFHS rules and the 1st where all games will be NFHS. Every time that I re-read the books I find some additional intricacies. The most difficult are the ones that involve definitions since definition usage should be consistent and unchanging throughout the books. That's the very definition of definition.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #15 on:** July 20, 2019, 09:01:47 AM »

I have found the Redding Study Guide for NFHS to be very beneficial in condensing all the implications and intricacies into one section. While not an official source by any means, it is a great study aid.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Derek Teigen · « **Reply #16 on:** July 20, 2019, 08:27:58 PM »

I have heard (from a senior official in our association) that a few of the case book plays are in error and there is some meeting this week in an attempt to clarify some of them. Not sure if the one you are talking about is one of them but we all might here something in the very near future that might change some of the case plays.

Magician · « **Reply #17 on:** July 21, 2019, 11:21:30 AM »

Quote from: NVFOA_Ump on July 20, 2019, 06:48:15 AM

This seemingly continuing process of adding new rules and/or casebook plays without a detailed review and reconciliation with the existing material indicates that the rulesmakers need a much better understanding of how intertwined, circular, and complicated the current wording is prior to "fixing" things by adding new words that directly conflict with existing words.

My understanding from those on the editorial and editing committees is there is extensive review and reconciliation every year. But like our work on the field even involving replay it's not always easy to catch everything. One suggestion was to put a draft out to a group like this and have us review it. But then you have an even bigger group involved. They just need to be better.

Quote from: Derek Teigen on July 20, 2019, 08:27:58 PM

I have heard (from a senior official in our association) that a few of the case book plays are in error and there is some meeting this week in an attempt to clarify some of them. Not sure if the one you are talking about is one of them but we all might here something in the very near future that might change some of the case plays.

There is an interpreters meeting every year in July to review the rule changes and make sure everyone is on the same page. That's why we get clarifications before every season around the end of July. This is a standard part of the process.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #18 on:** July 21, 2019, 12:01:14 PM »

Just a question for my understanding- how many of the people on the rules committee are officials? I know of at least one who doesn’t have any type of background dealing with rulebooks in any sport. It seems to me a rules committee should include people who understand the fundamental concept of the rules. Especially how intertwined the rules are with one another.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Magician · « **Reply #19 on:** July 21, 2019, 04:02:11 PM »

Quote from: CalhounLJ on July 21, 2019, 12:01:14 PM

Just a question for my understanding- how many of the people on the rules committee are officials? I know of at least one who doesn’t have any type of background dealing with rulebooks in any sport. It seems to me a rules committee should include people who understand the fundamental concept of the rules. Especially how intertwined the rules are with one another.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe it's at least 6 or 8 of them. I personally know 4 of them including our own Ralph.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #20 on:** July 21, 2019, 04:15:09 PM »

Those guys should be leaned on heavily in the rules writing and editing process. Nobody understands the implications of a rule change better than a good official.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bossman72 · « **Reply #21 on:** July 21, 2019, 09:21:03 PM »

Honestly, we're worried about nothing.

Who has actually ruled a player in no-man's land in a real game?

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #22 on:** July 21, 2019, 09:22:47 PM »

This is true.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

SCline · « **Reply #23 on:** July 21, 2019, 09:51:53 PM »

Quote from: bossman72 on July 21, 2019, 09:21:03 PM

Honestly, we're worried about nothing.

Who has actually ruled a player in no-man's land in a real game?

I laughed hard at this. So true

Magician · « **Reply #24 on:** July 22, 2019, 08:30:22 AM »

Quote from: bossman72 on July 21, 2019, 09:21:03 PM

Honestly, we're worried about nothing.

Who has actually ruled a player in no-man's land in a real game?

Completely agree. The issue though is the rule book very clearly states being in no-man's land is now legal and that is absolutely false. That needs to be corrected regardless of whether anyone will actually do it.