NFHS Rules Survey is up

[BIG UMP]

https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/nfhs-sport-questionnaires/

[Ralph Damren]

A CHANCE TO HEAR / SEE YOUR VOICE / REPLY HEARD. .....
....,....WE DO LISTEN   

[ilyazhito]

I took the survey. It would be interesting to see what actually happens as a result.

[Rich]

For the first time, I voted YES to all of them.

I've also bet my crew none will pass.

[Curious]

Getting closer to NCAA rules every year...

[bama_stripes]

I think #2 (towels) and #4 (IG exception) have the best chance of passing.

[Rich]

I think #2 (towels) and #4 (IG exception) have the best chance of passing.

I agree, BTW, although I really think the clock starting on OOB on plays outside of 2 minutes is the one thing needed most. The length of games have increased dramatically in the last few years, with two of our 7PM games ending after 9:45PM.  And maintaining pace of game is something we do as best as we can.

Outside that, I really think the first one (using the previous spot as the enforcement spot on most A fouls behind the line of scrimmage) would be a massive improvement.  A single holding foul shouldn't be a drive killer, but it's almost impossible to come back from 1st and 28.

AFD on personal fouls?  On DPI? I've never bought the whole "that affects the balance between offense and defense" thing.  It's applied equitably for both teams - when both teams are on defense.

Honestly, I see nothing wrong with aligning more to some of the more "common sense" aspects of NCAA rules that don't compromise player safety or the educational aspect of NFHS games. There's already a ton of confusion between Friday/Saturday/Sunday rules and where we can eliminate that, the better for us as officials.  The change with intentional grounding this year was amazing - all coaches we interacted with understood the Saturday rule and we had no arguments on any of our ING calls or no calls all season. With O2O, we were able to piece together the different aspects of the rule and communicate quickly.  It was a great change, not just for player safety, but for administration of the game.

[ncwingman]

I think #2 (towels) and #4 (IG exception) have the best chance of passing.

I'd agree with this. I'm not sure when the last time anybody in my area actually enforced the towel rule if they were just plain colored towels. Somebody has a pink one in october, but not the whole team... that's not getting addressed at all. Although, the new hotness is using actual gatorade towels, usually cut down to be the correct size. They look terrible, being very ragged, and not legal since it's covered in a logo that's not the manufacturer. In any case, it's not gaining an advantage, a safety issue, being disrespectful or drawing attention to themselves.

The IG rule will address the chicken little scenario about "What happens when the RB throws the ball???" ... out of curiosity, how many times did that happen this year? I saw it a grand total of zero -- not even once where the RB thought about it, but didn't.

The AFD and timing on out of bounds plays are a solid maybe. I could make arguments for and against, but will leave that for everybody else to do. I think there's likely to be enough people hard against it to prevent it from passing, but maybe I'd be surprised. I'm not taking a stand on whether I agree with it -- just estimating what might happen from those who have a vote.

[bama_stripes]

Based on the vote when AFD was removed from *both* DPI and OPI, I cant believe a change that only benefits the offense will pass.  I’m certainly willing to be surprised, though.

[AlUpstateNY]

I
Outside that, I really think the first one (using the previous spot as the enforcement spot on most A fouls behind the line of scrimmage) would be a massive improvement.  A single holding foul shouldn't be a drive killer, but it's almost impossible to come back from 1st and 28.

Honestly, I see nothing wrong with aligning more to some of the more "common sense" aspects of NCAA rules that don't compromise player safety or the educational aspect of NFHS games. There's already a ton of confusion between Friday/Saturday/Sunday rules and where we can eliminate that, the better for us as officials. 

Beg to disagree, eliminating "spot fouls" from behind the LOS enforcement will only ENCOURAGE more fouls, when the defense (legally) forces the offense to retreat.  When the offense retreats, there's NO INCENTIVE for the offense NOT to foul, and negate the effort /advantage the defense has produced forcing the offense to retreat.

NFHS "adjustments" to rules are usually (hopefully) accommodations created to address the obvious differences in player/coach maturity, safety and logistics (TV required advertising breaks, crowd size, playing facilities, crowd control & behavior capabilities & rule complexity.  "What's fine for the goose, doesn't ALWAYS apply as well for the gander."

[BIG UMP]

My supervisor and I were talking about the length of the games.  He is submitting a suggestion that we go back to rules from the early 80s and before where the clock starts on the RFP for changes of possession. 

I don't think we'll get there but starting on OOB plays seems logical to cut down on time.  AND, probably not much difference in time between the 2.

[HLinNC]

I-1. Never wanted the team box extended to begin with.  Even in the post-Covid season the player still gaggle around the coaches or the 50 yl.
   2. Changing the ball has been done forever- fine with actually codifying it.
   3. Legal #0- meh.  (Which brings me to a point- Friday night I did my first basketball broadcast of the season.  The visiting team had a
       #0 and a #00.  Is that legal?)
   4. Chop block redefined-ok.
   5. Game clock options-ok.
   6. Play clock exception- I do not see a need to have a :40 PC for A if the GC isn't running.  I understand it if we're running.  See this
       coming season's proposal concerning length of games to point out the semi-hypocrisy in this.
   7. Legal IG-wasn't a fan of the change but it turned out ok.

II- 1. Flashing LED's: we only have two schools we serve that presently do it and I've only worked one game at one of the schools that
        did it but I sense some safety/security issues will arise out of it eventually if they don't get a grip on it.
     2. Coaches are doing absolutely nothing about illegal/improper equipment.  They weren't doing much before hand.  The facepaint,
         cards on the belt, and bicep bands were the worst I've seen in a while.   Towel tails seemed to be a thing when we got to the
         playoffs. I sent two kids off in the second round of the playoffs for nott having their mouthpiece in.  Either put some teeth back in
         the rule or get rid of it and let them do whatever the hell they want.
     3. Substitution advantage-nothing out of the ordinary that I've seen here.
     4. Unintentional contact- not a real problem that I've noted although I've moved off of the wing to R, primarily.
     5. The rules are too complicated for coaches because they want to earn their knowledge by watching t.v. so have the NFHS put
         together a weekly show they can watch.  The rules are tough for newer officials and those officials who last cracked a rulebook           
         sometime in the 90's.

III  1. Leave it alone or just go to NCAA and get it over with.
      2. Towels- for the love of all that is holy, yes! (Exception- penalty flag or ball colored)  Include team names and/or logos as legal. 
          Who cares if they are pink, or white, or black, or camo?
      3. Game clock- sure, but I think we can gain some time back on changes of possession without a kick and my radical plan to run
          the clock post-TD through the end of the try too.
      4. Limiting the IG exception- I never understood all the hubbub this pre-season with so many officials not figuring out that when the
          NFHS said passer, that is what they meant.  Its bad enough the coaches want us to call NCAA rules but apparently a few officials
          can't separate it either.  Leave it be.
      5. PF's and USC's AFD- sure, why not.  However, I'm also an advocate for reducing the fouls on TD scoring plays back to declining
          the penalty in the event of a score, unless it is a PF.  I just don't see the "free shots" occurring that the Fed seemed to think were
          going to happen on scoring plays.

[Rich]

My supervisor and I were talking about the length of the games.  He is submitting a suggestion that we go back to rules from the early 80s and before where the clock starts on the RFP for changes of possession. 

I don't think we'll get there but starting on OOB plays seems logical to cut down on time.  AND, probably not much difference in time between the 2.

I've been a white hat for 20 years now and I simply don't see a situation where we'd have all kinds of intentional (or even more likely) fouling just cause they think they'll get a few yards out of the deal.  Matter of fact, my flag is s-l-o-w when a sack is imminent and while one of the reasons is "material effect on the play," but another is tacking 10 yards onto an already 8-yard loss.  I recognize I run the risk of a B foul that would offset, but then I go back to the first reason - there's no material effect on the play, so I don't throw it.

I'm not sure it changes my philosophy on these fouls if the yardage changes, but I see nothing wrong with having a different enforcement on these fouls.

As HLinNC said, I would immediately eliminate all non-PF foul enforcements on scoring plays.  I know our crew's philosophy is to try to avoid things like DPI when it doesn't affect a scoring play, but frankly, that should be declined, as should most fouls on scoring plays. Kid made a great play on a deep pass in one of our state finals and because there was marginal interference not only does A score, but A then gets to either run the PAT from the 1.5 or kick from the B 45.  Neither of those outcomes make sense.

[Rich]

   3. Legal #0- meh.  (Which brings me to a point- Friday night I did my first basketball broadcast of the season.  The visiting team had a
       #0 and a #00.  Is that legal?)
     2. Coaches are doing absolutely nothing about illegal/improper equipment.  They weren't doing much before hand.  The facepaint,
         cards on the belt, and bicep bands were the worst I've seen in a while.   Towel tails seemed to be a thing when we got to the
         playoffs. I sent two kids off in the second round of the playoffs for nott having their mouthpiece in.  Either put some teeth back in
         the rule or get rid of it and let them do whatever the hell they want.
   

Basketball: 0 or 00, not both.

Our crew worked a state championship last year and through the state quarterfinal round this year and we've had to deal with facepaint every single varsity game the last 2 years.  I'm tired of it. Coaches and players think we're being overly pedantic and I don't know if this means nobody else is handling it OR if it means they just roll the dice every week.

Either way, I deal with it with the captains before the coin toss (cause one of them is *always* an offender) and then I find an assistant coach and let the coaches know that way after the toss.

Last year, we had a non-clear eyeshield in Week 9 - kid wore it the entire season. They claimed they had a doctor's note, which means nothing here. They managed to change it out. At the scrimmage this year, we happened to have that team and, guess what - the visor was back.

I'll handle this stuff, but I wish I didn't have to every single week.

[AlUpstateNY]

Basketball: 0 or 00, not both.

Our crew worked a state championship last year and through the state quarterfinal round this year and we've had to deal with facepaint every single varsity game the last 2 years.  I'm tired of it. Coaches and players think we're being overly pedantic and I don't know if this means nobody else is handling it OR if it means they just roll the dice every week.

Either way, I deal with it with the captains before the coin toss (cause one of them is *always* an offender) and then I find an assistant coach and let the coaches know that way after the toss.

Last year, we had a non-clear eyeshield in Week 9 - kid wore it the entire season. They claimed they had a doctor's note, which means nothing here. They managed to change it out. At the scrimmage this year, we happened to have that team and, guess what - the visor was back.

I'll handle this stuff, but I wish I didn't have to every single week.

I agree, it can be a pain in the "ear", but the solution is STILL a simple & consistent one about prohibited/creative equipment  During the pregame,  tell the player, "You can't play with that "stuff" on your face" (no knee pads, arm bands or other creative decorations), or if it happens during the game, and you see it, send him back to the bench.  Too many Coaches are slow /lazy to understand, but once they experience the consequence, they pick it up pretty quick.  Of course the ENTIRE Crew needs to agree to enforce it (each game).

Not sure about ALL States, but in NY you're entitled to a copy of "The Doctor's Authorization" - or it's NOT allowed.  If the Coach (or parents) complain, simply suggest they make copies for each of their remaining games to avoid similar problems, in the future.

It's not exciting reading, but being VERY familiar with  the details of NFHS: 1-5-3, 4 & 5 can avoid a lot of unnecessary conversations.  It's also not a bad idea to add a brief caution about "equipment nonsense" during the brief pre-game conference with each Head Coach.  It doesn't happen often, but being a "nice, cooperative" guy will not offset YOUR liability if someone gets hurt because of participating with illegal or improperly worn equipment.

[Ralph Damren]

Thank you guys for your responses. The results and sources (official/coach/ admin./state) are provided and give us a feel for favoribility.  While I'm happy on last year's changes (Part I) and didn't have any of the problems listed (Part II), I do have an opinion on several on Part III:

* We became the 'towel police' first in size - some snappers were wearing beach towels and draping them over the ball prior to the snap- and then color seeped in. IMHO< size restrictions made sense while color does not.

* IG modifications seemed to work, BP > FP on flea-flicker should still allow the passer ability to ditch pass.

* While previous spot for fouls by A behind LOS gives an unneaded advatage to A and require a laundry list of exceptions (IG/ in own EZ/IK & IB) I would compromise IF it included fouls by B if run ended behind LOS, thus providing both QB sack behind LOS from previous spot (removing the inequity of a fumble or pass -loose ball plays - bringing back to LOS and a D-hold on the prime reciever, resulting in a QB sack) .

Plenty of time (Jan. 8-10) for  let the debates begin

[ncwingman]

* IG modifications seemed to work, BP > FP on flea-flicker should still allow the passer ability to ditch pass.

You made me go double check the NCAA rule on that one... if it was just restricted to the player that received the snap, then the QB-RB-QB exchange on a flea flicker would result in the QB being allowed to ditch the pass, but not for the RB. However, that's not the NCAA rule -- once the player that receives the snap relinquishes possession, nobody is allowed to ditch the ball legally. I think the NCAA rules makes the most sense,  as you don't really want the offense to go all Harlem Globetrotters in the backfield (or Keystone Cops, as the case may be) but allow the pass to be ditched as long as the QB is the last person with the hot potato. I feel that would make a mockery of the rule. It shouldn't be allowed after three fumbles.

Granted, the way it is currently written allows for whoever to ditch the pass after three fumbles, so... maybe fix that too?

* While previous spot for fouls by A behind LOS gives an unneaded advatage to A and require a laundry list of exceptions (IG/ in own EZ/IK & IB) I would compromise IF it included fouls by B if run ended behind LOS, thus providing both QB sack behind LOS from previous spot (removing the inequity of a fumble or pass -loose ball plays - bringing back to LOS and a D-hold on the prime reciever, resulting in a QB sack) .

I had to read this three times, but I think you're saying you're okay with the basic spot being the previous spot for all runs that end behind the LOS -- and ABO doesn't apply to A fouls in that situation, except for IG, IK and IB?

I don't think the exception should just be IG in the end zone, as IG should just be a "spot foul" regardless of where it occurs. I'd also move that IG should *only* be loss of down at the spot of the foul, not an additional 5 yards.

[SCHSref]

2. Coaches are doing absolutely nothing about illegal/improper equipment.  They weren't doing much before hand.  The facepaint,
         cards on the belt, and bicep bands were the worst I've seen in a while.   Towel tails seemed to be a thing when we got to the
         playoffs. I sent two kids off in the second round of the playoffs for nott having their mouthpiece in.  Either put some teeth back in
         the rule or get rid of it and let them do whatever the hell they want.

This...putting some teeth in it would be flagging the coach instead of sending them off if they don't have a mouthpiece. We asked them at pre-game if they are legally and properly equipped and they all say, "Yes".

What is the point of the rule, especially when you have officials stating "I don't care" or "I don't look for it once the game starts". Inconsistent administration is part of the problem.

[Ralph Damren]

You made me go double check the NCAA rule on that one... if it was just restricted to the player that received the snap, then the QB-RB-QB exchange on a flea flicker would result in the QB being allowed to ditch the pass, but not for the RB. However, that's not the NCAA rule -- once the player that receives the snap relinquishes possession, nobody is allowed to ditch the ball legally. I think the NCAA rules makes the most sense,  as you don't really want the offense to go all Harlem Globetrotters in the backfield (or Keystone Cops, as the case may be) but allow the pass to be ditched as long as the QB is the last person with the hot potato. I feel that would make a mockery of the rule. It shouldn't be allowed after three fumbles.

Granted, the way it is currently written allows for whoever to ditch the pass after three fumbles, so... maybe fix that too?

I had to read this three times, but I think you're saying you're okay with the basic spot being the previous spot for all runs that end behind the LOS -- and ABO doesn't apply to A fouls in that situation, except for IG, IK and IB?

I don't think the exception should just be IG in the end zone, as IG should just be a "spot foul" regardless of where it occurs. I'd also move that IG should *only* be loss of down at the spot of the foul, not an additional 5 yards.

I was trying to say:

I'm happy the way the IG rule currently is.

Not happy, but accept previous spot for FOULS BY BOTH TEAMS when run ends behind LOS. Exceptions on A fouls IG, any play where foul occurrs in end zone (O-holding, etc.) IK and IB.

I'm trying to say :

The Patriots need to beat the Bills Thursday night to stay in the hunt.

GO PATS!!

[refjeff]

Outside that, I really think the first one (using the previous spot as the enforcement spot on most A fouls behind the line of scrimmage) would be a massive improvement.  A single holding foul shouldn't be a drive killer, but it's almost impossible to come back from 1st and 28.

In Ohio there is a growing trend to enforce offensive holding from, or near, the LOS to prevent the drive killing penalty.  The justification is that the hold usually starts near the LOS when the blocker gets beat and the flag comes out later when the foul becomes obvious.

[refjeff]

Beg to disagree, eliminating "spot fouls" from behind the LOS enforcement will only ENCOURAGE more fouls, when the defense (legally) forces the offense to retreat.  When the offense retreats, there's NO INCENTIVE for the offense NOT to foul, and negate the effort /advantage the defense has produced forcing the offense to retreat.

Nonsense.  1. Most of them are offensive holding in pass protection when the technique is to kick back.  They're not being "forced" back. 

2.  The 10 yard penalty is still a disincentive to foul.

3.  When beat, no offensive lineman will ever stop to consider whether it is a spot foul or a previous spot foul before he reflexivley grabs the defender.

[AlUpstateNY]

Nonsense.  1. Most of them are offensive holding in pass protection when the technique is to kick back.  They're not being "forced" back. 

2.  The 10 yard penalty is still a disincentive to foul.

3.  When beat, no offensive lineman will ever stop to consider whether it is a spot foul or a previous spot foul before he reflexivley grabs the defender.

 

Totally agree with both your assessments, however, the further behind the line the defense drives the play, the more critical the enforcement spot becomes and in depriving the defense of their accomplishment (in driving the action deeper) would clearly be an unfair advantage and provide additional incentive to the offense to avoid a more serious loss by fouling.

[bama_stripes]

In my experience, 1st & 20 is just as much a “drive-killer” for HS teams as 1st & 28.

[CalhounLJ]

In my experience, 1st & 20 is just as much a “drive-killer” for HS teams as 1st & 28.

True, but that's on A for giving up the 8 yards. If they don't want 1st and 28, don't hold 8 yards deep.

[ncwingman]

There has been more than one occasion where the perception of what we're doing comes across poorly, even if we're doing things right -- mostly because we're not enforcing rules like the coaches/fans/players see on TV. Usually, we can explain to a coach the rule behind the call, but the one that's gotten the most pushback is when we seemingly mark off 12 yards on a 10 yard penalty.

Yes, the spot of the foul was 2 yards behind the LOS, but it just looks like we can't count to 10. We're doing it right, but it looks like we're doing it wrong - especially to every fan who can now clearly see that it's 1st and 22 after a 10 yard penalty.

I understand the arguments for and against it, but there's a couple things in this thread that really highlight the disparity of this. First, especially holding on the line can have a huge "window" for the spot of the foul. Ball snapped at the A20, first contact is made at the A19, the defender is grabbed at the A18, started to be pulled off balance at the A16 and hits the ground between the A15 and A13 (he's 6' tall, after all). Where's the "spot of the foul"? At our discretion, we can essentially add five yards to the penalty. Secondly, Al's point about it incentivizing fouling -- if you have a QB scrambling and a lineman realizes he can "help" by tackling the oncoming defender, he's not doing mental math to figure out how many yards the penalty will be. He's just hoping it won't get called at all.