2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes

[AlUpstateNY]

Under the new rule in 2014, that would be correct.  Under the previous rule, the ONLY thing that was RTP was "charging into the passer".  But many officials incorrectly applied the RTP penalty (AFD) to what were actually personal fouls.

That is why the rule was changed to what you are now quoting.

Sorry, I just can't accept your assessment that, "Under the previous rule, the ONLY thing that was RTP was "charging into the passer", nor do I believe believe the vast majority of NFHS officials would either. I do hope the revised language will eliminate those who believed that prohibition to be so limited.

[Atlanta Blue]

Sorry, I just can't accept your assessment that, "Under the previous rule, the ONLY thing that was RTP was "charging into the passer", nor do I believe believe the vast majority of NFHS officials would either. I do hope the revised language will eliminate those who believed that prohibition to be so limited.

You can refuse to accept my assessment only if you ignored the rule book.

9-4-4: Roughing the passer. Defensive players must make a definite effort to avoid charging into a passer, who has thrown the ball from in or behind the neutral zone, after it is clear the ball has been thrown. No defensive player shall charge into the passer who is standing still or fading back, because he is considered out of the play after the pass.

All of the other things you mentioned are in 9-3-3, not 9-4-4 and are personal fouls, NOT roughing the passer.  Personal fouls do not carry an AFD,  RTP does.  In most cases, no one knew there was a problem, because in most case, the LTG is less than 15 yards away, so it was a first down anyway.  But there were those few cases were the LTG was more than 15 yards, or half the distance, and in those cases, the penalty was being incorrectly applied.

The committee saw this was a problem, and fixed the rule.  Perhaps those should have been RTP all along, but they were not.  Some officials were ruling incorrectly and calling the PFs RTP.  Officials that were calling it correctly were catching h#ll, even though they were correct.  If it wasn't a problem or wasn't a "loophole", why did they have to pass a new rule to fix it?

It's no longer an issue.  Next, they need to apply the same standard to roughing the kicker and roughing the holder as well.

[Johnponz]

AB you are correct, but I would argue that this is a case where "spirit" and "intent" of the rule was being enforced previously.  Now the rule matches the intent and purpose and will only make it easier to enforce the rule correctly.

You can argue whether "spirit" and "intent" should be enforced, but now the rules committee has taken that argument away and the rule is clear.

This was a good rule change.

[Atlanta Blue]

AB you are correct, but I would argue that this is a case where "spirit" and "intent" of the rule was being enforced previously.  Now the rule matches the intent and purpose and will only make it easier to enforce the rule correctly.

You can argue whether "spirit" and "intent" should be enforced, but now the rules committee has taken that argument away and the rule is clear.

This was a good rule change.

I understand "spirit of the rule".  I have taught new baseball umpires at many levels for many years.  One of the things I always teach is, "know what the rules MEANS, not just what it SAYS".  But you have to be careful there as well.  While knowing what it means and how to apply it is important, we can't ignore what it says and rule how we THINK it should be called, especially when it comes to enforcing a penalty.  We can apply judgment in cases where judgment is an issue, but penalty enforcement isn't one of those.  Under the old rule, awarding a automatic first down on a PF against a passer wasn't judgment, it was an enforcement error.

It would have been just as wrong to award an automatic first down on a face mask penalty against a runner.  The NFL and the NCAA do, so some feel the spirit of the rule is it should be a first down.  But in cases of penalty enforcement, "spirit" can't rule, for penalty enforcement, you have to use what is written.

But as we have both said, it's no longer an issue in this case, the rule has been changed. 

[jg-me]

Although I have no stats to back this up, I'm guessing that the vast majority of illegal acts against a passer involve some version of charging into the passer. While a face mask foul in and of itself would not have been roughing the passer, I doubt the new wording of the rule is going to have a noticeable effect from the way games have been administered in the past.

[AlUpstateNY]

You can refuse to accept my assessment only if you ignored the rule book.
 
It's no longer an issue.  Next, they need to apply the same standard to roughing the kicker and roughing the holder as well.

Thank you, actually I haven't ignored the Rule Book, and understand, and agree, it was the choice of those who wrote NFHS:9-4-4 NOT to define specifically what was meant by "charging into a passer", leaving the judgment of what that entailed to the common sense of the covering official.  The rule does add specific details about their reasoning suggesting the penalty is considered, " because he (the passer) is considered out of the play after the pass."

It has always seemed reasonable that the added consequences of RTP (above and beyond PF) are a response to the passer being "out of the play" and additionally vulnerable and worthy of whatever additional protection more severe consequences would provide.  Since its inception, the additional consequences associated with RTP have been far more consistently applied to ANY PF type actions leveled at a "Passer" (or "Kicker" and more recently "Holder" and "Snapper") for one consistent and focused reason, that of increased vulnerability of that player due to the unique actions of players involved in those specific actions.

This year's correction is welcome as it will hopefully eliviate the concerns of those who would prefer strict documentable permission, rather than reliance on personal judgment from direct observation, which NFHS rule makers have long seemed comfortable relying on, and will extend the broader application of added protection, as originally designed, more consistently by satisfying those officials preferring specific documentable instruction. This adjustment seems more a clarification of what was thought to be universally understood, than a change.

[Atlanta Blue]

This adjustment seems more a clarification of what was thought to be universally understood MISUNDERSTOOD than a change.

Fixed it for you.  Any official that "judged" that pulling the face mask of as passer was "charging into" clearly doesn't belong calling Varsity football.

You can dress it up as "judgment" all you want, that's not judgment, that's failure to know the old rule.  If it was simply a "clarification", it would have been an editorial change or a case book play. This was a change to a playing rule in order to close a loophole. 

[Johnponz]

Any official that "judged" that pulling the face mask of as passer was "charging into" clearly doesn't belong calling Varsity football.

To me it seems that AB is guilty of using a little hyperbole here, and I would kind of like to know who appointed him the "decider" of who belongs officiating varsity football and who does not.

After 20 some years officiating at the R position, I have never seen a defender do anything to the passer except charge into him that caused me to call RTP.  I suppose that if a defender was running by, stuck out his hand and twisted the passer's facemask, I probably would have mistakenly called this RTP even though I do know the text of the rule.  By the strictest of definitions this would have been an error.

I believe what the previous posters were trying to convey is that very rarely would this happen.  In the case of a passer, it is much more likely that someone would "charge into" the passer, and also twist the facemask (in this case you could call 2 fouls one for FM and one for RTP-but that is kind of silly in my opinion and common sense says to make this a RTP).  This sort of multiple foul situation is much more likely.

Now if in the next 20 years or so I see the very rare twist of the facemask without the charging into, I have rules support to get the call right.

[HLinNC]

John-AB is a fairly respected poster in this community.  He is an asst football coach at the HS level and a baseball umpire.  He does commonly bring a coaches perspective to threads.  Many times, he's more right than wrong, which is not common with most coaches that I come across.

He is not the "decider" of anything but given what I know of him and his rules knowledge, I'd take him on a crew any day.

Plus he's the only guy here with a movie credit

[Johnponz]

I knew all of that.  However in this particular case I think he is coming on a little bit strong. Just my opinion, but like him I am allowed to have one.

I really do not think that because someone might call a play that may happen once in 40 years a certain way that should disqualify the person from working a varsity game.  RTP as described without a "running into" component is not going to happen very often (Again based on my limited experience of 20 plus years at the R position), and when you figure in that it is only really going to make a difference if the LTG is more than 15 yards away the does it make a difference factor goes up even more.

[Curious]

John-AB is a fairly respected poster in this community.  He is an asst football coach at the HS level and a baseball umpire.  He does commonly bring a coaches perspective to threads.  Many times, he's more right than wrong, which is not common with most coaches that I come across.

He is not the "decider" of anything but given what I know of him and his rules knowledge, I'd take him on a crew any day.

Plus he's the only guy here with a movie credit

+1000

You beat me to it, "HL".

John, not to beat a dead horse, but while I periodically have had philosophical differences (including this situation) with AB, I rarely read anything from him that is not soundly "rules-based".  His experience and willingness to put his opinions (as a coach) out there for us zebras to think about has been very valuable - and should be respected.   

[bama_stripes]

...when you figure in that it is only really going to make a difference if the LTG is more than 15 yards away the does it make a difference factor goes up even more.

Not so.  It would also make a difference (maybe even a BIG difference) when half-the-distance is involved.

PLAY: 4th-and-goal from the B8.  B77 twists and turns passer A14's face mask, but does not charge into him.  A14's pass is incomplete.

2013 RULING:  Half-the-distance to the B4, 4th-and-goal.
2014 RULING:  Half-the-distance to the B4, 1st-and-goal.

[AlUpstateNY]

Fixed it for you.  Any official that "judged" that pulling the face mask of as passer was "charging into" clearly doesn't belong calling Varsity football.

You can dress it up as "judgment" all you want, that's not judgment, that's failure to know the old rule.  If it was simply a "clarification", it would have been an editorial change or a case book play. This was a change to a playing rule in order to close a loophole.

Thank you for your opinion AB, as is always the appropriate way for a Referee, at any level, to deal with respectful input from Coaches regarding the application of penalties, or any relevant question regarding some aspect of the game, to, in-turn, respectfully listen to the input offered, consider it seriously and then render, what will be the final decision with appropriate explanation.

In the case of a "passer" (as opposed to a "player") suffering a grasping the face mask foul, my response would very likely be, "Thank you for your input, Coach, but RTP is the call we're going with and your team will be charged with the Time Out"(presuming one was requested to challenge the initial indication).

[Atlanta Blue]

I knew all of that.  However in this particular case I think he is coming on a little bit strong. Just my opinion, but like him I am allowed to have one.

I really do not think that because someone might call a play that may happen once in 40 years a certain way that should disqualify the person from working a varsity game.  RTP as described without a "running into" component is not going to happen very often (Again based on my limited experience of 20 plus years at the R position), and when you figure in that it is only really going to make a difference if the LTG is more than 15 yards away the does it make a difference factor goes up even more.

I think you missed my point.  If an official makes a legitimate error in enforcement, no, one error does not nor should not disqualify him from working Varsity games.  If it did, we wouldn't have any officials!

But that's not what was stated in the situation above.  In that case, the official said that even though he knew the rule, he would "judge" that a face mask foul was "charging into", and call it RTP.  An official that knowingly manipulates the rules to produce the outcome he desires has no business on a Varsity field, if any field at all.  We don't get to make up our own rules or enforcements, just because we think they are more fair.  To do so means you have no integrity whatsoever, and place yourself above the rules.

If you can stand behind a support an official that says, "I know what the rule is, but I'm not calling it that way, I'm making up my own interpretation to fit what I THINK should happen", then you and I have very different opinions on what makes a good official.  And in fact, I'll bet we both have a pretty good idea what makes a good official.

[Atlanta Blue]

In the case of a "passer" (as opposed to a "player") suffering a grasping the face mask foul, my response would very likely be, "Thank you for your input, Coach, but RTP is the call we're going with and your team will be charged with the Time Out"(presuming one was requested to challenge the initial indication).

In 2014, you wouldn't have had to explain it to me, I never would have questioned it.

Had you been on the field and given me that explanation in 2013, it would have been in my report to the state office on Saturday morning.  I submitted two reports this season.  We don't have to go into the details, but the reports were well received and acted upon.  I don't complain just to complain, or when I think an official is "bad", I complain when there is documented proof that they are in error, and would not correct it.  You just gave it to me.

Even those that disagree with my interpretation here may not understand my position.  Let me make it clear.  I'm not saying those personal fouls SHOULDN'T have been RTP all along, I'm saying by rule, many of them they WEREN'T RTP, they were simply personal fouls.  The Rules Committee agreed with me, which is why we have a RULE change, not an EDITORIAL change which is used to make minor revisions, or even a case play which is used to correct questionable or possible misinterpretations.  In order to get this right, the RULE had to be changed, and it was.

And HL and Curious, I appreciate your kind words and support, even if we disagree.  Respectful disagreement is how we learn, and how we get things changed.

[Johnponz]

AB, based on your last post we probably agree more than disagree.  One of the disadvantages of message boards and electronic media in general is the loss of tone.  I agree that if an official consistently changes the rules to suit their own purpose, they need to seriously reevaluate their "style."  Our job is to enforce the rules as they are presented to us.  If a rule change is needed there is a procedure in place to make that happen, but until it does we are stuck with what we have.

Many officials in my area "change" the timing rules in blow out situations.  I steadfastly insist that is not our place to do.  We simply do not have that authority and to take it is to place yourself above the game, and that is never a good idea.

[Atlanta Blue]

AB, based on your last post we probably agree more than disagree. 

I'm pretty sure we do.

[Ralph Damren]

I think you are misreading it although the wording in the release is not the most clear. Pretty sure the intent is that if a passer is fouled by an act that is also a PF other than RTP (face mask for example), that foul will be treated as a roughing the passer foul. This means that the penalty for that particular act, when it is committed against the passer, will include an automatic first down just as RTP would.

JG nailed it... unabridged version reads : "...any illegal personal contact foul listed in Rule 9-4-3 against THE PASSER..."

[Ralph Damren]

My immediate thoughts:

1st down on DPI not "fixed" as originally rumored.

Are we going to have to revise the 5 man free kick mechanics AGAIN?

Not sure how targeting is any different than existing illegal helmet contact or illegal use of hands.

Addressing HL's first immediate thought : The on-line questionnaire that many of us took had the following results on the revision of the PI rules..coaches - 2149-778 (73%) favor; officials - 5150-2510 (67%) favor ; state - 31-9 (78%) favor. The proposal to reinstate auto first down died on the vine.

[Rulesman]

Addressing HL's first immediate thought : The on-line questionnaire that many of us took had the following results on the revision of the PI rules..coaches - 2149-778 (73%) favor; officials - 5150-2510 (67%) favor ; state - 31-9 (78%) favor. The proposal to reinstate auto first down died on the vine.

Seems awfully strange that the states favored the change 31-9, yet the proposal dies on the vine...

[Atlanta Blue]

Seems awfully strange that the states favored the change 31-9, yet the proposal dies on the vine...

They didn't favor a change, they favored the current rule.

But that was the function of a TERRIBLY written survey.  A much better question would have been, "Do you favor the current rule with no AFD, or an AFD on DPI?"

[Ralph Damren]

Don't bother Ralph right now, he should be doing his PT.

So far my therapists have all been female, but none resembled her! To me, PT is goal setting...your goal can be shuffling out to shuffleboard or running to the goal line, I choose the latter I only yak, argue, vote and fly back to Maine. The press releases are beyond my control

[Ralph Damren]

The theme of this year's rule changes could certainly be labeled "player safety". Some of my hopefuls and many of yours fell by the wayside ,but the emphasis was on attempting to make the game that we all love as safe as possible. That should always be our top priority.

[Ralph Damren]

Really surprised that the "4 in the backfield" proposal didn't pass.

This was bogged down by the impact on the "5 w/# 50-79" rule. need 34 votes to pass and only 17 to fail.

[Ralph Damren]

That one and adjusting the timing rules on runs OOB.  Our games have gotten longer and longer and I've got a very fast pace as a WH.

The NFHS is so loathe to make any substantial changes - they just disappoint year after year.  No offense, Ralph.

The timing proposal eas modified to RFP on all OOB plays w/no exceptions for last 2 mins of half. There wasn't big support for length of game issues.