Football Officiating > NCAA Discussion
Rules Changes Document
JasonTX:
Some playclocks are programmed to be either 25 or 40. There is no function to set them at 10 seconds on the ones I have ran. I guess they can put it on 25 and run it down to 10 if that ever comes into play.
ElvisLives:
--- Quote from: JasonTX on April 12, 2026, 01:16:47 PM ---Some playclocks are programmed to be either 25 or 40. There is no function to set them at 10 seconds on the ones I have ran. I guess they can put it on 25 and run it down to 10 if that ever comes into play.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, they’d have to run it down to get anything between 25 and 40, or less than 25. Least of my replay complaints. I liked replay to fix a missed touching of the ball, step out of bounds, ball touching ground before firm hold of ball, etc. Not a fan of using it for much of anything else.
(Says the guy (R) that holds the FBS record for longest replay review in history. 😒)
TxJim:
--- Quote from: ElvisLives on April 11, 2026, 10:11:11 AM ---If this rule works like I am hoping it does, no swinging gate formation would qualify as an SKF, so they would be required to fully comply with mandatory numbering. Not illegal, but they wouldn’t qualify to use numbering exceptions.
--- End quote ---
It's still only a foul at the snap. I don't see this ending the gate though. I can still imagine there still some coaches out there setting his team up a in gate and shifting in an attempt to confuse Team B. But it does seem A now has new chances to confuse themselves and foul shifting from a gate into a legal SKF.... of course, all this depending on the final rule statement and new ARs.
dammitbobby:
Yes it's a foul at the snap, but we would/should know that B can't use the numbering exceptions in the gate, so they would have to shift back or they can't run a legal play. (assuming, of course, that they actually invoked the exception in the first place.)
Really hope we get a precise rule and ARs out of this.
ElvisLives:
--- Quote from: dammitbobby on April 13, 2026, 01:04:53 PM ---Yes it's a foul at the snap, but we would/should know that B can't use the numbering exceptions in the gate, so they would have to shift back or they can't run a legal play. (assuming, of course, that they actually invoked the exception in the first place.)
Really hope we get a precise rule and ARs out of this.
--- End quote ---
“B” ? I think meant “A”. (?)
The current ‘rules’ don’t truly address offset formations, which are the problem. Shaw issued rulings, by bulletin play situations, that pretty well make ‘swinging gate’ formations NOT scrimmage kick formations, so Team A must comply with mandatory numbering. But coaches don’t read/study rules, so they don’t know that the ‘gate’ isn’t a SKF, and they must comply with mandatory numbering. Then they challenge us and tell us we don’t know the rules, blah, blah, blah…
So, I am hoping this new rule will explicitly REQUIRE that, in addition to all of the current SKF requirements, there must be two linemen on each side of the snapper, in order to qualify as a SKF, and permit numbering exceptions. The snapper and those four linemen would be ineligible by position, even if one of those linemen is positioned on the end of the line. Then by rule, a swinging gate formation would not qualify as a SKF. They may still use a ‘gate’ formation, but they must comply with mandatory numbering, and the snapper doesn’t have any special protection (as he would in a true SKF).
Having two ineligible linemen on each side of the snapper renders a swinging gate formation pretty much useless. But, we’ll probaby still see it, even if we get the rule I am hoping for.
But, we musty stay tuned. I am hearing that some number of NCAA coaches don’t like this SKF proposal. The PROP meets on Wednesday, so, who knows what we’ll end up with.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version