NFHS New Rules 2016

[Curious]

I like all but the targeting and "DB away from the play as UNS" suggestions.

If I can have only one, let's make all fouls by K tack-ons

[Logical]

allow K to advance kicks on legal possession

I've never seen this proposed before, but extended action after a kick ...running kicks outa' end zone...has never gone far.

FREE KICKS:
- Touchback when crosses goal line remains.
- K may advance legally recovered onside kick.
SCRIMMAGE KICKS:
- Touchback when crosses goal line IF UNTOUCHED BY R.
- K may advance legally recovered muffed kick (including endzone recovery for TD).

The biggest issue here is the muffed punt that goes into endzone then recovered by K. Error by R cannot be taken advantage of by K. It's a major R mistake with no consequence. We've not only all seen it, but we've also all seen it with unskilled BJ's who go up with the TD signal (hopefully another crew member corrects). As a BJ myself, this situation has separated me from other BJ's who do not handle correctly. Nevertheless, I'd sacrifice the kudos for more equitable result for K.

I do not know how this would be worded, but it should be addressed (IMO).

[scrounge]

FREE KICKS:
- Touchback when crosses goal line remains.
- K may advance legally recovered onside kick.
SCRIMMAGE KICKS:
- Touchback when crosses goal line IF UNTOUCHED BY R.
- K may advance legally recovered muffed kick (including endzone recovery for TD).

The biggest issue here is the muffed punt that goes into endzone then recovered by K. Error by R cannot be taken advantage of by K. It's a major R mistake with no consequence. We've not only all seen it, but we've also all seen it with unskilled BJ's who go up with the TD signal (hopefully another crew member corrects). As a BJ myself, this situation has separated me from other BJ's who do not handle correctly. Nevertheless, I'd sacrifice the kudos for more equitable result for K.

I do not know how this would be worded, but it should be addressed (IMO).

I wouldn't support this myself. It'll introduce complexity unnecessarily for very little benefit.

I would like to fouls by K on free kicks to be 'tack ons' rather than having a re-kick option. Keep it moving and avoid more kicks if not necessary.

[Ralph Damren]

I wouldn't support this myself. It'll introduce complexity unnecessarily for very little benefit.

I would like to fouls by K on free kicks to be 'tack ons' rather than having a re-kick option. Keep it moving and avoid more kicks if not necessary.

I agree with Scrounge on this. The issue of a muffed kick going into the end zone has been discussed several times with very little support. To allow only a muffed kick to remain alive in the end zone would require a string of exceptions loaded with "ifs, howevers, but onlys, and the like". It is both simpler and safer to kill the kick that crosses the goal line. I also fully agree with adopting the "tack-on" rule for both free and scrimmage kicks for fouls by K.

In responding to a coach : "Coach, by RULE..."

[Logical]

... To allow only a muffed kick to remain alive in the end zone would require a string of exceptions

Isolating to only a punt recovered in EZ would require many exceptions, agreed, but that's not what I'm suggesting; I only noted that as the most egregious example.
I don't know; just odd to me that NFHS prohibits K from advancing legally recovered kick.
I'm suggesting K can advance any ball LEGALLY RECOVERED (both scrimmage and free).
FREE KICKS:
- Touchback when crosses goal line remains.
- K may advance legally recovered onside kick.
SCRIMMAGE KICKS:
- Touchback when crosses goal line IF UNTOUCHED BY R.
- K may advance legally recovered muffed kick (including endzone recovery for TD).
Except for touchback provision, mirror NCAA wording.

[HLinNC]

I don't know; just odd to me that NFHS prohibits K from advancing legally recovered kick.

Do the other two major rule codes?

[Johnponz]

As far as I know K cannot advance a Kick in any code (for sure Fed. and NCAA)

Why not make it like NCAA, (to paraphrase) It is a TB if ball touches ground in EZ with the ball not touched by B.

[Jackhammer]

Live ball fouls that are treated as dead ball fouls, such as sideline interference, are so handled as they didn't have any effect on the actual play. I can't see any changes to this.

Ralph,
Thanks I understand this philosophy.  However, I suggest this as a safety issue...to officials.

The largest problem my crew has experienced with sidelines is on a big or sudden change play when an overzealous non-player steps out and an ensuing serious collision occurs.

The penalty in this case really doesn't sufficiently reinforce the ongoing POE of safety on the sidelines.  Pull a few big plays back and I would submit coaches will better self enforce the sideline

[Bwest]

As far as I know K cannot advance a Kick in any code (for sure Fed. and NCAA)

Why not make it like NCAA, (to paraphrase) It is a TB if ball touches ground in EZ with the ball not touched by B.

K cannot advance a kick in the NFL either.

[Ralph Damren]

For my two (three with inflation) cents worth....
  Any change that would add more action to kick plays (K advancing /kicks live in EZ/ etc) would be strongly discouraged.
  Any change to sideline interference that would change the tradition of not penalizing the action if the foul had no baring on the play itself, would also be fighting an uphill battle. A few years ago a proposal to treat USC fouls during the play to be treated live ball fouls ( A ,heading for paydirt, starts to "moonwalk" at B's 5 = TD erased, A's ball @ 20) was strongly defeated. Sometimes adding more teeth to a rule, that isn't always called, acts as a determent and results in it being called even less.

[VALJ]

K can not advance a recovered kick under any code - NFHS, NCAA or NFL.  While I'm not one of those who think NFHS code should mirror the others, I don't know that I'd support allowing K to advance a recovered kick, either. K is already benefiting by getting possession when they legally recover a kick.

[scrounge]

For my two (three with inflation) cents worth....
  Any change that would add more action to kick plays (K advancing /kicks live in EZ/ etc) would be strongly discouraged.
  Any change to sideline interference that would change the tradition of not penalizing the action if the foul had no baring on the play itself, would also be fighting an uphill battle. A few years ago a proposal to treat USC fouls during the play to be treated live ball fouls ( A ,heading for paydirt, starts to "moonwalk" at B's 5 = TD erased, A's ball @ 20) was strongly defeated. Sometimes adding more teeth to a rule, that isn't always called, acts as a determent and results in it being called even less.

Agree on the sideline int/UNS thing....very little upside but lots of headaches. A sideline INT on a TD is now an annoyance but accomplishes the objective. Call back a TD and you're on the front page of Deadspin as 'that guy'.

I just think the 15 yd IP is too heavy a penalty for inadvertent, touched for a second and reentered kind of actions (and let's be honest - VERY few of us are calling that dirty end of the stick). I'd propose structuring it like the illegal sub/illegal participation tiers. 5 yds for inadvertent stepping out of bounds, 15 yds for purposefully doing so with intent to deceive. The gunner who steps on foot barely gets a mild penalty, the one that runs 10 yds while out of bounds gets the more severe one.

Totally agree on the free kick...in fact, I'd consider adding the NCAA-like rule of allowing fair catches on one immediate bounce, maybe even KCI too. It actually simplifies enforcement - that high bounding kick then wouldn't require the BJ or whoever's on the K line to know if it was immediately grounded or kicked off the tee. If it goes up right at the kick - either directly or off an immediate bounce, who cares - then R is protected. May make onsides safer.

[Ralph Damren]

The IP rule can be an overkill when a receiver's big toe touches the sideline, but the complexity of adding different levels of IP might not be worth the effort. The NCAA version reached the floor a few years ago and garnered very little support. The major perceived drawback was the challenge to a 4 or 5 man crew; compared to a 7 man crew In NCAA/NFL games.

Prior to NFHS adding PSK enforcement, there was always a very high % of committee members that had seen/worked/heard about a play(s) in their states that reflected the need to change. When discussing the sideline touch = IP rule, a VERY few could ever recall of it occurring. I've been on the field since 1969 and have seen it twice. Is something that may occur every 20 years or so in your game worth the complexity needed to make it "fairer"? Most would say no.

For those who favor K being able to advance a kick...In NFHS, B couldn't advance a backward pass or fumble until 1950 (NCAA changed many years after)...so, there's still hope .

[Logical]

With embarrassment, I completely withdraw the advance muff punt suggestion.
Sadly, I honestly thought muffed punts could be advanced in both NCAA and NFL; if no advance permited there then shouldn't be in HS; apologies for my ignorance.

[Jackhammer]

Ralph et al, thanks for the perspective.

interested in a PAT 5-man mechanics change that would move U under goalpost and leave wings to cover pylon.  Thought being coverage of pylon on a broken/fake PAT.

[Osric Pureheart]

The IP rule can be an overkill when a receiver's big toe touches the sideline, but the complexity of adding different levels of IP might not be worth the effort. The NCAA version reached the floor a few years ago and garnered very little support. The major perceived drawback was the challenge to a 4 or 5 man crew; compared to a 7 man crew In NCAA/NFL games.

If it ever comes up again, you might let them know that Europe calls NCAA rules with mostly crews of 4 and 5; and I've seen a lot of rookies have a lot of problems with a lot of rules, but the receiver who steps on the sideline (for whatever reason) and then does something interesting has not yet been one of them.

[wvoref]

The IP rule can be an overkill when a receiver's big toe touches the sideline, but the complexity of adding different levels of IP might not be worth the effort. The NCAA version reached the floor a few years ago and garnered very little support. The major perceived drawback was the challenge to a 4 or 5 man crew; compared to a 7 man crew In NCAA/NFL games.

What I would like to see happen with this rule is to eliminate the penalty for inadvertently touching the sideline completely and only making it a foul if he is the first to touch a forward pass.  Retain the IP foul if the player goes OOB intentionally.  Agree its not something you see often.  Had it once in 34 years.  Receiver stepped on endline on a 2 point conversion.  Will confess I planned on "not having seen it" when QB began running around end to try to scramble for the conversion.  Unfortunately at last second he pulled up and threw to receiver who had stepped on endline and then I "remembered" seeing him step on endline.  Of course as Back Judge I was the only one in stadium who knew the flag was about two seconds late in being thrown.  As far as 5 man crew versus 7 man crew not sure how much difference that makes.  Either you see him step on sideline or you don't, then you keep track as to whether he is first to touch pass.

[Ralph Damren]

Ralph et al, thanks for the perspective.

interested in a PAT 5-man mechanics change that would move U under goalpost and leave wings to cover pylon.  Thought being coverage of pylon on a broken/fake PAT.

A high % of roughing the snapper fouls occur on PAT kicks. A very high % of those fouls are  by the umpire  . Roughing the snapper is a preventative safety foul. While some states do this, I can't see it going national.

[Rulesman]

Ralph et al, thanks for the perspective.

interested in a PAT 5-man mechanics change that would move U under goalpost and leave wings to cover pylon.  Thought being coverage of pylon on a broken/fake PAT.

I agree with Ralph. The U can prevent a lot, but not by being on a post. If the R sets up wide enough to the open side he can cover the pylon on a broken play to that side. It's really not that difficult.

[ncwingman]

Ralph et al, thanks for the perspective.

interested in a PAT 5-man mechanics change that would move U under goalpost and leave wings to cover pylon.  Thought being coverage of pylon on a broken/fake PAT.

I'd just insist that your line judge can run a 30 yard dash... with a 90 degree turn... sideways... in two seconds flat.

[Jackhammer]

A high % of roughing the snapper fouls occur on PAT kicks. A very high % of those fouls are  by the umpire  . Roughing the snapper is a preventative safety foul. While some states do this, I can't see it going national.

Again,thanks.  I personally agree with this.  This has been a debatEd topic in our area this season.  The national perspective is very helpful.

[Jackhammer]

Wondering how the "experiment" went on Oregon and Hawaii with blocks on blindside/defenseless and whether there might be more direction on how these techniques might have to be controlled by rule...and whether that will enter the discussion?

[Patrick E.]

Mechanically, I'd like to see the NFHS adopt the NCAA protocol of allowing the defense time to change personnel if the offense changes personnel.  This mechanic doesn't allow A/K to "game" the 25 second clock.

A slight editorial revision for 2-6-2(b) - change "b.  Between the 9-Yard Mark Conference" to "b.  Between the Hash Marks Conference".  Hash marks are already defined in 1-2-3(e).

[Sumstine]

Wondering how the "experiment" went on Oregon and Hawaii with blocks on blindside/defenseless and whether there might be more direction on how these techniques might have to be controlled by rule...and whether that will enter the discussion?

In Hawaii it went great. Noticeable change in how blocking is initiated in the open field and how receivers are contacted when defenseless. 2015 video training series is at www.RefereeClinic.com/videos

[AlUpstateNY]

What I would like to see happen with this rule is to eliminate the penalty for inadvertently touching the sideline completely and only making it a foul if he is the first to touch a forward pass.  Retain the IP foul if the player goes OOB intentionally. 

Forgive my cynicism, but have you considered the can of worms that would be created arguing about what was actually intentional versus what was inadvertent, and what crystal ball you were using to tell the difference.  The rule makers have avoided that entire issue by leaving the difference as "forced out" or "on your own", for which you are responsible whether you meant it, or not.