Author Topic: Rule 10-2-5 (Read 19063 times)

Rulesman · « **on:** May 08, 2014, 07:59:32 PM »

This poll will be open for 30 days. You may only vote once.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #1 on:** May 09, 2014, 08:17:27 AM »

From my soapbox......the problem with the current rule : (1) when several dead ball fouls occur - as discussed on recent topic - the options become very complicated, which increases chance of error by captain, coach and z^zebra ; (2) "in order of their occurrence" can cause unearned results....(a) play ends 3 & 7 @ 50, (b) B1 comes in with late hit, (c) A1 responds by drilling B1 with football; (d) ball ends up @ 50 but new series is created for A; (3) half the distance penalties may not make sense...consider play ends @ A's 10 and..(a) B1 throws first stone & A1 responds = ball moved to B's 20...OR...(b) A1 throws first stone & B1 responds = ball moved to B's 12 1/2.

A comes out better if he starts the problem

. I'm sure many of you can think of other pros or cons to my proposed change, if so , please advise so I can add more ammo or tweak the proposal to remove the cons.

Kalle · « **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2014, 08:52:46 AM »

Why not just adopt the NCAA rule where all dead ball 15 yarders cancel, if there are at least one by both teams?

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #3 on:** May 09, 2014, 09:14:02 AM »

Quote from: Kalle on May 09, 2014, 08:52:46 AM

Why not just adopt the NCAA rule where all dead ball 15 yarders cancel, if there are at least one by both teams?

It has been proposed twice before but failed on floor votes as cancelling all dead ball fouls could leave some guilty players "unpunished". I supported the NCAA rule twice but was in the minority. By enforcing the excess dead ball foul(s) by one team that concern would be covered.

Atlanta Blue · « **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2014, 10:15:23 AM »

The other problem we have now is the interpretation of "order of occurrence". Some officials, seeing the inequity that would happen on a half the distance call, or one giving a team a new series, simply say, "Coach, we aren't sure which one happened first, we're offsetting them", when it was clear one foul instigated the other. Well, I understand their reason for doing so, but that's not the rule, and you're making up facts (i.e., lying) in order to get the outcome you THINK is more equitable.

I agree it might be more equitable, but the official doesn't get to make that decision. I think the HS balk rule is inequitable, but I don't get to change it. By changing the rule to the more equitable one, we can allow officials to make the call properly.

wvoref · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2014, 09:36:26 AM »

While not a huge sample size yet, I find it interesting that the actual on field officials favor this change 3 to 1 but when the state reps get together they vote it down. Is this just resistance to change I agree that not all DB fouls should offset but if the number and enforcement match than they should offset and then penalize any "extra" fouls

Rulesman · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2014, 07:32:10 PM »

Quote from: wvoref on May 10, 2014, 09:36:26 AM

While not a huge sample size yet, I find it interesting that the actual on field officials favor this change 3 to 1 but when the state reps get together they vote it down. Is this just resistance to change

I suppose they just think they are smarter than us.

wvoref · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2014, 09:12:38 PM »

Ralph strikes me as the epitome of being an official's official on the Rules Committee but I have to wonder about some of the other members. Rule changes that could help maintain competitive fairness such as the one bring discussed in this post, changing the IP rule as being discussed in another current post, or changing the foul from not having 5 players 50 to 79 on A's line to not allowing more than 4 players in the backfield are repeatedly voted down. But it seems like each year we get new rules about uniforms. I sometimes think the committee is made up of would be fashion police. Question for Ralph. Are most of the other Rules Committee members active officials and do any others participate in discussions with the field grunts like you do?

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #8 on:** May 12, 2014, 08:14:55 AM »

Thanks, WVoref, for the kind words. The voting committee consists of : (1) a rep from the National Coaches Association; (2) a rep from NASO, (3) 49 state - includes DC - reps that are....(a) 14 former or active officials, (b) 1 coach, (c) 34 from state offices. While we officials are usually in agreement on rule changes that would make our job easier ..ie..5 backs + IF rule... we don't vote as a block. Even if we did (15 votes) we would need to secure 19 more votes from state reps & coaches to succeed with a 67% super majority to pass a rule change. With most of us having "type A" personalities, it becomes as challenging sometimes as herding cats.

wvoref · « **Reply #9 on:** May 12, 2014, 10:37:54 AM »

Are the 34 from state offices former officials or coaches or are they the dreaded administrators. I think the rules should be determined by officials and coaches but not bureaucrats. That might explain the seeming priority given to non playing issues and solutions in search of a problem window dressing rules

Rulesman · « **Reply #10 on:** May 12, 2014, 10:40:00 AM »

Quote from: wvoref on May 12, 2014, 10:37:54 AM

Are the 34 from state offices former officials or coaches or are they the dreaded administrators.

Truth be known, you probably have a mixture of all three groups.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #11 on:** May 13, 2014, 09:04:38 AM »

Most of the state office reps on the Rules Committee are former coaches, athletic directors or the like with strong sports backgrounds. They often rely on input from the active officials that are on the committee for advice as to "would it be easy to enforce and teach".

wvoref · « **Reply #12 on:** May 13, 2014, 12:41:55 PM »

Of the 14 former officials does that include MW from my home state or is he included in the state reps category. Unless a lot of the state reps were former coaches I feel the coaches are under represented, and if only 14 are former officials we are under represented also.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #13 on:** May 13, 2014, 01:15:40 PM »

Quote from: wvoref on May 13, 2014, 12:41:55 PM

Of the 14 former officials does that include MW from my home state or is he included in the state reps category. Unless a lot of the state reps were former coaches I feel the coaches are under represented, and if only 14 are former officials we are under represented also.

Webbie is a former official and I value his opinion highly -with the exception of "pin-setter britches"

. Most of the state reps have some coaching or AD experence.

wvoref · « **Reply #14 on:** May 13, 2014, 01:46:39 PM »

I knew Mike was a former official just didn't know if he was counted as a state rep or former official in your breakdown of the numbers. Again thanks and keep up the good effort for the on field officials. It's appreciated.

NorCalMike · « **Reply #15 on:** May 13, 2014, 05:15:23 PM »

California's representative is still an active official. He works with my group. Like having Ralph on this board it is great to have him at our meetings as he can explain the philosophy the Fed decision. I get the feeling he doesn't always agree with the decisions but he does a good job explaining them.

Rulesman · « **Reply #16 on:** May 14, 2014, 07:45:48 AM »

In my opinion, the rules committee consists of too many people. Like some other NFHS groups. a "Section" representative representing several states, as opposed to a voting member from every state, would pare the number down to a much more manageable, and possibly more effective, entity.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #17 on:** May 14, 2014, 08:00:20 AM »

The NFHS was formed in 1932 only for football as the collegiate and pro rules were considered to "rough and tumble" for high school kids. The rules committee was made up of a rep from each state. As the NFHS became the authority in other sports 8 regional reps were assembled for a committee. Football's Editorial Committee is comprised of 4 regional reps that represent two regions. I enjoy the state input and see no movement in any other direction. My only other sport is baseball and rule changes there are even more sparce than football.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #18 on:** May 19, 2014, 07:22:53 AM »

In chats with other committee members it has been suggested that my proposed rule change be written to address the following possible situations :

(1) DOG (snapping ball before RFP & the such) or IS (leaving field on wrong side) prior to
RFP. Should these cancel USC/DBPF by opponents.

(2) DB fouls that occur after RFP..should a false start followed by a personal foul by B
cancel or enforced in order of occurrence as current?

Any suggestions as how to incorporate these into the proposed change and the verbage?

Rulesman · « **Reply #19 on:** May 19, 2014, 07:45:09 AM »

Quote from: Ralph Damren on May 19, 2014, 07:22:53 AM

In chats with other committee members it has been suggested that my proposed rule change be written to address the following possible situations :

(1) DOG (snapping ball before RFP & the such) or IS (leaving field on wrong side) prior to
RFP. Should these cancel USC/DBPF by opponents.

(2) DB fouls that occur after RFP..should a false start followed by a personal foul by B
cancel or enforced in order of occurrence as current?

Any suggestions as how to incorporate these into the proposed change and the verbage?

(1) No
(2) Enforce in the order of occurrence. We're so concerned about "safety" yet we are willing to let a major foul (PF) be cancelled by a FST? That's crazy!

wvoref · « **Reply #20 on:** May 19, 2014, 08:24:53 AM »

If the committee wants to keep enforcing all dead ball fouls occurring before the RFP and in the order occurring could we change the rule so that a first down is only awarded if 1) after the live ball result and after enforcement of any live ball fouls the line to gain has been reached: and if 1 doesn t apply then 2) after enforcement of all dead ball fouls the line to gain has been reached. This would eliminate A getting a first down because B fouled first even though we ended back up at the dead ball spot. Then the only instance in which the order of occurrence would aid one team more than the other would be in half the distance situations. I prefer Ralph's change of offsetting them but this would at least get us part way there if there is resistance to offsetting them. Also agree that the offsetting should only apply to equal distance penalties. A false start should never negate a PF.

bossman72 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 19, 2014, 09:16:02 AM »

How about something like this:

ART 1: Dead ball fouls are enforced separately and in the order of occurrence.
(a) When there are one or more 15 yard dead ball fouls (or live ball treated as dead ball fouls) committed by each team, and before the Referee's announcement for these fouls has started, all of the 15 yard penalties cancel and none of them are enforced.
(b) 5 and 10 yard fouls are still enforced separately and in the order of occurrence and would never cancel with a 15 yard foul.

I wouldn't use the word "offset" since that could be confusing.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #22 on:** May 19, 2014, 09:44:07 AM »

Bossman72 - I like your format but I would need to include "cancel on a foul per foul basis" as the NCAA version (which cancels all fouls on both teams) has been proposed twice over the last couple of years but failed as some felt the team with more fouls was going unpunished. Thanks for the suggestions and I'm sure we'll find something that fits without becoming too complex.

AlUpstateNY · « **Reply #23 on:** May 19, 2014, 11:03:37 AM »

Other than convenience in having enfocement line up with NCAA Rules, is there any relevant advantage to changing the current NFHS enforcement from what it has been, for decades? Granted, it does require some additional consideration when "half the distance" is involved in the deliberations, but has there been ANY serious enforcement problems with the current enforcement, other than someone not bothering to understand the actual rule?

NFHS rules in a number of instances are deliberately generalized, covering broader executions, avoiding special exceptions, in a number of instances, applied at higher levels to deal with situations deemed more significant at higher levels of play. The concept of more standardized, generalized enforcements at the HS level, that can be subsequently enhanced, or specified at higher levels, where deemed necessary, seems reasonable and absent any repetitive, serious enforcement problems doesn't merit change, for what seems like change sake.

Atlanta Blue · « **Reply #24 on:** May 19, 2014, 12:24:36 PM »

Quote from: AlUpstateNY on May 19, 2014, 11:03:37 AM

Other than convenience in having enfocement line up with NCAA Rules, is there any relevant advantage to changing the current NFHS enforcement from what it has been, for decades?

Actually, we DON'T want it to line up with the NCAA rule. The NCAA rule offsets ALL dead ball personal fouls, regardless of the number per team. Ralph's suggestion does not do that but offsets them on a pro rata basis.

Is it necessary? Absolutely, as the current rule is inherently unfair. Not only in cases of half the distance coming into play (which it could on 60% of the field), but also on first downs. 3rd and 9 at the B15. A gains 7 yards, and B hits A late. A retaliates. B's foul is marked off to the B4. A's foul is marked off to the B19. It's wrong that "equal" fouls are treated unequally (4 yards vs 15). It also isn't "right" that A didn't gain a first down through their play, but are awarded one because of the order of the fouls, despite the ball being moved back behind the original LOS.

It's a rule riddled with inequities that can be fixed with a relatively simple change. And it's not an unknown concept. We offset live ball fouls, why not do the same thing for dead ball fouls?