Recent Posts

21

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by ElvisLives on May 10, 2024, 02:38:18 PM »

I don’t think we will see the NCAA first down and out of bounds rules come to UIL as long as we are still running 12 minute quarters. And there’s no reason to have a two minute timeout if there’s no timing rules that change at that point.

Well, there is one rule change in the last 2-minutes - 3-4-3-b, starting the clock on the snap (at the offended team's option) for a foul by the team ahead in score during the last 2 minutes of a half. Agree, not worth having a timeout for that 'reminder,' alone. We got along just fine without the 2-minute T/O until now. No doubt in my mind this was driven by TV. They love the NFL two-minute warning, and they wanted it for NCAA.

22

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by Legacy Zebra on May 10, 2024, 02:05:09 PM »

I don’t think we will see the NCAA first down and out of bounds rules come to UIL as long as we are still running 12 minute quarters. And there’s no reason to have a two minute timeout if there’s no timing rules that change at that point.

23

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by Zebra Watcher on May 10, 2024, 01:18:12 PM »

Like ElvisLives said, I would have thought they would have accepted the 2 Minute Warning and then could sync up timing rules with 10 sec run-off. I think it would be good to follow NCAA first timing rules to keep the game moving.  Maybe next time around. The uniform police...they don't care enough about it, we don't enforce it. Moving on into the season.

24

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by ElvisLives on May 10, 2024, 12:19:25 PM »

I disagree. The new rule says it’s not a foul if *prior to the contact* the ball is muffed or it’s obviously a fake. If the contact occurs first, it’s still a foul.

I'm with ya. I overlooked the, "...prior to the defensive contact...," language.
As you state, even a muff of a direct snap to the holder will take about a second, from the start of the snap movement to the ball falling from the holder's hands. So, yeah, kinda moot.
The only scenario that I can see that might fit this language is the ball slipping from the snapper's hands as he is snapping it, and falling loose on the ground. Technically, that is not a 'muff,' but simply a ball that is loose from a backward pass. For these intents and purposes, though, I would think it would fall under the same category as a muff. It will most likely fall under the category of, "...obvious there will be no place kick attempt...," in very short order, anyway.

So as not to influence anybody incorrectly, I will strike the language in my previous post.

Thanks.

25

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by dammitbobby on May 10, 2024, 09:15:55 AM »

Legacy, you are certainly not wrong about the timing of blocks related to a muff, etc. But, this rule 'tweak' is intended to absolve an upright Team B player who ignores the principal rule, charges ahead and makes immediate contact with a Team A player within one second, but then the holder muffs the snap, or they snap it directly to the potential kicker who then runs or passes the ball, etc. So, we'll have to 'process' the action, and see if Team A's action is a 'normal' kick, then toss a flag for such a foul, or, perhaps, recognize the muff or fake, and realize 'no foul' because of this rule tweak.

I can think a little more clearly now than i could yesterday.

If this is a safety foul, why would/should B be absolved of the foul - the contact is still the same with a lineman in a comparatively vulnerable position, and even with a muff, he doesn't know that the kick will not occur.  It seems like the same as the wedge rule, which I also don't understand, from a safety perspective (the kick going OOB negates any wedge foul, even after contact).

I think what Elvis describes is what they intended the rule to be, (regardless of my ignorance or confusion), but Legacy is right in that the wording of the exception says otherwise.  Just my opinion.

26

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by Legacy Zebra on May 10, 2024, 09:02:31 AM »

I disagree. The new rule says it’s not a foul if *prior to the contact* the ball is muffed or it’s obviously a fake. If the contact occurs first, it’s still a foul.

27

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by ElvisLives on May 10, 2024, 08:50:24 AM »

The red part is just a rewrite. They moved the “not a foul” portion up to the first sentence. So instead of describing a foul and then saying “it’s not a foul if the player…”, they just added the player description to the definition of the foul.

Then below that they added the section about not being a foul if the snap is muffed or it’s a fake.

Of course that’s kind of pointless in my opinion. The rule only applies within 1 second of the snap. To have  a snap, muff by the holder, defensive player see it and then make contact all within 1 second that would be almost impossible. Most high school holders barely get the ball down to the tee within 1 second on a good kick.

****struck by author**** See next post by this author.

28

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by ElvisLives on May 09, 2024, 07:52:17 PM »

I am a somewhat surprised they rejected the “2 Minute Time Out.” So, y’all also working NCAA will have to deal with that.

No change to uniform-equipment rule, despite rumors to the opposite. Status quo. They don’t care, we don’t care.

I’m disappointed they’ll allow TV cameras to come on the field. I despise those clowns, getting in our way. But, it will only affect a relatively small number of games across the state.

We don’t get involved with tablets, other than to report them if they use them on the sideline, and the entire planet can see them doing it.

Easy enough.

29

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by Legacy Zebra on May 09, 2024, 05:30:37 PM »

The red part is just a rewrite. They moved the “not a foul” portion up to the first sentence. So instead of describing a foul and then saying “it’s not a foul if the player…”, they just added the player description to the definition of the foul.

Then below that they added the section about not being a foul if the snap is muffed or it’s a fake.

Of course that’s kind of pointless in my opinion. The rule only applies within 1 second of the snap. To have  a snap, muff by the holder, defensive player see it and then make contact all within 1 second that would be almost impossible. Most high school holders barely get the ball down to the tee within 1 second on a good kick.

30

Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

« Last post by dammitbobby on May 09, 2024, 04:17:32 PM »

old rule:
If Team A is in a formation to attempt a place kick (field goal or try) it is illegal for a defensive player to immediately run forward at or just after the snap and initiate contact (indicated by forward movement of the defensive player) with an offensive player within 1 second after the snap.  It is not a foul if the defensive player is in a three or four point stance, and is aligned in a stationary position within one yard of his line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped.  Incidental or slight contact should be ignored.

new rule:
If Team A is in a formation to attempt a place kick (field goal or try), it is illegal for a defensive player who is not in a three or four point stance and aligned in a stationary position within one yard of his line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped, to run forward after the snap and initiate contact (indicated by forward movement of the defensive player) with an offensive player.   Incidental or slight contact should be ignored.   Exception:  There is no foul if, prior to the defensive contact, the snap is muffed or fumbled, or it is obvious there will be no place kick attempt.  (Note: This rule is not intended to prevent a defensive player from pursuing a runner or loose ball during a fake or broken play) 

Is this just rephrasing last year's rule? It hurts my brain tying to figure out if anything in the new rule is substantively different.