"Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules

[NVFOA_Ump]

Coaches' Certification
The head coach or his designated representative shall certify IN WRITING to the umpire before the game that all players:....

Probably a small one in what seems to be a growing "grand scheme" of hidden changes, but how exactly will this legal transaction take place?  Will we need to provide a "receipt"?  How about being notarized?   Kidding aside, while I understand the goal here, I wonder if they have any guidance on this.  Do we provide something for them to sign during our pregame meeting, do they give us a signed document...    

We already use a pre-printed game card that has space on the back for the Coaches' Certification which is already done with the R & the U together during the pregame discussion with the HC.  I'm thinking we'll just have the HC sign it instead of the U initialing it?




[attachment deleted by admin]

[El Macman]

We already use a pre-printed game card that has space on the back for the Coaches' Certification which is already done with the R & the U together during the pregame discussion with the HC.  I'm thinking we'll just have the HC sign it instead of the U initialing it?

That would work.

But, if they really want the HC to provide written certification, the NCAA should develop a common form that they provide the coaches, which they can sign and hand to the U during the pre-game meeting, or at least provide the forms to officials so they can have the coaches sign the forms during the pre-game meetings. I'm just thinking of the additional time and annoyance to the coaches of having to sign something each week. Especially if what they see looks dramatically different each week. They danged sure will not be happy about having to read something different each week. So, if they have a form they've been able to look at before the season, and they know what it says, then at least they won't have any reason to be suspicious about what they are signing. It just strikes me as being so much less of an issue if, when the R & U first see the HC, the coach just hands them his signed form and they move right along. Or, at worst, the U hands the coach the same form he (the coach) has seen every week, he signs quickly, and they move right along.  Kinda like the 1099s we get from some schools. I know what it is - I don't need to read it. Just sign the damned thing and move along.

This may seem like an annoyance to us, but, some day, some place, somebody is going to get injured, and they will try to hang it on the game officials (in court). This will be necessary to help exonerate officials, or, at least mitigate their liability.

[cincybearcat]

Take a look at the new organization of 7-1-3.  To me, the new aspect is that Team A players not conforming to the 9-yard requirements is a dead-ball foul - blow and throw at the snap.  Just like the former illegal participation.

My hunch is this is in there so we could now enforce the 10 second runoff for this penalty if it happened in the last minute...ie A runs a play, clock is running, WR that ran an out route gets back to his position on LOS before snap...but doesn't get in the 9 yards before A runs a "kill the clock" play.  btw, I am not recomending throwing a flat in that situation!

[NVFOA_Ump]

My hunch is this is in there so we could now enforce the 10 second runoff for this penalty if it happened in the last minute...ie A runs a play, clock is running, WR that ran an out route gets back to his position on LOS before snap...but doesn't get in the 9 yards before A runs a "kill the clock" play.  btw, I am not recomending throwing a flat in that situation!

Also in 7.1.3:  "c. Encroachment. Once the snapper is established no other Team A player may be in or beyond the neutral zone.... ".  If snapper assumes his position over the ball to "get ready" for the kill-the-clock play, and the WR who is rushing back from deep downfield crosses the NZ back to his side of the ball just after the snapper touches the ball we've got a B&T DB foul?

[TXMike]

You would not flag in that situation would you?   I doubt that is the intent of the rule.

[NVFOA_Ump]

You would not flag in that situation would you?   I doubt that is the intent of the rule.

Well what is the intent of the wording " ..... no other Team A player may be in or beyond the neutral zone".  There's 2 exceptions specifically listed and the downfield WR returning isn't included.  I read it as saying that the snapper has to wait until all 10 of his "player" teammates are on his side of the ball before he gets ready to snap (touches the ball).  Wide receivers returning from downfield are pretty common in a hurry-up and they are conspicuously absent in the exception list.  How would you read the intent here?

[TXMike]

This part of the rule is not a change.  It was this way before but I don't know many guys who would have flagged and shut it down before this year so I don't see the need to do so this year. 

If there are exceptions for subs and departing players, it seems fair to permit the same leeway for a player returning to his side of the line of scrimmage. 

I suspect the intent is to prevent Team A from being beyond the NZ at the snap so it is handled as a dead ball foul.  If A were to snap while the player is still returning, clearly there should be an immediate shutdown and flag, just like we are now to do with the "illegal shift false start".

[stevestod]

You must be misunderstanding the 2011 rule. B players in the blocking zone (extended to the sideline) at the snap are permitted to BBW in the blocking zone (except against a player in position to receive a backward pass). Picture this: CB B22 is in a 'press' position on split end A88 at the snap. A88 attempts to escape around B22 to run downfield, but B22 blocks him at the shins while both are still in the blocking zone (extended to the sideline), causing A88 to fall to the ground. QB A11 took the hand-to-hand snap, raised up looking for A88, but is unable to attempt a pass to A88, because A88 has been blocked to the ground.

Illegal in 2010, for certain. By current 2011 language, not prohibited (perhaps by inadvertent omission, but that's how it reads today).

 I’m the deep official.   As the deep guy my key is the widest receiver.  How am I to know from 20 yards downfield whether he’s crossed the LOS or not.  Hmmm…very interesting.

[justaLJ]

For those who may have started on the CFO test -- take a look at #28.  There's a "hidden" editorial change to the 7-3-2 Exception for ING that's worth noting in order to answer the question correctly.

BTW, I like how the changes are highlighted in the PDF version, but this change was not highlighted.  They're keeping us on our toes!   

[TXMike]

That is why I started this thread..to start listing what we find that was not listed as a rule change or editorial change.  I finished going through the book (excluding Rule 12) and think I have the complete list now of hidden changes.  Just need to type it up and post.  I think your compadre Hursk, first found the one you mentioned.  That one may not be a big deal in the grand scheme of "regular" football, but as was pointd out to me, it could be huge here in Texas in the 6-Man game where there is almost always a movement of the ball from the original snap receiver to another player early in the play.

[ETXZebra]

I have never worked a 6 man game, but you're right Mike. In most games they have an upback who pitches back to the QB. This will be huge.

[TXMike]

I am attaching a list of the "Hidden Changes". If anyone sees anything not on the list, please advise so I can update the list.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[El Macman]

I have never worked a 6 man game, but you're right Mike. In most games they have an upback who pitches back to the QB. This will be huge.

You live in Texas and you've never worked a six-man game? That's messed up. I thought everybody worked six man in their virgin years.    Hell, some long-time vets are still workin' 'em (and loving it!).

[ETXZebra]

Not many 6 man schools in deep east Texas. We've just gotten a few in the past 6-7 years.

[ABoselli]

Regarding the RTK foul, In the new book, I read -

5. When a defensive player’s contact against the kicker or holder is caused
by an opponent’s block (legal or illegal), there is no foul for running into
or roughing.

You had written -

Now it does not matter if a defender was legally OR
illegally blocked, if he runs into or roughs a kicker, he has
fouled.

I think you have to add the word 'not'.

[TXMike]

Arrrggghhhh...I keep screwing the pooch on that.  Corrected and updated version attached

[attachment deleted by admin]

[justaLJ]

Found another goodie in  Rule 2 (my favorite!) -- it's mentioned in the editorial changes, and highlighted in the PDF version, but if you blink it can be easily missed:

2-27-5: "Passer is a player that throws a forward pass."  Used to be "legal forward pass."  

Now RPS can be called on a legal or illegal pass, so we could have and RPS and ING on the same play and offset it.

[Fatman325]

On question 28 I still have no foul as there is no mention of the guard/passer being under duress or trying to conserve yardage. I think I see where they are going but it appears that there is more information needed.

[El Macman]

TxMike,

Yes, signal 7 does appear to have been removed from some penalty statements, but not all. Incredibly, the places you think he would have dropped it would be 7-1-2 & 3 - Flase Starts, etc. But, he took it out of 7-1-5 - defensive offside, etc.
Go figure.

I have been told that S7 will be dropped from usage in 2012, anyway, but who the hell knows for sure. My head is spinning. 38 years of rule study has just been tossed into a big barrel, and around and around I'm going...

[El Macman]

And, of course, the former AR 8-7-2-III is lost and gone. This was one of the very most important ARs in the book. It was the one that prevented the attacking team from getting a cheap safety because the defending team, after cartching or recovering a ball put into the defending team's end zone from the field of play by the attacking team, then fumbled the ball and the ball goes OB across the EZ sideline or end line. Even more importantly, it was the rock in the wall that keeps RR from making it a safety if B's fumble, in such a case, just happened to travel across the goal line and back into the end zone (no new impetus), where B recovers and is downed or the ball goes OB.

The former AR was in every rule book I ever had (38), and who knows how long it had been in place before that? Dave Nelson will be turning in his grave, and John Adams will be getting a nauseating feeling.

It will be wrong for the game to make these a safety.

[Grant - AR]

And, of course, the former AR 8-7-2-III is lost and gone. This was one of the very most important ARs in the book. It was the one that prevented the attacking team from getting a cheap safety because the defending team, after cartching or recovering a ball put into the defending team's end zone from the field of play by the attacking team, then fumbled the ball and the ball goes OB across the EZ sideline or end line. Even more importantly, it was the rock in the wall that keeps RR from making it a safety if B's fumble, in such a case, just happened to travel across the goal line and back into the end zone (no new impetus), where B recovers and is downed or the ball goes OB.

The former AR was in every rule book I ever had (38), and who knows how long it had been in place before that? Dave Nelson will be turning in his grave, and John Adams will be getting a nauseating feeling.

It will be wrong for the game to make these a safety.

Why would removing an approved ruling from the book change the rule (the rule wasn't actually changed, right)?  Just because the AR is no longer there doesn't mean the rule has changed does it?

[El Macman]

Why would removing an approved ruling from the book change the rule (the rule wasn't actually changed, right)?  Just because the AR is no longer there doesn't mean the rule has changed does it?

Not for me, it hasn't yet. But, the rule, as has been known and supported by former AR 8-7-2-III, was that (effectively) impetus could not be changed in an end zone. Here is the classic play:

B33 catches/intercepts/recovers A's pass, kick or fumble in B's end zone. B33 then fumbles in the end zone. The ball bounds to the B-1, where it either rebounds or is muffed back into B's end zone where B33 recovers it while grounded, or the ball travels out the side or back of the end zone.

John Adams affirmitively ruled this to be nothing more than a touchback. The fact that the fumbled ball just happened to travel into the field of play before it eventually returned to the end zone where it was declared dead behind the goal line in B's possession is of no consequence. The ball was put into the end zone from the field of play by Team A. B33's fumble did not put the ball into the end zone from the field of play, so the fumble did not change impetus.
John Adams, a bit of a strict interpretationist, stated that former AR 8-7-2-III did not say that the ball stayed in the end zone - it simply said that the ball went OB (i.e., became dead behind the goal line). Where it went between the time it was fumbled and became dead was of no consequence, as long as no new impetus was imparted to it while it was in the field of play.

Unfortunately, the language of 8-7-1 & 2 doesn't specifically say that impetus is what causes a ball to travel from the field of play into an end zone. Based on that, there are those (and I believe RR is one) that would have this be a safety, arguing that B33's fumble imparted new impetus. But, that 'interpretation' was previously hard to reconcile with former AR 8-7-2-III, as well as 8-7-2-b-1 Exception (which remains intact, BTW). Regarding 8-7-2-b-1-Exception: What is so special about a bat or a kick that would have them NOT change impetus, but a fumble would?  

Without former 8-7-2-III, it will be easier to issue a bulletin play that makes this a safety.

And that will just be wrong.

Maybe I'm just paranoid. Maybe RR is not in the 'safety' camp. I would have no problem eating that crow, if need be. But I've heard from some very reliable sources that RR would have this be a safety. I hope I'm wrong and I have to eat some crow stew.

[Andrew McCarthy]

I'm not in the John Adams camp on this one.  If Team B doesn't fumble a ball that subsequently exits the end zone and enters the field of play then they undoubtedly deserve a touchback.  If they do, I'm not so sure.  The ball exits the end zone- how does it get BACK in?  Certainly not via Team A's pass.

Then again, I also don't think it's right if they fumble it from the EZ and it goes forward out of bounds in the field of play that they get a touchback.  Should be B's ball at the OOB spot, I say. 

[Diablo]

[quote author=Andrew McCarthy link=topic=8021.msg76853#msg76853 date=1307132468

Then again, I also don't think it's right if they fumble it from the EZ and it goes forward out of bounds in the field of play that they get a touchback.  Should be B's ball at the OOB spot, I say. 
 
[/quote]

Are you discounting 2011 7-2-4-b-1?

What if Team A carried the ball into their own EZ, then fumbled and the loose ball rolled into the field of play and OB at the A-2?  Would give the ball to Team A at the A-2?

[zebra99]

Not for me, it hasn't yet. But, the rule, as has been known and supported by former AR 8-7-2-III, was that (effectively) impetus could not be changed in an end zone. Here is the classic play:

B33 catches/intercepts/recovers A's pass, kick or fumble in B's end zone. B33 then fumbles in the end zone. The ball bounds to the B-1, where it either rebounds or is muffed back into B's end zone where B33 recovers it while grounded, or the ball travels out the side or back of the end zone.

John Adams affirmitively ruled this to be nothing more than a touchback. The fact that the fumbled ball just happened to travel into the field of play before it eventually returned to the end zone where it was declared dead behind the goal line in B's possession is of no consequence. The ball was put into the end zone from the field of play by Team A. B33's fumble did not put the ball into the end zone from the field of play, so the fumble did not change impetus.
John Adams, a bit of a strict interpretationist, stated that former AR 8-7-2-III did not say that the ball stayed in the end zone - it simply said that the ball went OB (i.e., became dead behind the goal line). Where it went between the time it was fumbled and became dead was of no consequence, as long as no new impetus was imparted to it while it was in the field of play.

Unfortunately, the language of 8-7-1 & 2 doesn't specifically say that impetus is what causes a ball to travel from the field of play into an end zone. Based on that, there are those (and I believe RR is one) that would have this be a safety, arguing that B33's fumble imparted new impetus. But, that 'interpretation' was previously hard to reconcile with former AR 8-7-2-III, as well as 8-7-2-b-1 Exception (which remains intact, BTW). Regarding 8-7-2-b-1-Exception: What is so special about a bat or a kick that would have them NOT change impetus, but a fumble would?  

Without former 8-7-2-III, it will be easier to issue a bulletin play that makes this a safety.

And that will just be wrong.

Maybe I'm just paranoid. Maybe RR is not in the 'safety' camp. I would have no problem eating that crow, if need be. But I've heard from some very reliable sources that RR would have this be a safety. I hope I'm wrong and I have to eat some crow stew.

don't worry - it will never happen