Rule Change in SC!

[sczeebra]

We here in South Carolina have stricken out rules 10-4-5e., f., and g.. We are basically going back to how we used to rule on these type of plays. It is my understanding y'all will hear more after the interpreters meeting. As for SC. it looks like we have made a decision.

[ncwingman]

Just so I'm clear here, NFHS made a rule change and South Carolina basically said "No. We don't wanna!"?

Okay, then. That's a choice, I guess. Be interested to see how that plays out.

[NVFOA_Ump]

We here in South Carolina have stricken out rules 10-4-5e., f., and g.. We are basically going back to how we used to rule on these type of plays. It is my understanding y'all will hear more after the interpreters meeting. As for SC. it looks like we have made a decision.

Didn't think that member states NFHS agreements allow unilateral rule changes at the state level? 

[JasonTX]

For curious non NFHS officials, what rule is that?

[ncwingman]

Based on the other thread, it's the new definitions of basic spots being suceeding spot rather than end of run:

RULE 10 – SECTION 4  BASIC SPOTS

ART. 5 . . . The basic spot is the succeeding spot for:
a.  An unsportsmanlike foul.
b.  A dead-ball foul.
c.  A nonplayer foul.
d.  When the final result is a touchback.
e.  A foul by B when the run or related run ends beyond the line of scrimmage;
f.  A foul that occurs beyond the end of the run or related run following a change of possession; and
g.  A foul by A that occurs beyond the line of scrimmage during a running play as defined in 10-3-2 when:
    1.  The run or related run ends beyond the line of scrimmage; and
    2.  The foul occurs in advance of the end of the run or related run.
NOTE: The succeeding spot may, at the option of the offended team, be the subsequent kickoff as in 8-2-2, 8-2-3, 8-2-4 and 8-2-5. …
ART. 8 . . . The basic spot is the spot where the related run ends for a foul which occurs during a running play as defined in 10-3-2 unless the provisions of 10-4-2 through 10-4-7, or 10-5 apply.

[sczeebra]

I believe a change is a comin y'alls way!!!

[SCHSref]

We here in South Carolina have stricken out rules 10-4-5e., f., and g.. We are basically going back to how we used to rule on these type of plays. It is my understanding y'all will hear more after the interpreters meeting. As for SC. it looks like we have made a decision.

Would you please give an example of what rule or application is being disregarded?

[sczeebra]

Here you go. You should have received this if you are in SC..
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R5uNlc5IN91J_SDccTV9vA6JCx6mPmzy/view?usp=drivesdk

[HLinNC]

1) It would have been nice for the video creator to have a slide for the 10-4-5 page that he is stating to strike through while he was talking about it. 
2) Why is this coming from a particular district and not the SCHSL?

[refjeff]

I believe a change is a comin y'alls way!!!

What are you implying, that the NFHS will modify the rule or that the change will be completely rescinded, as in SC?

[NVFOA_Ump]

What are you implying, that the NFHS will modify the rule or that the change will be completely rescinded, as in SC?

So as has been noted in several other threads there apparently was not a lot of thought and what-ifs with the specific changes noted here.  Expectation is that the NFHS will fix the problem and as we have been very bluntly told previously individual states are not authorized to modify the rules.  That is exclusively the domain of NFHS.  I'm expecting that a fix is in the works and will be issued by NFHS.  Ralph, do you care to chime in here?

[Ralph Damren]

So as has been noted in several other threads there apparently was not a lot of thought and what-ifs with the specific changes noted here.  Expectation is that the NFHS will fix the problem and as we have been very bluntly told previously individual states are not authorized to modify the rules.  That is exclusively the domain of NFHS.  I'm expecting that a fix is in the works and will be issued by NFHS.  Ralph, do you care to chime in here?

YES, where a state can strenghen a rule (such as ejection rule-book doesn't address game(s) suspentions, but many states do); if they CHANGE a rule they will lose their voting rights and repesentation at the Rules Committee meeting. I've talked to NFHS and was advised that 10-6 (the All-But-One Principle) along with the two following pages on Penalty Enforcement have been removed. The table added is to replace that and there are case plays and will be clairfications to follow the Interp. Meeting to 'connect the dots' and illustrate that, excepting the changes on fouls occurring behind the LOS , enforcement procedures will remain the same.

I'm only yhe messanger on this. Please don't shoot me !

[bossman72]

YES, where a state can strenghen a rule (such as ejection rule-book doesn't address game(s) suspentions, but many states do); if they CHANGE a rule they will lose their voting rights and repesentation at the Rules Committee meeting. I've talked to NFHS and was advised that 10-6 (the All-But-One Principle) along with the two following pages on Penalty Enforcement have been removed. The table added is to replace that and there are case plays and will be clairfications to follow the Interp. Meeting to 'connect the dots' and illustrate that, excepting the changes on fouls occurring behind the LOS , enforcement procedures will remain the same.

I'm only yhe messanger on this. Please don't shoot me !

Please give this message from me to the editorial committee: