While we're talking about rule changes...

[VALJ]

My one "wish list" item every year that doesn't involve BBW is for  the additional of a "contact USC" for when Bubba gets a little bit frisky after the play is blown dead but the contact isn't worthy of a flagrant foul.  If we're able to treat stupid stuff like that that instigates some garbage as a USC, that gives us another tool to try and get rid of the chippy crap that happens when players get to the point that they'd rather demonstrate their testosterone than play football.

As much as I hate saying "that's how the NCAA does it", it really seems like having that tool in their pocket gets helps with player control.  "Coach, number 58 has just earned an unsportsmanlike foul for starting that mess after the play was over.  If it happens again, he'll disqualify himself from the game."

I know that we have the option to immediately DQ for something we deem flagrant, but we all know that a lot of that junk that happens doesn't rise to that level.  And when 58 on A started something with 27 on  B, and B gets crabby and wants a piece back, then we end up with more fouls...

[Ralph Damren]

I hear you, VALJ, and discussions have occurred around 2 PFs and you're gone. The concern is PF's come in many shapes and sizes and could be challenging for some officials to record. I tell our guys, when deciding between a PF and USC, to ask themselves if the contact alone would have been a foul ? If not,  it is a USC, and Bubba is on double-secret probation  . Example : 2 players bumping each other while getting up is probably just a warning and a handshake . I've asked several times, without a problem : "Both of you guys are important to your teams and I want to keep you both in the game. Please shake hands and agree to keep it clean!" IF the bumping turns into a discussion of the sexual desires of each other's mother,  USC on both ( one flag will do). They are now both on the "WATCH LIST"
 

[ilyazhito]

I can imagine how the announcement for that would sound. [mic on]  After the play was over, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, Offense, Number 58. He was giving him the business. 15 yard penalty from the succeeding spot, 3rd down. This is #58 1st unsportsmanlike conduct foul of the game. [mic off]

[Ralph Damren]

I can imagine how the announcement for that would sound. [mic on]  After the play was over, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, Offense, Number 58. He was giving him the business. 15 yard penalty from the succeeding spot, 3rd down. This is #58 1st unsportsmanlike conduct foul of the game. [mic off]

I would replace "giving him the business..." with : "Being very naughty....." . The former sounds like referring to a barroom fight in some skid-row dive. Big ole' Bubba has probably told that he was naughty many times, both at home and at school.

[VALJ]

I hear you, VALJ, and discussions have occurred around 2 PFs and you're gone. The concern is PF's come in many shapes and sizes and could be challenging for some officials to record.

That's exactly why I'd like to see having the option to call a USC instead of a PF, though.  In the first querter, Slick is a half second late into the pile and it's "continuing action" from the play -  naughty - garden variety PF.  Two plays later, Speedy is 3 or 4 seconds late into the pile and everyone else has eased up - that's VERY naughty - call a USC instead of a PF, and Speedy knows he's got to mind his manners the rest of the night or sit the rest of the night, and probably the next week, too.   

NCAA officials have that tool in their pockets.  I'd like to have it, too.

NCAA RULE 9 – CONDUCT OF PLAYERS AND OTHERS SUBJECT TO THE RULES

SECTION 2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct Fouls

ARTICLE 1. Unsportsmanlike Acts

There shall be no unsportsmanlike conduct or any act that interferes with orderly game administration on the part of players, substitutes, coaches, authorised attendants or any other persons subject to the rules, before the game, during the game or between periods. Infractions for these acts by players are administered as either live-ball or dead-ball fouls depending on when they occur. (A.R. 9-2-1:I-X)

a. Specifically prohibited acts and conduct include:

10. Dead-ball contact fouls such as pushing, shoving, striking, etc. that occur clearly after the ball is dead and that are not part of the game action. (A.R. 9-2-1:X)

That approved ruling referenced is:

After the ball carrier is tackled, A55 and B73 engage in a scuffle such that officials have to separate them and throw flags. Both A55 and B73 are charged with dead-ball personal fouls. RULING: Offsetting
dead-ball fouls. Each player is also charged with an unsportsmanlike conduct foul which counts toward the two such fouls leading to automatic disqualification. The referee announces either the first or second
unsportsmanlike conduct foul for A55 and B73. 

[AlUpstateNY]

NCAA officials have that tool in their pockets.  I'd like to have it, too.

Check your pocket, you may be confusing a difference without a distinction,(or is it a distinction without a difference).

Bad behaviors can include inappropriate contact, or not.  Like "beauty", the judgment is in the eye of the beholder.  Call it as YOU see it.

[VALJ]

Check your pocket, you may be confusing a difference without a distinction,(or is it a distinction without a difference).

Bad behaviors can include inappropriate contact, or not.  Like "beauty", the judgment is in the eye of the beholder.  Call it as YOU see it.

By definition, if a foul involves physical contact, it's not an unsportsmanlike foul.  2-16-2 states that:

f. Nonplayer or unsportsmanlike-a noncontact foul (other than unintentional contact as specified in 9-4-8) foul while the ball is dead or during the down which is not illegal participation and does not influence the play in progress.

If the contact doesn't rise to the flagrant level, which would result in an immediate DQ anyway, we really don't BY RULE have any foul except a PF, or any penalty to enforce except the yardage.  And if we DQ a player for two personal fouls, with no explicit rules support, our assigner and our state office can't support us.  And shouldn't, in the absence of rules coverage allowing it.  I'd like that explicit support.

[Magician]

By definition, if a foul involves physical contact, it's not an unsportsmanlike foul.  2-16-2 states that:

If the contact doesn't rise to the flagrant level, which would result in an immediate DQ anyway, we really don't BY RULE have any foul except a PF, or any penalty to enforce except the yardage.  And if we DQ a player for two personal fouls, with no explicit rules support, our assigner and our state office can't support us.  And shouldn't, in the absence of rules coverage allowing it.  I'd like that explicit support.

Completely agree! I really like the NCAA rule in this case. I had a HS game several years ago where a defender was getting up off the ground and he did it by putting his fist on the groin of an opponent and pushing up. He didn't punch. He didn't hurt the guy. It was just a  stupid, unsportsmanlike act. I ignored the HS rule and reported it to the R as UNS (explained exactly what happened and he was OK with it). Guess who was a perfect angel helping players up the rest of the game? It worked perfectly. A personal foul would have still had the same 15-yard penalty, but UNS was a better description of what happened and the penalty also fit better.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Any DB foul that occurs well after a play is over is effectively an act of bad sportsmanship.  How hard would it be for NFHS to craft the wording to make it an UNS foul?

[AlUpstateNY]

By definition, if a foul involves physical contact, it's not an unsportsmanlike foul.  2-16-2 states that:

If the contact doesn't rise to the flagrant level, which would result in an immediate DQ anyway, we really don't BY RULE have any foul except a PF, or any penalty to enforce except the yardage.  And if we DQ a player for two personal fouls, with no explicit rules support, our assigner and our state office can't support us.  And shouldn't, in the absence of rules coverage allowing it.  I'd like that explicit support.

Forgive me, but I believe YOU are placing unnecessary and excessive limits on YOUR judgment, and that YOU have the exclusive authority and support to judge what you are witnessing, which very often may involve a combination of an inappropriate, or illegal  contact (9-3-3) AND Non-contact Unsportsmanlike (9-5-1) behavior.  Deciding which transgression will take precedent is YOUR responsibility.

Example: A play ends with a forceful (but legal) tackle by B:
a. A takes umbrage and shoves B.  YOU will decide if the retaliation by A merits a flag (DB PF), or perhaps an admonition.
                    or
b. A takes(the same) umbrage and shoves B, but adds a verbal invective ( that may be vulgar, threatening, familial or racially insensitive). YOUR (JUDGMENT) & decision now involves BOTH the possible 9-3-3 DBPF and the 9-5-1 USC outburst. (A multiple foul option should NOT APPLY (2-16-e).

YOUR judgment & decision (on what you've observed) expands to consider BOTH the physical contact & the USC behavior, and YOU will decide whether the contact OR the UNS behavior merit consequence.   You currently have all the necessary "explicit support" to decide and render YOUR judgment of which violation takes precedent and which appropriate consequences should apply.   

[NVFOA_Ump]

YOUR judgment & decision (on what you've observed) expands to consider BOTH the physical contact & the USC behavior, and YOU will decide whether the contact OR the UNS behavior merit consequence.   You currently have all the necessary "explicit support" to decide and render YOUR judgment of which violation takes precedent and which appropriate consequences should apply.   

I've got to agree with Al here.  Simply because a late act includes some physical component does not automatically exclude it from being flagged as a USC.  If it includes any of the components of a USC such as verbal taunting, standing over the player, gesturing in some form, etc. I see no reason why we can't flag it as a USC.  I still would like to see the rules modified to clearly support a USC being called when a late, inappropriate, physical act takes place and in our judgment it crosses the USC line.  We can call a USC for spiking the ball or prancing into the EZ with a finger in the air, but we can't currently call a USC for a very late hit that is intended solely to intimidate and says mine's bigger than yours? 

Think about that, it's a pretty absurd situation in my opinion.  The threat of pending ejection for a 2nd USC is a powerful antidote for dummies.

[VALJ]

Currently Viewing: 2-16

ART. 2 . . . Types of fouls are:

f. Nonplayer or unsportsmanlike-a noncontact foul (other than unintentional contact as specified in 9-4-8) foul while the ball is dead or during the down which is not illegal participation and does not influence the play in progress.

BY DEFINITION, if there's contact involved, it's not an unsportsmanlike act.  If Bubba's putting the badmouth to an opponent, which is by defintion unsportsmanlike, I'll call that instead of the PF.  I'm asking for EXPLICIT rules coverage for this act, so that even in situation where there's no verbal component, I've got justification BY RULE to treat as an unsportsmanlike act.

I still would like to see the rules modified to clearly support a USC being called when a late, inappropriate, physical act takes place and in our judgment it crosses the USC line.

NVFOA - that's all I'm asking for.  We've all seen those inappropriate physical acts taking place that we know are committed out of poor sportsmanship.  Give me clear rules support for when there's no taunting, or verbal component, or anything like that, so we can handle it from a sportsmanship angle.

[AlUpstateNY]

We can call a USC for spiking the ball or prancing into the EZ with a finger in the air, but we can't currently call a USC for a very late hit that is intended solely to intimidate and says mine's bigger than yours?  Think about that, it's a pretty absurd situation in my opinion.  The threat of pending ejection for a 2nd USC is a powerful antidote for dummies.

Current rules provide all the authority and support YOU need to do what YOU believe is appropriate.  The Penalty Summary, for NFHS 9-4 provides the following guidance, "ARTS. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 or 8 - Disqualification also if any fouls under these articles are judged by the game official to be flagrant - (S47) .

YOU have the option, and the authority and support, to determine whether, or not, the action (ALONE) YOU are observing rises to the level of earning DISQUALIFICATION, or not.  If YOU decide "not" there's no prohibition about advising the violator that any repeated behavior will result in serious consequences.  The current rules provide YOU with a range of options, to deal with the specific situation you are observing, and the authority and support to decide which consequence is appropriate. 

The necessary authority (and flexibility) is present, all that's needed is the judgment and resolve of the calling officials to apply it, as determined by THAT SPECIFIC activity/action being observed.

[HLinNC]

Give me clear rules support for when there's no taunting, or verbal component, or anything like that, so we can handle it from a sportsmanship angle.

You already do:  9-4-Arts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 – Disqualification also if any fouls under these articles are judged by the game official to be flagrant – (S47).

And you don't have to wait to count to two.

[Magician]

If a player does a pile picker after the play is over our only option is a personal foul. If he does it again it's just another personal foul. It's not a flagrant hit so you would never consider it as an ejection, but if the first one could considered a UNS he would not likely do the second. He would also be very careful to run his mouth or do anything possibly determined to be UNS. Having non-football acts involving contact be UNS fouls is very effective. If they do stand over the player after knocking them down you could have a UNS, but that's not what we are talking about here.

[AlUpstateNY]

If a player does a pile picker after the play is over our only option is a personal foul. If he does it again it's just another personal foul. It's not a flagrant hit so you would never consider it as an ejection, but if the first one could considered a UNS he would not likely do the second. He would also be very careful to run his mouth or do anything possibly determined to be UNS. Having non-football acts involving contact be UNS fouls is very effective. If they do stand over the player after knocking them down you could have a UNS, but that's not what we are talking about here.

Why are you so intent on limiting your options and authority?   NFHS 2-16-c "FLAGRANT (Foul): a foul so severe or extreme that it places an opponent in danger of serious injury, and/or involves violations that are extremely or persistently vulgar or abusive conduct."  All those determinations are made EXCLUSIVELY by the calling game official.  There's no debate, no argument, no discussion necessary (unless YOU choose to seek assistance).  It's YOUR decision, YOUR assessment, YOUR call.

[refjeff]

I don't understand the urgency to DQ players.  If the coach is willing to keep taking 15 yard loses for UNS or PF's I am willing to oblige.

[NVFOA_Ump]

You already do:  9-4-Arts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 – Disqualification also if any fouls under these articles are judged by the game official to be flagrant – (S47).

And you don't have to wait to count to two.

I believe that you're missing the real point here.  The intent is not to eject for a single late hit but to have the clear option of calling any intentional late contact UNS which if you look at the broader definition of the word it actually is.  That establishes the threat that if you do it again you will be ejected with additional impact later.  It's been pretty obvious in my years that players with 1 UNS "suddenly" seem to play under far better control than the player who gets a DB-PF.

One would think that the NFHS, constantly stressing sportsmanship in all of their sports rules, would see the clear benefit in making such a change.

[AlUpstateNY]

Considering the "broader definition" (ambiguity) of the current NFHS language, and the inherent flexibility it provides to allow constructive, appropriate "protective officiating" advice to the younger Interscholastic level player, YOU already have ample opportunity to insure that the fouling player is well aware of the seriousness of potential consequences associated with ANY repetitive behavior, if YOU judge the current incident to fall short of that conclusion.

The gun is always loaded, it's YOUR judgment, of the specific situation YOU'VE observed, that provides YOU with the necessary authority to determine if, when and how hard to pull the trigger. 

[NVFOA_Ump]

Considering the "broader definition" (ambiguity) of the current NFHS language, and the inherent flexibility it provides to allow constructive, appropriate "protective officiating" advice to the younger Interscholastic level player, YOU already have ample opportunity to insure that the fouling player is well aware of the seriousness of potential consequences associated with ANY repetitive behavior, if YOU judge the current incident to fall short of that conclusion.

Not if our supervisor does not agree that there is explicit language in the rules allowing a late hit to be treated as a USC.  We need clear language giving us the authority to rule clearly late or way out of the play hits  (not just a little late at the point of attack) a USC.  Not intended to immediately eject a player but to put him on "probation".

[AlUpstateNY]

Not if our supervisor does not agree that there is explicit language in the rules allowing a late hit to be treated as a USC.  We need clear language giving us the authority to rule clearly late or way out of the play hits  (not just a little late at the point of attack) a USC.  Not intended to immediately eject a player but to put him on "probation".

Sounds like your issue, and that of your Supervisor, may be more about "Want" than "Needs", and a reluctance to accept Change you've both been subjected to.  NFHS rules provide you with the necessary authority to properly judge and rule on what you observe, whether, or not you accept that responsibility is up to YOU.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Sounds like your issue, and that of your Supervisor, may be more about "Want" than "Needs", and a reluctance to accept Change you've both been subjected to.  NFHS rules provide you with the necessary authority to properly judge and rule on what you observe, whether, or not you accept that responsibility is up to YOU.

So both sections in Rule 9 that describe USC fouls preface the term with "noncontact".  Can you point to me a single instance in the rule book or the case book where we are clearly authorized to call an obviously unsportsmanlike physical act that includes contact against an opponent a USC foul?

[AlUpstateNY]

There seems to be a lot more language (specifics, details, requirements, exceptions) in the NCAA Rule Book than in the NFHS rules, that tends to allow more judgment, more flexibility and more discretion by NFHS officials.  Perhaps that's because NFHS games and competition is far more localized (Sections, Communities, States, Regions) than the NCAA National perspective.

Often you won't find the rigid, specific and detailed requirements  in the NFHS Rules that exist in the NCAA or NFL versions.  Perhaps that's a reflection and response to the significant differences in maturity, physical attributes, playing level objectives and capabilities and experience differences between the participant universes at the different levels.

Because of those differences, and the overall objectives of different levels (learning and development versus performance) are uniquely different in many aspects.  Contact versus Non-contact seems a somewhat obvious difference, that NFHS relies on the judgment of the individual official somewhat more so than other, more nuanced levels.

A better definition, from the 2018-19 Game Officials Manual (Basic Philosophy &Principles) suggests; "While a thorough knowledge of the rules is important, it is not enough to guarantee the competency of a game official.  There are other attributes that are equally important.  Game officials must possess a combination of these if they are to fulfill their duties adequately.  In addition to complete mastery of the rules, game officials must have a good knowledge of human nature and the ability to control situations as they arise.  Football is a game played by physically sound athletes blocking and tackling each other.  At times, the emotions of players, coaches and crowds run high and game officials must control themselves in order to provide necessary leadership."

Doing so effectively at the NFHS level is aided by the flexibility provided to apply the intent of the rules to the specific situation being observed, rather than adhering to a rigid, universally intended, specifically detailed interpretation of absolute directives.  There are differences, which are intended to support the inherent differences of the playing levels, which will likely NEVER apply to every incident exactly the same, and rely on the judgment of the game officials to produce the appropriate results. .   

 

[VALJ]

I don't understand the urgency to DQ players.  If the coach is willing to keep taking 15 yard loses for UNS or PF's I am willing to oblige.

I propose this not from an "urgency to DQ players" standpoint, but from a "give us another tool to held get players under control" standpoint.  We've all had games with that one player who keeps doing a lot of little stuff after the play and picks up a couple of DBPFs, but no one act that rises to the level of a flagrant act.  This would give a clear, explicit rules justification for us to count these physical acts that aren't legitimate football acts as unsportsmanlike acts, rather than the personal fouls that they BY DEFINITION are under the current rules.

While I understand Al's "one size doesn't fit all" approach to the rules, I have a hard time completely ignoring the very definition in 2-16-2 that specifically states that an unsportsmanlike foul is a noncontact act.  I'm sure Al will write another three paragraphs telling me that it's not necessary and I can justify it because, after all, "one size doesn't fit all".  He may be comfortable using a tortured interpretation to potentially DQ a player; I prefer to have explicit rules justification before I invoke the nuclear option for a non-flagrant act.

And with that, I'm done feeding the troll.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I propose this not from an "urgency to DQ players" standpoint, but from a "give us another tool to held get players under control" standpoint.

I prefer to have explicit rules justification before I invoke the nuclear option for a non-flagrant act.  And with that, I'm done feeding the troll.

Exactly on point!  Well said!