Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
NCAA Discussion / Re: Old NCAA rule books
« Last post by Kalle on Today at 12:21:38 AM »
1998- For the first time in the history of the college game, a backward pass can be recovered and advanced by the defense. Responding to the overwhelming support of coaches, the committee cited consistency as the reason it adopted the new rule (Rule 4-1-3-j).

Ha, this was it. Thanks! My rule book archive goes back only to 2001.
2
NCAA Discussion / Re: Old NCAA rule books
« Last post by Dakota Dan on Yesterday at 07:18:00 PM »
1998- For the first time in the history of the college game, a backward pass can be recovered and advanced by the defense. Responding to the overwhelming support of coaches, the committee cited consistency as the reason it adopted the new rule (Rule 4-1-3-j).
3
NCAA Discussion / Re: Old NCAA rule books
« Last post by fearlessleader on Yesterday at 04:12:18 PM »
Not sure about the fumbles, but as recently as the mid 90ís the defense could not advance a grounded backward pass.
4
NCAA Discussion / Re: Old NCAA rule books
« Last post by Dakota Dan on Yesterday at 03:52:15 PM »
1990--Defense allowed to advance fumbles that occur beyond the neutral zone.

1992--Defense allowed to advance fumbles regardless of where they occur.
5
National Federation Discussion / Penalty and IW on last play of the period
« Last post by CalhounLJ on Yesterday at 01:06:09 PM »
IF there wasn't an IW, an USC on a play where time expired would end the period because it is treated as a dead ball foul- succeeding spot enforcement.

Where there was an IW on the play, an untimed down would occur either by taking the ball at the spot of IW or replaying the down.

The USC would now be enforced regardless if it occurred before or after the IW. Consider A's coach's head fell off after he was told the TD didn't count. A would still get an UTD, it would just be 15 yards further.

Hope that makes it a little clearer.

Not really. I’m getting confused over the statement regarding the IW that states the IW is ignored if a penalty is accepted. Doesn’t that mean the IW isn’t applied to extend the period? Especially coupled with the fact that 3-3-4 specifically states the period is not extended on a USC foul.
I need help. (In more ways than one). 😂


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
6
I'll do some checking on this during the "off-season" to get some further info.  We haven't had a call like the OP here in a game yet so we havev't had any feedback on the live ball USC issue to date.
7
The NFHS still treats an USC occurring during a live ball as a dead ball foul.

It is my understanding that a state can "strengthen" a rule. A prime example is a disqualifying foul as no where in the NFHS book does it suggest that such can carry on to succeeding game(s). However, most states do have rules in place governing this. IMHO, enforcing an USC as a live ball foul would be as such.
8
So need some clarification here.  Our guidance for last year (2016) and this year has been that if the act that we deem to be flagrant enough to be ruled a USC clearly and without question occurs before the TD is scored it shall be treated as a live ball foul.

I don't think this is one of the "by state adoption" options.  Is your state using this on an experimental basis?
9
Did NF change the USC to be a live-ball foul? I've missed this (not being a NF official).
I'm not aware of any clear rule book change, but our preseason instructions have been pretty clear that if the USC is clearly flagrant and during live ball action to treat it as a live ball foul.  The fact that some of us are doing both NCAA and NFHS games on a regular basis does tend to get a bit confusing, but our 2016 preseason NFHS guidance on this was pretty clear IMHO.  That being said, we havn't had any actual USC calls where we needed to take points off the board in the last 2 years.
10
National Federation Discussion / Re: Penalty and IW on last play of the period
« Last post by Kalle on Yesterday at 05:30:39 AM »
So need some clarification here.  Our guidance for last year (2016) and this year has been that if the act that we deem to be flagrant enough to be ruled a USC clearly and without question occurs before the TD is scored it shall be treated as a live ball foul.  That takes the points off the board and we enforce the foul from the basic spot.  If we have an IW after the USC but before the TD we are enforcing the USC as a live ball foul which by rule cancels A's IW options, no replay of the down and game over.  Is that not correct under current rules?

Did NF change the USC to be a live-ball foul? I've missed this (not being a NF official).
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10