Recent Posts

51

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.

52

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.

53

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

« Last post by ETXZebra on May 09, 2024, 03:50:48 PM »

https://www.uiltexas.org/files/athletics/2024_NCAA_UIL_Rules_-_Updated.pdf

54

Non-Officiating Discussion / Morning humor

« Last post by ElvisLives on May 09, 2024, 09:20:47 AM »

What’s brown and sticky?


A stick.
————————————-

My friend said, “What rhymes with orange?” I told him, “No it doesn’t.”

————————————-

How many apples grow on a tree?


All of them.


Enjoy your days, everybody. 😀

55

National Federation Discussion / Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).

« Last post by Ralph Damren on May 09, 2024, 06:17:37 AM »

Consider this...Lefty, the QB, fades back to pass. Pass hits big ole' Bubba ,an OT, legally in the backfield on his backside. This is just a bad pass and no IT. Same is true if Bhbba was beyond LOS. Bubba wandering downfield is still IR.

56

National Federation Discussion / Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).

« Last post by dammitbobby on May 08, 2024, 12:42:08 PM »

Sorry to involve NCAA in this, but the reason it is not a foul in NCAA has nothing to do with muff versus fumble, or anything like it. The Illegal Touching rule (touching by an originally ineligible player) directly states that the ball must be intentionally touched to be a foul.

right -I was answering from the perspective of why drilling him in the back isn't considered a muff.

57

National Federation Discussion / Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).

« Last post by CalhounLJ on May 08, 2024, 12:06:15 PM »

Why isn't it illegal touching?  thanks!   (rules states if he bats, muffs, or catches a pass).  I guess hitting him in the back isn't considered a muff.

you guess right.

58

National Federation Discussion / Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).

« Last post by ElvisLives on May 08, 2024, 11:34:26 AM »

I'm guessing NFHS rule is similar to NCAA in the definition of a muff:

To muff the ball is to touch the ball in an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover it.

Sorry to involve NCAA in this, but the reason it is not a foul in NCAA has nothing to do with muff versus fumble, or anything like it. The Illegal Touching rule (touching by an originally ineligible player) directly states that the ball must be intentionally touched to be a foul.

59

National Federation Discussion / Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).

« Last post by dammitbobby on May 08, 2024, 11:27:03 AM »

I'm guessing NFHS rule is similar to NCAA in the definition of a muff:

To muff the ball is to touch the ball in an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover it.

60

National Federation Discussion / Re: Question from last year's test (re: ineligible downfield).

« Last post by Fatso on May 08, 2024, 11:11:50 AM »

False. This is not illegal touching.

Why isn't it illegal touching?  thanks!   (rules states if he bats, muffs, or catches a pass).  I guess hitting him in the back isn't considered a muff.