NFHS 2022 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES PRESS RELEASE

[KWH]

So if the QB being pressured outside FBZ dumps the ball OOB beyond the LOS extended   -  OK

QB being pressured outside FBZ dumps the ball beyond the LOS no receiver in the area ING   - OK

Unlike other codes, pressure on the Passer is NOT part of the equation!
Additionally, if he/she utilizes the EXCEPTION, a receiver in the area is NOT part of the equation

[HLinNC]

So if the QB being pressured outside FBZ dumps the ball OOB beyond the LOS extended   -  OK

QB being pressured outside FBZ dumps the ball beyond the LOS no receiver in the area ING   - OK

Did the irony of having a POE about IG in the rulebook just last season come up when this was bandied about by the Illuminati?

[CalhounLJ]

Unlike other codes, pressure on the Passer is NOT part of the equation!
Additionally, if he/she utilizes the EXCEPTION, a receiver in the area is NOT part of the equation

Question: Can the passer legally throw the ball away to conserve TIME under this rule change? The wording in the press release states "yardage" only:
7-5-2 EXCEPTION 2. (NEW):
Added a new exception that allows the passer to legally throw the ball away to conserve yardage.

Also, how can we justify the passer's intent to conserve yardage if he or she is not being pressured?

Just questions that popped up in my mind.

[CalhounLJ]

Unlike other codes, pressure on the Passer is NOT part of the equation!
Additionally, if he/she utilizes the EXCEPTION, a receiver in the area is NOT part of the equation

I promise, I'm trying to be a nicer guy this year, so I'm not trying to stir the pot here at all, but wasn't the majority argument for the new IG rule protection of the QB? IMHO, he doesn't need protection if he's not being pressured?

[KWH]

Question: Can the passer legally throw the ball away to conserve TIME under this rule change? The wording in the press release states "yardage" only:
7-5-2 EXCEPTION 2. (NEW):
Added a new exception that allows the passer to legally throw the ball away to conserve yardage.

Also, how can we justify the passer's intent to conserve yardage if he or she is not being pressured?

Just questions that popped up in my mind.

Don't try to make it too complicated because it is not too complicated

7-5-2 EXCEPTION became 7-5-2 EXCEPTION 1 and remains unchanged. Exception 1 allows a player to conserve time.

7-5-2 EXCEPTION 2 (New) Simply allows the Passer a legal way to terminate the play if, (and only if) he/she meets both requirements of EXCEPTION 2.
If he/she fails to meet either or both requirements of EXCEPTION 2, he/she falls back to the existing ING rule.

The rule was intentionally written to leave "Under duress" out of the rule. 
Restated: He/She can roll out to the left, and, determine no one is open,  and throw the ball away! JUST SO LONG AS IT GOES BEYOND THE LOS (or the LOS Extended OOB)
 
Again, Whether or not the passer is/was under duress is NOT A FACTOR in NFHS code!

I hope that made some sense? 

[CalhounLJ]

Yes. It seems the rule makers want to give the passer a “free dump.” No problem with that. Is it too late to remove the “to conserve yardage” language? Since that’s obviously not the intent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dammitbobby]

So as I understand it then, a running back on an option play can throw the ball away, as long as he’s outside the FBZ and crosses LOS?

[HLinNC]

Yes because it's the "passer", not the "player receiving the snap".

[ncwingman]

For clarification, Ralph posted in the other thread on this a comment that suggests that the exception may be limited and not just the "passer", broadly defined. Is that true, or can anybody chuck the ball away as long as the requirements are met?

NCAA rules, for example, state that the exception "applies only to the player who controls the snap or the resulting backward pass and does not relinquish possession to another player before throwing the forward pass."

I fundamentally would have an issue with QB receiving the snap, handing off to the RB who goes wide but the defense has him penned in looking at a 3 yard loss, so he just dumps the ball out of bounds (beyond the LOS). Legally speaking, the RB is allowed to throw a forward pass and become a passer, but that's not the intent of the rule.

[AlUpstateNY]

Yes because it's the "passer", not the "player receiving the snap".

Forgive me, but I'm getting lost in the "Weeds".  Under NFHS 2-32 A PASSER is defined, "as a PLAYER who throws a legal forward pass, while a "RUNNER" is defined as a PLAYER who is in possession of a live ball...." and a PLAYER is defined as one of the 22 members of a Team designated to start a game, or subsequently enters as a substitute.

I've always understood; a PLAYER becomes a RUNNER when he/she possesses a live ball and should that Runner subsequently throw a legal forward pass he/she then becomes a Passer.  So that; "the PLAYER receiving the snap" becomes a "RUNNER" if/when he/she possesses the ball (see NFHS:2-34-1) and should he/she subsequently throw a "legal forward pass" then becomes a "PASSER".

[CalhounLJ]

Forgive me, but I'm getting lost in the "Weeds".  Under NFHS 2-32 A PASSER is defined, "as a PLAYER who throws a legal forward pass, while a "RUNNER" is defined as a PLAYER who is in possession of a live ball...." and a PLAYER is defined as one of the 22 members of a Team designated to start a game, or subsequently enters as a substitute.

I've always understood; a PLAYER becomes a RUNNER when he/she possesses a live ball and should that Runner subsequently throw a legal forward pass he/she then becomes a Passer.  So that; "the PLAYER receiving the snap" becomes a "RUNNER" if/when he/she possesses the ball (see NFHS:2-34-1) and should he/she subsequently throw a "legal forward pass" then becomes a "PASSER".

This is true. The difference is that not all passers were once players who received the snap. A player can also become a runner by way of a handoff, pass reception (forward or backward), or fumble recovery. This player can then become a passer by passing the ball. The NCAA doesn’t want to allow the exception for this player, and so they excluded him or her. The NFHS has not done so with this exception. Because they haven’t yet distinguished between the two types of passers, either can dump the ball without penalty, as long as the conditions are met.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Covid 22]

What a can of worms this becomes.   QB at the 50 yard line throws the ball to a receiver at the "A" 47.  Defense is closing in and he throws the ball into the stands past the LOS. NO Flag by this rule.

Another question: Nowhere does it say that the ball has to go beyond the LOS in the air.  What if it hits a yard behind the LOS and bounces 5 yards past the LOS.  Flag? 

You know there are coaches right now planning for these uncovered details.

[bossman72]

For clarification, Ralph posted in the other thread on this a comment that suggests that the exception may be limited and not just the "passer", broadly defined. Is that true, or can anybody chuck the ball away as long as the requirements are met?

NCAA rules, for example, state that the exception "applies only to the player who controls the snap or the resulting backward pass and does not relinquish possession to another player before throwing the forward pass."

I fundamentally would have an issue with QB receiving the snap, handing off to the RB who goes wide but the defense has him penned in looking at a 3 yard loss, so he just dumps the ball out of bounds (beyond the LOS). Legally speaking, the RB is allowed to throw a forward pass and become a passer, but that's not the intent of the rule.

I don't think the "person that received the snap" clause was put into the NCAA grounding rule until like 2014-ish.  The rule before that looked simple like the NFHS rule where anybody could ground it. I think there were many smart coaches before 2014 that would have figured it out and told their RB's to do that.
RB's will never do this because 1) They have the ball tucked away, 2) They're running hard trying to hit the corner and outrun people, and 3) They don't get that "oh crap" moment and realize they need to throw it away until they're already being contacted or defenders closing in.
I think it will be rare to see the RB throw it away on a play that's not a designed halfback pass or reverse pass.  We really have nothing to worry about.

[CalhounLJ]

I don't think the "person that received the snap" clause was put into the NCAA grounding rule until like 2014-ish.  The rule before that looked simple like the NFHS rule where anybody could ground it. I think there were many smart coaches before 2014 that would have figured it out and told their RB's to do that.
RB's will never do this because 1) They have the ball tucked away, 2) They're running hard trying to hit the corner and outrun people, and 3) They don't get that "oh crap" moment and realize they need to throw it away until they're already being contacted or defenders closing in.
I think it will be rare to see the RB throw it away on a play that's not a designed halfback pass or reverse pass.  We really have nothing to worry about.

You are probably right, but at some point Murphys Law will pop up. The best course is to write the rule to state precisely who may and who may not benefit from this exception. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ncwingman]

What a can of worms this becomes.   QB at the 50 yard line throws the ball to a receiver at the "A" 47.  Defense is closing in and he throws the ball into the stands past the LOS. NO Flag by this rule.

Another question: Nowhere does it say that the ball has to go beyond the LOS in the air.  What if it hits a yard behind the LOS and bounces 5 yards past the LOS.  Flag? 

You know there are coaches right now planning for these uncovered details.

First off, I'd like to point out we're nitpicking the rule that none of us have actually seen. These sorts of specifics of the rule aren't mentioned in the press release, nor should they. I'm sure that a few of us may have seen the rule, but aren't allowed to make comments about it until the rule books come out. Until then, this is all hypotheticals.

However, I would posit that your concern is not warranted. Assuming what we've seen so far, the pass must cross the line of scrimmage. A ball in flight ceases to be a pass (among other things) when it hits the ground (2-31-4). If the pass hits the ground short of the LOS, a) the play is now dead and anything after is irrelevant, and b) the pass status of the ball is over, so even if it did roll across the LOS it was not a pass that did so.

[NVFOA_Ump]

First off, I'd like to point out we're nitpicking the rule that none of us have actually seen.

   Probably a good idea to just wait on the actual rule language before we get too frazzled about how to "adjust" to this change.   

[HLinNC]

Well, the definition of passer is pretty narrowly yet simply defined- 2-32-11- . . .A passer is a player who throws a legal forward pass. He continues to be a passer until the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play.

Why make it anymore complicated?  Would we remove RTP just because the passer happened to be the HB on an option pass?  No.

[KWH]

I don't think the "person that received the snap" clause was put into the NCAA grounding rule until like 2014-ish.  The rule before that looked simple like the NFHS rule where anybody could ground it. I think there were many smart coaches before 2014 that would have figured it out and told their RB's to do that.
RB's will never do this because 1) They have the ball tucked away, 2) They're running hard trying to hit the corner and outrun people, and 3) They don't get that "oh crap" moment and realize they need to throw it away until they're already being contacted or defenders closing in.
I think it will be rare to see the RB throw it away on a play that's not a designed halfback pass or reverse pass.  We really have nothing to worry about.

Agree completely with Bossman and HLinNC

Something else to consider:
Should a halfback choose to become "THE PASSER"; wouldn't it be likely there were ineligible's downfield.

[CalhounLJ]

Possible but not guaranteed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

You are probably right, but at some point Murphys Law will pop up. The best course is to write the rule to state precisely who may and who may not benefit from this exception.

First off, I'd like to point out we're nitpicking the rule that none of us have actually seen

All very true. 

However, may I present in classic "Wayne's World" fashion- "DIDDLY-DOO  DIDDLY-DOO  DIDDLY DOO"- the Horse-collar Tackle rule.  If memory serves me correct, it took about 3 years to get that cake fully baked.

[CalhounLJ]

All very true. 

However, may I present in classic "Wayne's World" fashion- "DIDDLY-DOO  DIDDLY-DOO  DIDDLY DOO"- the Horse-collar Tackle rule.  If memory serves me correct, it took about 3 years to get that cake fully baked.

Yes that’s true. But here’s the thing, again, this is only my opinion, but IMO, when you have a rule proposition that has already been through all of the adjustments at the next level, why not just adopt that language? Problem solved or should I say, prevented. NCAA already has this rule, and administers it with no problem. I can’t understand the reluctance of the rules committee toward just adopting the college level language. No need to reinvent the wheel on this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

I can’t understand the reluctance of the rules committee toward just adopting the college level language. No need to reinvent the wheel on this.

 The same group that allegedly hates exceptions then creates exceptions. <shoulder shrug thingy>

[dammitbobby]

Possible but not guaranteed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Particularly with RPO.

[NVFOA_Ump]

If memory serves me correct, it took about 3 years to get that cake fully baked.

In all three rules codes, not just NFHS.

[bama_stripes]

Do we know yet if the rule will require an eligible receiver in the vicinity?