Author Topic: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES  (Read 10782 times)

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« on: May 19, 2011, 09:14:32 PM »
ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES OF GAME OFFICIALS CLARIFIED (1-1-8): The committee clarified
that administrative duties for game officials may need to continue after the game to
document actions which occur during the game. This revision illustrates the difference
between the game officials’ jurisdiction during the game and other administrative responsibilities
such as submitting specific reports after the game. In addition, the committee clarified
that State Associations may continue to develop and implement policies that allow for
review of unusual incidents that occur while the game officials have jurisdiction or after the
game.

THIGH GUARD STANDARD REVISED (1-5-1c(4)): The committee determined that the thigh
guard specifications regarding composition, compression resistance and required thickness
of the outside and inside surfaces were not necessarily applicable to newer technologies
being used in current production. The requirements for wearing thigh guards and that
the guards be unaltered from the manufacturer’s original design/production remain part of
the rule.
EYE SHADE RESTRICTIONS ADOPTED (1-5-3c(3) NEW): The committee adopted new
restrictions in response to increasing use of “face painting” and the placement of words and
other symbols within eye shade (grease or no-glare strips or stickers). In recent years, players
were applying materials in situations where it was not necessary for game conditions.
In other cases, it appeared that some use of eye shade and other face paint was intended
to draw attention to the individual player. Under the revision, if a player uses eye shade, it
must be applied using a single solid stroke under each eye. The committee’s intent was that
eye shade be located below and within the width of the eye socket and not extend below the
cheek bone. No words, numbers, logos, or other symbols of any type may be included within
the eye shade.

CHOP BLOCK REDEFINED (2-3-8): The definition of a chop block was modified by the committee.
The revised language specifies that any combination block where one block is high
(above the knee) and one block is low (at or below the knees) constitutes a chop block, with
or without a delay between the blocks. The rule change also stipulates that a low-low combination
block is no longer a chop block.

INJURY TIMEOUT CONFERENCES RESTRICTED TO OUTSIDE NINE-YARD MARKS (2-6-1,
2; 3-5-8): With two changes, the committee labeled the two types of authorized team conferences
(“Outside Nine Yard Mark Conference” and “Between Nine Yard Mark
Conference”). In addition, the committee specified that when an injury occurs and the referee
grants an authorized conference, it must be an “Outside Nine Yard Mark Conference”.
This will give medical personnel time and space to address the injured player.

PROVISIONS FOR REMOVAL OF INJURED PLAYERS STANDARDIZED (3-5-10a-c): The
committee standardized the rules regarding the replacement of apparently injured players
(3-5-10a), players who exhibit concussion signs and symptoms (3-5-10b) and players who
are bleeding or have blood on himself or the uniform (3-5-10c). Players removed in any of
these situations must leave the game for at least one down (unless halftime or the overtime
intermission occurs) and comply with the remainder of the applicable rule. The rule also
stipulates that the time-out taken in such circumstances constitutes an officials’ time-out.

HORSE COLLAR PENALTY ENFORCEMENT CLARIFIED (9-4-3k): The committee stipulated
that all horse collar fouls are to be treated as live ball fouls.

ENFORCEMENT SPOT FOR ROUGHING THE PASSER REVISED (9-4 PENALTY): Penalties
for roughing the passer are now enforced from the dead ball spot when there is no change
of team possession and the dead-ball spot is beyond the line of scrimmage provided A
maintains possession.

ILLEGAL PARTICIPATION REVISED (9-6-2): With this change, the rule regarding illegal
participation now has been extended to apply to a player who intentionally goes out of
bounds and, while out of bounds, affects the play, touches the ball or otherwise participates.
Action of this type would now constitute illegal participation and be penalized 15
yards from the basic spot.
PENALTY ADDED FOR VIOLATIONS OF RULE 3-2-2 (9-8-1g(3) NEW): This change stipulates
that an unsportsmanlike penalty will be assessed to the head coach for violation of the
restrictions contained in Rule 3-2-2.

REMOVAL OF POINT DIFFERENTIAL NOTE (NINE-, EIGHT- AND SIX-PLAYER RULES DIFFERENCES):
This change removes the provision in the Nine-, Eight- and Six-player rules
differences regarding point differential as state association running clock/mercy rules
would apply per Rule 3-1-2.

LarryW60

  • Guest
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2011, 09:10:26 AM »
Quote
ILLEGAL PARTICIPATION REVISED (9-6-2): With this change, the rule regarding illegal
participation now has been extended to apply to a player who intentionally goes out of
bounds and, while out of bounds, affects the play, touches the ball or otherwise participates.
Action of this type would now constitute illegal participation and be penalized 15
yards from the basic spot.

I'm feeling slow today.  What's the difference between this "change" and how the IP rule applied to these situations last year?

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2011, 09:27:32 AM »
I'm feeling slow today.  What's the difference between this "change" and how the IP rule applied to these situations last year?

It was supposed to fix this problem:  receiver goes out of bounds, then leaps in the air and bats the ball to an inbounds teammate.

Problem is, this alone doesn't fix that problem.  When the OOB receiver leaps in the air, by definition, he is no longer out of bounds.  What is needed is a definition change.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2011, 09:36:01 AM »
I'm saving the Point of Emphasis- Helmet/Head Contact and Concussion awareness for another day.  bigjohn may hold a parade >:D

Not sure how heavy handed we're going to be told to be but from my reading of it, there going to be a lot of happy coaches when its called on the opponent and then ticked off 10 minutes later when its then called on them.

Offline Ump33

  • *
  • Posts: 205
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2011, 09:46:08 AM »
Quote
ILLEGAL PARTICIPATION REVISED (9-6-2): With this change, the rule regarding illegal
participation now has been extended to apply to a player who intentionally goes out of
bounds and, while out of bounds, affects the play, touches the ball or otherwise participates.
Action of this type would now constitute illegal participation and be penalized 15
yards from the basic spot.

I'm feeling slow today.  What's the difference between this "change" and how the IP rule applied to these situations last year?
It was supposed to fix this problem:  receiver goes out of bounds, then leaps in the air and bats the ball to an inbounds teammate.

Problem is, this alone doesn't fix that problem.  When the OOB receiver leaps in the air, by definition, he is no longer out of bounds.  What is needed is a definition change.

2010 9-6-2 ... During the down, no player shall intentionally go out of bounds and return. Hopefully the 2011 revision removes the "and returns" part of the rule.

Offline RickKY

  • *
  • Posts: 377
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-11
  • Northern Kentucky Officials Association (Retired)
    • NKOA
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2011, 10:42:54 AM »
SECTION 29 OUT OF BOUNDS
ART. 1 . . . A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line.
ART. 2 . . . A ball in player possession is out of bounds when the runner or the ball touches anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside a sideline or end line.
ART. 3 . . . A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or game official that is out of bounds.

We either need to modify this definition to include players OOB and not returned, or a new definition for inbounds.  According to the current definition, a player is only out of bounds if he touching OOB. 
Rick
Don't park in the spaces marked, "Reserved for Umpires."  ~John McSherry

LarryW60

  • Guest
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2011, 01:38:18 PM »
I thought this was to address the "out the back of the endzone leaping bat" play as well, but as long as the rule says "while out of bounds", then nothing has changed from last year.

2010 9-6-2 ... During the down, no player shall intentionally go out of bounds and return. Hopefully the 2011 revision removes the "and returns" part of the rule.
Ump33, they can't do that because if they did, we'd be in the bizarre situation of flagging illegal participation everytime someone runs out of bounds on their own during a live ball - even if they run straight to the bench and sit down.

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2193
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-10
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2011, 01:54:34 PM »
2011's 9-6-2:

Quote
ART. 2... No player shall intentionally go out of bounds during the down and:
a. Return to the field;
b. Intentionally touch the ball;
c. Influence the play; or
d. Otherwise participate

Casebook:

Quote
9.6.2 SITUATION A: Eligible receiver A1 runs beyond Team B's end line.  Quarterback A2 throws a legal forward pass in A1's direction. A1 leaps and, while airborne, bats the ball to eligible teammate A3, who is in team B's end zone.  RULING: Illegal participation on A1.  Because A1 went out of bounds intentionally and influenced the play, he has gained an advantage and illegal participation.
9.6.2 SITUATION B: Linebacker B1 runs out of bounds while the ball is live. As runner A2 advances past B1, B1 reaches inbounds and tackles A2. RULING: Illegal participation

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2193
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-10
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2011, 01:57:07 PM »
Not sure I like the word "intentionally" in the rule, because it seems to me like it opens up the "he didn't MEAN to step on the end line, so the play should count" can of worms.  I know they only want us to flag a deliberate violation, but - if you read this with a certain slant - doesn't this imply that if he "accidentally" steps out of bounds and touches the ball, this is still a good play?

Offline Welpe

  • *
  • Posts: 1850
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-11
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2011, 02:17:26 PM »
9.6.2 SITUATION A: Eligible receiver A1 runs beyond Team B's end line.  Quarterback A2 throws a legal forward pass in A1's direction. A1 leaps and, while airborne, bats the ball to eligible teammate A3, who is in team B's end zone.  RULING: Illegal participation on A1.  Because A1 went out of bounds intentionally and influenced the play, he has gained an advantage and illegal participation.
9.6.2 SITUATION B: Linebacker B1 runs out of bounds while the ball is live. As runner A2 advances past B1, B1 reaches inbounds and tackles A2. RULING: Illegal participation

Well...I guess that ugly baby can be put to bed finally.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2011, 03:27:59 PM »
Well...I guess that ugly baby can be put to bed finally.

Correct.  The rule and the case play fix the "Oregon play" problem.  Unfortunately, the comment to the rule was written incorrectly by leaving in the phrase "and while out of bounds".  That's the exact thing they were trying to fix!

LarryW60

  • Guest
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2011, 02:26:12 PM »
Ahh.  That makes much more sense as a legitimate "change".

Offline Jackhammer

  • *
  • Posts: 237
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-5
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2011, 08:52:20 PM »
Doesn't Art. 1 and 3 when taken together constitute that the player is out of bounds?

ART. 1 . . . A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line.

ART. 3 . . . A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or game official that is out of bounds.

"The only whistle that kills a play is an inadvertent one"

"The only thing black and white in officiating is the uniform"

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2011, 07:06:14 AM »
Doesn't Art. 1 and 3 when taken together constitute that the player is out of bounds?

ART. 1 . . . A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line.

ART. 3 . . . A loose ball is out of bounds when it touches anything, including a player or game official that is out of bounds.

Player runs OOB.  He now jumps up in the air.  He isn't touching anything OOB while he is in the air, so he is no longer OOB.  If the ball touches him while he has leapt, it hasn't touched anything OOB.

That is why the change to 9-6-2 was necessary.

refjb

  • Guest
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2011, 04:33:17 PM »
anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line

What does other than mean. It excludes those two things so if the ball hits one of them the ball is still not OOB. I will use common sense and say he is OOB until someone challenges my rule interpretation and then I will have to revert to the book and go strictly by the book.


Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #15 on: June 22, 2011, 06:05:04 PM »
anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line

What does other than mean. It excludes those two things so if the ball hits one of them the ball is still not OOB. I will use common sense and say he is OOB until someone challenges my rule interpretation and then I will have to revert to the book and go strictly by the book.

Other than means if he is TOUCHING anything that isn't another player or official.

Since he is in the air, he isn't touching ANYTHING, therefore, BY RULE, he isn't OOB.  OOB is strictly defined as TOUCHING something, anything (other than a player or an official).

We've been through this.  The NFHS ruled on it (in the Oregon play). Unfortunately, common sense has nothing to do with it. And that is why a rule change was needed.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2011, 06:23:58 PM »
Quote
I will use common sense and say he is OOB

Oh Lord, here we go again :-[

If I had the energy, I'd dig up those threads from the past over this play.  The may even be in the classics section.  I'd dearly love to go with common sense on this but as has been pointed out before, the Fed won't define in bounds and thus expose us all to the argument that if you aren't legally out, then you're therefore in.

Since their ruling is this is illegal participation and the ball remains live, then it must be that the airborne player is NOT OOB.  Why they just won't state an OOB player remains OOB unless he returns in bounds, I don't know.

 A kick remains a kick until possessed.  A runner remains a runner until he no longer has the ball.  Its not that hard a principal to codify, is it?

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2215
  • FAN REACTION: +69/-24
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2011, 07:23:45 AM »
Why they just won't state an OOB player remains OOB unless he returns in bounds, I don't know.

They'd have to apply this to ONLY the offense, wouldn't they?

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3291
  • FAN REACTION: +253/-477
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2011, 09:33:29 AM »
Oh Lord, here we go again :-[

the Fed won't define in bounds and thus expose us all to the argument that if you aren't legally out, then you're therefore in.

  Why they just won't state an OOB player remains OOB unless he returns in bounds, I don't know. 

I’m truly amazed this issue is still alive. I would have preferred the revision simply clarified the ball would be DEAD, if it were touched by anyone who had become OOB, but it seems the self proclaimed language experts will not let this nonsense die.

I’m willing to give the rules makers some benefit of the doubt and presume they’ve looked at different language revisions and simply concluded that describing this remote possibility to the Nth degree to explain something that otherwise makes absolutely no sense whatsoever or relates in any way to the game of football and should be painfully obvious simply isn’t worth the ink and effort to clarify it to the extent demanded.

Illegal Participation may not be the “golden” answer, but it eliminates the absolute nonsense of suggesting the possibility that the action would be allowed to legally advance the ball. I would agree with the summation, “I will use common sense and say he is OOB until someone challenges my rule interpretation”, and then I’m afraid I’d choose a different path.  I’d politely explain MY interpretation, which would end the discussion, enforce it and resume play.

This revision may not be considered universally perfect, but it solves the problem.

Offline Ump33

  • *
  • Posts: 205
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2011, 12:14:32 PM »
I’m truly amazed this issue is still alive. I would have preferred the revision simply clarified the ball would be DEAD, if it were touched by anyone who had become OOB, but it seems the self proclaimed language experts will not let this nonsense die.

I’m willing to give the rules makers some benefit of the doubt and presume they’ve looked at different language revisions and simply concluded that describing this remote possibility to the Nth degree to explain something that otherwise makes absolutely no sense whatsoever or relates in any way to the game of football and should be painfully obvious simply isn’t worth the ink and effort to clarify it to the extent demanded.

Illegal Participation may not be the “golden” answer, but it eliminates the absolute nonsense of suggesting the possibility that the action would be allowed to legally advance the ball. I would agree with the summation, “I will use common sense and say he is OOB until someone challenges my rule interpretation”, and then I’m afraid I’d choose a different path.  I’d politely explain MY interpretation, which would end the discussion, enforce it and resume play.

This revision may not be considered universally perfect, but it solves the problem.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but are you saying that you are going to make up your own rule and call the play in question (OOB receiver leaps in the air ... ) an incomplete pass? What if B were to intercept the tipped pass or recover a subsequent fumble by A if the pass were completed?

If you call the play dead, you are denying B the choice of accepting the foul for Ill. Participation or the result of the play. Perhaps this is the reasoning for allowing the ball to remain live after it is touched by an airborne player.


Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2011, 02:07:13 PM »
Quote
but are you saying that you are going to make up your own rule and call the play in question (OOB receiver leaps in the air ... ) an incomplete pass?


And so it begins.................<headsmack thingy>
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 08:26:11 AM by HLinNC »

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3291
  • FAN REACTION: +253/-477
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2011, 03:19:37 PM »
Forgive me if I am wrong, but are you saying that you are going to make up your own rule and call the play in question (OOB receiver leaps in the air ... ) an incomplete pass?

No that is NOT what I said.  Because of the 2011 rule revision I would flag the illegal participation and allow the play to continue after which I would give B the options regarding the IP.

However, had this happened BEFORE the 2011 rule revision, I would have absolutely called the pass incomplete as soon as it was touched by the player OOB (which I still believe is the most appropriate way to handle this situation.)  The 2011 revision specifically answers a question that was unclear previously, providing the luxury of applying common sense to the situation.  Although I'm not particularly thrilled with the answer chosen, it is now "the" answer.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 03:26:56 PM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2193
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-10
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2011, 03:55:23 PM »

And so it begins.................


Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2011, 07:00:22 PM »
However, had this happened BEFORE the 2011 rule revision, I would have absolutely called the pass incomplete as soon as it was touched by the player OOB (which I still believe is the most appropriate way to handle this situation.) 

So you would have made up your own rules last year?

The NFHS ruled on this when it came out of Oregon.  It was LEGAL.  That's why the rule change was needed.  It wasn't a CLARIFICATION, it was a CHANGE.

Quote
(which I still believe is the most appropriate way to handle this situation.)

I would agree, but that's not a choice you get to make.  It was legal before (which you somehow believe was not true), it's IP now.  It wasn't "unclear" before, you just refused to accept the NFHS answer to the Oregon Play.

Quote
Although I'm not particularly thrilled with the answer chosen, it is now "the" answer.

On that, we are in total agreement!


Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3291
  • FAN REACTION: +253/-477
Re: COMMENTS ON THE 2011 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2011, 09:42:44 AM »
Blue, exactly how dead do you want this horse to be before you bury it?

No, I never "made up my own rule".  Based on the FACT a relatively new unofficial INTERPRETATION made absolutely no sense to me (or apparently anyone else as nobody EVER tried to explain any logic associated with it) I chose to ignore that interpretation and view the situation through the prism of what made sense (for previous decades) and should I be querstioned about, I could rationally explain.

Since the NFHS has finally added clarification (the 2011 rule revision) I no longer have a choice.  The NFHS has spoken and my job has always been simply to implement what they decide, as I understand their decision.  Before this revision, I saw ambiguity and when that is the case, I refer to NF 1-1-6, "The Referee has authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship on any situation not specifically covered in the rules. The Referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game."

I'm under the distinct impression, the NFHS expects me to have the "balls" to do what I believe is correct, no matter who, or how many, may disagree.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 09:44:57 AM by AlUpstateNY »