New rules, anyone ???

[Ralph Damren]

Ralph, I'm assuming they're going to fix rule 10, so would it be worth putting a proposal in to fix it?

As I understand, there's a lobster crate (ole' Mainer saying) of proposals aimed at that. I'll certainly voice my opinion on those,but will let others do the ground work.

[bama_stripes]

(1) Fouls behind the LOS by A = previous spot.
(2) Foulsby B when play ends behind the LOS =previous spot.
(3) 'ball fouls' - ill. pass,kick,bat -=spot fouls.

Yet Illegal Touching behind the NZ (a “ball foul”) is a previous spot enforcement, oddly enough.

[ElvisLives]

Ralph,
For ALL sets of rules, I want a rule change that awards a touchdown to the opponent when anybody except a squad member in uniform sets foot within 6 feet of the sideline any time - ANY TIME - following the coin toss, without express visual authorization by a game official, which is only to be given to attend to injuries or player control. Lose a few games because you can’t stay off the field just might convince a guy to stay off the frickin’ field - and keep at least 6’ back.
Think that might get passed by anybody?

[Etref]

Ralph,
For ALL sets of rules, I want a rule change that awards a touchdown to the opponent when anybody except a squad member in uniform sets foot within 6 feet of the sideline any time - ANY TIME - following the coin toss, without express visual authorization by a game official, which is only to be given to attend to injuries or player control. Lose a few games because you can’t stay off the field just might convince a guy to stay off the frickin’ field - and keep at least 6’ back.
Think that might get passed by anybody?

I like it!

[Ralph Damren]

My suggestion would be a doggie zap collar be worn by the head coaches. The BJ would hold the remote and 'remind' coaches that were overstepping their boundries. A 3 foot deep moat could be dug around the entire field and stocked with your state's most notable reptile or crustacean. For Maine, an unbanded lobster; for Texas a rattlesnake. Planks would be supplied for those that needed to enter the playing field. Clearance from the ASPCA to insure said creatures were properly fed.

[ted skoundrianos]

Ralph, the reason I like to see the personal fouls & unsportmanlike conduct fouls automatic 1st down. Is almost every personal foul called results in 1st down anyway.

[ilyazhito]

That makes sense. If the defense commits USC or a personal foul, there would be an immediate consequence (giving a new series to A).

[Ralph Damren]

The rebuttal to that is....then LOD should occur if same fouls by A (I realize that's apples and clam shells, as LOD is always LOD). As Ted mentioned, usually the 15 yards creates a 1st down. Unlike DPI, I can't see how B could gain such as a beaten D-back tackling a reciever to prevent a TD.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I don't see any need for the NFHS to change their position on fouls that also carry an automatic 1st down in the penalty.  As has been noted before all four of those fouls are based specifically on players who are in serious at risk situations and deserve the protection that they should not be hit when in those positions.  Simple and very valid rationale.  I see no need to change that.  If the line to gain is so far away that a 15 yard penalty does not result in a 1st down then IMHO that's on the offense and I see no need to fix it.

[Ia-Ref]

I am still hoping that an accidental step out of bounds by A would be less harsh than the 15 yard penalty for illegal participation.
I have never understood the rationale behind that foul.  Therefore, I can honestly admit that I have not and will not have a flag on such a play.

[ilyazhito]

In NCAA, the receiver who steps OOB becomes ineligible to catch a forward pass (but can catch the pass if it is deflected by B or an official). The receiver does not lose eligibility if he was forced out. The consequence for an ineligible out-of-bounds player touching the pass is loss of down at the previous spot, or de facto an incomplete pass.

On a kick, a player of the kicking team also cannot go out of bounds and return, unless he was forced out. This is presumably to avoid a player hiding out of bounds and re-appearing to make a tackle. The penalty is 5 yards from the previous spot, or a 5-yard penalty from the succeeeding spot, at the option of the receiving team.

NFHS could easily borrow these rules from NCAA whithout compromising the integrity of NFHS football.

[CalhounLJ]

In NCAA, the receiver who steps OOB becomes ineligible to catch a forward pass (but can catch the pass if it is deflected by B or an official). The receiver does not lose eligibility if he was forced out. The consequence for an ineligible out-of-bounds player touching the pass is loss of down at the previous spot, or de facto an incomplete pass.

On a kick, a player of the kicking team also cannot go out of bounds and return, unless he was forced out. This is presumably to avoid a player hiding out of bounds and re-appearing to make a tackle. The penalty is 5 yards from the previous spot, or a 5-yard penalty from the succeeeding spot, at the option of the receiving team.

NFHS could easily borrow these rules from NCAA whithout compromising the integrity of NFHS football.

I vote for this. I agree with IA-Ref. 15yds for stepping out is too egregious. I’m in favor of a no harm no foul approach to this. 

[bossman72]

In NCAA, the receiver who steps OOB becomes ineligible to catch a forward pass (but can catch the pass if it is deflected by B or an official). The receiver does not lose eligibility if he was forced out. The consequence for an ineligible out-of-bounds player touching the pass is loss of down at the previous spot, or de facto an incomplete pass.

On a kick, a player of the kicking team also cannot go out of bounds and return, unless he was forced out. This is presumably to avoid a player hiding out of bounds and re-appearing to make a tackle. The penalty is 5 yards from the previous spot, or a 5-yard penalty from the succeeeding spot, at the option of the receiving team.

NFHS could easily borrow these rules from NCAA whithout compromising the integrity of NFHS football.

Here's an IP rule revamp that I've written but never submitted.  It breaks down the scenarios where we actually want it called and not have this generic "catch all" of going out of bounds and participating, which is super vague and up to interpretation.

9-6

ART. 1 . . . Prior to a change of possession, or when there is no change of possession,  During a scrimmage kick or free kick down, no player of A or K shall go out of bounds and return to the field during the down unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent. If a player is blocked out of bounds by an opponent and returns to the field during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity.

ART. 2 … No player of Team A shall go out of bounds and return to the field and touch a legal forward pass prior to the ball touching a Team B player, unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent. If a player is blocked out of bounds by an opponent and returns to the field during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity.

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.

ART. 3 … No player of A or B shall intentionally go out of bounds with the obvious intent of avoiding blockers to pursue the runner of the opposing team.  If a player is blocked out of bounds by an opponent and returns to the field during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity.

Art. 3 ART. 4 … No replaced player or substitute, coach, athletic trainer, or other attendant shall hinder an opponent, touch the ball, influence the play or otherwise participate.

Art. 4 ART. 5 … It is illegal participation: … (etc)

PENALTY: Illegal participation (Arts. 1, 2, 3,  4, 5a, g [live-ball, basic spot]) (S28, S27) - (Arts 5b-f [live-ball, previous spot]) - (S28, S27) - 15 yards. (Arts. 1, 3 [live-ball, basic spot]) – (S28) – 5 yards.  (Art. 2 [live-ball, basic spot]) – (S28, S9) – 5 yards, loss of down.

[KWH]

Bossman - I would encourage you to submit it this year.  (Deadline is NOVEMBER 1)
There have been variations submitted in recent years so it is moving albeit slowly.

I know one of the concerns was who is watching this without an F or an S.
A (somewhat smartazz) response was "the same people that are seeing it today!" 
The re-establishment of an OOB player to return inbounds passed last year step one of the master plan. 

What I am saying is my old Chrystal ball is starting to think we may see some movement?

[bossman72]

Bossman - I would encourage you to submit it this year.  (Deadline is NOVEMBER 1)
There have been variations submitted in recent years so it is moving albeit slowly.

I know one of the concerns was who is watching this without an F or an S.
A (somewhat smartazz) response was "the same people that are seeing it today!" 
The re-establishment of an OOB player to return inbounds passed last year step one of the master plan. 

What I am saying is my old Chrystal ball is starting to think we may see some movement?

Thanks Kevin.  I already submitted a few changes to our state rep, so I don't want to bombard him with more changes from me.

Would you or Ralph be willing to let me be your ghostwriter and either of you submit this one?

[KWH]

Bossman - I have on good authority your proposal (almost verbatim) is being submitted by a Rules Committee Rep from the island of Oahu

FYI - I am submitting relocating knee pads (and pants covering the knee) from mandatory equipment to auxiliary equipment.   

[Ralph Damren]

Bossman - I would encourage you to submit it this year.  (Deadline is NOVEMBER 1)
There have been variations submitted in recent years so it is moving albeit slowly.

I know one of the concerns was who is watching this without an F or an S.
A (somewhat smartazz) response was "the same people that are seeing it today!" 
The re-establishment of an OOB player to return inbounds passed last year step one of the master plan. 

What I am saying is my old Chrystal ball is starting to think we may see some movement?

I would fully support  a blocked PAT kick staying alive for K as a botched snap from SKF would stay alive. Regrettably , I would not support  a COP  on a PAT remaining alive.

My rationale :

(1)  The PAT is an award for scoring a  and, like a penalty shot in hockey or a penalty kick in soccer, only the awarded team should  be able to score.

(2)  The complex case of fouls after COP on PAT is beyond  our pay grade

(3)  As a 78 year old white hat  , chasing kids 90 yards after a botched PAT  and then returning 100 yards for the free kick  is a selfish reason.

This  does not mean that, KWH, that we can't still partake of Koolaide from the still while in Windy Indy.

[bossman72]

Bossman - I have on good authority your proposal (almost verbatim) is being submitted by a Rules Committee Rep from the island of Oahu

FYI - I am submitting relocating knee pads (and pants covering the knee) from mandatory equipment to auxiliary equipment.   

Thank you, and excellent suggestion yourself!