Strike 10-5-2

[HLinNC]

per the "new and improved" 2023 NFHS football rules interpretations updated yesterday.

2023 NFHS Football Rules Book Clarification:

(Underlining shows additions; strikethrough shows deletions.)
Page 82, Rule 10-5-2: ART. 2 . . . The enforcement spot for any foul by the defense is the goal line when the run ends in the end zone and would result in a safety.

Rule 10-4 and TABLE 10-4 are correct as listed in the 2023 NFHS Football Rules Book.

https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/football-rules-interpretations-2023/

[lukez]

Ahh.  Better late than never!  I had been considering 10-5-2 as overriding the previous spot enforcement.  Good to know.

[CalhounLJ]

If they are going to strike 10-5-2, they need to strike 10-4-7 also:

10-4- ART. 7 . . . The basic spot is the goal line for fouls, which are committed during running plays by the opponent of the team in possession at the time of the foul when the team in possession is responsible for forcing the ball across its own goal line, and the related run ends in the end zone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ncwingman]

If they are going to strike 10-5-2, they need to strike 10-4-7 also:

10-4- ART. 7 . . . The basic spot is the goal line for fouls, which are committed during running plays by the opponent of the team in possession at the time of the foul when the team in possession is responsible for forcing the ball across its own goal line, and the related run ends in the end zone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can't completely strike 10-4-7 in a similar manner though, because it still needs to be in effect after a change of possession -- however, it only takes a minor edit to fix so that it only applies after a COP.

[CalhounLJ]

You can't completely strike 10-4-7 in a similar manner though, because it still needs to be in effect after a change of possession -- however, it only takes a minor edit to fix so that it only applies after a COP.

ֹdoes anyone else see how asinine this is? if we have this situation before a COP, we enforce it from the Previous spot because.... well, just because.. But, if it happens after a change of possession, we use a different spot...

IMO, the edit should have been made in the new rule, not the established norm. And second, there is nothing simple about these edits. They all are like chewing on a bad oyster. They just keep getting bigger..

[HLinNC]

And I saw this pop up from Maryland this afternoon regarding the test question related to this rule(s).

[Snapper]

Rule 10-4 and TABLE 10-4 are correct as listed in the 2023 NFHS Football Rules Book.

Ahh, so they’ve tripled down on 10-4 and the Table.

It’s a bold move, let’s see if it pays off for them.

[ncwingman]

ֹdoes anyone else see how asinine this is? if we have this situation before a COP, we enforce it from the Previous spot because.... well, just because.. But, if it happens after a change of possession, we use a different spot...

IMO, the edit should have been made in the new rule, not the established norm. And second, there is nothing simple about these edits. They all are like chewing on a bad oyster. They just keep getting bigger..

You see, we have to have rules that are like what we see on TV. Except we can't just copy those rules, because then we'd be playing under NCAA or NFL rules, not NFHS rules, so they have to be the same, but different.

Good thing I invested in popcorn futures a few months ago.

To cross reference the other thread, however, you had mentioned:

I’m actually a fan of the NCAA version. Which, btw, is enforced as I suggest. On a foul by B on a play the otherwise results in a safety, the enforcement is from the goal line.

I don't think this is the actual enforcement, unless I'm just not finding an AR that says otherwise:

Rule 10-2-2

d) The following are basic spots for the various categories of plays:
1. Running plays.
(a) Previous spot, when the related run ends behind the neutral zone
(b) End of the related run, when the related run ends beyond the neutral zone
(c) End of the related run, on running plays that have no neutral zone

2. Running plays when the run ends in the end zone after change of team possession (not on a try).
(a) Succeeding spot, when a foul occurs after a change of team possession in the end zone and the result of the play is a touchback
(b) Goal line, when a foul occurs after a change of team possession in the field of play and the related run ends in the end zone (Exception: Rule 8-5-1-Exceptions)
(c) Goal line, when a foul occurs after a change of team possession in the end zone, the related run ends in the end zone, and the result of the play is not a touchback

This sounds like what NFHS is trying to get to with the new 10-4, eliminating 10-5-2... and if they edit 10-4-7 to be "after a change of team possession".

[CalhounLJ]

You see, we have to have rules that are like what we see on TV. Except we can't just copy those rules, because then we'd be playing under NCAA or NFL rules, not NFHS rules, so they have to be the same, but different.

Good thing I invested in popcorn futures a few months ago.

To cross reference the other thread, however, you had mentioned:

I don't think this is the actual enforcement, unless I'm just not finding an AR that says otherwise:

This sounds like what NFHS is trying to get to with the new 10-4, eliminating 10-5-2... and if they edit 10-4-7 to be "after a change of team possession".

Yeah, I probably should have kept my mouth shut about that. I’m not an NCAA guy. I was going off a convo I had with a college guy.  My bad. This new rule change has my head spinning. I’m not sure of anything any more.  I do agree it looks like we are trying to get to the college rule without using the college rule.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

I do agree it looks like we are trying to get to the college rule without using the college rule.

  Which circles us back to the political issue that creates this mess.

This process has got to be remodeled. 

[ncwingman]

I believe we're all in agreement at this point

[ncwingman]

Ahh, so they’ve tripled down on 10-4 and the Table.

It’s a bold move, let’s see if it pays off for them.

The coup de grace of "The Table is Correct" is that the rule references have a few minor mistakes in pointing to the wrong spot. References to 10-4-5e should be 10-4-5f, and 10-4-5f should be 10-4-5g.

Minor issues on the grand scheme of this snafu, but it's just... perfect. No notes.

[CalhounLJ]

The coup de grace of "The Table is Correct" is that the rule references have a few minor mistakes in pointing to the wrong spot. References to 10-4-5e should be 10-4-5f, and 10-4-5f should be 10-4-5g.

Minor issues on the grand scheme of this snafu, but it's just... perfect. No notes.

Man, it's frustrating. I'm charged with teaching new guys this penalty enforcement, and right now it's like the blind leading the blind. There's no simple way to do it.

[HLinNC]

I'm thinking about just chopping off the reference column and laminating a copy of the table for me and my U to carry.

[CalhounLJ]

Ok, so I took my test this morning, and missed the question regarding 10-5-2. The question stated The enforcement spot for any foul by the defense is the previous spot when the run ends in the end zone and would result in a safety. I answered true because of this striking of 10-5-2. It was graded incorrect and referenced me to 10-5-2...

I took it again, marked the answer false, and it graded it as correct.

[HLinNC]

They did not update the answer key when they struck the rule.

Maryland sent out a memo to their officials that I got a copy of but they never stated how to answer it.

I imagine they will toss that question.  It wouldn't be the first time that has happened.

[CalhounLJ]

I'm thinking about just chopping off the reference column and laminating a copy of the table for me and my U to carry.

I'm going by last year's rules unless there's a foul behind the line of scrimmage. If the foul is by A, I'm going to previous spot. If the foul is by B, and the run ends behind the line, I'm going to previous spot. Otherwise, it's all-but-one. Except when it isn't.

[HLinNC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlP_gOTD0KQ&list=PLzl-_Hpw05_IcOvKM3cM_uDzW97p8BMKn
From LHSOA

[CalhounLJ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlP_gOTD0KQ&list=PLzl-_Hpw05_IcOvKM3cM_uDzW97p8BMKn
From LHSOA

This is great. The Rules committee should hire this guy.

[HLinNC]

 This is great.

Yeah, I'm gonna get some screen grabs of those graphics and print them off.

[Snapper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlP_gOTD0KQ&list=PLzl-_Hpw05_IcOvKM3cM_uDzW97p8BMKn
From LHSOA

He did a good job on that.

I've attached a study guide that a guy I know is using to teach the rule changes to his people.

[HLinNC]

He did a good job on that.

I've attached a study guide that a guy I know is using to teach the rule changes to his people.

Thanks

[CalhounLJ]

He did a good job on that.

I've attached a study guide that a guy I know is using to teach the rule changes to his people.

Man thanks. This is why I love this forum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk