Recent Posts

31

NCAA Discussion / Re: Rules Question on a Punt Play

« Last post by Legacy Zebra on May 13, 2024, 11:33:24 AM »

All of the criteria for post scrimmage kick enforcement are met (Team B’s foul was during the kick, the kick crossed the neutral zone, Team B will next put the ball in play, not a successful try, in OT or on a try). So Team A’s foul is treated as if it happened after the change of team possession. That means Team B has the option. They can choose offsetting fouls and replay the down, or they can decline the penalty for Team A’s foul and retain possession after completion of the penalty for their foul. The basic spot for this foul is the PSK spot. The PSK spot for this down is the spot where the fair catch was made. So the basic spot is the B-30 and the spot of the foul is the B-40. Because the basic spot is behind the spot of the foul, the penalty is enforced from the basic spot. The 15 yard penalty for clipping would make it Team B’s Ball, 1/10 @ B-15. Regardless of what Team B chooses, the play clock is at 25 and the game clock starts on the snap.

32

NCAA Discussion / Rules Question on a Punt Play

« Last post by Sturdy6 on May 13, 2024, 11:12:49 AM »

Quick question on a scrimmage kick play. 4/10 @ A-30. B1 makes a fair catch at the B-30. A45 is flagged for holding before the kick, and
B52 clips at the B-40 during the kick. What are the options?

33

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

« Last post by dammitbobby on May 13, 2024, 08:31:07 AM »

Yes, we get the fact that the UIL is trying to get the coaches to put all of their 'rushers' in 3 or 4 point stances. Would that they would. But they won't.

So what problem are they trying to solve here? Wouldn't a rule simply stating that anyone within the confines of the tackle box, +2 or +3 yards, must be in 2 or 3-point stance, if Team A is in a scrimmage kick formation, achieve the same thing, and be much simpler?

34

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

« Last post by ElvisLives on May 13, 2024, 08:27:07 AM »

I guess my brain filled in that gap without noticing that part of the rule was gone.

I did the same regarding the part about a muff/fumble/fake/broken play before the defensive contact. We’re humans with human brains, all far from perfect. My most respected former boss used to say, “He who ain’t screwin’ up ain’t doin’ anything.” Words to live by.

I am still seeking clarification on the various scenarios. And, I want somebody to ‘admit’ that the language “…the snap is muffed or fumbled…” is clearly improper, as written. (A snap can’t be fumbled.)

Will advise when/if I learn more.

35

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

« Last post by Legacy Zebra on May 13, 2024, 07:45:09 AM »

Wow, good catch Elvis. I guess my brain filled in that gap without noticing that part of the rule was gone. That does make the part about muffs and fakes more relevant.

 I would like TASO or UIL to issue guidance on offense initiated contact when an upright player crosses the neutral zone. We see this a lot in 1A football. A player who is attempting to rush off the edge is blocked by a wing back who crosses the formation and blocks a rusher who didn’t know the block was coming until after he rushed. We also sometimes see it occasionally in 11-man when a wing back reaches out and blocks a defender coming off the edge. Last year there was some debate about whether or not these situations were a foul. The rule says that the defense cannot “initiate contact (indicated by forward movement of the defensive player)”. So some were saying it’s on the defense to avoid that contact. Others said that if the offense initiated the block, there was no foul. It would be great if we could get an official interpretation.

36

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

« Last post by Ralph Damren on May 13, 2024, 06:23:00 AM »

Rule 2, rule 2, rule 2. All three of those words are defined in rule 2

NFHS Football Rules : Rule 2 is most informative
                                Rule 10 is most challanging
                                Rule 1-7 state's rights

U.S. Bill of Rights :    10 Amend. State's Rights 

37

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

« Last post by SCline on May 12, 2024, 09:18:15 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.

Rule 2, rule 2, rule 2. All three of those words are defined in rule 2

38

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

« Last post by ElvisLives on May 12, 2024, 10:40:58 AM »

RE: 2024 UIL Field Goal attempt rule for contact by B players on A players

OK, what I DO know, positively, is that the elimination of the 1-second element is conscious and deliberate. The UIL wanted this rule to apply longer than one second, so they removed the one-second, but added the parts about muff and fumble. So, as it is (and was, in 2023) an upright B player can rush immediately, and without any other restriction, as long as he doesn't contact an A player, or the contact is 'slight.' 

For 2024, an upright B player may not contact an A player, unless the snap has been muffed or fumbled, or it is obvious a place kick will not be attempted. However, there is ambiguity in that part of the rule. For this rule, what amount of 'muff' is required? The ball could be muffed by the holder, but, he could complete the catch before the ball hits the ground, and still successfully place the ball. How does that qualify?
What about a low snap that the holder is able to trap on the ground, but recover quickly and place the ball?
What about a high snap that the causes the holder to rise a bit to catch, but he does (no 'muff' involved), and is still able to place the ball?
What about a ball that bounces to the holder, who is able to recover immediately (no muff involved), and still place the ball?

Yes, we get the fact that the UIL is trying to get the coaches to put all of their 'rushers' in 3 or 4 point stances. Would that they would. But they won't. They'll find ways to push this envelope, and we need clear interpretations of the scenarios I described above to be able to effectively officiate this consistently.

I am seeking clarification on the scenarios.

Stay tuned.

39

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

« Last post by ElvisLives on May 11, 2024, 08:37:33 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.

Legacy, I just now noticed that the "one-second" element of the 2023 UIL rule does not exist in the 2024 language. As it is written, these restricted Team B players, apparently, can't make contact at all, if the snap is caught, the ball is successfully placed, and they kick the ball. What? They gotta stand there and wait to see if:
1) the snap is so bad that Team A won't possibly be able to attempt a place kick, or
2) the snap is muffed, or
3) the holder catches the snap then fumbles the ball while trying to place it, or
4) the holder catches the snap and then rises to run with the ball, or
5) the holder catches the snap but then passes the ball, or
6) the snap goes directly to the kicker who runs/passes the ball?

The timing does not seem to matter, any longer. Without waiting any specific amount of time, those restricted players can run through the line, or around the line, if they either don't make contact or their contact is 'slight' (which is actually not different than 2023).
By this language, though, it seems that the UIL doesn't want upright (at the snap) B players to be able to make any contact with Team A players, if the kick attempt proceeds 'normally.'

I will attempt to get clarification in the very near term.

40

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

« Last post by ETXZebra on May 11, 2024, 12:57:05 PM »

I’m assuming this is from the UIL. I haven’t seen nor heard from TASO on this. The next webinar, May 22, is covering the new rules. We should get it covered then.