Recent Posts

41

Non-Officiating Discussion / Morning humor

« Last post by ElvisLives on May 09, 2024, 09:20:47 AM »

What’s brown and sticky?


A stick.
————————————-

My friend said, “What rhymes with orange?” I told him, “No it doesn’t.”

————————————-

How many apples grow on a tree?


All of them.


Enjoy your days, everybody. 😀

42

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

« Last post by Ralph Damren on May 09, 2024, 06:17:37 AM »

Consider this...Lefty, the QB, fades back to pass. Pass hits big ole' Bubba ,an OT, legally in the backfield on his backside. This is just a bad pass and no IT. Same is true if Bhbba was beyond LOS. Bubba wandering downfield is still IR.

43

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

« Last post by dammitbobby on May 08, 2024, 12:42:08 PM »

Sorry to involve NCAA in this, but the reason it is not a foul in NCAA has nothing to do with muff versus fumble, or anything like it. The Illegal Touching rule (touching by an originally ineligible player) directly states that the ball must be intentionally touched to be a foul.

right -I was answering from the perspective of why drilling him in the back isn't considered a muff.

44

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

« Last post by CalhounLJ on May 08, 2024, 12:06:15 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.

you guess right.

45

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

« Last post by ElvisLives on May 08, 2024, 11:34:26 AM »

I'm guessing NFHS rule is similar to NCAA in the definition of a muff:

To muff the ball is to touch the ball in an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover it.

Sorry to involve NCAA in this, but the reason it is not a foul in NCAA has nothing to do with muff versus fumble, or anything like it. The Illegal Touching rule (touching by an originally ineligible player) directly states that the ball must be intentionally touched to be a foul.

46

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

« Last post by dammitbobby on May 08, 2024, 11:27:03 AM »

I'm guessing NFHS rule is similar to NCAA in the definition of a muff:

To muff the ball is to touch the ball in an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover it.

47

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

« Last post by Fatso on May 08, 2024, 11:11:50 AM »

False. This is not illegal touching.

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.

48

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

« Last post by sczeebra on May 08, 2024, 10:55:23 AM »

False. It will either be decline 3rd and 7 or accept ineligible downfield 2nd and 12. This is not illegal touching.

49

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

« Last post by Fatso on May 08, 2024, 10:50:17 AM »

2nd and 7 for Team A at Team B’s 35-yard line.
Guard A66 blocks his man at the line then moves
to the 30-yard line before A10 throws a pass
which hits A66 in the back and falls incomplete.
The Umpire flags the alleged infraction.

RULING: Team A will play 3rd down and 12 at
Team B’s 40-yard line.

True of False?

50

National Federation Discussion / Re: HARK, 'TIS TIME FOR SANTA'S WISH LIST........

« Last post by Ralph Damren on May 08, 2024, 09:18:59 AM »

No to pretty much everything. The goal should be to eliminate gray area. Adding exceptions and special scenarios to 45 different rules makes it extremely difficult for new officials. Hell, for lots of veteran officials as well. The game in HS and below is drastically different than NCAA, but so are the officials. Strive for simplification, uniformity, and standardization above all else.

YES - (11) IFP if QB went beyond LOS, then behind to pass. This just makes sense, and the rule as is has never made sense to anyone watching football.
(18 - 25) Proposals aimed at correcting/clarify/re-writing Rule 10. Cautiously yes, depending on what the "clarification" is.

You got your wish, Jason, almost. The only rule passed was that home team jerseys all needed to be of the same color. Scrambling QB >beyond LOS > behind LOS > forward pass didn't make it out of sub-committee for a final vote.  Clarification is only a 'nice' way of saying CORRECTION. We'll all know what was done when the books arrive.