Recent Posts

1

NCAA Discussion / Re: Begging for some help

« Last post by ElvisLives on Today at 08:38:47 PM »

All speculation, admittedly, but I ‘speculate’ that the definition of the snapper will need to be edited to eliminate the requirement that he touch the ball or place his hands at/below his knees, to become ‘established.’ 7-1-2-b-2 already prohibits the snapper from moving to a different position, so, unless this is modified, he is fixed (once established). The other 4 of the “fixed five” MAY be allowed to change position among themselves, but I would certainly prefer that the language be written to prohibit ALL of the “fixed five” from changing positions, once they are established. That will make our lives much easier.

Just some thoughts as I sit here bored in the Phoenix airport waiting to go home.

2

Texas Topics / Re: Apology and discussion

« Last post by TxJim on Today at 09:38:44 AM »

My reliable sources tell me that TASO is implementing a new video platform, and it will be several more weeks before it is up and running, and the videos made available in the member’s port.

Be patient.

Still waiting....

3

NCAA Discussion / Re: Begging for some help

« Last post by ElvisLives on Yesterday at 05:52:26 PM »

Years and years ago, numbers were changed like this, and the numbering exception rules probably came in to make that unnecessary (I’m guessing there, it’s actually before my time.)

I’m currently in Oregon (so beautiful), so, I can’t check the year things changed, but (in my time) it seems like it was in the mid-80s.
At the time, strictly for scrimmage kick formations, they allowed players to wear slip-on jerseys with numbers 50-79, without having to ‘report’ or anything like that. They could just change numbers and run in to the game. But, they became a nuisance to the players, and, instead of slipping them fully on, they would just pull them over their heads, and let them hang down in their front. The numbers were anywhere from hard, to impossible, to see/read. And, like virtually every other uniform rule, this rule, eventually, was ignored by players/coaches/officials. As hard as is it was for me to believe, it wasn’t so much the inability to see/read the number - it was the ‘cosmetics’ of the issue - it just LOOKED bad - that prompted the NCAA to find some way to solve this problem. So, under John Adams’ leadership, they developed the concept of the numbering exceptions we have now. But, as always, unscrupulous actors (coaches - especially ‘special teams’ coaches) do anything they can think of to circumvent the rule, and conceal their eligible linemen.
I believe this modification to the mandatory numbering rule has the potential to fix the problem, but they simply have to fully vet the change with all other rules, and consider all possible scenarios that could affect the rule. We are glad the help - aren’t we?
 

4

NCAA Discussion / Re: Begging for some help

« Last post by Snapper on Yesterday at 02:33:49 PM »

Ok, so this is interesting.  It’s preliminary though, so I don’t have many details.

But one of the things filtering out of the CFO referees mtg this weekend, is that they expect some coaches to react to the new skf numbering rule by having their players change jerseys for sk’s.

And to accommodate that without having to make a lot of announcements for number changes, they’ve developed a form to be used in pregame to record the anticipated changes.

I’m interpreting this as them saying, “Hey, we realize that you’re not trying to fool anyone if you make consistent changes like this on sk’s, so we’ll just deal with this administratively.”

Years and years ago, numbers were changed like this, and the numbering exception rules probably came in to make that unnecessary (I’m guessing there, it’s actually before my time.)

Anyway, that’s all the info that I have on that so far.  But I do find it interesting.  And I think that we will have all of the guidance we need well before the season.

5

NCAA Discussion / Re: Begging for some help

« Last post by TxJim on Yesterday at 11:17:02 AM »

If there is a way around the rules, a Texas high school coach will try to find it!

Etref, that was EXACTLY in mind in my post.... the wrinkle will be invented in a Texas HS football game.

6

Texas Topics / Re: TASO HQ

« Last post by TxJim on Yesterday at 11:12:28 AM »

Almost May and the drama persists.  I didn't sign up for these political games.

Well, this is not a problem specific to football chapters but to many non- or not-for-profits. In general, a lot of problems happen in organizations that have Bylaws and Roberts Rules of Order because most folks in the rank and file and on elected boards don't actually bother to learn, know, or understand how to properly apply them, and the meaning of important responsibilities, requirements, and limitations, and the motion instruments for good process within both, leading to situations that misinterpret or misuse the rules, leading to big misunderstandings and big conflicts. 

Most of TASO chapters are set up on via their own Bylaws using RRO per their Bylaws as the governing parliamentary process. When leadership and members don't understand parliamentary process, improper application of parliamentary procedures to either change a policy or change a Bylaw, or even set a standing rule or adopt a measure for what can be talked about in a meeting are going to happen either accidentally or perhaps even deliberately by counting on everyone else's ignorance... leading to a big mess that can take a very long time to sort out and regain function. I'm not saying that is what happened here because I know none of facts of the matter.  But what I described happens a lot elsewhere too.

7

NCAA Discussion / Re: Begging for some help

« Last post by Etref on Yesterday at 10:24:29 AM »

If there is a way around the rules, a Texas high school coach will try to find it!

8

NCAA Discussion / Re: Begging for some help

« Last post by TxJim on Yesterday at 09:49:59 AM »

On the scrimmage kick numbering exceptions:

That's interesting that the snapper's hands don't matter now - position is established when he takes his position, i.e., lines up over the ball. There will be coaches who are going to try to take advantage of this change and get cute trying to move players around, and won't realize that 'hands on the ball' isn't a criteria anymore.

We would remind coaches, if we need to, that the snapper 'takes his position' means when he meets first meets all the requirements of 2-27-4 as a lineman. The to-be snapper breaking from the huddle and moving to any position even one near the ball is still part of a Team A shift and that shift doesn't have to end with him in his final position as a legal lineman over the ball as snapper.

I suspect some coaches might, in order to preserve their ability to substitute or move players around, will have their snapper break the huddle and stop short of becoming a legal lineman and the snapper by rule, for example, with one foot forward and one facing a sideline (shoulders not parallel, not a lineman yet) near the ball, or stand in the backfield behind the ball and behind the waistline of the nearest Team A lineman (still not a lineman or in "position" yet) until they get any shifting or substitutions done. So basically until the snapper is a lineman at the scrimmage line facing their opponent’s goal line with the line of their shoulders approximately parallel, they aren't the snapper "in position" yet.

9

NCAA Discussion / Re: Not sure why I keep concerning myself, but…

« Last post by bossman72 on Yesterday at 07:35:07 AM »

Minor nitpick: it's illegal touching here, one of the most annoying differences to me. I would really like to know why NCAA and NFHS have decided to name it differently.

Likely to distinguish between illegal touching (the foul) and illegal touching (the violation).  If you say "first touching" you know it's about a kick being illegally touched.  I actually like the NFHS nomenclature here.  I believe the NFL has the same terminology, but I'm not positive.

10

NCAA Discussion / Re: Not sure why I keep concerning myself, but…

« Last post by Ralph Damren on Yesterday at 06:51:13 AM »

I actually meant the "illegal touching" <-> "first touching" difference.

Me thinks  the NFHS felt using word 'illegal' might cause some of us to think a  should follow .

Other uses of the term 'first touching' : Bubba's first touching    of the prom queen might be his last touching IF her boyfriend was nearby  .