RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: HLinNC on June 22, 2013, 09:39:26 AM
-
from the state office. Handbook was not included this year. Also we're in the second year of the two year manual cycle so no new manual this year.
The Arbiter also has them updated on their web site for Fed members. The handbook wouldn't open, got an error pop-up when I tried.
-
Ohio will ship them in mid July ...
-
And there will be an addendum. As printed, Rule 10-1-6 still states that OPI is a loss of down penalty and Rule 10-1-7 still states that DPI carries an automatic first down.
-
And 10-1-7 will be printed correctly in next year's rulebook...
(Just in time for them to realize that they should change DPI back to an auto first down...)
-
And 10-1-7 will be printed correctly in next year's rulebook...
(Just in time for them to realize that they should change DPI back to an auto first down...)
:bOW
-
And 10-1-7 will be printed correctly in next year's rulebook...
(Just in time for them to realize that they should change DPI back to an auto first down...)
...like I said months ago, this change is a train wreck looking for a rail crossing.
-
Ohio will ship them in mid July ...
I got mine (from OHSAA) yesterday. :)
-
I got mine (from OHSAA) yesterday. :)
Maybe mine will arrive soon, I paid my dues Monday.
-
And there will be an addendum. As printed, Rule 10-1-6 still states that OPI is a loss of down penalty and Rule 10-1-7 still states that DPI carries an automatic first down.
Perhaps NFHS should seriously consider vetting the books through RefStripes before printing.
Ralph?
-
Perhaps NFHS should seriously consider vetting the books through RefStripes before printing.
Ralph?
In all seriousness, both the Fed and the NCAA need to do a better job in this regard. This is not the first year for issues like this to happen.
-
I was on the Editorial Committee back at the turn of the Century, and the procedure then was for the four committee members, chairman and editor to review rule changes and ensure everything was updated. Usually everything is, sometimes it isn't. I'm sure NFHS will issue a correction along with their supplemental case plays that are usually published in August.
-
...like I said months ago, this change is a train wreck looking for a rail crossing.
No argument from me in the slightest.
-
I was on the Editorial Committee back at the turn of the Century, and the procedure then was for the four committee members, chairman and editor to review rule changes and ensure everything was updated. Usually everything is, sometimes it isn't. I'm sure NFHS will issue a correction along with their supplemental case plays that are usually published in August.
I understand where you are coming from, but this is a MAJOR change. If the current committee is composed of the same number of individuals, how could 6 people miss the same thing?
-
I understand where you are coming from, but this is a MAJOR change. If the current committee is composed of the same number of individuals, how could 6 people miss the same thing?
Especially with modern searchable electronic files........ :!#
-
What about Case book plays? No plays with updated rulings either?
-
What about Case book plays? No plays with updated rulings either?
Sorry...I am referring to the OPI and DPI issues....
-
Hopefully the corrections will be forthcoming shortly. The proofreaders of yesteryear were the originators of the term "OK". They would label an article "ALL CORRECT" as their seal of approval to the typesetters. So the "ALL CORRECT" wouldn't be considered as part of the article, it was deliberately misspelled "OLL KORRECT'" which was shortened to "OK". It sounds like many of you would not give the Rule Book and Case Book an OK. I value your opinions.
-
I understand mistakes. I'm sure the proofreaders get cross eyed pretty quick. To leave in an invalid ruling where they actually made a major change is pretty screwy though.
Now if we can ever get to the bottom of the resurrected OPI ineligible case play, we'll have a real Scooby-doo mystery solved! cRaZy
-
Before you accept the premise that NFHS proofreaders are simply human beings who sometimes make mistakes, I would like to remind you of the great "Hash Mark" incident of 2010.
Thru the 2009 season, hash marks were placed on the field so that they were bisected by their respective yard lines. In 2010, the NFHS rule book changed that to having the hash marks placed so that they bisect the yard lines. (See 2010 Rules Exam question 7.) Some of us fought the good fight and railed against the injustice. However to no avail.
To recap the problem, if the hash marks were actually placed so that they bisect the yard lines, there would be BY DEFINITION OF THE WORD BISECT, one set of hash marks running down the middle of the field, instead of the familiar two sets of hash marks which divide the field into three parts.
The 2011 rule book reverted to what had been the rule prior to 2010, with not so much as a "we goofed". The rift in the space time continuum was mended and peace was returned to the universe.
It has taken two years of counseling and therapy, but I am finally coming to grips with the unspeakable trauma that it caused.
However, I am not yet willing to accept that NFHS proofreaders are simply humans who sometimes make mistakes. I believe that they (at least the ones around during the 2010 season) are actually space aliens who tried to slip one by. So now we have the great DPI flap of 2013. Coincidence? I don't think so!
-
To dissect the word bisect may not have been the intent of the Rules Committee as the issue back then was that everyone called "hash marks" hash marks except the rule book that referred to them as "inbound lines". Many from large cities became confused with the inbound lines they faced every work morning in line for the commuter rail ???. We were only trying to clarify for the humbled masses that enjoyed our fine game without the reminder of their trip to work yEs:. The Rules Committee of 50 (NO, Texas & Mass don't have reps, but the Coaches' Assoc. & Officials' Assoc. does) is comprised of approx. 30% officials, a couple of coaches and the remainder state assoc. reps. The term "we goofed" :P is not in many of our vocabularies :'(. I don't believe there are any aliens on the committee, as the Canadian Football League is not represented :D. Hope this helps to clarify. Enjoy Independence Day, all :patrioticon: :patrioticon: :patrioticon:
-
I know we aren't supposed to have them, but does anyone have a PDF or electronic version? TIA jesspeterson@live.com
-
Maybe mine will arrive soon, I paid my dues Monday.
Update: got my books today...
-
I know we aren't supposed to have them, but does anyone have a PDF or electronic version?
Little too early, perhaps. I think some org in IA eventually posted one. Just Google NFHS rules every once in a while.
-
Still waiting for rulebooks in Wisconsin.
-
Still waiting for rulebooks in Wisconsin.
They refuse to send them to any officials that still wear shorts for Varsity football games! :)
-
No argument from me in the slightest.
You and me both. The OPI penalty needed to be addressed, but they threw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm irrationally angry about this change.
-
You and me both. The OPI penalty needed to be addressed, but they threw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm irrationally angry about this change.
While I think the removal of an automatic first down was foolish, I also think the commotion is much ado about nothing.
We threw 244 passes last year, our opponents threw 211. Out of those 455 pass attempts, there was one DPI call all year, and the 15 yards gave us a first down anyway. In the past 14 years of coaching, I can remember ONE DPI call that gave us a first down that we wouldn't have had with the yardage foul alone.
Philosophically, I agree, it was a dumb rule change. But in reality, it's a near non-issue.
-
While I think the removal of an automatic first down was foolish, I also think the commotion is much ado about nothing...
Philosophically, I agree, it was a dumb rule change. But in reality, it's a near non-issue.
I believe the jury will be out until season begins. Past performance is no indication of future results.
-
Philosophically, I agree, it was a dumb rule change. But in reality, it's a near non-issue.
Although I agree that the auto 1st down makes a difference in few infractions, I don't regard that as a good reason to screw up the rule.
The argument that DPI needed changing to "balance" the change to OPI is patently absurd on its face. Had I been in the room when somebody floated it, I would have struggled not to laugh in his face.
-
Although I agree that the auto 1st down makes a difference in few infractions, I don't regard that as a good reason to screw up the rule.
The argument that DPI needed changing to "balance" the change to OPI is patently absurd on its face. Had I been in the room when somebody floated it, I would have struggled not to laugh in his face.
Laugh all you want, that was the view held by at least a third of the committee, who have held up the LOD change in the OPI rule for years. The only way to get some of them into the fold was to eliminate the automatic first down on DPI.
But I feel the LOD on OPI was so atrocious, that if the only way to get rid of it was this, then I'll take it.
-
But I feel the LOD on OPI was so atrocious, that if the only way to get rid of it was this, then I'll take it.
I'll agree with that, too. Lesser of two evils (though it's close).
-
In the past 14 years of coaching, I can remember ONE DPI call that gave us a first down that we wouldn't have had with the yardage foul alone.
I believe the change will be more pronounced in goal-to-go situations. Savvy defensive coaches will instruct their DBs to interfere if they're beaten, knowing that the offense won't get a new series.
Ralph Damren posted in another thread that there's a lot of concern about the balance between offense & defense, and this appears to be one result of that concern.
-
I believe the change will be more pronounced in goal-to-go situations. Savvy defensive coaches will instruct their DBs to interfere if they're beaten, knowing that the offense won't get a new series.
I have been saying for months it will be open season on receivers.
-
Nobody seems as concerned that we will see more OPI as well: planned pick plays, etc.
-
At summer scrimmages, we were talking about this and I think our association may think about using the "additional 15 yards" provision more frequently for flagrantly intentional OPI or DPI.
This won't help in goal-line situations, but the first time someone gets a 30 yard penalty for PI around midfield, maybe it will help a little.
-
The "additional 15 yards" for intentional DPI has been in the rules for a long time. However, I have never seen it used. Has anyone actually used this provision? If so, what were the circumstances? Did the coach being hit with a '30 yarder' even know that there was such a rule?
-
Nobody seems as concerned that we will see more OPI as well: planned pick plays, etc.
That's because (in HS football) the 15-yard penalty is usually a "drive-killer" anyway. You *might* see it if A chooses to pass from inside their red zone, where we can't penalize the full 15.
-
The "additional 15 yards" for intentional DPI has been in the rules for a long time. However, I have never seen it used. Has anyone actually used this provision? If so, what were the circumstances? Did the coach being hit with a '30 yarder' even know that there was such a rule?
Yeah, I've personally never seen (or heard) it being used. It was just batted around as a possibility this year since we're much more likely to see flagrantly "intentional" PI this year.
-
Yeah, I've personally never seen (or heard) it being used. It was just batted around as a possibility this year since we're much more likely to see flagrantly "intentional" PI this year.
Don't go there. Let this sort itself out. Other than goal to go situations, it's really not going to be an issue. No one is going to teach players to intentionally interfere anymore than they used to, which was basically reserved for "obviously beat" situations.
Goal to go situations may be the exception, but an "intentional interference" call there is a non-issue anyway. You still can't penalize 30 yards.
-
While I agree that I'm hesitant to invoke the 30-yard nuclear bomb, I think it's more likely to see... shall we say, "obvious"... PI than just goal line. 3rd & 20, and Bubba gets beat at the line of scrimmage by Skippy. Last year, at the very least, A gets a first down in that situation. 15 yards and a replay of 3rd down is a lot more attractive to a defensive coach than the kid getting burned for a long first down or a TD.
-
The coaches that get screwed on offense this season will lobby long and hard for their rep to vote to re-instate the AFD on DPI and thus balance will be returned to The Force. Then we can all talk about how this was the conspiracy all along to rid OPI of the LOD. :sTiR: