RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: chriscwilson on September 16, 2016, 09:35:42 AM
-
Question for white hats. K team has to have at least four on one side of kicker for kickoffs (at time of kick). We have seen alot of teams that bunch up on the kickoff and I can't count 4. Our association has instructed to delay the ready for play until we can count 4. I will tell the K team to separate a little bit to count 4 on one side before the ready for play will be blown. What do other white hats do?
-
I get help from the official on R's restraining line (in our case, the LJ). Although our mechanics have the R primarily responsible for this call, I find it hard to look through all the R bodies every time.
-
You have no rule support to delay the RFP as you suggest.
-
you can get 2 sets of eyes on each side of the ball to review/verify (let the R take car of his business). Kick away.
-
By NFHS rule, they don't have to have 4 on a side until the kick. They can shift however they want prior to that. Blow the RFP and let them do what they will.
Minnesota is running an experiment this year to eliminate the bunch kick. All k players (kicker and holder exempted) must be 2 yards apart from the RFP to the kick. In this case, we hold the RFP until they are in a legal formation.
-
Minnesota is running an experiment this year to eliminate the bunch kick. All k players (kicker and holder exempted) must be 2 yards apart from the RFP to the kick. In this case, we hold the RFP until they are in a legal formation.
That sounds... unpleasant to enforce. Is that two yards radially or laterally? If you have two players on the same hash mark, but one on the 39 and the other on the 36, are they legal?
-
That sounds... unpleasant to enforce. Is that two yards radially or laterally? If you have two players on the same hash mark, but one on the 39 and the other on the 36, are they legal?
This is the actual rule text:
Elimination of the Bunch Kick Experiment: at the time of the ball is kicked, at least four K players must be on each side of the kicker and other than the kicker and holder, no K player may be within 2 yards of another K player. K must be aligned properly before the ready for play signal is given and must remain in a legal formation until the ball is kicked. If this rule is violated the play is blown dead immediately. K is penalized five-yards for encroachment and will re-kick.
It doesn't say if it's radially or laterally, but the way it was explained is that it's laterally. It hasn't been an issue so far (knock on wood). It was explained well to coaches and teams have adjusted accordingly.
-
Let's just eliminate free kicks. The bunch problem goes away and you've added another level of safety.
-
Let's just eliminate free kicks. The bunch problem goes away and you've added another level of safety.
Not to mention how much time will be saved! Imagine the next offensive series starting a minute after the PAT.
My question: how do we replicate the onside kick in this model? Even if it is only successful ~10% of the time, the fact that it exists makes many >1 score games more exciting due to their mere possibility. May be less of a problem for NFHS, but the TV companies who are paying the bills for the NCAA and NFL would certainly have that as a concern.
-
Not to mention how much time will be saved! Imagine the next offensive series starting a minute after the PAT.
My question: how do we replicate the onside kick in this model? Even if it is only successful ~10% of the time, the fact that it exists makes many >1 score games more exciting due to their mere possibility. May be less of a problem for NFHS, but the TV companies who are paying the bills for the NCAA and NFL would certainly have that as a concern.
What onside kick? In a few years, it would be "Remember when we did that...?"
My answer was to a statement made regarding a Minnesota experiment. This threads really belongs on the Fed board.
-
Not to mention how much time will be saved! Imagine the next offensive series starting a minute after the PAT.
My question: how do we replicate the onside kick in this model? Even if it is only successful ~10% of the time, the fact that it exists makes many >1 score games more exciting due to their mere possibility. May be less of a problem for NFHS, but the TV companies who are paying the bills for the NCAA and NFL would certainly have that as a concern.
I think that could be handled relatively easily. For example, you could say that the kicking team has the option of giving the ball to R on their 20 yd line or free kicking. All current free kick rules apply, except add a provision that if the kick exceeds 30 yds, then R may take it at the 40 (or 20 yds from the free kick spot, more accurately). So teams have the option to onside but a strong disincentive to kick too far. Change the kick out of bounds to 20 instead of 25 yds if you want to stay consistent, but that's not critical.
-
I read a proposal (NFL maybe?) allowing K to either give the ball to R at the R-30, or take the ball at the K-35, 4th and 10. (I may have the yard lines wrong)
This would allow K to possibly retain possession without actually kicking.
-
I read a proposal (NFL maybe?) allowing K to either give the ball to R at the R-30, or take the ball at the K-35, 4th and 10. (I may have the yard lines wrong)
This would allow K to possibly retain possession without actually kicking.
IMHO, easily the best idea former Bucs coach Greg Schiano came up with. Definitely better than "toes on the line" and trying to hit opposing QBs who were taking a knee. hEaDbAnG
-
Let's just eliminate free kicks. The bunch problem goes away and you've added another level of safety.
Let's just start playing flag football - or soccer - or badminton...
-
Let's just start playing flag football - or soccer - or badminton...
Soccer is more dangerous from an injury perspective than football. But if football doesn't get cleaned up, yep, you could be seeing flag football.
-
Soccer is more dangerous from an injury perspective than football.
Sorry, not even close.
NFHS data;
Injury rate per 1000 athlete exposures (practice or game):
Football: 3.87
Boys soccer: 1.52
Girls soccer: 2.29
Boys wrestling: 2.33
Boys basketball: 1.47
Girls basketball: 1.83
-
Only thing Soccer has more of than football in SC are ejections.
I'd like to see free Kicks remain a part of the game. Bunching and other concerns seems silly. I don't have the numbers to support this but I bet most Free Kick injuries were eliminated when blocking below the waist and targeting rules were adopted.
Long returns and onside kicks should forever be apart of the game IMO. :patrioticon:
-
I don't have an NFL rule book handy, but I think the way the NFL handles this is they have a minimum and maximum number of players in each section of the field. Eg: 1-2 players must be outside the numbers. 1-2 must be between numbers and hash, 2-4 must be between the hashes, etc.
-
I don't have an NFL rule book handy, but I think the way the NFL handles this is they have a minimum and maximum number of players in each section of the field. Eg: 1-2 players must be outside the numbers. 1-2 must be between numbers and hash, 2-4 must be between the hashes, etc.
NFL:
At least four players of the kicking team must be on each side of the ball. At least three players must be lined up outside each inbounds line, one of whom must be outside the yard-line number.
Note: A holder for a free kick counts as one of the required four players, regardless of where he is positioned.
-
Sorry, not even close.
NFHS data;
Injury rate per 1000 athlete exposures (practice or game):
Football: 3.87
Boys soccer: 1.52
Girls soccer: 2.29
Boys wrestling: 2.33
Boys basketball: 1.47
Girls basketball: 1.83
Boys and girls soccer combined (as they should be) provides a much truer picture, and makes "not even close" a misleading statement. 3.87 vs 3.81 negates your argument. Combined basketball numbers makes that sport 3.30 per 1,000 athlete exposures. That equates to roughly 1/2 of an athlete difference.
-
Boys and girls soccer combined (as they should be) provides a much truer picture, and makes "not even close" a misleading statement. 3.87 vs 3.81 negates your argument. Combined basketball numbers makes that sport 3.30 per 1,000 athlete exposures. That equates to roughly 1/2 of an athlete difference.
You forgot 2 divide by 2 combining girls and boys would be 1.905 your 3.81 would be among 2000 (1000 girls and 1000 boys)
-
Boys and girls soccer combined (as they should be) provides a much truer picture, and makes "not even close" a misleading statement. 3.87 vs 3.81 negates your argument. Combined basketball numbers makes that sport 3.30 per 1,000 athlete exposures. That equates to roughly 1/2 of an athlete difference.
Umm...that's not how rates work. Take the average of the numbers, not the sum.
-
Umm...that's not how rates work. Take the average of the numbers, not the sum.
Actually, you would take a weighted average based on the number playing each sport, but you were a lot closer than adding them!
-
AB is right. I was still on my first cup of coffee when I missed dividing by 2. The truest picture would be to know the total number of participants and plug that into the formula. Why the Fed insists on separating boys and girls is nothing more than political correctness IMO. Girls and boys play by the same set of rules and, albeit a small number, we all know there are girls who play football with boys.
-
AB is right. I was still on my first cup of coffee when I missed dividing by 2. The truest picture would be to know the total number of participants and plug that into the formula. Why the Fed insists on separating boys and girls is nothing more than political correctness IMO. Girls and boys play by the same set of rules and, albeit a small number, we all know there are girls who play football with boys.
To be honest, it did say "Boys Football", I dropped the gender reference. I only kept it in the others because there are a significant number of boys and girls in each. There was no number for "Girls Football".
I think the reason for separating girls and boys in the other is to see if there are gender differences in injury rates. In the sports shown, the answer seems to be yes.
If that's true, heaven help us if there are ever a lot of girls taking up football!
-
I read a proposal (NFL maybe?) allowing K to either give the ball to R at the R-30, or take the ball at the K-35, 4th and 10. (I may have the yard lines wrong)
This would allow K to possibly retain possession without actually kicking.
The idea I've heard that's best is this:
Team A scores. Instead of Team A kicking off, Team A gets the ball on the A-30. 4th and 15. They would normally punt, which replaces the kickoff. Punting is safer than a kickoff.
If Team A wants to 'onside kick' all they have to do is run a regular play and gain 15 yards.
The one issue I have with this is that for mismatched teams, Team A may elect to try for 15 yards every time, therefore Team B may never get the ball. The '15 yards' may have to be adjusted longer to make the odds of getting 15 yards equivalent to the odds of recovering an onside kick.
-
They're all dumb ideas!
At levels lower than the NFL, there is no evidence that kickoffs are any more dangerous than any other play. More receivers are injured on high passes across the middle than on any other play. Should we make a rule that says passes can only go to the sideline, or can be caught no higher than a receiver's shoulders?
Greg Schiano had a tragic accident happen to one of his kids, who led with his head on a block. I could callously argue (but I wouldn't) that better coaching would have prevented the accident, not changing an inherent rule of the game.
-
Punting is safer than a kickoff.
If in fact true, not enough to change a vital aspect of the game.
Leave the KO and officiate new protective rules appropriately.
-
I've been on the rules committee since 1992 and have seen some wild proposals show up on the docket but have yet to see one removing free kicks. The proposals allowing kicks to be ran out of the end zone and/or moving K's free kick line back have stopped which is probably good, too. The wildest of wild proposals was probably one that would change Rule 8 (scoring plays & TB) drastically. It went something like this:
Touchdown points....... 6 if scoring play netted 10 yards or less;
8 " " " " 11-25 yards;
9 " " " " 26-40 yards;
10 " " " " 41 yards or more;
10 " TD scored by defense or kick return.
Field Goal points......... 3 if kick is less that 30;
4 " " is between 30-40;
5 " " is greater than 40;
add additional point if scored by drop kick.
Safety and PATs to remain unchanged!
The outcome was it didn't come out of its subcommittee, received 0 support but plenty of :D ;D :) :laugh: :!# nAnA LOL
We felt it must have been proposed by a frustrated accountant tR:oLl
-
What are the stats on injuries related to kickoffs? I can't remember the last time we stopped a game for an injury on a kickoff.
-
I am discouraged by the frequent commentary on the danger of kickoffs in the game of football. Everything in life comes with danger. Collisions happen in many sports and taking away kickoffs would take away something from the character of the game. I suppose it is on the way, but removing kickoffs is not something I am looking forward to.
-
What are the stats on injuries related to kickoffs? I can't remember the last time we stopped a game for an injury on a kickoff.
I agree on this thought. I can't remember the last time a FK resulted in an injury, but I know it happens all the time on punts. Punts have a much higher rate of peel-back, blind-side blocks, and full speed collisions. Yet nobody is talking about eliminating the punt. Where is this movement to remove the kickoff getting its support and stats?
-
I've been on the rules committee since 1992 and have seen some wild proposals show up on the docket but have yet to see one removing free kicks.
Sometimes, when there is no indication of anything being broken, people still insist on tinkering. Some of these suggestions might be better intended for football played at the X-box level.