RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Ralph Damren on December 05, 2016, 01:05:49 PM
-
.....just not from me :(. I received mine form our state association and am lacking the computer finesse of posting it for you guys. Those with better computer skills may be able to find it somewhere - I checked @ NFHS.org and couldn't locate it.
-
The link I received came straight from the state office. After I completed it the link was disabled. Overall it was a poorly constructed survey IMO. I'd be surprised if any significant change comes from the questions asked.
-
http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/nfhs-sport-questionnaires/
Also, if you really want to stack the ballots, you can clear your browser history and do the survey again.
-
Ralph, did it come to you by carrier pigeon? nAnA
-
Thanks, Bossman, for digging it up. VALJ, ole' Dell told me our state office wanted something. I checked and found they wanted my opinion on this. I responded : "ayuh, 'spect so" and answered the questions. The questionnaire is broken into 3 parts :
Are you happy with this year's rule chages :) :) :) ?
Does this stuff bother you >:( :( :o :-\ :!#?
Would you like for this to happen ??? ??? ??? 8]?
We are given your responses at our national meeting and they are often used as barometers for potential rule changes.
AS THE OLE' PREACHER USED TO SAY.....
"SPEAK NOW, OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE..."
EDITOR'S NOTE : SORTA' LIKE OUR ELECTORIAL COLLEGE, WE ARE NOT BOUND TO VOTE WITH YOUR MAJORITY. tiphat:
-
Part III
1. No - Sorta strange question, but I'm in favor of the blind side block rule so went with "no".
2. Yes - Guidance is always good. Again, we need the blind side block rule.
3. Yes
4. Yes. This is a safety issue and we need rule guidance on it.
5. No. Think the current rule is fine.
6. Yes. GA already does this
7. No. Works in college, but there are multiple issues that make this not workable in HS.
8. No. Don't have a great reasoning, just doesn't make sense to me.
9. Yes. Does not deprive Team B of anything. It's a penalty for nothing more than a technicality.
10. No. One of the only areas I prefer the NFHS rule to the NCAA rule. The defense has earned a sack. Team A shouldn't be allowed to throw the ball away just because they've left the pocket.
-
Ralph,
I only have strong feelings about two of them.
I would like to see a rule change to require blind side blocks to be with open hand only.
I don't think being outside the tackle box or out of the pocket should be an excuse for IG. Plus, with only 5 of us on the field, this opens up another area of "was he or wasn't he" uncertainty that we can do without.
-
Ralph,
I only have strong feelings about two of them.
I would like to see a rule change to require blind side blocks to be with open hand only.
I don't think being outside the tackle box or out of the pocket should be an excuse for IG. Plus, with only 5 of us on the field, this opens up another area of "was he or wasn't he" uncertainty that we can do without.
My feelings are the same as yours. Several states are running the open hand block rule as an experiment and where it failed by a lone vote last year, I expect it to pass this time. While it may be considered a challenging call for an official to make, I don't believe it will be a challenging technique for coaches to teach and it is in the interest of safety. IG outside the tackle box has came to bat several times with little success. To we Mainers, a tackle box is what - along with an ice chest - we take to our favorite fishin' hole. tiphat:
-
My feelings are the same as yours. Several states are running the open hand block rule as an experiment and where it failed by a lone vote last year, I expect it to pass this time. While it may be considered a challenging call for an official to make, I don't believe it will be a challenging technique for coaches to teach and it is in the interest of safety. IG outside the tackle box has came to bat several times with little success. To we Mainers, a tackle box is what - along with an ice chest - we take to our favorite fishin' hole. tiphat:
I oppose the open hands blindside block rule, as I think it would indeed be hard to be consistent. But I'm not terribly vehement about it and don't mind it if adopted - as the writing on the wall appears to be.
As to the tackle box one, I agree that this may be infeasible/difficult to judge at the high school level, esp in crews of 4/5. But perhaps there's a variant that could be much easier to administer - what if you had an exception that allowed a passer to IG when outside the hash marks? It accomplishes pretty much all of the same thing in a much more objective and easier to see manner. Rather than asking a HS official (of varying abilities) to remember this notional and invisible boundary of the tackle box, just go with the hash marks. Yea, it's not quite as permissive - but close enough.
-
As to the tackle box one, I agree that this may be infeasible/difficult to judge at the high school level, esp in crews of 4/5. But perhaps there's a variant that could be much easier to administer - what if you had an exception that allowed a passer to IG when outside the hash marks? It accomplishes pretty much all of the same thing in a much more objective and easier to see manner. Rather than asking a HS official (of varying abilities) to remember this notional and invisible boundary of the tackle box, just go with the hash marks. Yea, it's not quite as permissive - but close enough.
Edited.
-
As to the tackle box one, I agree that this may be infeasible/difficult to judge at the high school level, esp in crews of 4/5. But perhaps there's a variant that could be much easier to administer - what if you had an exception that allowed a passer to IG when outside the hash marks? It accomplishes pretty much all of the same thing in a much more objective and easier to see manner. Rather than asking a HS official (of varying abilities) to remember this notional and invisible boundary of the tackle box, just go with the hash marks. Yea, it's not quite as permissive - but close enough.
While I'm not vehemently against any sort of tackle box, I'm personally against it. The defense made a good play in getting pressure on the QB; letting the QB legally ground a pass lets A off the hook.
And I'm all in favor of anything that makes those blind-side blocks less violent. If Bruno's trying to get to the ball carrier, and doesn't see Tugboat coming, there's no need for Tugboat to flip him butt over teakettle and knock him into the crowd. Speedy can turn the corner without a blow up block.
-
My responses:
Are these problems?
1. School bands playing when opponent’s offense is on the field.
No - I've not had a problem with this... maybe once.
2. Announcers announcing or playing amplified music when opponent’s offense is on the field.
No - I've not had a problem with this... maybe once.
3. Interpreting the free-blocking zone when the quarterback is not under center and the ball is immediately snapped out of the free-blocking zone.
Yes - We seem to be enforcing the BBW rule inconsistently when a player cuts from a shotgun formation.
4. Proper enforcement of targeting fouls.
Yes - Mainly because they're not called.
5. Enforcement options for “carryover fouls” when B fouls during scoring plays. (Are your game officials consistently and correctly giving the offended team the proper options?)
This is a very poorly worded question. If you answer based on the parenthesis, I'd say "Yes", however "Yes" is in response to "Is this a problem in your area?", which would be "No". To make this question better, maybe add "not" before "consistently".
6. Face guarding on passes not being called.
No - rarely see face guarding.
7. Increased use of tooth and mouth protectors with logo/pictures/words on them.
No - never seen any.
8. Inconsistent application of personal foul rules against potential tacklers in the vicinity of the runner by teammates of the runner.
Yes - sometimes these blow-up hits are getting flagged and sometimes they are not, and it's hard to give officials instruction when the NFHS doesn't clearly define what they want flagged.
9. A lack of clear direction from the NFHS Football Rules publications with regard to allowable blocks and potential differences in application of “excessive” and “unnecessary” contact.
Yes - see #8.
10. A light-colored home jersey being worn.
No - never seen it.
11. The shirt underneath the jersey not being tucked into the pants when a legal jersey just reaches the top of the pants.
No - don't recall seeing it.
Would you favor?
1. Clarifying that unless otherwise illegal by other rules (clipping, blocking in the back, spearing, illegal helmet contact) that blocks below the top of the shoulders and above the waist of a defender in the vicinity of the runner are legal and not to be considered excessive or unnecessary.
Yes - I think this would be a good clarification if the NFHS chose to go this route.
2. Providing specific guidance in the rules with a list of acts that should be considered excessive or unnecessary.
Yes - always good to be specific.
3. Establishing a new definition for blindside blocks, e.g., any block outside the free-blocking zone against an opponent who does not see the block coming.
Yes - works for me.
4. Requiring that blindside blocks be initiated with open hands.
Yes - Although seemingly in contradiction to my response to question 1, I would also favor this if this happens to be the new rule change. Hawaii has had great success with this as have other states.
5. Eliminating the free-blocking zone.
NOOOOOO - SAVE THE FREE BLOCKING ZONE!!!! You can't have goal line defense/offense without someone submarining and creating a pile. This would be an awful change.
6. Eliminating the free-blocking zone for players in a two-point stance.
No - I still think you can go immediate from a 2-point stance, despite other state's interpretations.
7. Starting a 40-second play count when the ball is ruled dead after a down.
Yes - I'm all for this, however if we never go away from the 25 sec clock, I won't complain.
8. Starting the game clock after B or R is awarded a new series.
No - this is dumb. NCAA tried this in 2006 and changed it the very next year.
9. Allowing a quarterback to spike the ball from the shotgun formation.
Yes - I see no issue with this. Plus everybody does shot gun now, so it would make sense.
10. Allowing a player to save a loss of yardage by throwing the ball so that it lands beyond the neutral zone, if the player is outside the tackle position.
No - I like the NFHS rule here. Defense made a good play, they should get the sack yardage.
-
While I'm not vehemently against any sort of tackle box, I'm personally against it. The defense made a good play in getting pressure on the QB; letting the QB legally ground a pass lets A off the hook.
I agree, but if the coaches or whomever are insistent that they simply must have this option, a concrete, visible, and consistent marker like the hash marks may be better and easier to use than the tackle box.
-
I agree, but if the coaches or whomever are insistent that they simply must have this option, a concrete, visible, and consistent marker like the hash marks may be better and easier to use than the tackle box.
You can't use the hash marks. What if the ball is snapped from the left hash mark? So if the QB takes one step to his left he is out, but hast to run clear across the field to be out on the other side?
-
You can't use the hash marks. What if the ball is snapped from the left hash mark? So if the QB takes one step to his left he is out, but hast to run clear across the field to be out on the other side?
Yea, you're right...numbers are problematic for similar reasons. Just trying to think of more concrete marks than tackle box, but best answer is just leave it as it is.
-
As somebody that's had to rule on the tackle box for IG purposes with 3, 4 and 5 officials in HS games, it's really not that hard fellas. Now whether or not it should be a rule in HS is another matter. I voted yes but I favor NCAA rules as a whole so I'm generally in favor of any change that moves NFHS rules closer to NCAA.
-
If we change the IG rule, to allow it outside the tackle box, then all the spectators, coaches and players will finally be right. Can we throw in the "uncatchable / no PI" rule while were at it?
-
If we change the IG rule, to allow it outside the tackle box, then all the spectators, coaches and players will finally be right. Can we throw in the "uncatchable / no PI" rule while were at it?
+1 !!!
-
If we change the IG rule, to allow it outside the tackle box, then all the spectators, coaches and players will finally be right. Can we throw in the "uncatchable / no PI" rule while were at it?
This is true... it would cut down on the rabble rabble from the peanut gallery when we call ING
-
This is true... it would cut down on the rabble rabble from the peanut gallery when we call ING
If only wishing, could make it so. Sorry, "the rabble rabble from the peanut gallery" (and elsewhere) have no interest, nor intention, of "cutting down" their behavior, they will simply find something else to whine about.
The "tackle box" concept was designed to provide the offense with a decided advantage that relieves them of consequences when they are being outplayed by the defense, and to puff up scoring opportunities in higher level contests. A more direct means of doing that might be to prohibit the defense from defending against forward passes anywhere between the hash marks and sidelines (but would only serve to further offset the balance between offense and defense).
Extending the "Spiking" exception to "shotgun" formations would likely create an additional opportunity for (those exact same rabble) to endlessly argue about the length of hesitation allowed in "immediately" (in the exception to 7-5-2-d) to differentiate "spiking" from pausing to seek that last opportunity to complete a covert pass.
There really is a difference between the primary level of football (Interscholastic) and the game's advanced extensions (NCAA, NFL) and the parts are not ALWAYS (positively) interchangeable.
-
1. Yes.
2. No. There can never be a definitive list of all prohibited acts that fit.
3 & 4. No. I'm opposed to the BSB rule.
5. No. Vehemently. Eliminating the FBZ eliminates critical aspects of running, traditional offenses, and, as mentioned, it destroys the GL plays.
6. No. The FBZ is defined and prohibited enough.
7. No. Unless it also accompanies the clock starting on the RFP on OOB plays (outside of 2 minutes), then it's just a new way for clock guys to screw up, and doesn't really speed the game up.
8. Yes. Anything that potentially runs time off the clock, I'm in favor of. We have games that sometimes run 200 plays, with both schools passing every single down, and the clock never seems to run. We routinely have 3 hour games. Start that clock.
9. Yes. No advantage gained.
10. No. I agree with others. This is a rule that would penalize the defense for playing well.
-
The blindside block rule is a disaster waiting to happen. I vote no on all but 9 & 10.
-
The blindside block rule is a disaster waiting to happen. I vote no on all but 9 & 10.
I haven't seen the statistics for the experimental blindside block rule in Arizona this season, but I can tell you anecdotally that there was absolutely no problems with it in the games that I officiated. By the 3rd or 4th game, you could see that coaches were teaching their kids to lead with their hands to initiate a blindside block.
-
If we change the IG rule, to allow it outside the tackle box, then all the spectators, coaches and players will finally be right. Can we throw in the "uncatchable / no PI" rule while were at it?
+1 !!!
+2!!!
-
Unfortunately, it's very likely some will still want to argue, just to hear the sound of their own voice. This would be one of Pandora's larger boxes
-
IF WE ALL AGREED ON EVERYTHING, OUR FORUM WOULD BECOME QUITE BORING...
:) :D ;D :-* :bOW ^talk yEs: nAnA :angel: :laugh:
Two proposed rules that I strongly oppose are :
(1) Allowing tackle box parameters for IG. IMHO, the O/D balance is alive and well in NFHS and allowing the QB to "dump one" to prevent a sack would have an impact on that. At other levels more offense sells more tickets and the QB usually draws the biggest paycheck = team's biggest investment. I don't feel imaging the tackle box would be any more of a challenge than imaging the free blocking zone, as we do today, but do not feel that it is an offensive advantage that we need---oh, by the way, bigger scores = longer games! :)
(2) Allowing a spike from the shotgun. When we voted to allow this back in 1995, there was two major concerns : (A) Would the QB spike as a last resort after being unable to spot an open receiver? (B) Would the QB spike after a muffed snap to prevent a sack? We felt we prevented both by requiring the QB to take a clean hand-to hand snap. IMHO, allowing the QB to spike from the shotgun would give him a panoramic view of potential receivers and a potential of a poor snap that could still be fielded cleanly by the QB (pop-up and caught ala Willie Mays) and spiked to prevent a sack.
PS : Tom Brady spikes from a direct snap :).
IF TWO MEN AGREE ON EVERYTHING, THEN ONLY ONE IS NEEDED :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
-
Tom Brady spikes from a direct snap :).
"If Tom Brady does it, that's good enough for me" said nobody, ever, outside of NE. :sTiR:
-
"If Tom Brady does it, that's good enough for me" said nobody, ever, outside of NE. :sTiR:
The NEXT NE Patriot game I'm assigned to, I'm going to allow Tom Brady to comply, and/or use to his advantage, any and all NFL rules he's entitled to.
Until then, I'm going to focus on whatever the NFHS Rule makers decide is appropriate for Interscholastic (High School and below) football games they provide rule reference for.
Allowing a passer to "dump" a pass, to avoid the consequences of superior defensive play is ACKNOWLEDGED as an adjustment to allow the offense an advantage, that is both unnecessary, and (I would suggest) counterproductive to the balance of the game.
Extending the exception to allow "spiking the ball" to other than a direct snap is a potential cluster**** in that it offers endless variations to argue, down to the gnat's eyelash level, of interpretation differences of the word "immediately".
-
Extending the exception to allow "spiking the ball" to other than a direct snap is a potential cluster**** in that it offers endless variations to argue, down to the gnat's eyelash level, of interpretation differences of the word "immediately".
I don't understand this objection in the slightest - we ALREADY have the requirement for immediately, in the current rule. If one were inclined to Zapruder the meaning of "immediately", one could do that right now.
-
I don't understand this objection in the slightest - we ALREADY have the requirement for immediately, in the current rule. If one were inclined to Zapruder the meaning of "immediately", one could do that right now.
I agree with this. In fact, I've seen more issues arise with how the rule is now due to 16-18 year old QBs running a shotgun only offense. It's an unnecessary penalty IMO.
No way a 3 yard snap gives a 16-18 year old QB enough time to read a defense or anything when they are thinking 'stop the clock, stop the clock, stop the clock.'
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
-
I agree with this. In fact, I've seen more issues arise with how the rule is now due to 16-18 year old QBs running a shotgun only offense. It's an unnecessary penalty IMO.
No way a 3 yard snap gives a 16-18 year old QB enough time to read a defense or anything when they are thinking 'stop the clock, stop the clock, stop the clock.'
Maybe just me, but I've learned never to underestimate the creative ingenuity of 16-18 year old QBs, or to presume they are going to actually take the time to think about what they might decide to do. The protocol currently in place, limited to hand to hand snaps, doesn't seem at all broken or in need of even the slightest repair or adjustment.
-
I don't understand this objection in the slightest - we ALREADY have the requirement for immediately, in the current rule. If one were inclined to Zapruder the meaning of "immediately", one could do that right now.
:thumbup :thumbup
-
The protocol currently in place, limited to hand to hand snaps, doesn't seem at all broken or in need of even the slightest repair or adjustment.
If this was truly the case, then we wouldn't be discussing it. This topic isn't necessarily a 'one vs the world' issue.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
-
The protocol currently in place, limited to hand to hand snaps, doesn't seem at all broken or in need of even the slightest repair or adjustment.
+1
-
If this was truly the case, then we wouldn't be discussing it. This topic isn't necessarily a 'one vs the world' issue.
Sometimes, it just might be that "the world" is actually right.
-
Sometimes, it just might be that "the world" is actually right.
Absolutely. And an unnecessary phrase at this point as 'the world' has shown somewhat of a split here.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
-
Under the current rule exception, if the QB hesitates to see if his TE is open before "clocking" the ball, we flag it.
There's no reason we couldn't do the same thing from a shotgun snap.
Of course, there's also no reason a coach couldn't spend a few minutes of practice time each week to work on the hand-to-hand snap.
-
Under the current rule exception, if the QB hesitates to see if his TE is open before "clocking" the ball, we flag it.
There's no reason we couldn't do the same thing from a shotgun snap.
+1. It seems to me that it's just as easy or difficult to determine whether the person receiving the ball "immediately" spikes it in a shotgun as it is hand to hand. The only difference is how the ball gets back to the QB.