RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: BIG DON on February 11, 2019, 04:52:44 PM
-
I will put it here so it not buried in another thread
BY STATE ASSOCIATION ADOPTION, USE OF VIDEO REVIEW ALLOWED FOR STATE POST-SEASON CONTESTS [1-3-7 NOTE (NEW), TABLE 1-7 – 1-3-7 NOTE (NEW)]
Rationale: By state association adoption, instant replay may only be used during state postseason contests to review decisions by the on-field game officials. This adoption would allow state associations to develop protocols for use of video replay.
IMPROVED VISIBILITY OF NUMBERS [1-5-1c, 1-5-1c(6) (NEW)]
Rationale: The purpose of numbers on jerseys is to provide clear identification of players. In order to enhance the ability to easily identify players, the committee has clarified the size requirements for jersey numbers through the 2023 season. The committee also added a new requirement that, effective in the 2024 season, jersey numbers must be a single solid color that clearly contrasts with the body color of the jersey.
REDEFINED REQUIREMENTS FOR A LEGAL SCRIMMAGE FORMATION [2-14-1, 7-2-5a]
Rationale: A legal scrimmage formation now requires at least five offensive players on their line of scrimmage with no more than four backs. This change will make it easier to identify legal and illegal offensive formations.
PROHIBITION ON TRIPPING THE RUNNER [2-45, 9-4-3o (NEW), 9-4-3o PENALTY (NEW)]
Rationale: In an effort to decrease risk, tripping the runner is now prohibited. It is now a foul to intentionally use the lower leg or foot to obstruct a runner below the knees.
40-SECOND PLAY CLOCK [2-35-1, 3-6-1, 3-6-2a, 7-2-1]
Rationale: To have a more consistent time period between downs, the rules committee approved situations where 40 seconds will be placed on the play clock. The new rule defines when 40 seconds will be placed on the play clock and when 25 seconds will be placed on the play clock.
HORSE-COLLAR TACKLE ADDITION [9-4-3k]
Rationale: Grabbing the name plate area of the jersey of the runner, directly below the back collar, and pulling the runner to the ground is now an illegal personal contact foul.
ILLEGAL KICKING AND BATTING PENALTY REDUCED [9-7 PENALTY]
Rationale: The penalty for illegally kicking or batting the ball was reduced from 15 yards to 10 yards.
2019 EDITORIAL CHANGES
2-6-2d, 5-2-2, 5-2-4, 6-5-4, 7-2-5a, 8-5-2 EXCEPTION, 9-3-8 PENALTY, 10-4-2c EXCEPTION, 10-5-1j,
2019 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
1.Proper Procedures for Weather Delays
2.Expanded Neutral Zone as it Applies to Run or Pass Options
3.Free-Blocking Zone and Legal Blocking
-
Thank you for this!
Regarding the points of emphasis...specifically #2...I just posted a comment/ question that applies. If you (or anyone) has time or interest to take a stab at it and give me your advice then it would be greatly appreciated!
Kleiny
-
It would be nice if the rules committee would apply the rule changes throughout the book in regards to all affected rules. These past few years have been a nightmare studying as this was not done, nor caught up with in the post rule change years.
Secondly, simply changing a rule to read that a team must have 5 on the LoS and no more than 4 in the backfield, also changes the number of participants a team may play with if fewer than 11 (which used to be 8, including a back to snap to, now this number is 6.) Technically, rewriting this rule cleared nothing up and did not make anything easier in identifying legal or illegal formations. The rules committee tried to fix what was not broken. However, I would like an example of how it was broken, in their opinion.
Then we run into the situation of having "at least 4 on each side of the kicker for a free kick." While I understand that this rule is intended to avoid an unbalanced side for an onside kick, it now means that a team cannot continue to participate with fewer than 9 players for its kickoff. This rule should have been rewritten to say that "at the time of the kick, no more than 6 players may be on either side of the kicker." Stating it this way, in no way changes how few players a team may participate with, if fewer than 11 as well as keeps one side from being overloaded. It is obvious that if 6 on one side, there must be a kicker and 4 on the other side of the kicker making 11 and also allows for 5 and 5.
So, as written, a team may play with 6 (new) until they have to kickoff. At that point, the game is forfeited.
SMH at the rules committee for the past 3 years. Seemingly, they have no concept of the game of football, much less how to properly implement rule changes and everything affected by them. Rules should be black and white, like the shirts we wear. However, it is easy to get 3 different interpretations out of veteran officials because of the way the rule book is now written. I am also guessing these guys never had to study these rules for an exam or to go out and actually work a game. If they had, they would/should know.
Mike
-
Secondly, simply changing a rule to read that a team must have 5 on the LoS and no more than 4 in the backfield, also changes the number of participants a team may play with if fewer than 11 (which used to be 8, including a back to snap to, now this number is 6.) Technically, rewriting this rule cleared nothing up and did not make anything easier in identifying legal or illegal formations. The rules committee tried to fix what was not broken. However, I would like an example of how it was broken, in their opinion.
If they only have 6 or 8 players we have much bigger issues than formations. I don't think the minimum number of players is or should be a concern of the rules committee. What they fixed here was a situation where a team only sent out 10 players (usually on a scrimmage kick but occasionally on a regular scrimmage play) and the missing player was a lineman (could be a receiver who was supposed to be on the line). They are already playing at a disadvantage because they are short a player, but they also commit a foul for an illegal formation because they didn't have 7 on the line. Most crews counted backs anyway because it's much easier to see them and quicker to count so this rule change was perfectly logical. Trying to turn it into a minimum number of players before forfeiting is digging into weeds that don't need to be touched.
Then we run into the situation of having "at least 4 on each side of the kicker for a free kick." While I understand that this rule is intended to avoid an unbalanced side for an onside kick, it now means that a team cannot continue to participate with fewer than 9 players for its kickoff. This rule should have been rewritten to say that "at the time of the kick, no more than 6 players may be on either side of the kicker." Stating it this way, in no way changes how few players a team may participate with, if fewer than 11 as well as keeps one side from being overloaded. It is obvious that if 6 on one side, there must be a kicker and 4 on the other side of the kicker making 11 and also allows for 5 and 5.
Every good crew I've ever talked with will not start a free kick if there aren't exactly 11 players on both sides. If they have fewer than 11 available to play I'm not likely allowing the game to continue unless everyone agrees to continue under somewhat modified rules (i.e. numbering could be an issue depending on what they have left). Again, the important criteria here isn't what is the minimum number of players you can get away playing with.
So, as written, a team may play with 6 (new) until they have to kickoff. At that point, the game is forfeited.[/quote]
SMH at the rules committee for the past 3 years. Seemingly, they have no concept of the game of football, much less how to properly implement rule changes and everything affected by them. Rules should be black and white, like the shirts we wear. However, it is easy to get 3 different interpretations out of veteran officials because of the way the rule book is now written. I am also guessing these guys never had to study these rules for an exam or to go out and actually work a game. If they had, they would/should know.
Mike
It's really easy to be critical of the rules committee, But like us officials on the field, they are human and it's not easy to be perfect. Adding the statement about the minimum of 5 on the line was unnecessary and has created a lot of confusion, but they didn't put it there because they are idiots or were trying to be difficult. They thought it would help clarify and support the rule. They strive to make the rules black and white but that is also impossible.
I hope your post was somewhat satirical and mocking some of the things people post on discussion forums. But if not I hope you take my words as common sense approaches to understanding the rules rather than just knowing the rules. That's what separates really good officials from excellent officials.
-
in as far as kickoffs, why not let them play with less than 11? - clearly it's preventative have someone on K to verify they have 11, but how do we know a coach has a crazy scheme on a kick where he only wants 9 out there? now if we call attention to it, we and we alone medded up his scheme which is perfectly legal - albeit unusual.
-
in as far as kickoffs, why not let them play with less than 11? - clearly it's preventative have someone on K to verify they have 11, but how do we know a coach has a crazy scheme on a kick where he only wants 9 out there? now if we call attention to it, we and we alone medded up his scheme which is perfectly legal - albeit unusual.
Go ahead and do that in your games. I've worked a lot of games in my nearly 20 years and nobody has ever intentionally run a kickoff with less than 11 players. This has been pretty good advice given to me by NFL, NCAA and veteran HS officials since I started. I'm going to trust their guidance.
-
I appreciate your input, Magician. Sometimes digging into the weeds of rules is what helps some of us understand them better and why they were written, as well as having a procedure when/if the last or worst case scenario happens that it is backed by the rules. Those little details, ie, how many players before a game is forfeited, matter. Absolutely you have other issues to address, but that's what we do.
I can understand that they did not want to continue to have a 5 yd penalty to an offense that is already playing at a disadvantage with 6 on the line and 10 total. However, our mechanics never allowed for a crew to just count the backfield. R and U count and confirm 11. L and LJ count 7 on the line and confirm. I can tell that you have some doubt yourself on the change and is open for discussion among your peers. Again, there is a better way and I appreciate you trying to explain that one. I agree with the rational of why penalize a team that is already at a disadvantage. We are now discussing that there are 2 people unaccounted for, but must be on the LoS if the offense has 11 or 10 or 9, you know what, it doesn't matter apparently.
Where I come from, even bad crews do not let the Kickoff occur until both teams have 11, so I am glad we share that.
My post was not meant to be satirical, nor was it ever intended to mock anyone, except maybe the process, the details, and I guess myself. You are correct, nobody's perfect. I do feel that those in charge of the rules should be able to consider the outcome of even simple changes, that in some cases, affect more than just the simple change made. I also think that rules CAN be written to be black and white, or at least on a level a 3rd grader could understand. Sorry we don't share the same vision on that. I may not be seasoned, or a vet, however, I am passionate about what I do on the field and I like stuff to make sense, and yes, common sense, or some kind of football sense anyway. Its frustrating and I am venting and you are probably right, I'll never be an excellent official, like yourself. I'm just happy giving back and that's good enough for me. Those that know the rules and the meaning behind them have a much easier time using common sense when explaining them however, I'm going to throw a 40 sec play clock in with the 25 sec play clock and mix it up just "to keep a more consistent time period between downs."
-
A word about unable to field 11.....
I started doing this in 1969 and have never been involved in a game where a team ran out of players. Once in a sub-varsity game , after a couple of injuries to linesmen, a coach claimed he didn't have any more players that could play line and asked to end the game. The other coach agreed. I would feel that if a team was unable to field 11 in a contact sport like ours, that both the coaches and officials would want to end the game, too.
A word about the new rule......
We didn't invent the wheel on this one, as NCAA has had it for several years. It was reported that nearly 50% of the IF fouls were called on special teams, while less than 10% of the plays involved them. These were usually caused by K only having 10 men on the field - while OL big ole' Bubba was watching the cheerleaders and forgot that he should be out on the field. Playing with 10 certainly didn't give K any advantage. In honor of Teddy Roosevelt's dislike of the flying-wedge, we still shouldn't allow more than 4 players in the backfield - thus, the new rule. If a team was not in a scrimmage kick formation, 5 players on the line would still be needed with numbers between 50-79 - that part didn't change. From an officials perspective, it should be easier to count to 5 than 7, and backs are easier to count than linemen :).
Hope this helps to understand the logic in all of this.
-
I agree with the "no more than 4 in the backfield philosophy." We have been using it for years to quickly know if there weren't enough players on the line. Also, we made sure to count 11 before every snap. I have no problem either way. My question for the rulesmakers is this: What is the NCAA rule on this formation? Do they require 5 numbered 50-79? If it is clear, why not simply adopt it? It seems that we are getting closer to NCAA rules every year ( and I have no problem with that either.) My suggestion is that if we are adopting an NCAA rule (such as :40), then adopt it in its entirety. In other words, do it like the NCAA does it. Adopt their mechanics and everything. They have been doing it long enough to have worked the kinks out. When we try to tweak NCAA rules at the HS level, we invariably mess it up.
-
However, our mechanics never allowed for a crew to just count the backfield. R and U count and confirm 11. L and LJ count 7 on the line and confirm.
The new rule is easier to officiate.
It's easy to count 4 backs. Counting linemen can get tricky since they could do the "russian dolls" where the giant tackle completely eclipses the shorter stocky guard and you can't see him. You also don't have to look at your wing across the field giving 3rd base coach signals and you can concentrate on the LOS.
-
However, our mechanics never allowed for a crew to just count the backfield. R and U count and confirm 11. L and LJ count 7 on the line and confirm. I can tell that you have some doubt yourself on the change and is open for discussion among your peers. We are now discussing that there are 2 people unaccounted for, but must be on the LoS if the offense has 11 or 10 or 9, you know what, it doesn't matter apparently.
It was never formally updated in the mechanics manual but it has been the standard way taught around here and many other parts of the country. As others have stated, if you know you have 11 it's much easier to count the 4 backs than to try to determine if there are 7 on the line from the wing position.
Two people aren't unaccounted for. They have to be on the line if they have 10 or 11 players and there are 4 in the backfield. When this rule was changed in the NCAA there was none of this confusion because they didn't add the superfulous language of at least 5 on the line with this rule. It is already accounted for by the next rule stating at least 5 ineligible numbers need to be on the line.
I have no doubt in this rule at all. I just didn't like the confusion created by the extra statement about 5 on the line. But the intent of the rule has been needed for a long time.
My post was not meant to be satirical, nor was it ever intended to mock anyone, except maybe the process, the details, and I guess myself. You are correct, nobody's perfect. I do feel that those in charge of the rules should be able to consider the outcome of even simple changes, that in some cases, affect more than just the simple change made. I also think that rules CAN be written to be black and white, or at least on a level a 3rd grader could understand. Sorry we don't share the same vision on that. I may not be seasoned, or a vet, however, I am passionate about what I do on the field and I like stuff to make sense, and yes, common sense, or some kind of football sense anyway. Its frustrating and I am venting and you are probably right, I'll never be an excellent official, like yourself. I'm just happy giving back and that's good enough for me. Those that know the rules and the meaning behind them have a much easier time using common sense when explaining them however, I'm going to throw a 40 sec play clock in with the 25 sec play clock and mix it up just "to keep a more consistent time period between downs."
If you are fairly new I'll pass on advice given to me as I started to gain more experience. Officiate WITH the rule book and not BY the rule book. Officials who are strict rule book officials become someone coaches, players and officials don't want to be around. If you have any interest in advancing to college officiating you will want to adopt this philosophy as well. It's critical to know the rules and know when to apply them. Discussing the minimum number of players needed on each play is fun conversation to have in meeting, discussion forums, and at the bar after a game, but to use it to criticize the rules committee for not knowing how to do their job is taking it way too far IMO.
-
CalhounLJ
The NCAA rule 7-4-3 2018:
Offensive Team Requirements—At the Snap ARTICLE 4. Violation of each of the following (a-c) is a live-ball foul; the play is allowed to continue.
a. Formation. At the snap Team A must be in a formation that meets these requirements:
1. All players must be inbounds.
2. All players must be either linemen or backs (Rule 2-27-4, A.R. 7-14-VIII).
3. At least five linemen must wear jerseys numbered 50 through 79 (Exception: When the snap is from a scrimmage kick formation, par. 5 below.)
4. No more than four players may be backs.
5. In a scrimmage kick formation at the snap (Rule 2-16-10) Team A may have fewer than five linemen numbered 50-79, subject to the following conditions: (a) Any and all linemen not numbered 50-79 who are ineligible receiver(s) by position become exceptions to the numbering rule when the snapper is established. (b) Any and all such numbering-exception players must be on the line and may not be on the end of the line. Otherwise, Team A commits a foul for an illegal formation. (c) Any and all such players are exceptions to the numbering rule throughout the down and remain ineligible receivers unless they become eligible under Rule 7-3-5 (forward pass touched by an official or a Team B player). The conditions in 5(a)–5(c) are no longer in effect if prior to the snap a period ends or there is a timeout charged to the referee or one of the teams.
As the mechanics go now (NFHS of SC), only the U will count 5 lineman and properly numbered. The L and LJ will count 4 in backfield. The only indication that this rule is broken would be by flags by both L and LJ simultaneous with the snap. I do not see a problem with these mechanics, but agree entirely with your statement about adopting NCAA rules and the issues with not doing it, as proven at that level.
-
Secondly, simply changing a rule to read that a team must have 5 on the LoS and no more than 4 in the backfield, also changes the number of participants a team may play with if fewer than 11 (which used to be 8, including a back to snap to, now this number is 6.) Technically, rewriting this rule cleared nothing up and did not make anything easier in identifying legal or illegal formations. The rules committee tried to fix what was not broken. However, I would like an example of how it was broken, in their opinion.
The offense has 10 players on the field. Tubby, number 62, who lines up between the snapper and the tackle, is too bust staring at the homecoming queen, so there are 6 players on the line of scrimmage, and 4 backs. Despite that, Lefty throws a touchdown to Stretch.
Last year, not only was team A at a disadvantage because of Tubby's hormones, but even though they were playing at a disadvantage to themselves, they lost the TD and suffered a 5 yard penalty from the previous spot on top of it. This year, Tubby's forgetfulness isn't penalized, and team A gets to keep the results of their play. Having 6 on the line and 4 backs doesn't benefit them in any way; why should they be penalized when they put themselves at a disadvantage and overcame it anyway?
-
in as far as kickoffs, why not let them play with less than 11? - clearly it's preventative have someone on K to verify they have 11, but how do we know a coach has a crazy scheme on a kick where he only wants 9 out there? now if we call attention to it, we and we alone medded up his scheme which is perfectly legal - albeit unusual.
Go ahead and do that in your games. I've worked a lot of games in my nearly 20 years and nobody has ever intentionally run a kickoff with less than 11 players. This has been pretty good advice given to me by NFL, NCAA and veteran HS officials since I started. I'm going to trust their guidance.
"Coach, you've only got 9 out there."
"Mr. Official, we only want 9 out there."
"OK, Coach, you got it."
TWEET!
Problem solved. Don't make this more complicated than it has to be.
-
Magician. Thanks for calling me out. Last time I checked, this was a discussion forum. I appreciate the advice. So where do I go to be critical of the rules committee?
The offense has 10 players on the field. Tubby, number 62, who lines up between the snapper and the tackle, is too bust staring at the homecoming queen, so there are 6 players on the line of scrimmage, and 4 backs. Despite that, Lefty throws a touchdown to Stretch.
Last year, not only was team A at a disadvantage because of Tubby's hormones, but even though they were playing at a disadvantage to themselves, they lost the TD and suffered a 5 yard penalty from the previous spot on top of it. This year, Tubby's forgetfulness isn't penalized, and team A gets to keep the results of their play. Having 6 on the line and 4 backs doesn't benefit them in any way; why should they be penalized when they put themselves at a disadvantage and overcame it anyway?
I addressed that in a post further down replying to Magician. Love the nicknames...I can understand that they did not want to continue to have a 5 yd penalty to an offense that is already playing at a disadvantage with 6 on the line and 10 total. However, our mechanics never allowed for a crew to just count the backfield. R and U count and confirm 11. L and LJ count 7 on the line and confirm. I can tell that you have some doubt yourself on the change and is open for discussion among your peers. Again, there is a better way and I appreciate you trying to explain that one. I agree with the rational of why penalize a team that is already at a disadvantage. We are now discussing that there are 2 people unaccounted for, but must be on the LoS if the offense has 11 or 10 or 9, you know what, it doesn't matter apparently.
-
Magician. Thanks for calling me out. Last time I checked, this was a discussion forum. I appreciate the advice. So where do I go to be critical of the rules committee?
There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the rules committee and this is an appropriate place to do that. To be critical of them because they didn't consider a change in the minimum number of players required to participate in a play seems a little extreme. Be critical of them adding the superfluous language in the new formation rule. Be critical of them eliminating the auto first down on DPI as a compromise to get rid of the LOD of OPI. Those are things that actually impact the game. Nobody is going to play 11-man football with 6 or 8 players.
-
Magician. Thanks for calling me out. Last time I checked, this was a discussion forum. I appreciate the advice. So where do I go to be critical of the rules committee?
There are also differences of criticality. Calling a respected official and a fellow member of this board as someone who "has no concept of the game of football" crosses the line of critique into personal abuse in my book.
-
The offense has 10 players on the field. Tubby, number 62, who lines up between the snapper and the tackle, is too bust staring at the homecoming queen, so there are 6 players on the line of scrimmage, and 4 backs. Despite that, Lefty throws a touchdown to Stretch.
Last year, not only was team A at a disadvantage because of Tubby's hormones, but even though they were playing at a disadvantage to themselves, they lost the TD and suffered a 5 yard penalty from the previous spot on top of it. This year, Tubby's forgetfulness isn't penalized, and team A gets to keep the results of their play. Having 6 on the line and 4 backs doesn't benefit them in any way; why should they be penalized when they put themselves at a disadvantage and overcame it anyway?
Well, technically this is still a foul under the new rule, assuming Tubby is one of the five players numbered 50-79. If he's off the line at the snap, Team A didn't have 5 on the line numbered correctly.
-
There are also differences of criticality. Calling a respected official and a fellow member of this board as someone who "has no concept of the game of football" crosses the line of critique into personal abuse in my book.
This board... Does that mean you are on it? And who is this respected official to which you refer? If there is a respected official on the rules committee, I lost respect to him 3 years ago. My quote was "seemingly has no concept of the game of football." I'm going to stick behind it, and would like to add, concept of the English language. Use it as constructive criticism and do better. Personal abuse...laughable. I hope you are not on the board. If you feel personally abused, you do not belong there.
-
There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the rules committee and this is an appropriate place to do that. To be critical of them because they didn't consider a change in the minimum number of players required to participate in a play seems a little extreme. Be critical of them adding the superfluous language in the new formation rule. Be critical of them eliminating the auto first down on DPI as a compromise to get rid of the LOD of OPI. Those are things that actually impact the game. Nobody is going to play 11-man football with 6 or 8 players.
Welcome to the conversation. I am critical of those things as well. Don't get so hung up on the fact that no one can tell me when to forfeit a game based on the number of offensive players. I only brought it up the once, yet you continue to harp on that I had that question. Also, it is kind of hard to listen when you speak from so high up on the pedestal.
-
I'm going to stick behind it, and would like to add, concept of the English language. Use it as constructive criticism and do better.
Sorry, English is my second language and I often do make mistakes. I do try to get better, though :)
FWIW, I'm not an NFHS official nor connected in any way with the NFHS (or NCAA) rules committee.
-
Sorry, English is my second language and I often do make mistakes. I do try to get better, though :)
FWIW, I'm not an NFHS official nor connected in any way with the NFHS (or NCAA) rules committee.
I apologize if you felt I was criticizing you personally on the use of the English language. I was referring to the NFHS specifically in regards to Rule 9-4-3i NOTE: Illegal helmet contact may be judged by the game official a flagrant act...
When asked the question on the NFHS exam, "Illegal helmet contact may not be judged by the game official a flagrant act." According to the powers that be, this is a false statement. In actuality, both are true. As in, if I may do something, it is also permitted that I may not do something.
"If the statement, 'An official may not judge illegal helmet contact to be flagrant,' and this is False, then all illegal helmet contact must always be ruled flagrant." That is from a 3rd grade English teacher...
That is what I meant by concept of the English language and not directed toward you.
I have been accused of not using or needing to use common sense and would like to say that I am just subject to the rules as they are written and put in place by the powers that be. I did not eject a single player for illegal helmet contact this past season as none were judged to be flagrant.
-
Sustitute "can" for may in this instance. It is best to read NFHS exam questions in the context of what is being asked at the moment, not in the realm of the possible. And you may still be wrong. They've been known to toss out questions after the exams are all in.
-
The way I see this rule is the old "no man's land" verbiage is done away with. If a player is clearly not a back then he must be on the LOS. It does away with the Illegal Formation calls for a "6-man line" because a goofy-minded Split End could not figure out how to stand on the LOS and would put himself in a position that was neither on the LOS or behind the waistline of the snapper. That is, of course, with 11-players on offense. Now, let's say there are less than 11-offensive players. If there are 10-players with 6 on the LOS and 4 in the back field this is now a legal formation. 9-players? 5 on the LOS and 4 in the backfield is now a legal formation. This goes against over 100-years of football rules and will take some getting used to.
-
The way I see this rule is the old "no man's land" verbiage is done away with. If a player is clearly not a back then he must be on the LOS. It does away with the Illegal Formation calls for a "6-man line" because a goofy-minded Split End could not figure out how to stand on the LOS and would put himself in a position that was neither on the LOS or behind the waistline of the snapper. That is, of course, with 11-players on offense. Now, let's say there are less than 11-offensive players. If there are 10-players with 6 on the LOS and 4 in the back field this is now a legal formation. 9-players? 5 on the LOS and 4 in the backfield is now a legal formation. This goes against over 100-years of football rules and will take some getting used to.
Incorrect. Being in no-man's land is still technically a foul for illegal formation. And it will be called just as often (almost never). Again, you are being confused by the language added unnecessarily to the new rule. The next bullet already requires at least 5 linemen because you need 5 ineligible numbers on the line. They were just reinforcing that, but it's created the confusion like you.
This actually matches up with how I've been taught and taught others the last 20 years. It just removes having to flag it if they only have 10 players and the missing player is a lineman. That is all this does. It's nothing more than that and not a major change to the game of football. It was a common sense update to match what most of the crews were already doing.
-
This goes against over 100-years of football rules and will take some getting used to.
Not really, this should actually simplify making the call and result in fewer flags. I believe that this is another of the tweaks in the rules designed to minimize the number of potential flags that we would have where the rules makers believe that there is no real advantage/disadvantage.
-
whoops.
-
Sustitute "can" for may in this instance. It is best to read NFHS exam questions in the context of what is being asked at the moment, not in the realm of the possible. And you may still be wrong. They've been known to toss out questions after the exams are all in.
That is the first I have heard to just change words. We only use the NFHS exam to qualify for taking the state exam at the clinic. However, that question was on our state exam as well, and I needed to see if common sense had gone by the wayside. It had.
Yes, I had seen the question before and knew what answer they were looking for. I also know that we "may not" judge illegal helmet contact to be flagrant and that is why we do not eject a player for every instance it happens.
-
That is the first I have heard to just change words. We only use the NFHS exam to qualify for taking the state exam at the clinic. However, that question was on our state exam as well, and I needed to see if common sense had gone by the wayside. It had.
Yes, I had seen the question before and knew what answer they were looking for. I also know that we "may not" judge illegal helmet contact to be flagrant and that is why we do not eject a player for every instance it happens.
My two cents: Words have meaning in context. "May not" in some circumstances can mean "not allowed." Example: "Mrs. Smith, may I go to the restroom?" "No, you may not." That is the sense in which I read the statement. The answer to the question is false because it's not true if you interpret "may not" as "not allowed," because we ARE ALLOWED to judge illegal helmet contact to be flagrant.
-
My two cents: Words have meaning in context. "May not" in some circumstances can mean "not allowed." Example: "Mrs. Smith, may I go to the restroom?" "No, you may not." That is the sense in which I read the statement. The answer to the question is false because it's not true if you interpret "may not" as "not allowed," because we ARE ALLOWED to judge illegal helmet contact to be flagrant.
Exactly, my point, "if you interpret..." We shouldn't have to interpret these rules. You are stating that they changed the meaning of "may" from the definition to the question... It is a play on words that doesn't belong in football rules. At least they fixed the, Illegal equipment: eye shields which are neither, not, nor transparent. I would like to see more of this as we progress through these changes.
The covering official shall judge if the illegal helmet contact was flagrant when reporting the foul to the Referee. Or allow the meaning of the word may to stay the same in the question as it is intended in the rule.
-
I feel your frustration but I’m afraid it’s a vain pursuit. Interpretation is an essential cog in communication. You can’t read, understand, or even debate without interpreting the words being used. And for what it’s worth, my interpretation of the use of “may” in the rule and the test question is consistent.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
This board... Does that mean you are on it? And who is this respected official to which you refer? If there is a respected official on the rules committee, I lost respect to him 3 years ago. My quote was "seemingly has no concept of the game of football." I'm going to stick behind it, and would like to add, concept of the English language. Use it as constructive criticism and do better. Personal abuse...laughable. I hope you are not on the board. If you feel personally abused, you do not belong there.
For crying out loud. 🤦♂️
-
It would be nice if the rules committee would apply the rule changes throughout the book in regards to all affected rules. These past few years have been a nightmare studying as this was not done, nor caught up with in the post rule change years.
Secondly, simply changing a rule to read that a team must have 5 on the LoS and no more than 4 in the backfield, also changes the number of participants a team may play with if fewer than 11 (which used to be 8, including a back to snap to, now this number is 6.) Technically, rewriting this rule cleared nothing up and did not make anything easier in identifying legal or illegal formations. The rules committee tried to fix what was not broken. However, I would like an example of how it was broken, in their opinion.
Then we run into the situation of having "at least 4 on each side of the kicker for a free kick." While I understand that this rule is intended to avoid an unbalanced side for an onside kick, it now means that a team cannot continue to participate with fewer than 9 players for its kickoff. This rule should have been rewritten to say that "at the time of the kick, no more than 6 players may be on either side of the kicker." Stating it this way, in no way changes how few players a team may participate with, if fewer than 11 as well as keeps one side from being overloaded. It is obvious that if 6 on one side, there must be a kicker and 4 on the other side of the kicker making 11 and also allows for 5 and 5.
So, as written, a team may play with 6 (new) until they have to kickoff. At that point, the game is forfeited.
SMH at the rules committee for the past 3 years. Seemingly, they have no concept of the game of football, much less how to properly implement rule changes and everything affected by them. Rules should be black and white, like the shirts we wear. However, it is easy to get 3 different interpretations out of veteran officials because of the way the rule book is now written. I am also guessing these guys never had to study these rules for an exam or to go out and actually work a game. If they had, they would/should know.
Mike
Actually Mike, unfortunately, you are misreading the Rules Book!
In both NFHS and NCAA, Team A can legally snap the football with 5 players. (And, last year, NFHS could legally snap with 7)
NFHS 2-40-2, 2-40-3, 7-2-5a
NCAA 2-23-1b, 2-23-1c, 4-1-1, 7-4-3
Additionally, you last paragraph can best be described with the simple phrase "We mock what we don't understand!"
Keep throwing out all the negative comments, it should really help you climb the ladder of officiating success way more rapidly than most. :puke:
-
Yes, a Tackle can recover a snap and advance free of penalty. According to 7-2-8, I would not allow a Guard to recover, as any instance of only having 5 lineman would be a planned loose ball play. I appreciate you clarifying.
We mock what we don't understand. Great line from Spies Like Us.
What would your solution be to not have 3 different interpretations to a rule by veteran officials?
-
It would be nice if the rules committee would apply the rule changes throughout the book in regards to all affected rules. These past few years have been a nightmare studying as this was not done, nor caught up with in the post rule change years.
Secondly, simply changing a rule to read that a team must have 5 on the LoS and no more than 4 in the backfield, also changes the number of participants a team may play with if fewer than 11 (which used to be 8, including a back to snap to, now this number is 6.) Technically, rewriting this rule cleared nothing up and did not make anything easier in identifying legal or illegal formations. The rules committee tried to fix what was not broken. However, I would like an example of how it was broken, in their opinion.
Then we run into the situation of having "at least 4 on each side of the kicker for a free kick." While I understand that this rule is intended to avoid an unbalanced side for an onside kick, it now means that a team cannot continue to participate with fewer than 9 players for its kickoff. This rule should have been rewritten to say that "at the time of the kick, no more than 6 players may be on either side of the kicker." Stating it this way, in no way changes how few players a team may participate with, if fewer than 11 as well as keeps one side from being overloaded. It is obvious that if 6 on one side, there must be a kicker and 4 on the other side of the kicker making 11 and also allows for 5 and 5.
So, as written, a team may play with 6 (new) until they have to kickoff. At that point, the game is forfeited.
SMH at the rules committee for the past 3 years. Seemingly, they have no concept of the game of football, much less how to properly implement rule changes and everything affected by them. Rules should be black and white, like the shirts we wear. However, it is easy to get 3 different interpretations out of veteran officials because of the way the rule book is now written. I am also guessing these guys never had to study these rules for an exam or to go out and actually work a game. If they had, they would/should know.
Mike
In defense of my fellow brothers on the rules committee, I offer the following :
All approved rule proposals are screened closely prior to publication. An intent is to make the reading as short and clear is possible. The final wordage comes from the Editorial Committee, who spend nearly a full day of proof-reading and review. While I can't speak to the background of all it's members, I can say that I know and fully respect the superior rule knowledge of Steve Hall (NH) and Tyler Cerimeli (AZ) , who are both very active and highly-rated field officials. I haven't had a chat with Mark Uyl but where he represents the National Association of Sports Officials, I assume he, too, is both very active and very knowledgeable about the game we all love. He is also a member of our Editorial Committee.
We don't have any Ivy League English Professors on the NFHS Football Rules Committee. That may be a good thing.
-
In defense of my fellow brothers on the rules committee, I offer the following :
All approved rule proposals are screened closely prior to publication. An intent is to make the reading as short and clear is possible. The final wordage comes from the Editorial Committee, who spend nearly a full day of proof-reading and review. While I can't speak to the background of all it's members, I can say that I know and fully respect the superior rule knowledge of Steve Hall (NH) and Tyler Cerimeli (AZ) , who are both very active and highly-rated field officials. I haven't had a chat with Mark Uyl but where he represents the National Association of Sports Officials, I assume he, too, is both very active and very knowledgeable about the game we all love. He is also a member of our Editorial Committee.
We don't have any Ivy League English Professors on the NFHS Football Rules Committee. That may be a good thing.
I appreciate that input. However, I am still looking for the solution to why we have so many different interpretations from the veteran officials. Some of us feel like these rules can be written much more simply and clear.
-
The vast majority of the rules, when read slowly and deliberately, using common rules of grammar, are simple and clear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The vast majority of the rules, when read slowly and deliberately, using common rules of grammar, are simple and clear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Probably true 75-85% of the time, but the real problem is very few rules implementations can be correctly understood from a single location within the rule book. Many of them have seriously overlap areas, most of those involving rules 2, 6, 9, and 10, making the simple straightforward read & understand impossible. If these books were being reviewed by the same people who reviewed my work with the FDA and NRC they would have so much red it would take a superhuman effort to fix it. The repeatedly stated idea that NFHS rules have few if any exceptions is a mirage, they just have literally dozens of overlapping wording in the rules attempting IMHO to cover exceptions without using the word. A good example is the definitions section where a brief, clear and concise definition is provided for many terms and then changed later in the books. That violates every concept of technical writing and should not happen.
A good example of words with no specific meaning is Case Book 3.6.1 Comment 1 that explains "2) The umpire will need to be alert to substitutions and not leave the ball too quickly after placing it down without observing both teams to prevent possible substitution advantages and fouls." I was told and have read here many times that the case book is analogous to the interpretations section of the NCAA rule book and gives specific guidance for specific sets of conditions during the game. How does the " … The umpire will need to be alert …" give us any real guidance? ???
-
A good example of words with no specific meaning is Case Book 3.6.1 Comment 1 that explains "2) The umpire will need to be alert to substitutions and not leave the ball too quickly after placing it down without observing both teams to prevent possible substitution advantages and fouls."
You are correct. Keep your eyes peeled for a correction from the NFHS on that one.
I believe it to be a work product issue that erroneously got placed in the Case Book and the Pre-Season Guide.
It has no Rules book support whatsoever.
Stay tuned on that one.
-
You are correct. Keep your eyes peeled for a correction from the NFHS on that one.
I believe it to be a work product issue that erroneously got placed in the Case Book and the Pre-Season Guide.
It has no Rules book support whatsoever.
Stay tuned on that one.
I would be careful with the "It has no Rules book support whatsoever." since it's has been stressed several times, via after the after game video followup, that it is up to the crew to make sure that Team A does not gain a clear advantage via direct use of the substitution process. That takes some due diligence from the entire crew to pick up the kinds of subterfuge using subs and let the U know since he is the only one who has any real chance of preventing the snap. If the stated goal of many of the recent rules changes is to minimize the calling of fouls I would expect that the intent here is to prevent the snap before we have to throw a flag for using the substitution process to deceive.
-
I agree, NVFOA, that the rule book is becoming unwieldy, poorly written, and utilizes too much extrapolation to come to a ruling in a lot of instances. The NFHS should seriously initiate a review committee to hack it down and clean it up. I think most of the problem, much like law making governmental bodies, is that changes are made without reviewing all the adjoining and conjoining statutes it effects. Sometimes its just plain old error.
I agree also with the sentiment about "exceptions". They continue to decry them but the book is slowly being made chock full of them. I prefer not to have them myself. At the rate they are going, eventually we just will need to merge with NCAA rules and get it over with.
What has sort of puzzled me this summer is the push for the :40 clock, despite the other elephant in the room which is the declining number of officials. I've read many accounts from those in states that experimented with the rule about how it has not been that difficult. However, I can foresee a few issues- 4 man crews or less, lack of ballboys and trained chaincrew at the sub-varsity level- come to mind. In reality, the "pace of play" complaint was geared to those coaches that think they're going to run a track meet out there and the NFHS played right into their hands. Meanwhile an aging and lessening workforce of officials is expected to go faster. I don't see that aiding in recruitment or retention.
-
I agree, NVFOA, that the rule book is becoming unwieldy, poorly written, and utilizes too much extrapolation to come to a ruling in a lot of instances. The NFHS should seriously initiate a review committee to hack it down and clean it up. I think most of the problem, much like law making governmental bodies, is that changes are made without reviewing all the adjoining and conjoining statutes it effects. Sometimes its just plain old error.
I agree also with the sentiment about "exceptions". They continue to decry them but the book is slowly being made chock full of them. I prefer not to have them myself. At the rate they are going, eventually we just will need to merge with NCAA rules and get it over with.
What has sort of puzzled me this summer is the push for the :40 clock, despite the other elephant in the room which is the declining number of officials. I've read many accounts from those in states that experimented with the rule about how it has not been that difficult. However, I can foresee a few issues- 4 man crews or less, lack of ballboys and trained chaincrew at the sub-varsity level- come to mind. In reality, the "pace of play" complaint was geared to those coaches that think they're going to run a track meet out there and the NFHS played right into their hands. Meanwhile an aging and lessening workforce of officials is expected to go faster. I don't see that aiding in recruitment or retention.
The impetus behind this rule has NOTHING to do with being able to go fast on the front end. It's all about consistency on the back end. That does involve better consistency on the front end for crews that took their time to allow the offense to call their play or were just slow. But it doesn't allow teams to go significantly faster than they did before. Coaches are going to think that now but ultimately they don't go a lot faster than they did before. Even if the ball is ready for play with 32-34 seconds on the play clock (rare but possible) the offense is very rarely going to be ready, set, and snapping the ball before 28-30. Both times I went through this the coaches thought they would be able to go much faster. They forget the limitation of them to be able to call the next play, relay it to the offense and them to get ready for the snap.
-
The impetus behind this rule has NOTHING to do with being able to go fast on the front end. It's all about consistency on the back end. That does involve better consistency on the front end for crews that took their time to allow the offense to call their play or were just slow.
I've really tried to see the benefit of what, thus far, sounds like a lot of misdirected effort to fix something, that may not have been perfect, but wasn't broken. Granted some (perhaps many) of us have slipped into bad habits allowing time to slip by during the proper management of the game, affecting some sense of consistency of pace.
The reality (and elephant in the room) is still NFHS is dealing with teenagers, and below, rather than young adults and/or seasoned professional athletes and there is an actual difference in attention span, maturity and experience that often creates both subtle and non-subtle differences. Thus far, as more ancillary issues continue to surface, the realities of officiating crew size, playing field accouterments and facilities as well as the consistency and/or maturity of mostly volunteer, but necessary, support personnel (chain crews, ball boys, etc.) seem to be generating more concern than originally anticipated, or since provided for, exacerbating the inherent difficulty and danger of presuming "One size can fit all".
Identifying specific causes of general "time wasting habits" and establishing specific on-field game management corrective mechanics may prove to be a more effective and consistent adjustment process, better and more universally applicable to the wide variety of NFHS venues and circumstances.
-
I've really tried to see the benefit of what, thus far, sounds like a lot of misdirected effort to fix something, that may not have been perfect, but wasn't broken. Granted some (perhaps many) of us have slipped into bad habits allowing time to slip by during the proper management of the game, affecting some sense of consistency of pace.
The reality (and elephant in the room) is still NFHS is dealing with teenagers, and below, rather than young adults and/or seasoned professional athletes and there is an actual difference in attention span, maturity and experience that often creates both subtle and non-subtle differences. Thus far, as more ancillary issues continue to surface, the realities of officiating crew size, playing field accouterments and facilities as well as the consistency and/or maturity of mostly volunteer, but necessary, support personnel (chain crews, ball boys, etc.) seem to be generating more concern than originally anticipated, or since provided for, exacerbating the inherent difficulty and danger of presuming "One size can fit all".
Identifying specific causes of general "time wasting habits" and establishing specific on-field game management corrective mechanics may prove to be a more effective and consistent adjustment process, better and more universally applicable to the wide variety of NFHS venues and circumstances.
You'll be happy to know that every official I have talked to and every online post I've seen by officials who have worked the 40-second play clock have preferred it. There has to be a reason for that. If there are any out there who don't like it they are awfully quiet. This includes officials who have worked with and without play clocks, with 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 man crews, with good or poor ball boys and chain crews. That has to mean something. Ultimately it's a better flow, one less distraction, and consistent time for teams to get the ball snapped. No amount of training of crews will get a perfectly consistent dead ball to DOG. Even the best crews I've watched vary 3-5 seconds play to play and even more with some outliers. This ELIMINATES that variability within games and game to game.
-
I've really tried to see the benefit of what, thus far, sounds like a lot of misdirected effort to fix something, that may not have been perfect, but wasn't broken. Granted some (perhaps many) of us have slipped into bad habits allowing time to slip by during the proper management of the game, affecting some sense of consistency of pace.
The reality (and elephant in the room) is still NFHS is dealing with teenagers, and below, rather than young adults and/or seasoned professional athletes and there is an actual difference in attention span, maturity and experience that often creates both subtle and non-subtle differences. Thus far, as more ancillary issues continue to surface, the realities of officiating crew size, playing field accouterments and facilities as well as the consistency and/or maturity of mostly volunteer, but necessary, support personnel (chain crews, ball boys, etc.) seem to be generating more concern than originally anticipated, or since provided for, exacerbating the inherent difficulty and danger of presuming "One size can fit all".
Identifying specific causes of general "time wasting habits" and establishing specific on-field game management corrective mechanics may prove to be a more effective and consistent adjustment process, better and more universally applicable to the wide variety of NFHS venues and circumstances.
The NFHS acquired 10 years of 40/25 Clock experimentation data before the change was adopted:
(Indiana - 3 years; Michigan - 3 years; Colorado - 3 years; Tennessee - 1 year)
While there are other benefits, in my opinion, one of the biggest benefit is it takes the White Hat "RFP - Chop" differences (which were huge) completely out of the equation. Without a doubt, this change makes the game management more consistent from week to week.
I agree 100% with Brian that this change ELIMINATES the variability within games, and from game to game.
-
https://ready-ref.com/nfhs-rule-change/
-
... in my opinion, one of the biggest benefit is it takes the White Hat "RFP - Chop" differences (which were huge) completely out of the equation.
Except that there are still a bunch of plays when the Ref chops the ball RFP.
Like a lot of states, Ohio still has many fields without a play clock and the BJ uses a Ready-Ref. Sometimes he has to start a 40 second clock, sometimes a 25 second clock, and sometimes when the play ends he has more immediate and pressing things to deal with. The BJ is going to have the biggest adjustment to make
In Ohio, when the offense gains a first down we are going to stop the game clock to move the chains and not start it until the down box is set. Which means the 40 second clock will be running and we may have to reset it to 25 and stand over the ball if the offense is ready to go and the down box hasn't caught up yet. It is my understanding that is not how other states handle it.
And Ohio has decided to continue use the 25 sec. rule in all sub-varsity games.
-
Except that there are still a bunch of plays when the Ref chops the ball RFP.
Like a lot of states, Ohio still has many fields without a play clock and the BJ uses a Ready-Ref. Sometimes he has to start a 40 second clock, sometimes a 25 second clock, and sometimes when the play ends he has more immediate and pressing things to deal with. The BJ is going to have the biggest adjustment to make
In Ohio, when the offense gains a first down we are going to stop the game clock to move the chains and not start it until the down box is set. Which means the 40 second clock will be running and we may have to reset it to 25 and stand over the ball if the offense is ready to go and the down box hasn't caught up yet. It is my understanding that is not how other states handle it.
And Ohio has decided to continue use the 25 sec. rule in all sub-varsity games.
Per the state clinic this past weekend, Beau said we're not waiting on the down box to be ready after a 1st down. The H can drop a beanbag if he needs to, but once that ball is down by the highly mobile and agile U, we're going with the silent wind unless it's a truly unusual delay.
-
During our experiment we would not have the U step away until the box and/or back stake was set. Very rarely did this ever cause a delay and the H never had to place his bean bag to hold the spot. I would try to avoid that if possible. If it becomes a problem I would talk about replacing the box guy. It doesn't take that long for them to move from the previous spot to the new spot even on long gains.
-
In my experience running it the old way, we very rarely had to wait on the box guy. By the time we got to the spot, the teams got down there, it was just a matter of seconds before the box got there as soon as he arrived we chopped it in and we’re waiting on the teams to get the play in. I don’t foresee a problem. Even in the longest of cases we were able to have it ready for play in 10-12 seconds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Per the state clinic this past weekend, Beau said we're not waiting on the down box to be ready after a 1st down. The H can drop a beanbag if he needs to, but once that ball is down by the highly mobile and agile U, we're going with the silent wind unless it's a truly unusual delay.
In the Zooom video we all got July 12 Beau said, "Once we get the down box down, we are ready for a silent wind." So that is not the correct mechanic. I wondered at the time. Now we know.
It will only be an issue on really long plays for a first down. It doesn't happen often, but we've all had games where we had to wait several times for the down box to catch up. I foresee plays this year when the ball will be snapped on 1st down before the chain crew and box catch up, and then after the play we will take an official's TO so the HL can tell the chain crew where he wants the back stake and where he needs the box for 2nd down. Then we will chop and wind. Soooo much better.
Definitely a learning curve for;
rules interpreters,
the R,
the BJ,
AD's,
play clock operators,
the man on the down box.
(Note for non-Buckeyes: In Ohio clock operators and chain crews are provided by game management. It is extremely rare for them to be officials or even retired officials.)
-
During our experiment we would not have the U step away until the box and/or back stake was set. Very rarely did this ever cause a delay and the H never had to place his bean bag to hold the spot. I would try to avoid that if possible.
I would like our crew to do the same thing, and there will probably be conversations at our association meetings about it.
If it becomes a problem I would talk about replacing the box guy.
I can think of specific games each of the last few seasons where it was a problem, and some chain crews can be stubborn about what they will do.
I'm not trying to be negative, but there will be some learning. I am confidant most everyone will quickly adjust.
-
I've been told that we will be using the same mechanic this year as last and that is that the U stays with the ball (holding the snap) until the entire crew is ready and that includes the HL having his box man at the new series starting spot.
-
Perhaps what my crew will do on long plays is to have the U hold the ball until the box man nears the new spot before placing the ball on the ground. We have to remember that the box can’t move too quickly, since there may be a flag down that he doesn’t see.
-
Perhaps what my crew will do on long plays is to have the U hold the ball until the box man nears the new spot before placing the ball on the ground. We have to remember that the box can’t move too quickly, since there may be a flag down that he doesn’t see.
Is there any record of confusion, or misunderstanding, as when to start the game clock, after being directed to do so, consistently by the Referee (who is responsible to assess that ALL factors/contingencies are settled before declaring EVERYTHING is RTP) by way of a universally understood, consistent, SINGLE, signal?
Is there a better example of needlessly fixing something that ISN'T BROKEN?
-
As a HL I always tell the down box to wait for me to wave him to prevent them from moving in case we need to enforce a penalty. I fear with the new rule we might get some eager down box holders. Big adjustment first couple of weeks.
-
I see virtually no difference here than previous years except we now have no audible signal when the clock is wound. The U simply needs to be over the ball, reminding the snapper as often as needed, not to touch the ball until he moves away. The ball should:
1. be on the ground with the U standing over it as soon as he gets it,
2. covered with the U continuing to stand over it until,
3. the HL has the box in place, and
4. the entire crew is ready - then and only then should the U move away from the ball.
This should not be an issue and IMHO we should NEVER have a penalty here. Don't be over thinking this, it's simple mechanical stuff.
-
As I have mulled over all the material and commentary available for this change, here and elsewhere, I agree with NV Ump. I would much rather have a few seconds tick off than have my boxman depart his spot too early and screw up a possible enforcement. I have also decided that I really do not wish to get in a regular habit of utilizing the "drop the bag and let the box catch up mechanic " that has been posited. If a few more seconds tick off, so be it.
As a HL, I will continue to instruct my chain crew to hustle as usual and emphasize that to the boxman in particular. In the games that I may WH this season, I'm going to ask my U in pre-game to not back off the ball until we get a look at the box and HL. If we have some unusual delay, we can kill it and re-set to :25.
I'd much rather take a hit for maybe being a little slow on this than feeling pressure to rush and push all of us into mistakes. I'm sure as the season rolls, we'll all get use to it. I'm still not really in favor of the change for several reasons but it is what it is.
-
I see virtually no difference here than previous years except we now have no audible signal when the clock is wound. The U simply needs to be over the ball, reminding the snapper as often as needed, not to touch the ball until he moves away. The ball should:
1. be on the ground with the U standing over it as soon as he gets it,
2. covered with the U continuing to stand over it until,
3. the HL has the box in place, and
4. the entire crew is ready - then and only then should the U move away from the ball.
This should not be an issue and IMHO we should NEVER have a penalty here. Don't be over thinking this, it's simple mechanical stuff.
You are spot on. I would say on #1 you don't need to be in too much of a hurry to place it most of the time. Be deliberate both in getting the ball back to the spot once you get it and then in placing it. Many crews will do all of this at a similar pace as you did before. Some will have a bigger adjustment if they were very slow or allowed the offense to call their play in the huddle before blowing the RFP.
I understand the anxiousness and nervousness, but if you were already a good crew with ball mechanics and tried to get the ball RFP in 12-15 seconds, the primary change you'll see is the R won't have to blow his whistle nearly as often (they ultimately LOVE this). No matter how long it takes you to be ready (unless it's a significant delay) the offense has 40 seconds from dead ball to DOG regardless. With 25-seconds even a good, consistent crew is going to have some variation on the back end of that. Average crews will have even more variation and bad crews were all over the board. Remember it's consistency on the back end of the play clock and not the front although the front will become less variable.
-
So, while some may disagree , it is my intention to follow the recommendations from the NFHS.
NFHS General instructions for Football Line to gain crews
#12 With the 40- or 25-second play clock, it is possible the ball may be snapped prior to the down-marker indicator being set. Should this
rare situation occur, the HEAD LINESMAN shall drop a bean bag at the spot where the DOWN-MARKER INDICATOR OPERATOR shall
spot the down-marker indicator.
We have teams who coach their chain crew to intentionally sloooow dooown when strategically necessary! Just like ball boys on the field, those days ended with the 40 second clock.
For those of you saying you are waiting for the down box, the 40 second clock is running during that interval (unless you are changing that also) if it gets below 25 your need to reset it to 25. This causes more totally unnecessary delays.
Simple put, if you follow the recommendations from the NFHS, you will get quicker chain crews and the game will move along smoother .
If you want to intentionally ignore the recommendations, your play clock is more than likely going to go below 25 a heck of a lot more than those following the recommendation.
That's my two scents
-
So, while some may disagree , it is my intention to follow the recommendations from the NFHS.
NFHS General instructions for Football Line to gain crews
#12 With the 40- or 25-second play clock, it is possible the ball may be snapped prior to the down-marker indicator being set. Should this
rare situation occur, the HEAD LINESMAN shall drop a bean bag at the spot where the DOWN-MARKER INDICATOR OPERATOR shall
spot the down-marker indicator.
We have teams who coach their chain crew to intentionally sloooow dooown when strategically necessary! Just like ball boys on the field, those days ended with the 40 second clock.
For those of you saying you are waiting for the down box, the 40 second clock is running during that interval (unless you are changing that also) if it gets below 25 your need to reset it to 25. This causes more totally unnecessary delays.
Simple put, if you follow the recommendations from the NFHS, you will get quicker chain crews and the game will move along smoother .
If you want to intentionally ignore the recommendations, your play clock is more than likely going to go below 25 a heck of a lot more than those following the recommendation.
That's my two scents
Unless you have really slow or intentionally slow chain crews this will not be a problem. We have middle-aged drunk guys as our chain crew most weeks and we never had to reset a play clock due to a slow chain crew. 15 seconds is a LONG time for them to move into position even if they wait to make sure there are no fouls. Don't get TOO technical on the 25 second reset either. If it's 23 or 25 that the ball is ready it doesn't affect the back end or the ability of the offense to call their play. You are more likely to upset the team who wants to go faster and you are keeping them from getting set.
-
For those of you saying you are waiting for the down box, the 40 second clock is running during that interval (unless you are changing that also) if it gets below 25 your need to reset it to 25. This causes more totally unnecessary delays.
Simple put, if you follow the recommendations from the NFHS, you will get quicker chain crews and the game will move along smoother .
If you want to intentionally ignore the recommendations, your play clock is more than likely going to go below 25 a heck of a lot more than those following the recommendation.
That's my two scents
Again, I don't see any issue here. For 19 years the crews I'm working with have done this virtually the same. U over the ball until the box is down, crew is ready, and U moves away ready for the snap. In the rare chance that we really do impact the 40 sec play clock, we'll address that when we get there. I'm sure we won't be "bagging the box".
-
Again, I don't see any issue here. For 19 years the crews I'm working with have done this virtually the same. U over the ball until the box is down, crew is ready, and U moves away ready for the snap. In the rare chance that we really do impact the 40 sec play clock, we'll address that when we get there. I'm sure we won't be "bagging the box".
I fully understand what you have done for 19 years. I personally do the same thing.
Now the NFHS is recommending we no longer waiting for the down box.
If your state says something different then by all means do it that way.
Out here on the left coast, We will be resolving or intentionally slow chain crew issue by following the NFHS recommendation.
There may be a few bean bags but I believe the chain crew will "get it" after the first one...
-
I fully understand what you have done for 19 years. I personally do the same thing.
Now the NFHS is recommending we no longer waiting for the down box.
If your state says something different then by all means do it that way.
Out here on the left coast, We will be resolving or intentionally slow chain crew issue by following the NFHS recommendation.
There may be a few bean bags but I believe the chain crew will "get it" after the first one...
Hopefully you'll find the chain crew isn't as slow as you thought or they'll move a little quicker. They don't have to go at any crazy break neck speed. Unless someone gets in their way at the box person should have no problem getting to the first down spot well before any bean bag has to be dropped. We have mostly older adults who came form the local watering hole as our chain crew so they are far from professional. If we ever had to reset the play clock due to a slow chain crew I don't remember it.
-
Does anybody have a link to the powerpoint for these rule changes? I cannot find them anywhere
-
https://www.misshsaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019_NFHS_Football_Rules_PowerPoint_-_FINAL-1.pptx
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
3.5.6 "If repair of equipment without the assistance of a team attendant delays the ready-for-play for more than 25 seconds..."
It seems that a couple of times a year I delay my chop so a player can tie his shoe. How are we handling that with the 40 sec. clock?
-
If it’s A im letting him tie his shoe while the clock ticks. Same way with B as long as he’s not disadvantaged. If I see they may snap it before he gets done, administrative stop, back to 25.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk