RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Morningrise on November 21, 2019, 09:18:33 AM
-
1: In any game played with collegiate or professional goalposts or any other goals smaller than NFHS regulation width, a ball striking or passing directly over the vertical goalposts shall be deemed to have passed completely between the goalposts.
Radicalness: 3.0
Rationale: My state runs their championship games at an NFL stadium and they don't bring in wider goalposts. It's a shame that in the biggest game of the year, the kicking game is significantly hampered. The least we can do is make it so doinks count. A doink on an NCAA or NFL upright would obviously be a successful field goal on a proper NFHS upright, so let's at least give them that. It's perfectly fair (fairer than the existing rule), and easy to officiate. (The only tricky scenario would be a rare ball hitting the exact corner of the goalpost.)
It's also not uncommon to have Pop Warner games at college fields. So this rule isn't for just one day of the year.
2: When under 2:00 remains in the fourth quarter, Team A is ahead in the score, and the play does not gain yardage, the game clock shall stop when the ball becomes dead and shall start on the next snap or free kick.
Radicalness: 7.5
Rationale: Every friggin' year there's at least one game where some really intense kid on the losing team tries to bust through the line and knock the ball away before the QB can kneel, and then the predictable donnybrook ensues. And less often, but sometimes, the offense can line up as if to take a knee, but then try to run up the score, probably as payback for some past incident.
This rule removes kneeling as an end-of-game option. Radical, for sure, but why is it better? Because there are no unwritten rules for either team to violate. The winning team has to gain one yard, not adhere to a gentleman's agreement to kneel. Both teams know to expect real offense and real defense, so there's no longer any unwritten rule against playing hard, and thus no way to engender ill will by breaking said rule.
This puts an end to all the dilemmas/debates we have about how to officiate this. "They're taking a knee - do I instruct the defense not to hit them, or is that wrong? do I flag the defense if they run over the O-line, or do I flag the offense if they retaliate in anger? do I flag the offense if they say they're taking a knee but then attempt to run up the score, or have they broken no written rule?" None of this happens anymore.
I stole this idea from Canada, where I'm told they have a very similar provision.
-
Using radical and sensible in the same sentence is sometimes oxymoronic. Just saying.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Thanks for the suggested changes, Morningrise. On question #1, when we added 1-2-3e note 2 and 1-2-5d note, it was felt that the narrower midfield would be fair with the narrower goalpost as kicks from the hash would provide a better target. On #2, I proposed using a procedure from the Ohio Blue Book when in victory formation for our mechanics manual. It was defeated, but we adopted in Maine several years ago and it has worked well.
P.S. : A few years ago, one of our regional championships was played on a NCAA field. The visiting team, trailing by 2 with mere seconds to go, tried a FG that clanged off a pole and went wide. When asked in postgame by a local scribe if it bothered him that he would have won with his goalposts at home, the losing coach replied : "Heck no, they were kicking at the same goalposts that we were." That seems to be the general attitude of our coaches and haven't heard it discussed at NFHS.
-
I can't really see the need for adding these exceptions. In the first, if coaches have accepted playing on an NCAA or pro field, then they've accepted all that goes with it. Just way too rare of a situation to warrant an exception IMO. In the second, I highly recommend the Ohio procedure as well, as Ralph mentioned. I think NC adopted it as well. Just another one that can be handled thru mechanics/procedures rather than another rule book exception.
Now, if we can just get allowing an immediate spike from either hand-to-hand snap OR shotgun, now we're talking! :)
-
Now, if we can just get allowing an immediate spike from either hand-to-hand snap OR shotgun, now we're talking! :)
I am confused by this. Are you saying that in high school spiking the ball is illegal?
-
Here's a thought: if the FED is so interested in reducing injuries during kick-offs, why not "incentivize" R to signal a fair catch (I know it's already an option) if the kick is caught inside the 25 and snap from the 25 - as is available to collegiate and NFL teams (I think).
I would love to see this rule change. Does anyone think this could "fly"?
-
I am confused by this. Are you saying that in high school spiking the ball is illegal?
Only hand-to-hand snaps can be legally spiked. Been on the docket several times to allow spike from shotgun ,but always failed with around 50% (need 67% to pass. 3 major deterrents :
(1) gives QB a quick glance to see if anyone's open;
(2) bad snap, fielded while airborne by QB could be spiked to prevent sack;
(3) NFL feels the same and doesn't allow spike from shotgun.
-
Here's a thought: if the FED is so interested in reducing injuries during kick-offs, why not "incentivize" R to signal a fair catch (I know it's already an option) if the kick is caught inside the 25 and snap from the 25 - as is available to collegiate and NFL teams (I think).
I would love to see this rule change. Does anyone think this could "fly"?
Several thoughts have been tossed around, mine being that any change would have to still allow the potential for K to regain possession of the ball. The NFL discussion of giving K the ball with a 4th & 15 from K's 40 with the chance to gain 15 and keep the ball OR punt (which is said to be more safe than a kickoff) is, IMHO, to radical. Coach Buddy Tevens of Dartmouth suggested moving the kickoffs up, the Ivy League adopted it, and their touchback rate went from 20% to 50%. The onside kick was still an option, but just kicking into the end zone would certainly reduce the number of returns.
Just the mutterings of an ole' duffer awaiting his ole' prep school (Maine Central Institute '64) to win the state championship tomorrow night.. tR:oLl
-
Only hand-to-hand snaps can be legally spiked. Been on the docket several times to allow spike from shotgun ,but always failed with around 50% (need 67% to pass. 3 major deterrents :
(1) gives QB a quick glance to see if anyone's open;
(2) bad snap, fielded while airborne by QB could be spiked to prevent sack;
(3) NFL feels the same and doesn't allow spike from shotgun.
Absolutely agree, this is another Pandora's box, knocking for someone to come open it.
-
I think NC adopted it as well.
Nope
-
Ralph,
Mark D. volunteered NC to test the spike from shotgun this season. Of the games I worked, (season shortened by torn meniscus and arthroscopy), I think maybe I had 3 snaps that qualified. I'm assuming if we are getting to experimental phase, it will come closer to passing.
-
Several thoughts have been tossed around, mine being that any change would have to still allow the potential for K to regain possession of the ball. The NFL discussion of giving K the ball with a 4th & 15 from K's 40 with the chance to gain 15 and keep the ball OR punt (which is said to be more safe than a kickoff) is, IMHO, to radical. Coach Buddy Tevens of Dartmouth suggested moving the kickoffs up, the Ivy League adopted it, and their touchback rate went from 20% to 50%. The onside kick was still an option, but just kicking into the end zone would certainly reduce the number of returns.
Just the mutterings of an ole' duffer awaiting his ole' prep school (Maine Central Institute '64) to win the state championship tomorrow night.. tR:oLl
I think the suggestion wasn't about replacing the free kick with something else, but adopting NCAA's rule of treating a fair catch of a free kick like a touchback.
It doesn't affect onside kicks, because it only applies when the fair catch takes place inside the "B"-25.
-
Has a change to make kicker offside a live ball foul ever been discussed?
-
Ralph,
Mark D. volunteered NC to test the spike from shotgun this season. Of the games I worked, (season shortened by torn meniscus and arthroscopy), I think maybe I had 3 snaps that qualified. I'm assuming if we are getting to experimental phase, it will come closer to passing.
I think I had one in a JV game and had a pretty full schedule
I'm curious to see what happens -- it's not a big deal in every way possible. It didn't affect the games at all -- there was no obvious offensive advantage to a shotgun spike, and it was just as obvious that a spike was coming from hand to hand vs shotgun so it didn't help or hurt the defense either. It also happened so rarely that it almost seems like a solution in search of a problem, it wasn't like schools started using it more as a tactical advantage.
It might as well pass because it won't change anything significantly, but it might as well NOT pass because it won't change anything significantly.
-
Only hand-to-hand snaps can be legally spiked. Been on the docket several times to allow spike from shotgun ,but always failed with around 50% (need 67% to pass. 3 major deterrents :
(1) gives QB a quick glance to see if anyone's open;
(2) bad snap, fielded while airborne by QB could be spiked to prevent sack;
(3) NFL feels the same and doesn't allow spike from shotgun.
I don't see these as valid concerns because the QB can do each of the first two things under center today (muffed hand-to-hand snap) and it's not an issue. It rarely happens in NCAA and the rule has been there for a long time. I don't understand why this change would be an issue. It's an old rule created before shot gun snaps were common. I'm OK if it never changes also, but it's silly to not allow it if proposed.
-
Has a change to make kicker offside a live ball foul ever been discussed?
That would make sense, but it also opens the can of worms of creating a specific offsides foul where the ball may remain live. In that case, why not make an offsides foul that applies to scrimmage plays as well, and reserve encroachment to the situations in the college rules where the play is shut down after a player is offsides (e.g. offsides and unabated to the quarterback, neutral zone infraction causing an offensive player to react, or a player being offsides and contacting an opponent.)?
-
I don't see these as valid concerns because the QB can do each of the first two things under center today (muffed hand-to-hand snap) and it's not an issue. It rarely happens in NCAA and the rule has been there for a long time. I don't understand why this change would be an issue. It's an old rule created before shot gun snaps were common. I'm OK if it never changes also, but it's silly to not allow it if proposed.
ABSOLUTELY, "It ain't broke, PLEASE STOP TRYING TO FIX IT". The reason there hasn't been any problems, is because NOBODY CAN CAUSE ANY the ways things currently are.
As suggested by the VALID concerns suggested, there's no point in being "creative" because doing so is prohibited. However, "creative minds" are definitely in the weeds, yearning to be creative, and then the "language police" can argue indefinitely about what does "immediately", or "instantly", or whatever words the creative minds can up with, to avoid confusion, actually mean.
For those concerned about players lacking experience in taking "direct snaps", adding that skill to the learning process may open an entire new world of opportunities to explore.
-
That would make sense, but it also opens the can of worms of creating a specific offsides foul where the ball may remain live. In that case, why not make an offsides foul that applies to scrimmage plays as well, and reserve encroachment to the situations in the college rules where the play is shut down after a player is offsides (e.g. offsides and unabated to the quarterback, neutral zone infraction causing an offensive player to react, or a player being offsides and contacting an opponent.)?
I have thought about this some prior to this thread, NFHS now has rules in place to reduce the number of kicks/re-kicks. For this reason it makes sense to make this a live ball foul let the play play out and either tack on or replay kick by choice of R. Had a play the other Friday, onside attempt, encroachment by K, kick never went 10 yards but we had to replay the kick because of the dead ball foul. K essentially got a practice kick because of the encroachment. I would think this could be implemented without having to change encroachment for scrimmage downs...would only need to apply to free kicks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
#1
A or K accidentally stepping oob and returning is IP 15 yards. That is way to harsh.
Change to the NCAA or NFL way. Whatever that is.
BEAN BAG THE SPOT OF REENTRY. Taking the hat off exposes too many bald heads (not mine) and I would have to put that hat back on my head.
If trying to deceive, then keep it IP, 15 yards
#2
Personal foul and unsportsmanlike conduct fouls = 1st down
#3
Fouls by A behind the previous spot to be enforced from the previous spot.
-
I would endorse this, and add defensive pass interference to the list of fouls with an automatic first down.
-
I would endorse this, and add defensive pass interference to the list of fouls with an automatic first down.
Keep making these suggestions and you guys will be using NCAA rules. :thumbup
-
#1
A or K accidentally stepping oob and returning is IP 15 yards. That is way to harsh.
Change to the NCAA or NFL way. Whatever that is.
BEAN BAG THE SPOT OF REENTRY. Taking the hat off exposes too many bald heads (not mine) and I would have to put that hat back on my head.
If trying to deceive, then keep it IP, 15 yards
#2
Personal foul and unsportsmanlike conduct fouls = 1st down
Thanks for your suggestions, Ia Ref, I would support #1 but some may worry about its complexity.
One of the considerations on potential rule changes is does it give either the offense or defense an advantage. Both #2 and #3 have been on the floor for a final vote, but have received the necessary 67% needed with the balance being a prime concern as many feel the offense has the edge now.
Rebuttals to #2:
Should PF & USC fouls be LOD if on A/K ?
NFHS awarded first downs now only on defenseless player - passer/kicker/holder/snapper. If all PF & USC fouls were AFD it would reduce the gravity of those.
Rebuttals to #3:
NFHS all-but-one principle is fair and simple.
An illegal act by A behind LOS may have prevented loss.
QB sack when his receiver is held beyond LOS would still be from end of run.
Exceptions still needed for IG and fouls in A's end zone.
NFHS doesn't often welcome exceptions.
I oppose both #2 & #3.
If we all agreed on everything, it would be quite a boring forum :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (5-man crew)
-
Keep making these suggestions and you guys will be using NCAA rules. :thumbup
That's the end goal ;).
-
Keep making these suggestions and you guys will be using NCAA rules. :thumbup
"From your lips to God's ears" ... Nah, not exactly... I recognize that, in the interest of simplicity or appropriateness, there are several things NCAA does that don't need to enter the college game.
Complicated things that Fed is probably better off rejecting:
Iron cross substitutions (but if A is trying quick subs to gain an advantage, Fed should prohibit that on a you-know-it-when-you-see-it basis)
10-second runoffs
Turnovers on tries
Defensive holding may or may not carry an auto 1st
Complicated things that wouldn't be *too* complicated, but they don't add much and it's no big deal if Fed doesn't have them:
Returning kicks out of the end zone
Special DPI enforcement
Fourth down fumble rule
Forward fumble OOB rule
Free kick "fair catch = touchback" rule
Let the holder toss the ball from his knees
But with a year of NFHS under my belt, I continue to claim "Fed Hates Offense." High school athletes and offenses are not as high-powered as those in college. Every penalty yard on a high school drive is harder to overcome than a penalty yard on a college drive. Thus, if anything, penalties for holding should be less severe than NCAA, not more severe. As currently written, a single OH flag is much more of a drive-killer and game-outcome-affecting call than it is in college. Here are NCAA rules that fed should adopt:
Penalty enforcement behind the NZ. Possible language: "The enforcement spot for fouls committed against an opposing player in the field of play cannot be behind the previous spot, except after a change of possession" - this one line excludes IG, IFP, batting, and any foul in A's end zone, while covering OH, BBW, and fouls by B.
Live-ball defensive offside*
Free intentional grounding (a safety rule. It could be simpler than NCAA's e.g. it doesn't have to matter who throws the pass)
DPI auto 1st
Stepping OOB should render a receiver ineligible, not be as grave an offense as chop-blocking someone, I mean, this one is obvious
* Something has *got* to be done about defensive encroachment on extra-point attempts. I have seen more field goal rushers jump into the NZ this year than in *five years* of NCAA rules. It's being coached - "try to time the snap, kid, but if you jump the gun, NBD." The penalty isn't severe enough - you ice the kicker without expending a timeout, and half the time he declines the 1-1/2 yard penalty anyway. Maybe put that penalty on the kickoff instead? But that would entail a whole new rules exception. If defensive offside were a live-ball foul in general, that would largely solve this problem. It would sharply reduce the incentive to jump, because you would lose all ability to ice the kicker.
Finally, I understand there's an unbreakable Fed voting bloc that says "if you give auto 1st downs for B's PFs, then we want loss of down for A's PFs." I disagree with that, but if that's the way things are gonna be, then I greatly prefer the status quo to the alternative. I don't want loss of down for fouls against an opponent, no matter what.
-
That would make sense, but it also opens the can of worms of creating a specific offsides foul where the ball may remain live. In that case, why not make an offsides foul that applies to scrimmage plays as well, and reserve encroachment to the situations in the college rules where the play is shut down after a player is offsides (e.g. offsides and unabated to the quarterback, neutral zone infraction causing an offensive player to react, or a player being offsides and contacting an opponent.)?
Your point is well taken. I agree that making defensive offside a live ball foul is more problematic if changed. However I don't think that any of those concerns would come into play when discussing making kicker offside a live ball foul. The reasoning for it would simply be to avoid the delay it causes when it happens. B's choice to tack it on or re-kick.
-
Why not make a single "special enforcement" for B offside on a try down that allowed for enforcement on the K/O? It could include adding penalty yardage enforcements together if the foul was repeated before a kick actually occurred. At least B wouldn't be getting "a free one" as they are effectively getting now. We've always been told that one of the NFHS key reasons for the DB team B offside foul was to minimize all replays of downs where possible and making this a live ball foul would change that. Also, for a similar reason I would expect that the NFHS would not entertain changing the rule for offside on a free kick.
-
Fed doesn't like exceptions to the all-but-one. So you guys that want offensive fouls enforced from the previous spot, it's probably not going to happen. To walk you through:
RULE - We have Current All but one
EXCEPTION 1 - Except fouls by the offense behind the LOS are enforced from the previous spot.
EXCEPTION 1.1 - ...except fouls that occur in the end zone. Those are spot fouls and result in a safety. [Note: exceptions to exceptions are the actual rule].
EXCEPTION 1.2 - But it's only fouls like OH and CHB. Illegal batting and illegal kicking and illegal touching are still spot fouls. You have to memorize all of these.
I actually proposed a change (that didn't get past my state office) where if the run ends behind the NZ, the basic spot is the previous spot. This would fix defensive fouls when the run ends behind the NZ (DH on a QB sack), but it would not fix offensive fouls occurring behind the LOS. Those would still be spot fouls. All but one enforcement remains unchanged. Ralph Damren seal of approval :)
I actually like that the NFHS doesn't let the QB dump the ball OOB to avoid a loss. Defense made a great play. Find a receiver or take the sack.
Here are some of the other proposals I came up with (short short version):
1) Airborne players are in bounds or out of bounds depending on where they left the ground from.
2) 12 men participating at the snap changed to 5 yard illegal substitution (because the only difference between 5 and 15 is how fast the officials can count. That's not right).
3) Editorial change to clarify that the clock goes on the snap... 3-4-3b... "When B or R is awarded a new series and will next snap the ball." Eliminates confusion of when the ball gets snapped if the down is to be replayed.
4) Kick OOB foul - Editorial change to marry the rule with the case book play - "It is only a foul if the ball becomes out of bounds while on or above out of bounds territory."
5) Clarified for IDP that linemen are allowed 2 yards down field.
6) If you foul while legally spiking the football, the clock goes on the ready. So if you spike it and have an illegal shift, next play goes on the ready.
7) Totally re-worked the IP rule. Too much to type here
-
Also, now that we have the tack-on rule for kickoffs, I would like to see encroachment, 4 on each side of the kicker, >5 yards deep on a kickoff, and pop up kicks be all live ball fouls.
-
Why not make a single "special enforcement" for B offside on a try down that allowed for enforcement on the K/O? It could include adding penalty yardage enforcements together if the foul was repeated before a kick actually occurred. At least B wouldn't be getting "a free one" as they are effectively getting now. We've always been told that one of the NFHS key reasons for the DB team B offside foul was to minimize all replays of downs where possible and making this a live ball foul would change that. Also, for a similar reason I would expect that the NFHS would not entertain changing the rule for offside on a free kick.
How does dead ball offside minimize replays? AFAIK, live-ball offside is a free play for the offense, where they have the potential to either get the 5 yards for the penalty, or decline the penalty if they got more than 5 yards. You have to replay the down anyway if the ball was dead and the 5-yard penalty was enforced.
-
You can’t replay a down that never occurred.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You can’t replay a down that never occurred.
:thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup
Seven man Crew.
-
How does dead ball offside minimize replays? AFAIK, live-ball offside is a free play for the offense, where they have the potential to either get the 5 yards for the penalty, or decline the penalty if they got more than 5 yards. You have to replay the down anyway if the ball was dead and the 5-yard penalty was enforced.
You're not replaying a down on a DB pre-snap/pre-kick foul, the play never ran. ???
Part of this year's preseason seminars here in MA included presentations by NFHS "rules gurus" from CT and NY who were clear that one of the reason that NFHS has "so many" DB pre-snap/pre-kick fouls is to minimize replaying downs especially on kicking plays.
-
RE: the pop up kick, I’m certain I read this was dead ball to help prevent injury. In fact, it’s the reason the rule was Put in. We don’t allow the play to happen to keep K from clocking the receiver.
Could be the same reasoning behind the 4 on each side of kicker.
The only other on I can think of is the player lined up too deep which is considered a safety factor as well, so we shut it down.
Encroachment has always been dead ball.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Could be the same reasoning behind the 4 on each side of kicker.
Correct, which is why they went with that instead of Illegal Formation.
-
You're not replaying a down on a DB pre-snap/pre-kick foul, the play never ran. ???
Part of this year's preseason seminars here in MA included presentations by NFHS "rules gurus" from CT and NY who were clear that one of the reason that NFHS has "so many" DB pre-snap/pre-kick fouls is to minimize replaying downs especially on kicking plays.
You are, because the down number after the penalty is the same as the down number before the penalty (unless the yardage results in a first down), even though the play did not actually run.
-
It’s impossible to RE play something that’s never been played. It’s true that the down remains the same because nothing has happened to change the down.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It’s impossible to RE play something that’s never been played. It’s true that the down remains the same because nothing has happened to change the down.
For those times when the WH is micd, the announcement would be “Dead ball, [penalty], down remains [1st, 2nd, etc.].
As opposed to a fouls during a live ball play: “ holding against the offense. 10yd penalty, REPLAY 1st down.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Don't stop the clock for first downs. Removes the issue about when to start the clock and "slow" crews. I see no reason not to remove it with the new "drop the beanbag" philosophy. You remove any coach complaints about pace and slow crews and you remove the argument about when to start the clock.
-
Don't stop the clock for first downs. Removes the issue about when to start the clock and "slow" crews. I see no reason not to remove it with the new "drop the beanbag" philosophy. You remove any coach complaints about pace and slow crews and you remove the argument about when to start the clock.
Making reasonable, appropriate adjustments in Rules and/or mechanics to help produce more consistent application and reduced "wasted" time is a rational effort, as long as it doesn't produce a negative, or counterproductive, effect on the proper management of the game or create unnecessary confusion or haste.
Reducing playing time, for the pure and sole sake of reducing playing time, without any clear or relevant purpose or objective that offers a specific benefit, seems totally unnecessary and foolish.
-
More time = more plays
More plays = increased potential for injury.
Less time = fewer plays
Fewer plays = less potential for injury.
^ = logical and sensible reasoning for shorter game.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Don't stop the clock for first downs. Removes the issue about when to start the clock and "slow" crews. I see no reason not to remove it with the new "drop the beanbag" philosophy. You remove any coach complaints about pace and slow crews and you remove the argument about when to start the clock.
Makes total sense to me.
-
More time = more plays
More plays = increased potential for injury.
Less time = fewer plays
Fewer plays = less potential for injury.
^ = logical and sensible reasoning for shorter game.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Except the correct way to shorten the game is for NFHS to shorten the length of periods. Not change a mechanic that they have been justifying for years.
-
Don't stop the clock for first downs. Removes the issue about when to start the clock and "slow" crews. I see no reason not to remove it with the new "drop the beanbag" philosophy. You remove any coach complaints about pace and slow crews and you remove the argument about when to start the clock.
Except by rule there is no "issue" as to when to start the clock following a first down, that's very clear.
-
More time = more plays
More plays = increased potential for injury.
Less time = fewer plays
Fewer plays = less potential for injury.
^ = logical and sensible reasoning for shorter game.
Oh, my bad I didn't realize there was some compelling objective to "shorten the game". If so, why putz around with nibbles? Why not simply reduce the game to 3 quarters (or less), or stay at 4 quarters of 6 or 8 minutes. Considering all the time, effort and probably a lot of serious research effort currently applied to maximizing player safety in the current environment, why not just change the environment, remove all the potentially threatening direct contact and all that laborious effort to teach players how to deal with the challenges they can expect to face.
Maybe we could someday even avoid actually "playing" the game (live) , and convert it to online fantasy. That would eliminate most (if not all) potential physical threats, and the overall "length of the game" would be a variable option players and spectators (if there might actually be some) could choose for themselves.
Probably wouldn't need to bother with Game Officials as rules and mechanics would likely become optional, or adjustable by the participants, who wouldn't have to be bothered by those pesky maturity, physical condition, experience, different level objectives unique to the level structure (NFHS, NCAA, NFL) currently in place to address the obvious, but annoying, reality that actual physical participation is simply NOT a practical "One size fits all" application.
While we still need actual human game officials at least for the time being, adopting one, universal, absolute Rule code (despite obvious participant talent and experience level requirements) would eliminate the burden, of learning, practicing and executing different "level" accommodations and adjustments developed and applied over the past 100 (or so) years by those game officials who CHOOSE to work at multiple levels, or aspire to advance through the existing multiple, different levels and are willing to put in the time and effort to be competent is adjusting to the different requirements each level feels appropriate for their specific needs.
-
Lol this is the song that never ends. I give up.
I appreciate all I’ve learned on this site throughout the years, but it has degenerated into an incessant squabble over different opinions about nonessential stuff.
Therefore, I’m out.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I would like to see 2 rule changes for 2020. I concede without need for further discussion that one is sensible but not radical and the other one is radical but not sensible.
1. The in bounds or out of bounds status of an airborne player should be determined by where the player last touched the ground, pylon or goal post. This could possibly get tied up in semantics since the rule book does not define "in bounds" in the first place. So right now a player is "out of bounds" or "not out of bounds". The advantage of this rule change would be to eliminate some IP fouls which would be replaced by a call of incomplete pass. Disadvantages???? (Bossman has suggested a similar change.)
2. Return to the 2010 rule that provided for the hash marks to bisect the yard lines. Advantage would be to have all plays start from the middle of the field. Disadvantage would require every field in the country (possible exception Texas) to be re marked, including artificial turf fields which have the current markings painted on.
-
Here's a thought: if the FED is so interested in reducing injuries during kick-offs, why not "incentivize" R to signal a fair catch (I know it's already an option) if the kick is caught inside the 25 and snap from the 25 - as is available to collegiate and NFL teams (I think).
I would love to see this rule change. Does anyone think this could "fly"?
Fair catch goes to the 25 or the spot of the fair catch plus 5? We already do a "most advantageous spot" decision on a kick OOB, so the same amount of judgement would apply here...
-
Why does the clock not start until the snap after an incomplete pass?
After all, it does not stop at all on a running play or completed pass in many instances.
Starting on the ready-to-play seems resonable after an incompleted pass.
-
Why does the clock not start until the snap after an incomplete pass?
After all, it does not stop at all on a running play or completed pass in many instances.
Starting on the ready-to-play seems resonable after an incompleted pass.
I believe the logic involves the potential delay for receives to get back to the next huddle, additional time to get the ball retrieved/replaced and ready for play.
-
2. Return to the 2010 rule that provided for the hash marks to bisect the yard lines. Advantage would be to have all plays start from the middle of the field.
To whom would that give an advantage?
-
To whom would that give an advantage?
Suggestion was meant to be frivilous. I will try to remember to use emojis next time. hEaDbAnG However, umpire could spend more time working on a snikers bar instead of having to keep track of where the ball was spotted on each previous down.
-
However, umpire could spend more time working on a snikers bar instead of having to keep track of where the ball was spotted on each previous down.
That extra down indicator can be used to count the number of snickers bars eaten during the game. haha!
-
Reducing playing time, for the pure and sole sake of reducing playing time, without any clear or relevant purpose or objective that offers a specific benefit, seems totally unnecessary and foolish.
Jesus H Christ - I actually find myself in total agreement with Alf!
-
Reducing playing time, for the pure and sole sake of reducing playing time, without any clear or relevant purpose or objective that offers a specific benefit, seems totally unnecessary and foolish.
The purpose is to adapt the rules to keep up with the evolution of the game. When the current rules were put in place there was a substantially higher percentage of run plays, practically zero fast paced offenses outside of hurry up situations, and less scoring. A much higher percentage of plays back then ended with the clock still running.
Now that the game has evolved we have a significantly higher percentage of pass plays (and incompletions), more up tempo offenses, more first downs, and more scoring in general. Those things have led to longer duration games and, more importantly, more plays per game. As most have seen via hudl or other sources, the number of plays per game nowadays rivals or even exceeds the number of plays that college and NFL teams typically run. In my opinion, high school (and younger) kids should not be playing games that consist of more plays than college and NFL games.
The point wouldn't be to make a change just for the sake of change. The point would be to adapt the timing rules that were fine for the gameplay styles of the past when they were implemented, but are now leading to game lengths and play counts that are higher than they should be.
-
The point wouldn't be to make a change just for the sake of change. The point would be to adapt the timing rules that were fine for the gameplay styles of the past when they were implemented, but are now leading to game lengths and play counts that are higher than they should be.
Very valid points, but the way to "fix" that is by clear and unambiguous rules changes. ie: 1. shorten the periods, 2. wind the clock once the ball is placed down and truly RFP after runs out of bounds and/or incomplete passes, etc.
-
Very valid points, but the way to "fix" that is by clear and unambiguous rules changes. ie: 1. shorten the periods, 2. wind the clock once the ball is placed down and truly RFP after runs out of bounds and/or incomplete passes, etc.
Agreed; i should have quoted my comment as well for context. The original comment of mine that he replied to was my suggestion to remove the clock stoppage for a first down. I think that would be less confusing and be better optically than shortening periods or winding after an incompletion, but i wouldn't disagree with using those instead as a compromise.
-
Prior to our adoption of the running time rule while using "TIPS", we - with mutual agreement of the coaches - would use a modified version of running time. The clock would start with each RFP if it had been stopped for anything else. A second half would often last around 30 minutes. We need to be careful of what we wish for, as a game lasting 1:15 (with halftime) seems a bit short. I've strongly supported cranking the game clock on RFP after OOB, such as NCAA. The objection has been in returning to snap in last 2 minutes of a half. IMHO, the adoption of the fouled team choosing when to start in last 2 minutes should weaken that objection.