RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: GA Umpire on November 26, 2019, 09:47:37 PM
-
Has the link to the NFHS Football Survey been published? ???
If so, can someone post it here.
-
not yet
-
I've asked...they haven't answered.
-
According to the website, it should be open now. http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/nfhs-sport-questionnaires/
-
According to the website, it should be open now. http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/nfhs-sport-questionnaires/
Just tried....push "football" .....got questionnaire ....answered questions GO FOR IT, GANG, MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT. tiphat:
-
Just tried....push "football" .....got questionnaire ....answered questions GO FOR IT, GANG, MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT. tiphat:
I voted!
Although, there needs to be a "Heck no!" option because it doesn't record exactly how hard I clicked "No" for some of those options.
-
I voted!
Although, there needs to be a "Heck no!" option because it doesn't record exactly how hard I clicked "No" for some of those options.
Or, the converse, "God, yes, PLEASE do that already!"
-
Isn't the free blocking zone eliminated when the ball is snapped in the shotgun formation?
-
Isn't the free blocking zone eliminated when the ball is snapped in the shotgun formation?
I’m guessing they’re considering prohibiting any BBW if there’s no QB under center. As it is now, we allow BBW if it’s done immediately after the snap, regardless of the actual position of the ball.
FWIW, I voted “No”.
-
Isn't the free blocking zone eliminated when the ball is snapped in the shotgun formation?
I believe that is the issue that the survey is getting at. Different states are enforcing it differently. Florida (at least my area in Florida) considers the Free Blocking Zone to be in tact at the snap in a shotgun formation. So, any block that would be legal in the FBZ is legal if done immediately at the snap. First move only. So an O-Lineman can at the snap block a D-Lineman low, but he can't come up out of his stance and then block low. The hesitation will make it illegal...
-
I’m guessing they’re considering prohibiting any BBW if there’s no QB under center. As it is now, we allow BBW if it’s done immediately after the snap, regardless of the actual position of the ball.
FWIW, I voted “No”.
I believe that is the issue. We have noticed during video reviews this season where we have stop action capability on high resolution video that when the QB is in shotgun formation the ball is clearly out of the zone in almost all cases before the linemen even move. Technically, that would make the low block illegal. That being said, we have also been given written guidance that when the lineman is in a 3 or 4-point stance (at least 1 hand must be on the ground), and his 1st move is to immediately go low, that the block shall be considered legal. That seems clear except that most defenses are lined up in some version of a gap alignment which means that typically the team A lineman takes a quick slide step left or right then goes low. Is that "immediate"? Not sure.
It would be nice if NFHS could clarify this directly in the rule book or the case book to eliminate the need for an "off the books" interpretation on how to officiate this.
-
I believe that is the issue that the survey is getting at. Different states are enforcing it differently. Florida (at least my area in Florida) considers the Free Blocking Zone to be in tact at the snap in a shotgun formation. So, any block that would be legal in the FBZ is legal if done immediately at the snap. First move only. So an O-Lineman can at the snap block a D-Lineman low, but he can't come up out of his stance and then block low. The hesitation will make it illegal...
In Arizona, we use to have Florida's interpretation, but this year (could have been last year) the FBZ disappears immediately in the shotgun formation and you cannot block low at all.
-
I believe that is the issue that the survey is getting at. Different states are enforcing it differently. Florida (at least my area in Florida) considers the Free Blocking Zone to be in tact at the snap in a shotgun formation. So, any block that would be legal in the FBZ is legal if done immediately at the snap. First move only. So an O-Lineman can at the snap block a D-Lineman low, but he can't come up out of his stance and then block low. The hesitation will make it illegal...
I believe that is the issue. We have noticed during video reviews this season where we have stop action capability on high resolution video that when the QB is in shotgun formation the ball is clearly out of the zone in almost all cases before the linemen even move. Technically, that would make the low block illegal. That being said, we have also been given written guidance that when the lineman is in a 3 or 4-point stance (at least 1 hand must be on the ground), and his 1st move is to immediately go low, that the block shall be considered legal. That seems clear except that most defenses are lined up in some version of a gap alignment which means that typically the team A lineman takes a quick slide step left or right then goes low. Is that "immediate"? Not sure.
It would be nice if NFHS could clarify this directly in the rule book or the case book to eliminate the need for an "off the books" interpretation on how to officiate this.
Per casebook play 2.17.2.E, that's exactly correct:
*2.17.2 SITUATION E:
A1 is in shotgun formation, lined up seven yards behind the line of scrimmage ready to receive the snap. Immediately after the snap to A1, (a) A2 initiates his block simultaneously with the snap and blocks B1 below the waist or (b) A2 rises, and slightly retreats as if to go in traditional pass blocking protection, but then dives and blocks B1 below the waist. Both A2 and B1 were in the zone and on the line of scrimmage at the snap. The contact between A2 and B1 takes place in the free-blocking zone.
RULING: It is a legal block in (a) and an illegal block below the waist in (b). It is legal for A2 to block B1 below the waist while the free-blocking zone exists and this likely can only occur in (a) if the block is initiated simultaneously with the snap. Any later, and the ball will likely have left the free-blocking zone and the block is illegal.
-
This casebook fiction of "BBW from a 2-point stance takes longer, allowing the ball to leave the FBZ" is not only questionable, it's also unproductive. The safety of a BBW immediately at the snap has virtually nothing to do with whether the blocker's hands were at his knees or on the ground - and even LESS to do with where the quarterback was standing.
Plus, it's difficult to officiate. Here's what goes on in my head each time:
Me: Whoa, a low block. Was that immediate enough?
Me: Yes
Me: Okay, but what stance was the guy in?
Me: Um... I forget
Immediate BBWs should either be blanket legal or blanket illegal. (Scrimmage kicks excepted.) That would be WAY simpler - and isn't Fed all about simplicity when possible?
How about simply changing the BBW requirement from "the ball has to be in the FBZ" to "the ball has to be in the FBZ OR the player must have initiated the block immediately at the snap"?
-
Per casebook play 2.17.2.E, that's exactly correct:
*2.17.2 SITUATION E:
A1 is in shotgun formation, lined up seven yards behind the line of scrimmage ready to receive the snap. Immediately after the snap to A1, (a) A2 initiates his block simultaneously with the snap and blocks B1 below the waist or (b) A2 rises, and slightly retreats as if to go in traditional pass blocking protection, but then dives and blocks B1 below the waist. Both A2 and B1 were in the zone and on the line of scrimmage at the snap. The contact between A2 and B1 takes place in the free-blocking zone.
RULING: It is a legal block in (a) and an illegal block below the waist in (b). It is legal for A2 to block B1 below the waist while the free-blocking zone exists and this likely can only occur in (a) if the block is initiated simultaneously with the snap. Any later, and the ball will likely have left the free-blocking zone and the block is illegal.
Problem here is that our guidance clearly says that when the ball is no longer in the FBZ the FBZ ceases to exist, so A2 and B1 can't be in the FBZ in both scenarios in the referenced case play, and additionally video clearly shows even an "immediate" low block happens after the ball is out of the zone. And, as noted earlier virtually no defensive linemen are "head-up" on an offensive lineman these days requiring the team A player to move at least a bit left or right before going low and that's coached to be done with a quick "slide step". That's clearly visible on video replays.
But, maybe we're searching for a solution that's not really needed since most teams have entirely eliminated the low block from their play book when the QB is in shotgun based on this year's games that I have been in. The only illegal low block flags we've had when QB is in shotgun is from RB's and those are without question fouls.
-
Immediate BBWs should either be blanket legal or blanket illegal. (Scrimmage kicks excepted.) That would be WAY simpler - and isn't Fed all about simplicity when possible?
How about simply changing the BBW requirement from "the ball has to be in the FBZ" to "the ball has to be in the FBZ OR the player must have initiated the block immediately at the snap"?
:thumbup This would be one way to better address the issue.
-
Fed all about simplicity when possible?
Used to be and that is what is claimed but the longer I stay in this, the less I am believing it. Everytime I read proposed rule changes, I know too many coaches have been watching ball on Saturdays and are proposing rule changes based on what the see and hear rather than read.
-
I believe that is the issue. We have noticed during video reviews this season where we have stop action capability on high resolution video that when the QB is in shotgun formation the ball is clearly out of the zone in almost all cases before the linemen even move. Technically, that would make the low block illegal. That being said, we have also been given written guidance that when the lineman is in a 3 or 4-point stance (at least 1 hand must be on the ground), and his 1st move is to immediately go low, that the block shall be considered legal. That seems clear except that most defenses are lined up in some version of a gap alignment which means that typically the team A lineman takes a quick slide step left or right then goes low. Is that "immediate"? Not sure.
It would be nice if NFHS could clarify this directly in the rule book or the case book to eliminate the need for an "off the books" interpretation on how to officiate this.
I think this is the real reason to change the rule. Many officials seem to have different definitions of immediate. The gap block often requires a step in that direction before initiating contact. I've also seen a lineman cut the guy head up on the lineman next to him. Even though his initial act is to cut the guy does it meet the definition of immediate. That's why I like your other point of eliminating low blocks entirely if the QB is in shot gun. Or require the defender to be head up on the blocker. For simple sake though I think the best solution is to eliminate low blocks if in shot gun.
-
All film review I've seen that reviews the plays in slow motion points out that the blocks consistently occur after the ball has left the free blocking zone. Unfortunately many states have chosen to ignore the rule and put in their own "interpretation" that allows the blocks after the ball has left the FBZ as long as they're "immediate." This puts NFHS in a situation where they're forced to add a clarification even though the rule was fine as is if it wasn't for interpreters deciding to make up their own rules.
-
When was the rule changed adding the concept of the ball leaving the free blocking zone? At the time that made sense. The QB took the snap from under center and had to turn to hand or pitch the ball to a back who had to take a few steps to leave the zone. That took time. It was judged that BBW was safe during that brief amount of time.
Now that many/most teams are in shotgun the snap immediately leaves the FBZ. Is BBW now unsafe? Nonsense.
-
When was the rule changed adding the concept of the ball leaving the free blocking zone?
The parent site of The Official Forum keeps a pretty good registry of rule changes here. I tried to pull up the NFHS Handbook online but I keep getting a server error message. Looks like 1995.
https://football.refs.org/rules/index.html
-
I believe that is the issue. We have noticed during video reviews this season where we have stop action capability on high resolution video that when the QB is in shotgun formation the ball is clearly out of the zone in almost all cases before the linemen even move. Technically, that would make the low block illegal. That being said, we have also been given written guidance that when the lineman is in a 3 or 4-point stance (at least 1 hand must be on the ground), and his 1st move is to immediately go low, that the block shall be considered legal. That seems clear except that most defenses are lined up in some version of a gap alignment which means that typically the team A lineman takes a quick slide step left or right then goes low. Is that "immediate"? Not sure.
It would be nice if NFHS could clarify this directly in the rule book or the case book to eliminate the need for an "off the books" interpretation on how to officiate this.
what he said, ditto in the 4-6 County "Tampa Bay area".
If in shotgun, if it's linemen's first move with no hesitation there's really no difference if QB under center or shotgun if it's first move, no hesitation.
-
with the premise of NFHS simplicity - which was mentioned, and NFHS is all about safety - which is what NFHS rules are all about....
is it too radical to completely eliminate BBW? (simple, safety's sake)
-
with the premise of NFHS simplicity - which was mentioned, and NFHS is all about safety - which is what NFHS rules are all about....
is it too radical to completely eliminate BBW? (simple, safety's sake)
I've been hoping for that - and voting for it every time it shows up on the survey - for years now.
-
I've been hoping for that - and voting for it every time it shows up on the survey - for years now.
IMO, Legal BBW's are perfectly safe and helps smaller linemen take on bigger linemen. What do you think a goal line stand will look like if you eliminate BBW where everyone wants to submarine. The rule is great the way it is. Yes, maybe a little ambiguity with shotgun teams, but that's not enough to get rid of the whole rule.
-
IMO, Legal BBW's are perfectly safe and helps smaller linemen take on bigger linemen. What do you think a goal line stand will look like if you eliminate BBW where everyone wants to submarine. The rule is great the way it is. Yes, maybe a little ambiguity with shotgun teams, but that's not enough to get rid of the whole rule.
A proposal to remove the FBZ has arose several times but without any success. While it would make it easier for us officials, it would not for smaller O-linemen and has been strongly opposed by many coaches. Yes, the snap from shotgun may have left the FBZ before the OL makes his contact, but as long as it occurs a split-second after the snap (refer to Case 2.17.2E ) it is legal.
-
IMO, Legal BBW's are perfectly safe and helps smaller linemen take on bigger linemen. What do you think a goal line stand will look like if you eliminate BBW where everyone wants to submarine. The rule is great the way it is. Yes, maybe a little ambiguity with shotgun teams, but that's not enough to get rid of the whole rule.
I see a lot more players go down in a game with potential knee injuries that with potential head injuries. And we all know several people limping because of knee problems.
I know from a competitive standpoint that this will never pass, and (if I'm being honest) maybe it shouldn't, from that perspective. I know that's teh equalizer for teams that don't have any size. But from a safety perspective, I'd like to see it eliminated.
-
Val, while I may disagree, I get where your coming from safety wise, I think the more unsafe block is the chop block, I wish they would make the low block at the waist instead of knee and just make a low-low block illegal. As of now you could have a player engaged high and get contacted in the thigh and if free blocking zone is in tact it could be legal action.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Val, while I may disagree, I get where your coming from safety wise, I think the more unsafe block is the chop block, I wish they would make the low block at the waist instead of knee and just make a low-low block illegal. As of now you could have a player engaged high and get contacted in the thigh and if free blocking zone is in tact it could be legal action.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I try not to get too technical with that. If he's hitting him in the thigh he's likely hitting him in the knee as well. Don't nit pick it. But I agree making the low component only be below the waist would be much more logical. I proposed the rule change the year it was switched from delayed to simultaneous and my version had the waist. No idea if my submission made it to the committee, but if it did they low part was changed.
-
Val, while I may disagree, I get where your coming from safety wise, I think the more unsafe block is the chop block, I wish they would make the low block at the waist instead of knee and just make a low-low block illegal. As of now you could have a player engaged high and get contacted in the thigh and if free blocking zone is in tact it could be legal action.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd support that, too. Anything to make blocking less dangerous would be fine with me.
Like I said, I know eliminating everything below the waist will never pass, and since that's one way for a smaller team to compete with a bigger team, I'm not sure it even should...