RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: NEWOFFICIAL on March 03, 2020, 07:11:20 PM
-
NCAA play please disregard commentary and NCAA rules. In Fed Rules do you have this as :
A ) Touchdown first foot in end zone and possession
or
B) No Touchdown for the Receivers failure to maintain possession of the ball
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebMSeLzQvWgZOCGC9tQF07EY4dtTJuD7/view?usp=sharing
-
2-4-ART. 1 . . . A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball or having the forward progress of the player who is in possession stopped while the opponent is carrying the player who is in possession and inbounds.
2-34-ART. 1 . . . A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it.
8-2-ART. 1 . . . Possession of a live ball in the opponent's end zone is always a touchdown.
b. It is a touchdown when a loose ball is caught or recovered by a player while the ball is on or behind his opponent's goal line.
I think most HS officials would rule this a TD. Surviving the ground is not an NFHS concept. I understand why other levels would not.
-
NCAA play please disregard commentary and NCAA rules. In Fed Rules do you have this as :
The Rules that govern the game you're working are the only rules that matter, for that game. Touchdown.
-
He did not have possession long enough if you watch this in real time. You watch many passes in slow motion it appears he has it longer than he did. Survive the ground may not be applicable in HS, but it sure makes your calls much more consistent if you apply it as a philosophy. I'm sure there are states or interpreters who use it to help with consistency. This isn't even close to a catch in real time to me. It wouldn't be a catch in the middle of the field or the end zone.
-
I agree with Magician. No catch.
-
Count me in the “no catch” crowd. Would you rule this a catch if it happened at the 50? I don’t think so.
-
5 man mechanic - wing probably is going to make it to the 5 and have the receivers back to him - ^no - in the EZ or the 50 still ^no
-
Count me in the “no catch” crowd. Would you rule this a catch if it happened at the 50? I don’t think so.
I agree. Would you call this a catch and fumble if this happened inbounds in the middle of the field at the 50? I would definitely not - I'd rule it incomplete there as well.
-
I agree. Would you call this a catch and fumble if this happened inbounds in the middle of the field at the 50? I would definitely not - I'd rule it incomplete there as well.
Presuming you agreed that the NFHS Rule requirements "establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball" were satisfied, what would be your (rule related) justification for ruling the pass incomplete?
Of course, if you judged that either player possession of a live ball in flight was not established nor subsequently maintained while "first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball, your assessment, based on your judgment would be correct.
I was not aware that NFHS Rule 2-4-1 includes a specific duration requirement to establish "possession".
NFHS 2-34-1 advises, "A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it.". Again, no specific duration requirement is stated.
It would seem the judgment confirming "possession" relates to it being established, rather than being maintained for any specified period of time, other than being continued, and maintained, through "FIRST contacting the ground inbounds"
-
Presuming you agreed that the NFHS Rule requirements "establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball" were satisfied, what would be your (rule related) justification for ruling the pass incomplete?
Of course, if you judged that either player possession of a live ball in flight was not established nor subsequently maintained while "first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball, your assessment, based on your judgment would be correct.
I was not aware that NFHS Rule 2-4-1 includes a specific duration requirement to establish "possession".
NFHS 2-34-1 advises, "A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it.". Again, no specific duration requirement is stated.
It would seem the judgment confirming "possession" relates to it being established, rather than being maintained for any specified period of time, other than being continued, and maintained, through "FIRST contacting the ground inbounds"
Al the definition indicates "first contacting the ground inbounds, while maintaining possession of the ball." I would agree with you if the rule stated contacting the ground inbounds, while possessing the ball or contacting the ground having maintained possession of the ball.
That one little word maintaining adds something.
Maintain - to keep or keep up; continue in or with; carry on -- maintaining is the present participle of maintain.
Then by definition if the player does not come down in bounds and maintain, the act of keeping or continuing possession, it is not by definition a catch. The rule does not say maintained, which is past tense. I agree it is a gray area as to when maintaining possession is satisfied, but something that bang-bang the ball better not come out or I'm wiping it, and I believe I have rules support to do so, along with what I believe to be good common sense game management.
-
Hard to say you caught it when the ball is lying on the ground...
-
Al the definition indicates "first contacting the ground inbounds, while maintaining possession of the ball." I would agree with you if the rule stated contacting the ground inbounds, while possessing the ball or contacting the ground having maintained possession of the ball.
That one little word maintaining adds something.
Maintain - to keep or keep up; continue in or with; carry on -- maintaining is the present participle of maintain.
Then by definition if the player does not come down in bounds and maintain, the act of keeping or continuing possession, it is not by definition a catch. The rule does not say maintained, which is past tense. I agree it is a gray area as to when maintaining possession is satisfied, but something that bang-bang the ball better not come out or I'm wiping it, and I believe I have rules support to do so, along with what I believe to be good common sense game management.
I'm not questioning YOUR judgment, and clearly stated if YOU judge the received did NOT have possession of the ball when "FIRST touching the ground inbounds you can rightly consider the pass INCOMPLETE. But, you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear with word-smithing. 2-4-1 clearly states," FIRST touches the ground while maintaining possession (which suggests he must have FIRST ESTABLISHED possession)before touches the ground inbounds".
If you judge he HAS possession, and while doing so, FIRST touches the ground, inbounds, it's a CATCH (Whether at the 50 yl, or in the EZ), and BY NFHS RULE, that's a catch.
If you are going to judge the pass incomplete, I would respectfully suggest it be because you DID NOT judge the loose ball IN POSSESSION when he FIRST touched the ground, inbounds, o rat some point thereafter.
-
I was not aware that NFHS Rule 2-4-1 includes a specific duration requirement to establish "possession".
NFHS 2-34-1 advises, "A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it.". Again, no specific duration requirement is stated.
And this is where understanding the meaning and philosophy of the rule is very important. Maintains is the key word here and a very common philosophy is there needs to be a time element or possibly an act common to the game that could be applied to help provide consistency. You are asking some good questions here to help people get through the process, and I understand you don't necessarily feel this immediate contact constitutes a catch. I encourage people to spend as much time understanding the rules and learning the philosophies will help you become an even better official.
-
Instant replay has allowed us all to start examining the pepper under a microscope.
Across the middle of the field at the 50, two players jump up for a ball, get hand(s) on it, and they both fall to the ground and the ball pops out -- philosophically, that's incomplete from me 100% of the time and NOBODY in the stadium is going to argue with that if it's just as bang-bang as this play was.
The alternative is catch and fumble, which is going to upset one sideline and make the other think you're an idiot even if they got the benefit of the play.
"Surviving the ground" and "act common to the game" are necessary terms when you can analyze every play like the Zapruder film because you shouldn't be over officiating plays like this.
TL;DR: ^no
-
And this is where understanding the meaning and philosophy of the rule is very important. Maintains is the key word here and a very common philosophy is there needs to be a time element or possibly an act common to the game that could be applied to help provide consistency.
"Meaning and philosophy" are both important considerations to help in applying judgment and determining whether the action being observed does, or does not, satisfy the explicit rule. Different from other Football related Rule codes (NCAA, NFL) the NFHS rule regarding "catch" is both specific and instantaneous.
When there is possession (as defined in NFHS 2-34-1) and concurrent "first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball (as defined in NFHS 2-4-1), by NFHS Rule, you have a "Catch".
Although what may be, " a very common (although somewhat recent) philosophy is that there needs to be time element or possibly an act common to the game that could be applied to help provide consistency" has been deemed appropriate at other Rule Code levels, that application HAS NOT been adopted by the NFHS code. It has, however, called greater attention to the stated requirements of establishing player possession and maintaining that possession through the FIRST touching of the ground, inbounds.
Both philosophies may well be helpful in confirming judgments as to establishing player possession and maintaining it through FIRST contact with the ground, inbounds, but ARE NOT additional requirements as included in other Rule Codes
At some point, NFHS Rules may choose to adopt the philosophy recommended by the other Football Rule codes, but until that actually happens the need for a, "time element or possibly an act common to the game" to confirm a completed "Catch" simply do not apply to the NFHS Rule.
-
"Meaning and philosophy" are both important considerations to help in applying judgment and determining whether the action being observed does, or does not, satisfy the explicit rule. Different from other Football related Rule codes (NCAA, NFL) the NFHS rule regarding "catch" is both specific and instantaneous.
When there is possession (as defined in NFHS 2-34-1) and concurrent "first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball (as defined in NFHS 2-4-1), by NFHS Rule, you have a "Catch".
Although what may be, " a very common (although somewhat recent) philosophy is that there needs to be time element or possibly an act common to the game that could be applied to help provide consistency" has been deemed appropriate at other Rule Code levels, that application HAS NOT been adopted by the NFHS code. It has, however, called greater attention to the stated requirements of establishing player possession and maintaining that possession through the FIRST touching of the ground, inbounds.
Both philosophies may well be helpful in confirming judgments as to establishing player possession and maintaining it through FIRST contact with the ground, inbounds, but ARE NOT additional requirements as included in other Rule Codes
At some point, NFHS Rules may choose to adopt the philosophy recommended by the other Football Rule codes, but until that actually happens the need for a, "time element or possibly an act common to the game" to confirm a completed "Catch" simply do not apply to the NFHS Rule.
Philosophies by definition aren't included in the codes. Things like "survive the ground" and "act common to the game" aren't always codified. They are philosophies that existed before they were codified. The philosophies are often build on words that do exist in the rule. In this case, the key word is MAINTAIN. Poor officials stop at that word and take it literally and don't think more about what it means. Good officials attempt to better understand what the term means and how it's applied in the game. Great officials have such a good understanding of the intent and philosophy they can consistently apply it in real time play to play and game to game.
Another good example where common philosophies can be applied to HS rules but aren't specifically covered in the rules is holding. The rule uses the term restrain. Two common philosophies applied to that term are point of attack and back pedaling. If the restriction isn't at the point of attack it's often not considered holding. If the holder maintains good feet between the defender and the runner and gets the defender into a back pedal, he's beat already and there is very likely no hold. Most of us are aware of the 6 categories of holding and those categories exist nowhere in the rule book. If you stop your rule knowledge at the rule book, you will struggle as an official. Just because a philosophy initiated at the NFL or NCAA level doesn't mean it can't be applied to HS football.
-
Nobody is suggesting "Philosophies" aren't important in understanding and correctly applying rules, but, "what's good for the goose isn't ALWAYS good for the gander", and regarding football rules, some "philosophies" are far more applicable to, and intended for, different levels of the game.
How YOU apply philosophies to YOUR judgments, is essentially up to YOU. I'm suggesting that how YOU decide to apply certain philosophies is YOUR] choice, as well as YOUR responsibility to explain and/or defend if questioned.
Concentrating on established and maintained possession at the time of FIRST touching the ground inbounds, seems a lot more appropriate to the execution and satisfaction of NFHS rules regarding whether a forward pass was complete or not[/i], than some arbitrary, not all that well defined, or specific, concepts like either, "survive the ground" or "act common to the game". established and intended for, and documented by RULES governing other levels of the game.
There are significantly different skill levels inherent to each level of the game of Football, that often require specific adjustments in how "basic philosophies" apply to THAT level, which may, or may not, apply or be practical to other levels. "One size RARELY fits all, the same".
However, YOUR call is based on YOUR judgment, which is likely influenced by YOUR understanding and appropriate application of "philosophies", as they apply to the game YOU are working. As long as YOU are comfortable with, and accept responsibility for explaining YOUR decision, it's YOUR call.
-
Nobody is suggesting "Philosophies" aren't important in understanding and correctly applying rules, but, "what's good for the goose isn't ALWAYS good for the gander", and regarding football rules, some "philosophies" are far more applicable to, and intended for, different levels of the game.
How YOU apply philosophies to YOUR judgments, is essentially up to YOU. I'm suggesting that how YOU decide to apply certain philosophies is YOUR] choice, as well as YOUR responsibility to explain and/or defend if questioned.
Concentrating on established and maintained possession at the time of FIRST touching the ground inbounds, seems a lot more appropriate to the execution and satisfaction of NFHS rules regarding whether a forward pass was complete or not[/i], than some arbitrary, not all that well defined, or specific, concepts like either, "survive the ground" or "act common to the game". established and intended for, and documented by RULES governing other levels of the game.
There are significantly different skill levels inherent to each level of the game of Football, that often require specific adjustments in how "basic philosophies" apply to THAT level, which may, or may not, apply or be practical to other levels. "One size RARELY fits all, the same".
However, YOUR call is based on YOUR judgment, which is likely influenced by YOUR understanding and appropriate application of "philosophies", as they apply to the game YOU are working. As long as YOU are comfortable with, and accept responsibility for explaining YOUR decision, it's YOUR call.
You are starting to catch on! These philosophies are not mine. I didn't create them or choose to take a philosophy from a different level and personally apply it in my game only. These are philosophies the best among us (many included on this board) have decided do make sense and collectively apply them in their state/region/association at the high school level.
Your argument would be valid if I individually chose to use something from a different level. What I'm telling you is the best and brightest of HIGH SCHOOL football leadership have looked at those philosophies and said I think they are applicable here as well. Maybe not exactly as they are interpreted or enforced at another level, but very similar. Why re-invent the wheel when something that is perfectly acceptable at this level has already been created.
-
Philosophies by definition aren't included in the codes. Things like "survive the ground" and "act common to the game" aren't always codified. They are philosophies that existed before they were codified. The philosophies are often build on words that do exist in the rule. In this case, the key word is MAINTAIN. Poor officials stop at that word and take it literally and don't think more about what it means. Good officials attempt to better understand what the term means and how it's applied in the game. Great officials have such a good understanding of the intent and philosophy they can consistently apply it in real time play to play and game to game.
Implies, but doesn't actually state, that officials can "do it my way" or not bother aspiring to greatness or even goodness.
-
No TD. Does not have control. ^no
-
These are philosophies the best among us (many included on this board) have decided do make sense and collectively apply them in their state/region/association at the high school level.
Your argument would be valid if I individually chose to use something from a different level. What I'm telling you is the best and brightest of HIGH SCHOOL football leadership have looked at those philosophies and said I think they are applicable here as well.
I'm sure, "the best and brightest of HIGH SCHOOL football leadership have looked at those philosophies" whomever they may be, with the best of intentions, but all too often I consider, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
My understand is that, as frustrating as it all too often may seem, my role is to enforce and adhere to the Rules as they are written. Although I maintain we all have the opportunity to appeal to those given the responsibility of writing, and revising, the NFHS rules if and when we think revisions are appropriate, or necessary, we're expected to wait for their concurrence before adopting changes, on our own, even when they're applied to other levels.
-
I'm sure, "the best and brightest of HIGH SCHOOL football leadership have looked at those philosophies" whomever they may be, with the best of intentions, but all too often I consider, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
My understand is that, as frustrating as it all too often may seem, my role is to enforce and adhere to the Rules as they are written. Although I maintain we all have the opportunity to appeal to those given the responsibility of writing, and revising, the NFHS rules if and when we think revisions are appropriate, or necessary, we're expected to wait for their concurrence before adopting changes, on our own, even when they're applied to other levels.
Which begs the questions on the topic brought up earlier. Do you call holding on a WR on the far left side of the field near the sideline when he restricts the CB and the run is a sweep to the far right side of the field?
As you say the rules are the rules as written, it is a hold by definition in the rules, call it.
-
I'm sure, "the best and brightest of HIGH SCHOOL football leadership have looked at those philosophies" whomever they may be, with the best of intentions, but all too often I consider, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
My understand is that, as frustrating as it all too often may seem, my role is to enforce and adhere to the Rules as they are written. Although I maintain we all have the opportunity to appeal to those given the responsibility of writing, and revising, the NFHS rules if and when we think revisions are appropriate, or necessary, we're expected to wait for their concurrence before adopting changes, on our own, even when they're applied to other levels.
This from the guy who used "common sense" to rule a receiver who touches out of bounds and then leaps up to touch the pass as being incomplete because the player is "out of bounds" when he touches it. So apparently you only choose to enforce the rules as written when it's convenient with your argument.
Do you recognize the fact that most of the officials commenting here understand the concept of philosophies that are built on the intent and wording of the rule? If you are the only one who has a position that is counter to everyone, don't you think maybe you should rethink your understanding?
-
Do you recognize the fact that most of the officials commenting here understand the concept of philosophies that are built on the intent and wording of the rule? If you are the only one who has a position that is counter to everyone, don't you think maybe you should rethink your understanding?
Actually, I think I have a pretty good, and consistent, understanding of the concept of "philosophies" and their application. I just don't happen to agree with YOUR assessment of this issue. Are you really sure EVERYONE agrees with you, or that your conclusion is "perfectly acceptable" at this (NFHS) level?
Of course you're perfectly entitled to follow your own interpretation and conclusion, but until I hear something a little more specific, or explanatory from NFHS Rules makers, I'm going to stick with my understanding and limitation of "philosophies" as they apply to NFHS Rules exclusively.
-
Which begs the questions on the topic brought up earlier. Do you call holding on a WR on the far left side of the field near the sideline when he restricts the CB and the run is a sweep to the far right side of the field?
If it is so blatant that even Helen Keller can see it, yeah, flag it. If the kid did something that dumb that's on him, not us. Most coaches will understand, and if they don't teach them.
-
If it is so blatant that even Helen Keller can see it, yeah, flag it. If the kid did something that dumb that's on him, not us. Most coaches will understand, and if they don't teach them.
Sure if it is a take down, but certainly not a general restriction.
-
It was my intention to encourage good discussion with this clip. I think we’ve succeeded. It’s a great discussion topic for associations across the country.
I know terrific officials who feel this is a TD in Fed Rules ( first foot down in end zone and possession) and I know terrific officials who feel this is incomplete ( didn’t maintain possession and complete the catch).
We need to have the NFHS give us a ruling and I intend to get this sent to the NFHS through the Florida High School Athletic Association.
-
It was my intention to encourage good discussion with this clip. I think we’ve succeeded. It’s a great discussion topic for associations across the country.
I know terrific officials who feel this is a TD in Fed Rules ( first foot down in end zone and possession) and I know terrific officials who feel this is incomplete ( didn’t maintain possession and complete the catch).
We need to have the NFHS give us a ruling and I intend to get this sent to the NFHS through the Florida High School Athletic Association.
Not sure what additional detail you need from NFHS. As you indicate, NFHS Rules clearly state, "first foot down in end zone and (with) possession", which equates to a "Catch", and in this hypothetical a TD.
NFHS Rules also clearly indicate, "didn’t (establish and) maintain possession and(or otherwise) complete the catch" does not produce a "catch", therefore not a TD.
It seems the only question would be YOUR determination and judgment on what YOU saw, and [i]YOUR[/i] willingness to Call it, as YOU BELIEVE YOU have seen it, as complying with NFHS (ONLY) Rules.
-
The calling official DIDN'T have :
(1) Thru the same eyes as the video that we saw.
(2) Had to make his call in a split-second, so far we've had near a week.
(3) Any capability to replay...and replay...and replay....and replay....
(4)He did not have a pause button or zoom-in or slo-mo options.
I would go with his call.
-
The calling official DIDN'T have :
(1) Thru the same eyes as the video that we saw.
(2) Had to make his call in a split-second, so far we've had near a week.
(3) Any capability to replay...and replay...and replay....and replay....
(4)He did not have a pause button or zoom-in or slo-mo options.
I would go with his call.
Absolutely agree, and also consider, he was in appropriate position to observe the action. Didn't hesitate, suggesting he was confident in what he observed and perhaps most significant, was working in a game covered by NCAA Rules. (and philosophies).
-
We need to have the NFHS give us a ruling and I intend to get this sent to the NFHS through the Florida High School Athletic Association.
The NFHS isn't going to give us a ruling. It is up to each individual state interpreter. if you're in Florida, it will stop with the FHSAA. In NC, it will be the NCHSAA. If in Maine, its Ralph, I think.
-
The Rules Committee Rep from Florida is Frank Beasley, who I believe works in the Florida office. I doubt that asking for a ruling from a video will get any response as it is a judgement call. The applicable rules may be quoted, as many have done here. Be sure to follow your state's protocol, as they may want you to submit any questions to your local interp. first.
-
When was the last time you watched a training video where the voiceover guy said, "in high school, this would be a catch, but by NCAA rules, this is incomplete"?
I've never seen that.
I believe that a catch is a catch is a catch, no matter what level and what rulebook. I believe NFHS and NCAA and NFL all have the same conception of what a catch is. The difference is, they just have made differing attempts to describe it in words.
Call me a Catch Unitarian.
-
FWIW, I never saw possession in the clip
-
When was the last time you watched a training video where the voiceover guy said, "in high school, this would be a catch, but by NCAA rules, this is incomplete"?
I've never seen that.
I believe that a catch is a catch is a catch, no matter what level and what rulebook. I believe NFHS and NCAA and NFL all have the same conception of what a catch is. The difference is, they just have made differing attempts to describe it in words.
Call me a Catch Unitarian.
WOW, think of all the money to be saved discarding all the multiple Rule Books, not to mention the countless hours spent trying to understand the differing requirements for each level, if we only had (and followed) a single "Unitarian" Rule Book.
Would that "Unitarian" book require one foot, or two, to touch the ground inbounds, necessary to complete a catch? Or would it actually explain what a continued "football move" required? Would that book be designed to regulate a game played by 10-18 year olds developing special skills during a progressive learning period, or be geared towards the needs and requirements of high level professional athletes competing at the top skill, and maturity levels in return for enormous (life altering) sums of money necessary to support a Billion dollar entertainment industry?
How would "training videos" or their "voice over guys" choose to narrate a "one size fits All" approach, or would anyone really serious, pay any attention, or care?
-
WOW, think of all the money to be saved discarding all the multiple Rule Books, not to mention the countless hours spent trying to understand the differing requirements for each level, if we only had (and followed) a single "Unitarian" Rule Book.
Yeah okay, that's exactly what I was saying, I was implying that every single rule is actually identical.
Would that "Unitarian" book require one foot, or two, to touch the ground inbounds, necessary to complete a catch?
True, each rulebook provides a separate definition of inbounds. This has no bearing on the concept of catch versus incomplete, or incomplete versus fumble. Except insofar as a player has to be inbounds to make a catch. Which, I might add, all rulebooks agree on.
Or would it actually explain what a continued "football move" required?
No rulebook exhaustively explains what counts as a football move, though each one provides certain examples in an attempt to put into words the concept that exists independent of language.
The rulebooks can express catch guidelines in different ways, but this alone is not evidence that they have a different fundamental conception. Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica use different words to explain what a "poem" is, but we can be confident they are using different words to describe the same thing.
-
Yeah okay, that's exactly what I was saying, I was implying that every single rule is actually identical.
True, each rulebook provides a separate definition of inbounds. This has no bearing on the concept of catch versus incomplete, or incomplete versus fumble. Except insofar as a player has to be inbounds to make a catch. Which, I might add, all rulebooks agree on. No rulebook exhaustively explains what counts as a football move, though each one provides certain examples in an attempt to put into words the concept that exists independent of language.
The rulebooks can express catch guidelines in different ways, but this alone is not evidence that they have a different fundamental conception.
I'll be extra careful, when I receive my copy of the 2020 NFHS Rules (& Case Book), to search for the NFHS concept of the relevance and relation to "what counts as a football move",related to establishing a "Catch" that I've missed thus far, or stick with NFHS 2-4-1.
-
When writing rules it is often a challenge in putting action into words and then add common sense.
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (5-man crew)
-
Ah, that elusive common sense is sorely needed on this site
-
Along with misguided "really good intentions", the road to Hell is paved with presumed "common sense".
-
When was the last time you watched a training video where the voiceover guy said, "in high school, this would be a catch, but by NCAA rules, this is incomplete"?
I've never seen that.
I believe that a catch is a catch is a catch, no matter what level and what rulebook. I believe NFHS and NCAA and NFL all have the same conception of what a catch is. The difference is, they just have made differing attempts to describe it in words.
Call me a Catch Unitarian.
Wow!
Interesting concept!
No too likely to catch on! :puke:
-
HERE YE, HERE YE......."THE REVOLT OF '48".... :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (7-MAN CREW)
"Up to 1947 high school and college rules committees went their separate ways writing two different codes of football rules. At the end of 1947 and early in 1948 a tentative agreement was reached to produce a joint high school/college code. This was done after negotiations and a great deal of give and take on the part of both rules committees. In 1948, agreement had been reached to publish identical rules books. The one published by NFHS contained the copy mutually agreed upon. At the last moment, the college committee withdrew its support and decided to publish their own rules book. ....... It was the beginning of the elimination of most exceptions to various rules."
2019/2020 NFHS FOOTBALL HANDBOOK , P. 29,30
When lobbying for a rule change, the worst approach is : "IT'LL MAKE IT JUST LIKE THE NCAA...."
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: (5-MAN CREW)
-
I have a problem with the NFHS circularity of the rules as they are written.
2-4-1...A Catch requires Possession
2-34-1...Possession requires A Catch
What came first? The Chicken or the Egg?
-
I have a problem with the NFHS circularity of the rules as they are written.
2-4-1...A Catch requires Possession
2-34-1...Possession requires A Catch
What came first? The Chicken or the Egg?
The chicken crossed the road to lay an egg ! Where did the chicken come from ? = The other side of the road .
My prediction of the day : The Red Sox won't lose a game before Memorial Day.
-
I have a problem with the NFHS circularity of the rules as they are written.
2-4-1...A Catch requires Possession
2-34-1...Possession requires A Catch
What came first? The Chicken or the Egg?
If you don't have both you don't have either. Does that help?
-
"To be like NCAA" isn't a great reason to change a rule, but "to be different than NCAA" is also not a great reason to keep a rule. If the only argument against something is that you don't want to line up with college rules, maybe you should reconsider your point of view.
-
"To be like NCAA" isn't a great reason to change a rule, but "to be different than NCAA" is also not a great reason to keep a rule. If the only argument against something is that you don't want to line up with college rules, maybe you should reconsider your point of view.
Why would anyone presume that football rules designed to appropriately apply to, and satisfy the skill set, physical characteristics and specific objectives of high caliber young adult athletes and/or seasoned highly skilled professional, experienced athletes, would somehow automatically translate to the developing skill set and different learning and teaching objectives of a physically demanding Interscholastic level of Football?
-
"To be like NCAA" isn't a great reason to change a rule, but "to be different than NCAA" is also not a great reason to keep a rule. If the only argument against something is that you don't want to line up with college rules, maybe you should reconsider your point of view.
This.
If NCAA adopts a rule that proves over time to be useful and effective, why not consider adopting it at the NFHS level?
Example: NCAA adopts the XFL kickoff rule. Statistics then show a huge reduction in injuries during kickoff plays. Why would NFHS not strongly consider adopting the same rule?
-
This.
If NCAA adopts a rule that proves over time to be useful and effective, why not consider adopting it at the NFHS level?
Example: NCAA adopts the XFL kickoff rule. Statistics then show a huge reduction in injuries during kickoff plays. Why would NFHS not strongly consider adopting the same rule?
Why would you presume the NFHS has done EXACTLY that, but that because of the differences in skills, talents, physicality, capabilities the analysis doesn't support the same conclusions.
-
"To be like NCAA" isn't a great reason to change a rule, but "to be different than NCAA" is also not a great reason to keep a rule. If the only argument against something is that you don't want to line up with college rules, maybe you should reconsider your point of view.
The worst part is when the NFHS adopts an NCAA rule, they never just copy the existing wording from the rule. They have to make their own version of the rule and screw something up in the process. Every. Single. Time. Just to not be like NCAA.
-
Why would you presume the NFHS has done EXACTLY that, but that because of the differences in skills, talents, physicality, capabilities the analysis doesn't support the same conclusions.
What you're missing, is that in general there's an excellent barometer for the 'still-developing young athletes' you speak of... Texas follows NCAA rules with a few modifications, and we there's a LOT of football games (saw a stat somewhere that there are more HS games played in Texas than NCAA football games in any given week.) So it's not like there's nowhere to look to see how a rule impacts athletes at the high school level.
-
Amen. NCAA rules can be a good starting point for games played by high schoolers. Up until this past season, MA also played football by NCAA rules.
-
Amen. NCAA rules can be a good starting point for games played by high schoolers. Up until this past season, MA also played football by NCAA rules.
Might make one wonder why the other 48 (oops with MA conversion, make that 49/50) States reluctant to reach that same conclusion.
-
Might make one wonder why the other 48 (oops with MA conversion, make that 49/50) States reluctant to reach that same conclusion.
I would think a very good reason (and the motivator I heard why MA changed) is because they want a say in the rules. If NFHS adopted the NCAA rules, they would have no say on the rules committee. There could possibly be local modifications, but they would be very limited like in Texas. Having a voice in the rules you play by is probably very important to the NFHS. I doubt the NCAA would give NFHS much of a voice on their rules committee.
-
Having a voice in the rules you play by is probably very important to the NFHS. I doubt the NCAA would give NFHS much of a voice on their rules committee.
Considering the differences in the skills, experience, maturity and physical stature between NFHS and NCAA (or NFL) participants, "Having a (significant) voice in the rules you play by" seems like a valid and prudent requirement.
-
Why would you presume the NFHS has done EXACTLY that, but that because of the differences in skills, talents, physicality, capabilities the analysis doesn't support the same conclusions.
Example, please.
-
Considering the differences in the skills, experience, maturity and physical stature between NFHS and NCAA (or NFL) participants, "Having a (significant) voice in the rules you play by" seems like a valid and prudent requirement.
I think it has more to do with the experience, talent and skill of the officials to understand and enforce the rules as much as it does the ability of the players.
-
Example, please.
The NFHS serves the needs of our Interscholastic level educational structure related to the supervision and guidance of physical development associated with a wide, and varied introduction and development of sports related activities, in most cases starting at the "beginner" (Instructional) level. The implications of developing "Skills", necessary and particular to a wide range of activities, developing and encouraging positive interest in varied activities and the responsibility of introducing specific physical and emotional activities, and challenges, to still growing and maturing participants is challenging and often requires unique considerations.
As with the rest of the Interscholastic level mission, training, exposure to, understanding and developing appreciation for the responsibilities and rewards of participation is a primary objective to an audience of formative development and positive interest. Those progressing through and showing sufficient interest in, and developing the necessary skills and comprehension necessary to adapt and reasonably compete at a significantly higher level of required performance and enhanced competition EARN the right to continue at a progressive, and more demanding level of participation, usually requiring a higher level of mastered skills, understanding, motivation, commitment and interest.
As the necessary skill levels progress, natural physical development requirements, participant comprehension, safety and personal commitment and dedication requirements of participants increases to keep pace with the competitive nature of participation at a higher, more developed level, which inherently occasionally will require tweaking and adjustment of even BASIC game rules to keep pace with the enhanced requirements of a higher performance requirement necessary to satisfy the significantly higher performance capabilities of more mature and experienced participants and game objectives required at higher levels.
Advancement to higher competitive levels, by it's nature, requires comparable advancement in skills and performance, which at times may require advancing rule requirements and adjustments to keep pace, and balance, with the skill sets unique to each higher performance level which may be deemed excessive, unnecessary or even counterproductive at lower levels.
The same holds true for game Officials, where experience and continually developed skills are necessary to effectively handle higher performance and competition. Officials working at multiple levels MUST ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY, AND CHALLENGE to be able to effectively apply the specific Rules unique to the level of participation THEY ARE WORKING, although the added development and experience gained provides additional benefit and enhanced performance at ANY level worked.
-
The NFHS serves the needs of our Interscholastic level educational structure related to the supervision and guidance of physical development associated with a wide, and varied introduction and development of sports related activities, in most cases starting at the "beginner" (Instructional) level. The implications of developing "Skills", necessary and particular to a wide range of activities, developing and encouraging positive interest in varied activities and the responsibility of introducing specific physical and emotional activities, and challenges, to still growing and maturing participants is challenging and often requires unique considerations.
As with the rest of the Interscholastic level mission, training, exposure to, understanding and developing appreciation for the responsibilities and rewards of participation is a primary objective to an audience of formative development and positive interest. Those progressing through and showing sufficient interest in, and developing the necessary skills and comprehension necessary to adapt and reasonably compete at a significantly higher level of required performance and enhanced competition EARN the right to continue at a progressive, and more demanding level of participation, usually requiring a higher level of mastered skills, understanding, motivation, commitment and interest.
As the necessary skill levels progress, natural physical development requirements, participant comprehension, safety and personal commitment and dedication requirements of participants increases to keep pace with the competitive nature of participation at a higher, more developed level, which inherently occasionally will require tweaking and adjustment of even BASIC game rules to keep pace with the enhanced requirements of a higher performance requirement necessary to satisfy the significantly higher performance capabilities of more mature and experienced participants and game objectives required at higher levels.
Advancement to higher competitive levels, by it's nature, requires comparable advancement in skills and performance, which at times may require advancing rule requirements and adjustments to keep pace, and balance, with the skill sets unique to each higher performance level which may be deemed excessive, unnecessary or even counterproductive at lower levels.
The same holds true for game Officials, where experience and continually developed skills are necessary to effectively handle higher performance and competition. Officials working at multiple levels MUST ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY, AND CHALLENGE to be able to effectively apply the specific Rules unique to the level of participation THEY ARE WORKING, although the added development and experience gained provides additional benefit and enhanced performance at ANY level worked.
Then why is there no difference between the rules at the different levels of competition (middle school, subvarsity, and varsity) other than period length? If the rules are supposed to be designed in a way that promotes development, then where is the increase in difficulty built in as the level of competition increases within NFHS rules? Maybe have middle school rules have shorter quarters and simpler (though not always equitable ) penalty enforcements, with a more lenient mercy rule, then adjust up to a larger mercy rule and high school rules with some college features, and finally to college rules at the varsity level. This would allow rules to be more tailored to the competition level, just as difficulty settings change how a video game might play.
-
Then why is there no difference between the rules at the different levels of competition (middle school, subvarsity, and varsity) other than period length?
Actually, at many (if not most) subvarsity levels there are revised rules currently in effect within the NFHS rule structure. Revised rule application for "Freshman" levels, "Modified" levels and some JV levels are available for schools. If those options are NOT available in your service area, you might inquire locally as to why not, or if previously determined to not be practiced, a little research (locally) as to why not might answer your question, as such decisions are made locally.
-
Alf, I gave you a specific example of one rule that could possibly work it’s way down to the NFHS level, and asked you to provide a specific example to bolster your argument. Instead, you provided a rambling dissertation as to why NFHS doesn’t use the complete NCAA or NFL rules set.
Perhaps your keyboard is in need of some Kaopectate.
-
I recall two proposals that I submitted that copied the NCAA rule and became rules after some adjustments....
In 2009 I proposed the NCAA definition of a scrimmage kick formation could exist only when a scrimmage kick was expected - remember this was the era of "Alpha II". A more detailed rule was felt necessary and passed overwhelmingly.
In 2014 I proposed the NCAA definition of dueling dead ball fouls offset, even if there was more on one team then the other. It failed on the floor with the rationale that this would allow some of the fouls to go unpunished which is not the NFHS philosophy.
In 2015 I proposed that dueling dead ball fouls offset on a pro-rata basis. It passed overwhelmingly.
The rules committee uses their own mind in writing the rules. I recall my years on the Editorial Committee when we would often look to see how the NCAA wrote the rule, if the approved change was similar, before putting the final touches on the verbiage.
-
Alf, I gave you a specific example of one rule that could possibly work it’s way down to the NFHS level, and asked you to provide a specific example to bolster your argument. Instead, you provided a rambling dissertation as to why NFHS doesn’t use the complete NCAA or NFL rules set. Perhaps your keyboard is in need of some Kaopectate.
If only Kaopectate was the answer, Bama, but, alas it's not. When an answer doesn't satisfy a question, there's only two possible approaches; provide further detail &/or clarity, or determine whether the questioner isn't really seeking a specific answer. I usually accept the risk of erring on the side of trying to provide additional detail and clarity, but sometimes, based on the question, penetration seems simply impossible, and additional detail and/or clarity serves no purpose.
Rather than wander through aimless speculation, and you have a SPECIFIC issues in mind, I might suggest you forward your question through your Organizational Rules contact, who if necessary can forward it through their appropriate State, Regional and or NFHS HQ rules contact to provide you with an official answer, to whatever you feel necessary or helpful.
Normally (but not always) I try to avoid the necessity of using Kaopectate on my keyboard, but I do spray it with HORSE HOCKEY repellent regularly, which acts much the same as anti-virus protection.
-
Actually we play shorter quarters in NFHS for MS- 8:00 vs 12:00, sometimes 10:00 in JV, plus the MS ball is smaller.
-
Considering the differences in the skills, experience, maturity and physical stature between NFHS and NCAA (or NFL) participants, "Having a (significant) voice in the rules you play by" seems like a valid and prudent requirement.
I'm interested in how this would work out. this sounds logical, but I cannot think deeply enough to identify which particular rules in the NFHS are tweaked/invented/implemented to account for the differences in the skills, experience, maturity, and physical stature between High School athletes and those participating at the collegiate and/or NFL level. Other than length of game, quarter, and other time-related changes, can you be more specific as to which specific rules which are acceptable for college and not acceptable for High school aged athletes? In regard to the skills, experience, maturity, and physical stature argument you are presenting?
-
I'm interested in how this would work out. this sounds logical, but I cannot think deeply enough to identify which particular rules in the NFHS are tweaked/invented/implemented to account for the differences in the skills, experience, maturity, and physical stature between High School athletes and those participating at the collegiate and/or NFL level. Other than length of game, quarter, and other time-related changes, can you be more specific as to which specific rules which are acceptable for college and not acceptable for High school aged athletes? In regard to the skills, experience, maturity, and physical stature argument you are presenting?
Are you serious? You're looking for examples of differences (In regard to the skills, experience, maturity, and physical stature) between players at the Interscholastic and Collegiate (not to mention the NFL) levels? You might consider, next time your working a Freshman, Modified, JV or most Varsity HS games take a good look at the players. If possible, when getting to the field takes you through a locker room, notice the players BEFORE they put their equipment on.
Like the NCAA (and NFL), NFHS has a limited, select group of rule specific experts, who have access to a whole gaggle of additional experts and unlimited reference material, studies and practices geared towards making the types of decisions and judgments concerning players and game conditions relating to the objectives of the game, targeted to the Interscholastic level. They also welcome suggestions, advice and ideas about the applicability of rule adjustments SPECIFIC to the Interscholastic level, and make yearly reviews and judgments whether those suggestions are appropriate, or not.
For over 100 years, after all suggestions and ideas are considered, reviewed, debated and assessed rule adjustments are either made, or passed on, to game officials who are charged with implementing what the rule makers decide. Other than being encouraged to share their experiences, impressions, opinions, complaints, support, practicality of final rule decisions, game officials are then expected, and required, to thoroughly understand, accept and enforce those final rule decision, as presented.
With VERY few exceptions, I've found it far more practical, logical and appropriate to accept the wisdom, knowledge, experience and judgments of experienced NFHS rule makers, although should I have a serious question, or see a problematic difference between how specific situations may differ with other codes, I'm aware of the existing process and direction currently available, should I wish to offer any suggestions for improvement.
You might consider that process a more suitable and appropriate source to seek answers to your question.
-
Maybe you're missing the point. I understand there's a difference in the physical makeup of the various organizations you have mentioned, and agree those differences exist. In trying to understand your position, I reread all of your posts, and your position seems to be that we need to use NFHS rules in High School because at least some of those rules have been adapted to compensate for these physical differences, along with the mental capabilities and maturity level of the competitetors. I'm simply asking you to point out the specific rules that have been tweaked/adapted, or otherwise altered to compensate for these differences. For example, the play in question on this post. As far as I know, the technical aspect of the rule has not been altered between at least collegiate athletics and NFHS. They are basically the same. One foot down with possession and control = catch. What aspect of this rule, if any, has been adapted in consideration of the differences you have been mentioning? (i.e., physical makeup, maturity level, mental capacity, etc.) I'm really trying to understand your position, but we need to move from abstract theory to objective reality. If you can help me out with that, I would really appreciate it. Which specific rules have been modified?
-
Maybe you're missing the point. I understand there's a difference in the physical makeup of the various organizations you have mentioned, and agree those differences exist. In trying to understand your position, I reread all of your posts, and your position seems to be that we need to use NFHS rules in High School because at least some of those rules have been adapted to compensate for these physical differences, along with the mental capabilities and maturity level of the competitetors. I'm simply asking you to point out the specific rules that have been tweaked/adapted, or otherwise altered to compensate for these differences. For example, the play in question on this post. As far as I know, the technical aspect of the rule has not been altered between at least collegiate athletics and NFHS. They are basically the same. One foot down with possession and control = catch. What aspect of this rule, if any, has been adapted in consideration of the differences you have been mentioning? (i.e., physical makeup, maturity level, mental capacity, etc.) I'm really trying to understand your position, but we need to move from abstract theory to objective reality. If you can help me out with that, I would really appreciate it. Which specific rules have been modified?
It's been some time since I had the need to be aware of the specific differences between NCAA and NFHS rules, which I recall was, at the time, indicated to be in the neighborhood of 192. There were publications available back then that listed each and every distinction, the majority of which were minor,and/or insignificant. I wouldn't be the appropriate source to help you be aware of, or understand, the current situation or complete list of differences, as both sets of rules are subject to annual revision. However, a Google search might help you find whatever resources are currently available.
Understanding those differences has always been an additional challenge for Game Officials working at both levels. I might suggest you seek out Officials (or Official's Organizations) in your area, who either are currently working in both environments, or had previously done so and might have since chosen a single environment and may remember appropriate resources that may be of assistance.
-
It's been some time since I had the need to be aware of the specific differences between NCAA and NFHS rules, which I recall was, at the time, indicated to be in the neighborhood of 192. There were publications available back then that listed each and every distinction, the majority of which were minor,and/or insignificant. I wouldn't be the appropriate source to help you be aware of, or understand, the current situation or complete list of differences, as both sets of rules are subject to annual revision. However, a Google search might help you find whatever resources are currently available.
Understanding those differences has always been an additional challenge for Game Officials working at both levels. I might suggest you seek out Officials (or Official's Organizations) in your area, who either are currently working in both environments, or had previously done so and might have since chosen a single environment and may remember appropriate resources that may be of assistance.
I'm surprised. Especially since you are so dogmatic about the differences between NFHS and NCAA being so completely necessary because of the differences in the athletes. Is this still your position? If so, is your position based on fact? Or assumption? If it's based on fact, it seems you would at least have a working knowledge of those rules that support your position.
OAN, you keep point me and others on this board to appropriate resources to find out the questions we have been asking of you. Maybe you should avail yourself of those resources and come back with an informed position.
-
Watch how simple this is......... and I think it is what Calhoun was seeking. My opinion, primarily based on safety and enforcement by officials, the NFHS BBW rule is better suited for interscholastic athletes vs the rule in NCAA which is more suited for the higher level athletes and officials. Now I wish the restricted player rule for NFHS was closer to NCAA as I don't carry a yardstick with me as part of my equipment to determine the FBZ....but that is what it is and we use our best judgement.
Also my opinion many things could be identical for NCAA and NFHS, i.e. holding, OPI, DPI, false start...these are the type of things that should remain consistent in football from pee-wee on up.
-
I'm surprised. Especially since you are so dogmatic about the differences between NFHS and NCAA being so completely necessary because of the differences in the athletes. Is this still your position? If so, is your position based on fact? Or assumption? If it's based on fact, it seems you would at least have a working knowledge of those rules that support your position.
OAN, you keep point me and others on this board to appropriate resources to find out the questions we have been asking of you. Maybe you should avail yourself of those resources and come back with an informed position.
I really don't have any burning questions, CalhounLJ, as I'm usually willing to accept the blatant and obvious at face value. Having personally observed, what I consider obvious differences between growing children and young adults, at least regarding, "physical differences, along with the mental capabilities and maturity level of the competitetors.(sp)
I really don't require written confirmation or assurance of my assessments. NFHS rules are designed to provide guidance for an introductory level to the complexity of the game of Football, that may evolve and extend, in the areas you list, for those developing the necessary additional physical, maturity and mental skills to continue at a decidedly more advanced level of the game. The basic fact that the game rules and requirements advance to better suit the advancing capabilities of participants seems an obvious and rational progression.
Since these issues seem so complex and mysterious to you, I wouldn't want to provide you with incomplete or confusing directions, so I referred you to what, I hope, are still published actual lists of rule differences between NCAA and NFHS Football rules and some ideas as to who might point you in the right direction to acquiring them. My present interests are focused exclusively on the NFHS rules environment, so that is where my concentration is directed.
-
I really don't have any burning questions, CalhounLJ, as I'm usually willing to accept the blatant and obvious at face value. Having personally observed, what I consider obvious differences between growing children and young adults, at least regarding, "physical differences, along with the mental capabilities and maturity level of the competitetors.(sp)
I really don't require written confirmation or assurance of my assessments. NFHS rules are designed to provide guidance for an introductory level to the complexity of the game of Football, that may evolve and extend, in the areas you list, for those developing the necessary additional physical, maturity and mental skills to continue at a decidedly more advanced level of the game. The basic fact that the game rules and requirements advance to better suit the advancing capabilities of participants seems an obvious and rational progression.
Since these issues seem so complex and mysterious to you, I wouldn't want to provide you with incomplete or confusing directions, so I referred you to what, I hope, are still published actual lists of rule differences between NCAA and NFHS Football rules and some ideas as to who might point you in the right direction to acquiring them. My present interests are focused exclusively on the NFHS rules environment, so that is where my concentration is directed.
In other words, it's all double talk without any logical basis for what you're suggesting.
-
Watch how simple this is......... and I think it is what Calhoun was seeking. My opinion, primarily based on safety and enforcement by officials, the NFHS BBW rule is better suited for interscholastic athletes vs the rule in NCAA which is more suited for the higher level athletes and officials. Now I wish the restricted player rule for NFHS was closer to NCAA as I don't carry a yardstick with me as part of my equipment to determine the FBZ....but that is what it is and we use our best judgement.
Also my opinion many things could be identical for NCAA and NFHS, i.e. holding, OPI, DPI, false start...these are the type of things that should remain consistent in football from pee-wee on up.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I am sure there are a handful of rules that have (correctly) been amended to promote the safety and well being of younger players. I'm also sure there are a limited number that may have been changed to better correlate to the mental development/maturity level of the competitors. But I strongly disagree with the notion that these minor tweaks are the reason why NFHS rules exist. I assume Magician is super close to correct in his assumption that the ruleset was invented to give administrators a voice. I suspect that many, if not most of the rules differences are differences of preference, not safety.
-
I assume Magician is super close to correct in his assumption that the ruleset was invented to give administrators a voice. I suspect that many, if not most of the rules differences are differences of preference, not safety.
There in lies the beauty of this Country, your assumptions might be correct, or just as likely could be all wet. However, either way you're entitled to form your own conclusions, to whatever extent YOU alone decide.
I've learned, sometimes harder than should have been necessary, not to spend a lot of effort vexing about that which I don't have any control over, especially when I have confidence in the motivation, integrity and effort of those who have been assigned control and I believe work hard and do a good job, for the right reasons, exercising it.
Working at multiple levels with different rules adds to an already challenging job. If that's a choice YOU have decided to accept, YOU have absolute control over how long YOU need deal with the challenge, rather than expect everyone else to adjust.
-
Working at multiple levels with different rules adds to an already challenging job. If that's a choice YOU have decided to accept, YOU have absolute control over how long YOU need deal with the challenge, rather than expect everyone else to adjust.
This is excellent advice for ALL of US to FOLLOW.
-
Might make one wonder why the other 48 (oops with MA conversion, make that 49/50) States reluctant to reach that same conclusion.
Actually, there are currently 50 members of the NFHS
You neglected to include the District of Columbia
Additionally, there are 52 voting members when you add in:
* NFHS - Coaches Association
* NFHS - Officials Association
Source:
* 2019 NFHS Football Rules Book - Page 5
* 2019 and 2020 Football Handbook - Page 96
-
Actually, there are currently 50 members of the NFHS
You neglected to include the District of Columbia
Additionally, there are 52 voting members when you add in:
* NFHS - Coaches Association
* NFHS - Officials Association
Source:
* 2019 NFHS Football Rules Book - Page 5
* 2019 and 2020 Football Handbook - Page 96
CASE (of beer) PLAY 11.1.1 : All 52 voting members are present when the" Oregonian run 97 yards with a botched PAT " comes to the floor vote, 67% -35 votes are required to pass ,when : (a) voting member from state X runs to the outhouse; (b) voting members from the coaches assoc. & officials assoc. both drop their voting paddles and begin arm wrestling; (c) voting member from state Y falls out of his chair while waving his paddle for yes vote; (d) voting member from Maine nods off and falls asleep on table, his paddle is propped against his ear as "yes" votes are called. There are 34 clear "yes" votes counted. Does the proposal become a rule ?
RULING : (you make the call)
:sTiR: cRaZy tR:oLl :puke: :puke: :puke: ;D :o 8] ??? ::) pi1eOn hEaDbAnG
-
Can you run back a botched PAT?
-
Can you run back a botched PAT?
if this rule should pass, YES
-
Can you run back a botched PAT?
Not under NFHS rules, unless you can find a way around 8-3-2a-d
-
Not under NFHS rules, unless you can find a way around 8-3-2a-d
This proposed rule change is on next year's docket. IF it passes, we like the NCAA & NFL, could be chasing kids for 97 yards. I was using it as a hypo. Also, I have never fallen asleep during the voting session. :) :)
-
This proposed rule change is on next year's docket. IF it passes, we like the NCAA & NFL, could be chasing kids for 97 yards. I was using it as a hypo. Also, I have never fallen asleep during the voting session. :) :)
I think it's good to not allow returns in NFHS for simplicity's sake. You should see the enforcement procedures in NCAA for Tries and OT. You can forget all but one and making sense of anything.
-
This proposed rule change is on next year's docket. IF it passes, we like the NCAA & NFL, could be chasing kids for 97 yards. I was using it as a hypo. Also, I have never fallen asleep during the voting session. :) :)
There are a lot of older, overweight high school Referees who will be watching from afar. And if they try to give chase : :puke:
-
Just be glad that the hash marks no longer bisect the yard lines. Would hate to see R trip over hash mark while trying to keep up with returner.
-
With apologizes to my Oregonian friends, this was on the docket a couple of times several years ago and came very close to passing - once by only one vote. They had ran it as an experimental rule with it then. Being selfish , I voted against it then.
RULING ON CASE (of beer) PLAY 11.1.1 : (a) the outhouse bound voter was present at the start, 35 votes still needed; (b) same requirement for the arm-wrestling voters -the chair,under Roberts Rule Of Order, could ask for a role call of voters which would allow them to continue their event and voice their choice; (3) the voter's vote would count even if he had touched the floor with more than just his hands or feet; (4) the voter from Maine would be awoken by the sarge-at-arms to vote, if he can't find his paddle or voice, he can just signal by :thumbup.
:)HOPE THIS MAY ADD A CHUCKLE TO SOME. LET'S ALL TRY TO STAY UPBEAT AND POSITIVE. LEAD BY EXAMPLE AND YOUR DAY WILL BE A HAPPIER ONE... ;D
-
With apologizes to my Oregonian friends, this was on the docket a couple of times several years ago and came very close to passing - once by only one vote. They had ran it as an experimental rule with it then. Being selfish , I voted against it then.
:)HOPE THIS MAY ADD A CHUCKLE TO SOME. LET'S ALL TRY TO STAY UPBEAT AND POSITIVE. LEAD BY EXAMPLE AND YOUR DAY WILL BE A HAPPIER ONE... ;D
On behalf of the "older, (somewhat possibly) overweight HS Referees" thank you for your courageous, and practical, vote.
(Currently, and seemingly logically, when a defensive team is able to score it's own Touchdown, they too, are currently awarded the opportunity to add extra point(s) as a reward to bolster their scoring achievement.
-
Out here is Oregon we conducted a 4 year experiment allowing the Defense to score on a Try.
A defensive conversion scores 2 points for the defense.
The great thing about this rule is it allows some of us older, overweight, HS Referees the chance to hon our skills and
perform the 90 yard dash in front of a live audience. tiphat:
But wait, it gets better because, now...
The R is now on wrong goal line! He/she needs to be 100 yards from here for the subsequent Kickoff, so...
Time for another exhibition of speed :o :!#
-
Out here is Oregon we conducted a 4 year experiment allowing the Defense to score on a Try.
A defensive conversion scores 2 points for the defense.
The great thing about this rule is it allows some of us older, overweight, HS Referees the chance to hon our skills and
perform the 90 yard dash in front of a live audience. tiphat:
But wait, it gets better because, now...
The R is now on wrong goal line! He/she needs to be 100 yards from here for the subsequent Kickoff, so...
Time for another exhibition of speed :o :!#
How did you guys handle penalty enforcement on the try?
-
Out here is Oregon we conducted a 4 year experiment allowing the Defense to score on a Try.
A defensive conversion scores 2 points for the defense.
The great thing about this rule is it allows some of us older, overweight, HS Referees the chance to hon our skills and
perform the 90 yard dash in front of a live audience. tiphat:
But wait, it gets better because, now...
The R is now on wrong goal line! He/she needs to be 100 yards from here for the subsequent Kickoff, so...
Time for another exhibition of speed :o :!#
In Texas we also have 6 man football. Luckily the defense can't advance the Try. In 11 man it doesn't happen very often, but the 6 man game it would probably happen several times a game so very thankful it is dead.
-
Has a try in a Texas HS ( NCAA rules)
Defense picked it at the 2 and on a dead run. I was the R trying to figure out how I was going to beat their 17 year old 98 yards to the end zone.
By the time we got to the 40 he was already even with me ( I was about the 25 to start).
He was pumping his arms something fierce and slung the ball OOB! Thank God for youthful exuberance
,!
-
Out here is Oregon we conducted a 4 year experiment allowing the Defense to score on a Try.
A defensive conversion scores 2 points for the defense.
The great thing about this rule is it allows some of us older, overweight, HS Referees the chance to hon our skills and
perform the 90 yard dash in front of a live audience. tiphat:
But wait, it gets better because, now...
The R is now on wrong goal line! He/she needs to be 100 yards from here for the subsequent Kickoff, so...
Time for another exhibition of speed :o :!#
Help me. How is R on the wrong goal line for the free kick?
-
Out here is Oregon we conducted a 4 year experiment allowing the Defense to score on a Try.
A defensive conversion scores 2 points for the defense.
The great thing about this rule is it allows some of us older, overweight, HS Referees the chance to hon our skills and
perform the 90 yard dash in front of a live audience. tiphat:
But wait, it gets better because, now...
The R is now on wrong goal line! He/she needs to be 100 yards from here for the subsequent Kickoff, so...
Time for another exhibition of speed :o :!#
I'll vote for it this time if refs over the age of 50 can bring golf carts out on the field for a 90 yard journey, if needed ! R would need a return journey for the ensuing kickoff unless the TD had ended the period. ;D
-
Help me. How is R on the wrong goal line for the free kick?
Normally on a try you don't have to go anywhere for your free kick positioning. If you run to the other goal line, you have to run all the way back to the original goal line where you did the try to position yourself for the free kick. He's just referring to the return making you run almost 200 extra yards.
-
Out here is Oregon we conducted a 4 year experiment allowing the Defense to score on a Try.
A defensive conversion scores 2 points for the defense.
Apparently, and thankfully, the 4 year experiment failed to impress enough Rule makers to make a change.
The "Extra Point (Try)" is a REWARD opportunity granted to the scoring team, for scoring. To be fair to the Defense, they are given an equal opportunity to prevent the scoring team, from being granted an "extra point".
Why should we give the Defense an added opportunity to score, as a reward for being SCORED UPON?
-
My murky memory recalls that the votes were very close. I do recall watching a video of a championship game where a team ,trailing 27-0, blocked a PAT kick and returned it 97 yards. Even with them now trailing 27-2, the celebration that ensued resembled a national championship. While many were excited to see the excitement, I was watching the poor referee run out of steam around midfield. That sealed my vote :). I does seem that a play had arisen in a college game where B blocked the kick, scooped it up and started on their journey when the kicker pulled off his helmet and tossed it at the advancing B player and tripping him. The then officials' response was : "....NOTHING TO SEE HERE, GUYS, TIME TO KICKOFF.." . The NCAA may have tweaked the rule since then, and hopefully the Oregonian Duce Jaunt will have
-
While it’s true that most fouls after a change of possession in a try are declined by rule in NCAA, that sounds like it should not have been one. A player removing his helmet is unsportsmanlike conduct which is an exception to that rule. The R could also rule it an unfair act and count the score. So at the very least you have an unsuccessful try with A kicking off from their 20. At most you have B scoring two points, A kicking from their 20 and possibly the offender DQ’d.
-
While it’s true that most fouls after a change of possession in a try are declined by rule in NCAA, that sounds like it should not have been one. A player removing his helmet is unsportsmanlike conduct which is an exception to that rule. The R could also rule it an unfair act and count the score. So at the very least you have an unsuccessful try with A kicking off from their 20. At most you have B scoring two points, A kicking from their 20 and possibly the offender DQ’d.
Sorry to slightly hijack the thread for NCAA: I would like that action to be classified as fighting, so it qualifies as a flagrant personal foul and the kicker is automatically ejected.
-
You can make it flagrant without making it fighting. A fight takes two people. You can just make this a flagrant unsportsmanlike conduct and DQ him.
-
You can make it flagrant without making it fighting. A fight takes two people. You can just make this a flagrant unsportsmanlike conduct and DQ him.
Or (thankfully) in the NFHS world, you could blow the try ended, when possession changed (or if it was a kick, as soon as it is apparent the drop kick or place kick failed) and avoid all the nonsense that may happen thereafter.
-
::) For anybody else unable or unwilling to see the general application of that idea rather than the specific case presented.
A11 breaks a run down the sideline. Safety B99 realizes he won’t make the tackle, so he takes his helmet off and throws it at the runner causing the runner to trip. Apply above philosophies.
-
Why should we give the Defense an added opportunity to score, as a reward for being SCORED UPON?
Just to be argumentative, if a defense can manage to take possession of the ball and run it 98 yards back in one fell swoop, I'm all in favor of giving them 6. :)
Or how about a rule change where we points earned is based on the yardline you started from? Inside the 10, 2 points, regardless. 10-20 - 5 points, etc.
Just being silly. would make for some interesting strategy changes as deep ball passing would completely dominate.
-
Just to be argumentative, if a defense can manage to take possession of the ball and run it 98 yards back in one fell swoop, I'm all in favor of giving them 6. :)
Absolutely ALL IN FAVOR of the defense, after a COP during a "live" ball, advancing any distance to produce a SCORE (of their own) being granted the opportunity to FURTHER EARN EXTRA points.
However, when the original Offense produces a score, the Defense EARNS the opportunity to PREVENT the Offense from adding EXTRA points, they are given an opportunity to compile, and add to their total.
All in all, a really great example of "no need to fix something that isn't broken".
-
Just to be argumentative, if a defense can manage to take possession of the ball and run it 98 yards back in one fell swoop, I'm all in favor of giving them 6. :)
Or how about a rule change where we points earned is based on the yardline you started from? Inside the 10, 2 points, regardless. 10-20 - 5 points, etc.
Just being silly. would make for some interesting strategy changes as deep ball passing would completely dominate.
If this were allowed it would only be worth two points for B/R. The rules state on a try, a successful scrimmage kick or safety is worth 1 point and a TD is worth 2 points.
-
For the record there are clearly two sides to the debate:
One side of the coin says... Only the touchdown scoring team has earned the opportunity to score Extra Point(s)
The other side of the coin says....It is currently the only play in NFHS football where both teams do not have an equal opportunity to score.
Neither here nor there but... 97 yards is a pretty good little jaunt!
FYI...A defensive conversion during a Try is allowed under both NCAA and NFL rules. (2 points for B or R)
-
For the record there are clearly two sides to the debate:
One side of the coin says... Only the touchdown scoring team has earned the opportunity to score Extra Point(s)
The other side of the coin says....It is currently the only play in NFHS football where both teams do not have an equal opportunity to score.
Neither here nor there but... 97 yards is a pretty good little jaunt!
FYI...A defensive conversion during a Try is allowed under both NCAA and NFL rules. (2 points for B or R)
How did you guys handle penalty enforcement during the try?
-
One side of the coin says... Only the touchdown scoring team has earned the opportunity to score Extra Point(s)
The other side of the coin says....It is currently the only play in NFHS football where both teams do not have an equal opportunity to score.
As you correctly note; "Only the touchdown scoring team has EARNED the opportunity to score Extra Point(s)" The "Extra Point(s)" opportunity is a REWARD for specifically scoring A TOUCHDOWN. (Try for point(s) opportunities are NOT afforded to either team for scoring either a Field Goal or Safety REWARD
Both the NCAA and NFL have elected to expand the opportunity for the Defense to score on a TRY, as apparently they determined doing so, was needed to enhance their scoring options. NFHS has yet to determine this additional scoring option was necessary or appropriate, to suit he needs of NFHS contests.
-
How did you guys handle penalty enforcement during the try?
Bossman,
Right, Wrong or Indifferent - We attempted to stay with the NFHS philosophy that no foul goes unpunished. As such, it got a little long (and while perhaps fairer, more complicated to officiate)
NCAA version is simpler (and easier to officiate) since most fouls after a COP are declined by Rule, only PF and UNS carry over.
If you would like a copy to dissect, PM me on the VON
UPDATE: I believe I PM'd it too you here on Refstripes, if I din't screw up.
Please take a look and advise
-
As you correctly note; "Only the touchdown scoring team has EARNED the opportunity to score Extra Point(s)" The "Extra Point(s)" opportunity is a REWARD for specifically scoring A TOUCHDOWN. (Try for point(s) opportunities are NOT afforded to either team for scoring either a Field Goal or Safety REWARD
Both the NCAA and NFL have elected to expand the opportunity for the Defense to score on a TRY, as apparently they determined doing so, was needed to enhance their scoring options. NFHS has yet to determine this additional scoring option was necessary or appropriate, to suit he needs of NFHS contests.
ALF -
The "Try for Point" was added way back in 1876 with the rationale being as "a method to break ties"
One could argue, (and one has) allowing the Defense to score on a Try further enhances the same rationale used in 1876.
-
ALF -
The "Try for Point" was added way back in 1876 with the rationale being as "a method to break ties"
One could argue, (and one has) allowing the Defense to score on a Try further enhances the same rationale used in 1876.
Can't speak for the EXACT rational notion back in 1876, but it's reasonable to presume that the "TRY" may have BOTH been created AS " a method to break ties" by giving a scoring team an EARNED REWARD OPPORTUNITY, "for scoring a Touchdown".
If you are convinced that changing the NFHS rules to accommodate the ability for the Defensive team to score on a try, would somehow significantly enhance, or particularly improve Interscholastic football, you should consider appealing to NFHS to do so through existing channels.
I would doubt there was much of clamor, or burning need. to add this possibility to the current NFHS code, although, you never know
-
I would doubt there was much of clamor, or burning need. to add this possibility to the current NFHS code, although, you never know
Wrong again, according to Ralph:
(T)his was on the docket a couple of times several years ago and came very close to passing - once by only one vote.
-
Wrong again, according to Ralph:
(T)his was on the docket a couple of times several years ago and came very close to passing - once by only one vote.
Should the concept be reviewed again, and (Hopefully NOT pass, again) and muster enough support to "Pass", that might indicate "a burning need". Until then, lets hope it continues to languish as a "Much ado about nothing" idea, simply seeking change for change sake.
-
Allowing B to score on a try is something I'm indifferent about. I don't know if one is better than the other, but it's not something I would expect to be the same level to level. In the vein of keeping things simple in NFHS it makes sense to say only A/K can score. It's pretty rare for B/R to score in NCAA/NFL on a try attempt. I can only remember 1 or 2 in all my college games over the years.
-
ALF -
The "Try for Point" was added way back in 1876 with the rationale being as "a method to break ties"
One could argue, (and one has) allowing the Defense to score on a Try further enhances the same rationale used in 1876.
I believe 1876 was the same year that General Custer may have said : "Those Indians look friendly 8] ". While not totally excited about adding the Oregonian Duce Jaunt, I would favor keeping the ball alive on a blocked PAT kick. Rationale :
(1) bad snap allows holder to leave knee and retrieve to kick;
(2) a preventive measure to prevent IWs on blocked field goals.
PS: Snuck in to visit Ole' Dell while ma' dawg is in doggie day care. His kennel sells food so it can keep open ;). (dog food) . Our governor didn't specify shopping for just human food on one's journey out. :)
-
Wrong again, according to Ralph:
(T)his was on the docket a couple of times several years ago and came very close to passing - once by only one vote.
That's likely why they review possible rule changes YEARLY. Although "That was then, this is now", you might consider a Baseball fundamental, "Three strikes and your OUT", and let this poor dead horse RIP.
-
Apparently, and thankfully, the 4 year experiment failed to impress enough Rule makers to make a change.
The "Extra Point (Try)" is a REWARD opportunity granted to the scoring team, for scoring. To be fair to the Defense, they are given an equal opportunity to prevent the scoring team, from being granted an "extra point".
Why should we give the Defense an added opportunity to score, as a reward for being SCORED UPON?
God help me, but I actually agree with Al here. I've never liked that R can score on a try in NCAA and NFL.
-
God help me, but I actually agree with Al here. I've never liked that R can score on a try in NCAA and NFL.
Even a broken clock is right TWICE a day EVERY day
-
In the NFL/NCAA, does B kick off if they score on the try since they were last to score?
-
No. “The team that scored the six point touchdown shall kickoff. 8-3-6
-
Even a broken clock is right TWICE a day EVERY day
Funny, I feel the SAME way.