RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: CalhounLJ on October 30, 2020, 07:09:26 AM
-
Help me out with this one:
3.4.2 SITUATION D:
There are 55 seconds to go in the game when K11 punts the ball from a fourth and 10 situation. R1 catches the kick and returns 10 yards. During the down, but prior to the catch, K3 holds R2. R accepts the penalty.
RULING: After enforcement, the game clock starts on the ready-for-play signal unless the offended team chooses to start the game clock on the snap inside the last two minutes of either half. [3-4-2b(3)]
It’s unclear whether R accepted this penalty from previous or succeeding spot. If it’s succeeding spot, wouldn’t the new series after legal kick mean we start clock on snap?
-
Yes. If previous spot enforcement R gets the right to have it start on the snap, if succeeding spot then the clock starts on the snap anyway.
-
The ruling is correct if R chooses previous spot enforcement and 4th down is replayed.
-
Thanks. That was my assumption but I wanted to make sure.
-
This is where NFHS clock rules are weird during kicks. Having a legal kick play is not a major clock stopper. You have to know how the punt play ends if you are replaying 4th down.
Kick goes OOB = Snap.
Fair catch = Snap.
Punt is returned and returner goes OOB = Snap.
Punt is returned and returner tackled in bounds = READY.
Punt is not fielded by anybody and blown dead in field of play (or possessed by K) = READY. (Someone verify that one - not 100%)
-
Punt is returned and returner tackled in bounds = READY.
Punt is not fielded by anybody and blown dead in field of play (or possessed by K) = READY. (Someone verify that one - not 100%)
No
3-4-3: "The game clock shall start with the snap or when any free kick is touched, except 1st touching by K,if the game clock was stopped because:
c) Either team is awarded a new series following a legal kick
-
No
3-4-3: "The game clock shall start with the snap or when any free kick is touched, except 1st touching by K,if the game clock was stopped because:
c) Either team is awarded a new series following a legal kick
Those scenarios are when 4th down is replayed... So the first one on the Ready is correct. The second one I'm not 100% sure.
-
Punt is not fielded by anybody and blown dead in field of play (or possessed by K) = READY. (Someone verify that one - not 100%)
Snap. 3.4.3b. B or R is awarded a new series.
-
Snap. 3.4.3b. B or R is awarded a new series.
They are not awarded a new series, so that's not the correct rule reference.
-
They are not awarded a new series, so that's not the correct rule reference.
Yes, they are.
5.1.3 -- When a scrimmage down ends with the ball in the field of play or out of bounds between the goal lines, a new series is awarded to:
(e). R, if K legally kicks during any scrimmage down and the ball is recovered by R, is in joint possession of opponents, goes out of bounds or becomes dead with no player in possession.
Edit -- I need to add more to this because I think there's some nuance that's getting overblown here. I get that in the scenario, there is a foul that is causing the replay of fourth down -- therefore, R is NOT getting the ball, therefore they clearly aren't getting a new series awarded. However, there's no explicit rule coverage or case book play (that I've found) that covers this exact scenario and I think it would be helpful to think of it from a philosophical point.
The argument is that the clock would only have been stopped at the end of the down *because* of awarding the new series, and since the new series is now off the table, the clock would not have otherwise been stopped. The clock stoppage due to the foul supersedes the new series stoppage, and therefore the new series stoppage is irrelevant since the new series wasn't awarded due to the foul. If this is true, then it should be expanded to all situations -- if the clock was stopped after an incomplete pass, the foul supersedes the incompletion for clock stoppage. With the penalty applied, the incomplete pass is no longer applied as the down is replayed, so the clock stoppage due to the incompletion is irrelevant, right? Of course not.
The problem lies that there are multiple reasons why the clock was stopped at the end of the down. After the scrimmage kick, the clock is stopped immediately when the ball becomes dead because it is apparent that R will be awarded a new series. You do not let the clock continue to run for a few seconds after the ball becomes dead to determine if other action during the down prevents R from being awarded the series. The BJ kills the clock immediately because the ball is dead after a scrimmage kick which would nominally award a new series to R.
Here's my philosophical approach -- if a down is replayed due to penalty, the clock will start on the ready or snap in the same manner as it would *had the penalty been declined*.
If you decline the penalty and don't replay 4th down, the clock starts on the snap. Therefore, if you replay 4th down due to penalty, the clock also starts on the snap.
-
Yes, they are.
5.1.3 -- When a scrimmage down ends with the ball in the field of play or out of bounds between the goal lines, a new series is awarded to:
(e). R, if K legally kicks during any scrimmage down and the ball is recovered by R, is in joint possession of opponents, goes out of bounds or becomes dead with no player in possession.
Edit -- I need to add more to this because I think there's some nuance that's getting overblown here. I get that in the scenario, there is a foul that is causing the replay of fourth down -- therefore, R is NOT getting the ball, therefore they clearly aren't getting a new series awarded. However, there's no explicit rule coverage or case book play (that I've found) that covers this exact scenario and I think it would be helpful to think of it from a philosophical point.
The argument is that the clock would only have been stopped at the end of the down *because* of awarding the new series, and since the new series is now off the table, the clock would not have otherwise been stopped. The clock stoppage due to the foul supersedes the new series stoppage, and therefore the new series stoppage is irrelevant since the new series wasn't awarded due to the foul. If this is true, then it should be expanded to all situations -- if the clock was stopped after an incomplete pass, the foul supersedes the incompletion for clock stoppage. With the penalty applied, the incomplete pass is no longer applied as the down is replayed, so the clock stoppage due to the incompletion is irrelevant, right? Of course not.
The problem lies that there are multiple reasons why the clock was stopped at the end of the down. After the scrimmage kick, the clock is stopped immediately when the ball becomes dead because it is apparent that R will be awarded a new series. You do not let the clock continue to run for a few seconds after the ball becomes dead to determine if other action during the down prevents R from being awarded the series. The BJ kills the clock immediately because the ball is dead after a scrimmage kick which would nominally award a new series to R.
Here's my philosophical approach -- if a down is replayed due to penalty, the clock will start on the ready or snap in the same manner as it would *had the penalty been declined*.
If you decline the penalty and don't replay 4th down, the clock starts on the snap. Therefore, if you replay 4th down due to penalty, the clock also starts on the snap.
5-1-2 tells us that a new series is NOT awarded until all penalties are considered. Therefore, in this situation a née series was never awarded.
ART. 2 ... A new series of downs is awarded:
a. After a first, second or third down, a new series of downs shall be awarded only after considering the effect of any act during the down other than nonplayer or unsportsmanlike conduct fouls by A, and any dead-ball foul by B.
b. After a fourth down, a new series of downs shall be awarded only after considering the effect of any act during the down, except a nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The problem lies that there are multiple reasons why the clock was stopped at the end of the down. After the scrimmage kick, the clock is stopped immediately when the ball becomes dead because it is apparent that R will be awarded a new series. You do not let the clock continue to run for a few seconds after the ball becomes dead to determine if other action during the down prevents R from being awarded the series. The BJ kills the clock immediately because the ball is dead after a scrimmage kick which would nominally award a new series to R.
This is a good discussion. Thanks. I happen to disagree with this suggestion, though. Technically, in this situation, the clock was stopped because of the penalty, not the awarding of a new series. If there is no flag, then once R is in possession at the end of the down, it is true we would stop the clock for the awarding of a new series. In the case of a declined penalty, the process would be: #1 - Stop the clock to deal with the flag. #2 - Once the penalty is declined, stop the clock to award a new series. While we don't actually stop the clock twice, the progression is still the same.
Here's my philosophical approach -- if a down is replayed due to penalty, the clock will start on the ready or snap in the same manner as it would *had the penalty been declined*.
This is a good philosophy to practice, and should be practiced in this situation, assuming you follow the progression listed above. in this particular situation, If the penalty is declined, the only reason we would stop the clock is to award a new series to R. The result of the play was a player downed in the field of play, which dictates a running clock.
If you decline the penalty and don't replay 4th down, the clock starts on the snap. Therefore, if you replay 4th down due to penalty, the clock also starts on the snap.
-
The result of the play was a player downed in the field of play, which dictates a running clock.
The major problem I have with this is the suggestion after a legal scrimmage kick, and there exists a scenario where the clock may not stop when the ball, in R's possession, becomes dead.
-
However, there's no explicit rule coverage or case book play (that I've found) that covers this exact scenario
Yes there is. It's the original post case play. 3.4.2D.
It's replaying 4th down and going on the ready after the ball is returned 10 yards.
-
we really need a like or retweet button...
-
Y’all are overthinking this.
Prior to 1996, the clock started on the RFP after a new series following a legal scrimmage kick as long as the ball stayed inbounds and there was no fair catch or awarded fair catch. The rule was changed to allow teams to mass substitute without time elapsing during the process.
In the OP, K is going to rekick following penalty administration, so no substitution is necessary. Clock starts on the RFP.
-
Not to be picky, but I don't think it's "y'all" who is overthinking this. The vast majority agree with you.
-
Problem here IMHO is the original play as listed does not have the minimum amount of information needed to fully understand what happened here including what the end result of the play was. I thought that the purpose of case plays is stated to be a SPECIFIC set of circumstances that result in a SPECIFIC result. This case play as listed IMHO has neither.
-
There are 55 seconds to go in the game when K11 punts the ball from a fourth and 10 situation. R1 catches the kick and returns 10 yards. During the down, but prior to the catch, K3 holds R2. R accepts the penalty.
What's missing?
-
What's missing is that the offended team has, in this situation (< two minutes left in the 4th quarter), the option to start the clock on the snap. So, even if R chooses the previous spot and have the down replayed, they COULD choose to start the clock on the snap.
-
Help me out with this one:
3.4.2 SITUATION D:
There are 55 seconds to go in the game when K11 punts the ball from a fourth and 10 situation. R1 catches the kick and returns 10 yards. During the down, but prior to the catch, K3 holds R2. R accepts the penalty.
RULING: After enforcement, the game clock starts on the ready-for-play signal unless the offended team chooses to start the game clock on the snap inside the last two minutes of either half. [3-4-2b(3)]
It’s unclear whether R accepted this penalty from previous or succeeding spot. If it’s succeeding spot, wouldn’t the new series after legal kick mean we start clock on snap?
Did you read the OP before posting?
-
Did you read the OP before posting?
Yes I did. My point was that, regardless of what R's decision is (i.e. previous or succeeding spot) they would have the choice to start the clock on the snap.
-
Yes I did. My point was that, regardless of what R's decision is (i.e. previous or succeeding spot) they would have the choice to start the clock on the snap.
Well, the part about R accepting from previous spot with the choice is in the OP. Your position is incorrect regarding succeeding spot though. There is no choice in that situation.
Also, there’s nothing missing in the case play that would prevent us from knowing what happened or the final result of the play. Which was the immediate question.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Help me out with this one:
..... It’s unclear whether R accepted this penalty from previous or succeeding spot. If it’s succeeding spot, wouldn’t the new series after legal kick mean we start clock on snap?
.... Also, there’s nothing missing in the case play that would prevent us from knowing what happened or the final result of the play. Which was the immediate question.
Isn't this information at a minimum required in a valid case play? If there is nothing missing why are we discussing the information that is not here that would answer the question? IMHO we should not have to assume key information that would lead to the result listed.
-
Problem here IMHO is the original play as listed does not have the minimum amount of information needed to fully understand what happened here including what the end result of the play was. I thought that the purpose of case plays is stated to be a SPECIFIC set of circumstances that result in a SPECIFIC result. This case play as listed IMHO has neither.
According to this post, you are suggesting the case play doesn’t have enough information for us to determine:
1. What happened here. I suggest it does. There was a punt, a return by R, and a foul by K during the kick.
2. The end result of the play. The end result of the play is R in possession at the end of the down after a 10 yard return.
What’s missing? The question I’m posing has nothing to do with either. I suspect this case play is a remnant left over from before the succeeding spot option was added to the rule.
Regardless, the situation has ample information to come to a decision regarding clock status. Doesn’t it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If R chooses PSK enforcement, they get a new series following a legal kick, and there’s no question that the clock starts on the snap. The only reason for the case play would be to clarify the clock status when R chooses previous spot enforcement.
The case play obviously needs to be updated to reflect R’s option to hold the clock until the snap since they’re under 2:00.
-
Help me out with this one:
3.4.2 SITUATION D:
There are 55 seconds to go in the game when K11 punts the ball from a fourth and 10 situation. R1 catches the kick and returns 10 yards. During the down, but prior to the catch, K3 holds R2. R accepts the penalty.
RULING: After enforcement, the game clock starts on the ready-for-play signal unless the offended team chooses to start the game clock on the snap inside the last two minutes of either half. [3-4-2b(3)]
It’s unclear whether R accepted this penalty from previous or succeeding spot. If it’s succeeding spot, wouldn’t the new series after legal kick mean we start clock on snap?
The case play has that option in the ruling.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If R chooses PSK enforcement, they get a new series following a legal kick, and there’s no question that the clock starts on the snap. The only reason for the case play would be to clarify the clock status when R chooses previous spot enforcement.
The case play obviously needs to be updated to reflect R’s option to hold the clock until the snap since they’re under 2:00.
Agreed 100%. We should not have to assume how the penalty options were offered and accepted. By definition this is a CASE PLAY and IMHO the details including ALL options need to be actually stated in a CASE PLAY. They are not and if they were we wouldn't be discussing the original post.
-
Agreed 100%. We should not have to assume how the penalty options were offered and accepted. By definition this is a CASE PLAY and IMHO the details including ALL options need to be actually stated in a CASE PLAY. They are not and if they were we wouldn't be discussing the original post.
Agreed 100%. We should not have to assume how the penalty options were offered and accepted. By definition this is a CASE PLAY and IMHO the details including ALL options need to be actually stated in a CASE PLAY. They are not and if they were we wouldn't be discussing the original post.
Are you not reading the ruling? It specifically says that if R chooses previous spot enforcement, they may elect to start clock on snap because they are inside 2 minutes.
BAMA is right that the case play is in the book to clarify that exact point. There is more than sufficient information to come to that conclusion. The only reason I posted this case was to clarify that if R were to accept succeeding spot enforcement, the clock would start on the snap.
I don’t know how it could be more l
Clear?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Are you not reading the ruling? It specifically says that if R chooses previous spot enforcement, they may elect to start clock on snap because they are inside 2 minutes.
BAMA is right that the case play is in the book to clarify that exact point. There is more than sufficient information to come to that conclusion. The only reason I posted this case was to clarify that if R were to accept succeeding spot enforcement, the clock would start on the snap.
I don’t know how it could be more l
Clear?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's fine, we'll agree to disagree. For a new official reading that case play IMHO it's miserably inadequate.
-
Are you not reading the ruling? It specifically says that if R chooses previous spot enforcement, they may elect to start clock on snap because they are inside 2 minutes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually that's not what it says, that was in fact your question in the original post.
"It’s unclear whether R accepted this penalty from previous or succeeding spot. If it’s succeeding spot, wouldn’t the new series after legal kick mean we start clock on snap?"
That's what the case play should say!
-
Help me out with this one:
3.4.2 SITUATION D:
There are 55 seconds to go in the game when K11 punts the ball from a fourth and 10 situation. R1 catches the kick and returns 10 yards. During the down, but prior to the catch, K3 holds R2. R accepts the penalty.
RULING: After enforcement, the game clock starts on the ready-for-play signal unless the offended team chooses to start the game clock on the snap inside the last two minutes of either half. [3-4-2b(3)]
My goodness. It’s right there in the RULING.
-
For those of us who are responsible for training new officials the minimally correct wording for an enforcement statement would read:
RULING: After enforcement FROM THE PREVIOUS SPOT, the game clock starts on the ready-for-play signal unless the offended team chooses to start the game clock on the snap inside the last two minutes of either half.
-
Ok.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/3o7bucatGMMLf8WBVe/giphy.gif)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
How about this?
RULING: After enforcement, the game clock starts on the ready-for-play signal unless the offended team chooses to start the game clock on the snap inside the last two minutes of either half or unless the offended team chooses 10-4-2 Exception enforcement . [3-4-2b(3), 10-4-2 Exception]
Obviously this Case play got missed when 10-4-2 EXCEPTION was added.
-
Yes that is my assumption.
-
After further review:
(This one is much cleaner as it pretty much says it all)
After enforcement If R chooses to enforce the penalty from the previous spot with a replay of the down, the game clock starts on the ready-for-play signal unless the offended team R also chooses to start the game clock on the snap inside the last two minutes of either half. If R chooses to enforce the penalty from the succeeding spot, the game clock will start on the snap because a new series has been awarded to R following a legal kick. 3-4-2b, 10-4-2 Exc., 3-4-3b.
Good catch CalhounLJ,
Look for a revision in the 2021 Case Book!
-
Just wondering, now that we've had a couple of years to experience the "40 second play clock" (at the NFHS level) has it's addition really been worth all the confusion, argument, discussion and COST, it was promised to eliminate?
Memory suggests the objective was to create some magical consistency, that might well have been attained by simply restating and encouraging elimination of some bad habits that had crept into "some" field official's management & control over certain dead ball situations that were occasionally allowed to fester.
Were all the changes, rules, situations and management of "dead ball time" taken out of the hand's and responsibility of an effective Referee, really worth all all this ongoing effort, or has it proven to be just another, "Much ado about nothing"?
-
A thousand times YES! I was one of the most vocally opposed to the :40 but after experience on the field, I’m a HUGE fan. I never want to go back to the old way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Other than getting the PCO's up to speed and getting officials to remember to give the dead ball signal, I don't think it has been that big a deal.
-
Just wondering, now that we've had a couple of years to experience the "40 second play clock" (at the NFHS level) has it's addition really been worth all the confusion, argument, discussion and COST, it was promised to eliminate?
Memory suggests the objective was to create some magical consistency, that might well have been attained by simply restating and encouraging elimination of some bad habits that had crept into "some" field official's management & control over certain dead ball situations that were occasionally allowed to fester.
Were all the changes, rules, situations and management of "dead ball time" taken out of the hand's and responsibility of an effective Referee, really worth all all this ongoing effort, or has it proven to be just another, "Much ado about nothing"?
I was absolutely against it and I agree that all that was needed was training and encouraging eliminating bad habits!
Now that the change has been made I am a huge fan. I would strongly encourage visible play clocks as this really helps clarify what is going on to parents, coaches, fans, players and officials.
Alas - A confused play clock operator can make a simple game into a nightmare.
-
I was absolutely against it and I agree that all that was needed was training and encouraging eliminating bad habits!
Now that the change has been made I am a huge fan. I would strongly encourage visible play clocks as this really helps clarify what is going on to parents, coaches, fans, players and officials.
Alas - A confused play clock operator can make a simple game into a nightmare.
No question, confusion abounds, not only with clock operators. As for parents, fans, and especially coaches and players, honestly, has the availability of ultra-precise playclock time really "improved" anything? Leaving the judgment, of when to start and stop a consistent, exact time requirement, visible to all (paying attention) especially when it came to unique and unusual circumstances and situations, worked pretty well for over 100 years, at all sorts of different venues all over this Country.
There were a couple of specific situations where bad (sloppy) habits reared their ugly head, but they were usually correctable with a minimum of effort and specific focus. Absolute consistency is important within a specific game, within a league and even within a region, but expecting ABSOUTE, MINUTE consistency, of otherwise consistent application of a rule, on a Nationwide basis has shown to be a pretty consistent "pipe dream".
However, "It is what it is" and hopefully we'll be smart enough to go back to the practice of, "when the cure, presents far more confusion and problems, learning to deal directly with correcting specific problems, rather than reinvent the game, seems a much shorter and direct path to eliminating problems". Just a thought.
-
I’ve called at least 15 varsity games since implemented without one single issue. Confusion does not abound in these parts.
-
I’ve called at least 15 varsity games since implemented without one single issue. Confusion does not abound in these parts.
I hope you play Lotto, although that begs the question, was everything as precise as you choose to imagine, or, was nobody paying that much attention because they really weren't all that concerned?
-
I hope you play Lotto, although that begs the question, was everything as precise as you choose to imagine, or, was nobody paying that much attention because they really weren't all that concerned?
So you resort to speculation? How can u speculate on my experience? The play clock operators I’ve had were well prepared and did an excellent job. All of them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So you resort to speculation? How can u speculate on my experience? The play clock operators I’ve had were well prepared and did an excellent job. All of them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wasn't questioning the quality of your specific clock operators, but you didn't address the question about whether or not the addition of a play clock, to the extent it now applies, really contributes to the importance, purpose or interest of the game.
-
Yes I did. It most definitely contributes to the quality, competitiveness, consistency, and enjoyment of the game. Both the officials and the coaches love it. The fans love it too, because it looks more like the football they see on Saturday. I have not encountered one bad comment from anyone concerning the :40. Certainly not the “confusion abounds” that you suggest.
-
I’ve called at least 15 varsity games since implemented without one single issue. Confusion does not abound in these parts.
Ditto. Of all the timing rules changes I’ve experienced during my career, this has had the least confusion of any.
-
Yes I did. It most definitely contributes to the quality, competitiveness, consistency, and enjoyment of the game. Both the officials and the coaches love it. The fans love it too, because it looks more like the football they see on Saturday. I have not encountered one bad comment from anyone concerning the :40. Certainly not the “confusion abounds” that you suggest.
Oh, "because it looks like the football they play on Saturday", EVERYBODY "loves" it. Forgive me, but exactly how does it "improve quality, competitiveness and enjoyment of the game". strange, I interact with a lot of game officials who seem to think it created a lot more headache, than other, less confusing means available to correct what had become simply somewhat sloppy management habits, for a few isolated situations.
There are some rules and practices a little different at each major level of football, usually for pretty logical reasons based on player/coach maturity & experience, venue, location & facility differences, overall objectives, financial capabilities and general expectations, under which "the game" has flourished at each level, for over 100 years.
"What's good for the goose, doesn't necessarily apply as well for the gander" and "One size doesn't necessarily fit all, as well as presumed, or hoped for."
-
Oh, "because it looks like the football they play on Saturday", EVERYBODY "loves" it. Forgive me, but exactly how does it "improve quality, competitiveness and enjoyment of the game". strange, I interact with a lot of game officials who seem to think it created a lot more headache, than other, less confusing means available to correct what had become simply somewhat sloppy management habits, for a few isolated situations.
There are some rules and practices a little different at each major level of football, usually for pretty logical reasons based on player/coach maturity & experience, venue, location & facility differences, overall objectives, financial capabilities and general expectations, under which "the game" has flourished at each level, for over 100 years.
"What's good for the goose, doesn't necessarily apply as well for the gander" and "One size doesn't necessarily fit all, as well as presumed, or hoped for."
It’s obvious you are just trying to pick a fight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It has improved quality because from week to week the play clock is consistent. Some R’s chopped in faster and some took forever. Much more consistency. Also late in a game don’t have to worry did I chop it in too quick or did I wait too long it’s 40 seconds. I can even sure enjoyment in the fact that my ears no longer ring following a game I Was referee because I had to blow my whistle to chop in every flipping play. Have not even had an offensive team try to snap the ball before u is in position.
In my opinion this was one of the best or the best rule implemented since I began my officiating career.
I don’t understand why some people do not want to emulate college where possible. There are certain rules which I feel belong more in high school because of skill set such as BBW, but we can learn a lot from NCAA officials, who are usually willing to provide insight on mechanics and philosophy, which can be applied to the high school level and improve the game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don’t understand why some people do not want to emulate college where possible.
Ah jeez. 3....2...1..
<headsmackthingy>
-
Just wondering, now that we've had a couple of years to experience the "40 second play clock" (at the NFHS level) has it's addition really been worth all the confusion, argument, discussion and COST, it was promised to eliminate?
Memory suggests the objective was to create some magical consistency, that might well have been attained by simply restating and encouraging elimination of some bad habits that had crept into "some" field official's management & control over certain dead ball situations that were occasionally allowed to fester.
Were all the changes, rules, situations and management of "dead ball time" taken out of the hand's and responsibility of an effective Referee, really worth all all this ongoing effort, or has it proven to be just another, "Much ado about nothing"?
I was initially opposed to the rule, but having used it, I must saying it makes clock management much easier. I can't think of any problems that we have had.
-
In my opinion this was one of the best or the best rule implemented since I began my officiating career.
I don’t understand why some people do not want to emulate college where possible. There are certain rules which I feel belong more in high school because of skill set such as BBW, but we can learn a lot from NCAA officials, who are usually willing to provide insight on mechanics and philosophy, which can be applied to the high school level and improve the game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Really, "one of the best rule implementations since....." I guess if you're accustomed to working with ineffective Referees, there might be a noticeable difference in game clock timing, although one might hope ineffective and/or sloppy game clock management was the exception, rather than the rule. I always thought consistently declaring the ball RFP, by a consistent whistle, by the same person was a pretty visible and specific manner of everyone getting the same message at the same exact time.
Having the same adult, assess each pause between plays and visibly/audibly declaring the instant time restarts seemed pretty consistent relating to the actual game being played. If some Referees were somewhat too slow, or too fast it would seem a minimum of additional training or discussion could eliminate most, if not all problems. Lingering bad habits, like long winded clinics after each score, or change of possession, delay between quarters, prolonged disputes were pretty easily corrected by a crisp (consistent) whistle.
Maybe bad habits and gamesmanship were more of a problem at "higher levels" (much like trash talking and endless posturing and theatrics becoming ever more common at "higher levels") NFHS rules and execution of them have seemed to be somewhat more effective in controlling inappropriate behaviors ( that far too often create additional problems).
There shouldn't be reluctance to emulate "higher level' practices that provide mechanics and philosophy, when they fit and make sense for the NFHS level rules, objectives & realities of NFHS games, but "One size never has, nor likely EVER WILL (effectively) fit all", and for good and practical reason. Some really great ideas and mechanics work a lot better with 7 or 8 man crews than they ever will for 4, 5 or 6 man assignments. It would be wonderful to expand to 7 or 8 man crews for all NFHS contests, but where would we find all those additional game officials?
Over the last century, a whole lot of Referees somehow learned to deal with the added stress and ringing ears from repeated audible declaration of individually announcing RFP, for all to see and hear together. Maybe some of the inherent differences between teenagers and young men still dictate individual considerations.
-
Well since we are going to get childish, why do you have too be such a tool?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
why do you have too be such a tool?
Can't say I didn't warn you!
Ah jeez. 3....2...1..
<headsmackthingy>
-
“There shouldn't be reluctance to emulate "higher level' practices that provide mechanics and philosophy, when they fit and make sense for the NFHS level rules, objectives & realities of NFHS games“
Well there ya go.
It seems like we all agree with this. Which is exactly what the :40 did.
-
“There shouldn't be reluctance to emulate "higher level' practices that provide mechanics and philosophy, when they fit and make sense for the NFHS level rules, objectives & realities of NFHS games“
Well there ya go.
It seems like we all agree with this. Which is exactly what the :40 did.
I'm just not convinced, "WE ALL AGREE" that adopting the 40 second play clock either, "fits, makes sense, justifies the cost, is necessary or the most effective way to practically eliminate sporadic timing problems" for the NFHS environment across the board.
A nuclear bomb is likely an effective way to clear an area of accumulating trash, but there are other means to accomplish the objective with far fewer side effects.
-
Al:
If the rules had been written originally with a 40/25 clock, would you be ardently advocating for a 25-only clock? If so, why?
-
Al:
If the rules had been written originally with a 40/25 clock, would you be ardently advocating for a 25-only clock? If so, why?
"Change" only for the sake of change, is as dumb a mistake as is "Resisting change", only for the sake of resisting. What may work well in one environment, doesn't automatically fit "different" environments as well.
-
So the answer is ...........
-
So the answer is ...........
It's rarely a good idea, to try and answer "loaded" or irrational questions.