Post by: Patrick E. on January 09, 2021, 12:50:40 PM
Any thoughts on possible 2021 changes, if any?
Post by: HLinNC on January 09, 2021, 04:29:50 PM
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 10, 2021, 06:23:07 AM
Can't think of any right now. They've not even sent out the questionaire, which normally leads you to the direction they are leaning. Given that some states have yet to play the 2020 season, the smart play might be to forego any changes this year.I agree. This is a great year to take a deep breath and settle down. As long as they don’t mess with the :40, I’m good.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: bama_stripes on January 10, 2021, 06:46:28 AM
Can't think of any right now. They've not even sent out the questionaire, which normally leads you to the direction they are leaning. Given that some states have yet to play the 2020 season, the smart play might be to forego any changes this year.
I got the questionnaire. The only one I remember was about an “out of the tackle box” exception for IG.
FWIW, FED baseball made no changes for 2021, not even editorial revisions. I’m not sure they even had a meeting.
Post by: HLinNC on January 10, 2021, 11:01:23 AM
Quote
I got the questionnaire.
I think Ralph usually posts a link and maybe Referee mag sends it out. I've seen neither so far which is why I assumed that they had not.
Post by: Snapper on January 10, 2021, 03:00:03 PM
I think Ralph usually posts a link and maybe Referee mag sends it out. I've seen neither so far which is why I assumed that they had not.
I saw a NFHS rules survey as well. That was late November / early December.
I'd attach a link for you, but the survey closed on 1/2/21 and is no longer available.
I would agree with others that there wasn't much new on there. At least not that I remember. Mostly it asked opinions about recent rule changes and also asked if certain things were a problem in your area. I'm sorry, but I don't remember what those potential problem areas that they asked about were.
Post by: ttown44 on January 12, 2021, 01:50:04 PM
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 12, 2021, 02:51:43 PM
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: NVFOA_Ump on January 13, 2021, 11:14:35 AM
IMO, that could be done simply by taking out the references to the other blocks. Just write it like this: “ The free blocking zone disintegrates for the remainder of the down once the ball leaves the zone.”
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'd agree with Calhoun. Just modify the current Section 2, Section 17, Article 4. That gets rid of the "exception" would which the NFHS gurus dislike anyway.
ART. 4 . . . The free-blocking zone disintegrates
That's the way we have been instructed to officiate the FBZ right now so it would make the rules less ambiguous and far clearer to read. IMHO it would read even better if Article 4 was deleted and the "disintegrates" sentence was tacked on to the end of Article 1.
Post by: ttown44 on January 13, 2021, 11:31:41 AM
Post by: Badger1 on January 13, 2021, 01:02:45 PM
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 13, 2021, 01:22:27 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bama_stripes on January 14, 2021, 07:11:20 AM
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 14, 2021, 07:17:03 AM
I’m trying to remember the last time I saw a 2-pt stance lineman do that. The whole point of that stance is to allow him to quickly retreat into pass blocking mode.We have a team in our district that does it routinely. Their linemen set in a two point every play, run or pass.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: Ralph Damren on January 14, 2021, 10:02:35 AM
Post by: AlUpstateNY on January 14, 2021, 11:40:25 AM
We have a team in our district that does it routinely. Their linemen set in a two point every play, run or pass.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
One of, if not THE oldest, excuse in football is, "we've been doing it all season". The ONLY result of ignoring/allowing repeated rule breaking, is dealing with a lot more of it. Often, a simple "word to be wise" (the very first time) can eliminate a lot of further repetition.
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 14, 2021, 11:52:01 AM
One of, if not THE oldest, excuse in football is, "we've been doing it all season". The ONLY result of ignoring/allowing repeated rule breaking, is dealing with a lot more of it. Often, a simple "word to be wise" (the very first time) can eliminate a lot of further repetition.Could you elaborate? Nobody is suggesting any rule was broken, ignored, or allowed to be broken. There is nothing in the rules that prevents A linemen from being in a two point stance. Or cut blocking from the stance for that matter. What word to the wise would you suggest for this team?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: ncwingman on January 14, 2021, 08:29:51 PM
Our hi-tech zoom meeting ended this Tuesday. One rule passed. I'm sworn to secret until the NFHS press release. It was not a big year for new rules as only 8 were proposed (normally 40-50) and only one made it out of sub-committee.
So for those places, like NC, who aren't scheduled to start their 2020 season until (likely) after the press release of the rule change, but before the release of the actual rule, how much confusion do you think there will be about that rule change?
I'm guessing we will not incorporate this rule change for the spring season, since the 2021 rule books won't be out by then.
Post by: HLinNC on January 15, 2021, 07:43:45 AM
Post by: AlUpstateNY on January 15, 2021, 11:15:35 AM
Could you elaborate? Nobody is suggesting any rule was broken, ignored, or allowed to be broken. There is nothing in the rules that prevents A linemen from being in a two point stance. Or cut blocking from the stance for that matter. What word to the wise would you suggest for this team?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't believe I suggested any rule was broken. However, when player behavior indicates a potential misunderstanding of a rule, but neither gains an unearned advantage, relative to that specific incident nor poses any safety violation, depending on the specific circumstance an instructive suggestion, made directly and privately to the player about the potential of similar behavior crossing the line of requiring sanction (preventive officiating) may well serve to correct misunderstanding and avoid unnecessary consequences resulting from subsequent action.
Have you had a chance to check out the meaning of "pettifogger"?
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 15, 2021, 12:02:46 PM
I don't believe I suggested any rule was broken. However, when player behavior indicates a potential misunderstanding of a rule, but neither gains an unearned advantage, relative to that specific incident nor poses any safety violation, depending on the specific circumstance an instructive suggestion, made directly and privately to the player about the potential of similar behavior crossing the line of requiring sanction (preventive officiating) may well serve to correct misunderstanding and avoid unnecessary consequences resulting from subsequent action.What in the world are you talking about? And how does that have anything to do with linemen lining up in a two point stance?
Have you had a chance to check out the meaning of "pettifogger"?
And yes, I looked up pettifogger. Has your picture beside it.
Are we going to resort to name calling now?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: BIG UMP on January 15, 2021, 12:29:31 PM
Post by: NVFOA_Ump on January 15, 2021, 12:57:27 PM
[attachment deleted by admin]
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 15, 2021, 01:05:50 PM
As far as a potential “talk to”, I’m not holding a rules conference pregame or during. Coaches have the interp.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 15, 2021, 01:09:37 PM
Post by: ncwingman on January 15, 2021, 01:56:15 PM
Technically we are still awaiting the 2020 season. The change won't take effect until fall 2021.
I'm also sure that that one rule change won't be a big game changer, but possibly expecting one coach to yell about it in March...
Unless it's a *real* nothingburger like defining shades of gray for visiting teams uniforms.
Post by: AlUpstateNY on January 16, 2021, 01:40:37 PM
What in the world are you talking about? And how does that have anything to do with linemen lining up in a two point stance?
And yes, I looked up pettifogger. Has your picture beside it.
Are we going to resort to name calling now?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not about name calling, just a suggestion that might save a bunch of dead horses from continued beatings after their funerals and burial. It's ENTIRELY your choice if/and or when, YOU choose to apply "a word to the wise" as opposed to a flag to BEST address a situation. If you're not sure about how, or when, that option is appropriate, I'd suggest you have a thorough discussion with a mature fellow official, you have faith in, when you're seriously willing to listen.
My apologies if I fail to make a suggestion clear enough for you. Should that happen, simply ask for clarification and I'll do my best to comply. That's a lot likely more productive than trying to put your words into my mouth.
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 16, 2021, 04:13:41 PM
Not about name calling, just a suggestion that might save a bunch of dead horses from continued beatings after their funerals and burial. It's ENTIRELY your choice if/and or when, YOU choose to apply "a word to the wise" as opposed to a flag to BEST address a situation. If you're not sure about how, or when, that option is appropriate, I'd suggest you have a thorough discussion with a mature fellow official, you have faith in, when you're seriously willing to listen.Ok, mature fellow official, I’m listening. How would you suggest I approach the situation of linemen lining up in a two point stance? What would I need to caution them about? And when? Also, what perceived foul/rule would I be addressing? Please be as specific as possible. An example of a hypothetical conversation would be great.
My apologies if I fail to make a suggestion clear enough for you. Should that happen, simply ask for clarification and I'll do my best to comply. That's a lot likely more productive than trying to put your words into my mouth.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: AlUpstateNY on January 17, 2021, 01:24:51 PM
Ok, mature fellow official, I’m listening. How would you suggest I approach the situation of linemen lining up in a two point stance? What would I need to caution them about? And when? Also, what perceived foul/rule would I be addressing? Please be as specific as possible. An example of a hypothetical conversation would be great.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You'd be better served, figuring out those questions by yourself, and then running your conclusions by someone who has, and is still, willing to work with you.
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 17, 2021, 03:44:02 PM
You'd be better served, figuring out those questions by yourself, and then running your conclusions by someone who has, and is still, willing to work with you.That’s what I figured.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: AlUpstateNY on January 17, 2021, 06:28:07 PM
That’s what I figured.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If self delusion makes you happy, go for it.
Post by: riffraft on January 18, 2021, 11:58:12 AM
Official Mississippi interpretation is as long as the motion of the lineman is immediate and forward, it’s legal for him to block below the waist from a two point stance during a shotgun snap. If he takes a step back and then cuts it’s illegal.
As far as a potential “talk to”, I’m not holding a rules conference pregame or during. Coaches have the interp.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Official Arizona Interpretation is if the lineman are in a 2 point stance and in shotgun formation, it is illegal for them to block below the waist. Basically there is no time for the lineman to get low before the ball leaves the FBZ.
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 18, 2021, 12:31:26 PM
Official Arizona Interpretation is if the lineman are in a 2 point stance and in shotgun formation, it is illegal for them to block below the waist. Basically there is no time for the lineman to get low before the ball leaves the FBZ.That’s interesting. Tell me, what is the official interpretion of a two point stance? Because I have seen linemen bend over at the waist with their arms resting on their thighs. The only difference between the two pint and three point being the hand touching the ground. Obviously, the OL could cut block as quickly from that position as he could from having his hand on the ground.
I just wonder if that was discussed?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 18, 2021, 12:31:57 PM
Official Arizona Interpretation is if the lineman are in a 2 point stance and in shotgun formation, it is illegal for them to block below the waist. Basically there is no time for the lineman to get low before the ball leaves the FBZ.That’s interesting. Tell me, what is the official interpretion of a two point stance? Because I have seen linemen bend over at the waist with their arms resting on their thighs. The only difference between the two pint and three point being the hand touching the ground. Obviously, the OL could cut block as quickly from that position as he could from having his hand on the ground.
I just wonder if that was discussed?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: HLinNC on January 18, 2021, 01:23:12 PM
Quote
Official Arizona Interpretation is if the lineman are in a 2 point stance and in shotgun formation, it is illegal for them to block below the waist. Basically there is no time for the lineman to get low before the ball leaves the FBZ.
Same in NC.
Post by: bossman72 on January 18, 2021, 05:14:40 PM
Our hi-tech zoom meeting ended this Tuesday. One rule passed. I'm sworn to secret until the NFHS press release. It was not a big year for new rules as only 8 were proposed (normally 40-50) and only one made it out of sub-committee.
Can you share what the POE's will be instead?
Post by: Derek Teigen on January 18, 2021, 07:39:01 PM
I’m to the pint of being ok if they take it out altogether. Of course I also know the backlash that would cause.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Guiness or O'hara's?........ ^good
Post by: CalhounLJ on January 18, 2021, 08:36:47 PM
Guiness or O'hara's?........ ^goodLol. Either will do
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: bama_stripes on January 19, 2021, 06:56:13 AM
I wouldn’t be opposed to narrowing the exception to only linemen who are in the FBZ, with one or both hands on or near the ground, and immediately after the snap.
Post by: Ralph Damren on January 19, 2021, 12:55:13 PM
Can you share what the POE's will be instead?There was a laundry list of POEs suggested . The Editorial Committee then choses usually three. Haven't heard a word.
Post by: BIG UMP on February 05, 2021, 09:53:31 AM
https://nfhs.org/articles/blocking-belo ... all-rules/
Post by: CalhounLJ on February 05, 2021, 09:55:32 AM
Let me try.
https://nfhs.org/articles/blocking-below-the-waist-in-free-blocking-zone-addressed-in-high-school-football-rules/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk