RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Ralph Damren on December 01, 2021, 05:12:05 AM
-
The NFHS Football Questionnaire is now available.
I'm a notary in Maine,
In Maine notaries can perform marriages,
I've done 16 & am 15-1 (one divorce)
If you want to get married, come to Maine.
If you had rather voice your opinion as to what needs fixin' in high school football, go to :
nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/nfhs-sport-questionnaires > football
Your vote will be counted and your voice will be heard tiphat: !
PS : I don't use the "Speak now..." phrase anymore as I fear someone will have something to say ! yEs:
-
If you've already answered the questionnaire, thanks, we do see the national results and your opinions may sway some that are "straddling the lobster crate" (some non-Mainers may say: "Sitting on the fence ??? ").
I have strong opinions on three of the proposed changes:
Remove intentional grounding outside of FBZ & pass goes over LOS - NO! This aides the offense, this is tackle football, "be like the other guys.." is not a good reason.
O-holding behind LOS is previous spot foul - NO! A hold in the backfield often prevents a sack - a great defensive play. If anything needs to be tweaked , a foul by B if run ends behind the LOS, should be a previous spot foul - I'd support that.
DPI = auto 1st down - YES! This would prevent the potential foul from preventing a TD or a new series in some situations. DPI penalty often creates a new series with yardage (80+% of the time), while OPI ALWAYS costs A a loss of down. OPI should not be changed.
Those are my opinions, but I respect yours...please let me know... tiphat:
-
Thanks Ralph, just took the survey. I share your opinion on the three you mentioned.
-
Ralph,
I am also a Notary, in PA....we cannot perform weddings..👰🤵...I think there are only 3 states that can...congrats! 15-16 is pretty good! I just took the questionnaire, I agree with you on the Int Grounding....opening up a can of worms there....where was the QB, did the ball reach the line etc.😱 I always thought holding was a really bad foul in HS, but you had a great point...many times it saves a sack, so yes, I again agree with you.
Looks like my season is over, and if it is, it ended with a great game. We had the A Quarterfinal between Canton and Old Forge in PA, and it was a really well, played, hard hitting game that ended going to OT! Only have had 3 Varsity games in 26 years go OT, and this being a playoff games made it extra special. We got to do the 4A final last season that ended 21-14....so I don't think we'll get one this year, but a couple of fun close games there. Of course they were sprinkled with the 62-0, 55-14. 3500 playoff games also....
Also a HUGE Red Sox fan, so once again we are in agreement there! 😀
-
I haven’t worked a HS game in many years, as my focus has been working NCAA but I still complete the survey when it comes out. That said, I am a resounding YES all 3 changes
For the ING change, if A is willing to give up the down, isn’t that enough of a penalty? Why does there need to be yardage foul assessed as well? Everyone already thinks you can do it, just make it legal and move on.
For Enforcing OH as a previous spot foul, most holding fouls occur at the LOS, so we are really only talking about of handful of penalty enforcements that would be affected by the change. Nobody wants to see 1st & 30 for a hold that occurred 10 yards in the backfield. 1st & 20 is a sufficient penalty.
That’s my $0.02
-
I haven’t worked a HS game in many years, as my focus has been working NCAA but I still complete the survey when it comes out. That said, I am a resounding YES all 3 changes
For the ING change, if A is willing to give up the down, isn’t that enough of a penalty? Why does there need to be yardage foul assessed as well? Everyone already thinks you can do it, just make it legal and move on. No. The defense earned the opportunity for the sack and loss of yardage. The QB gets to bail out and save the lost yardage with this rule change.
For Enforcing OH as a previous spot foul, most holding fouls occur at the LOS, so we are really only talking about of handful of penalty enforcements that would be affected by the change. Nobody wants to see 1st & 30 for a hold that occurred 10 yards in the backfield. 1st & 20 is a sufficient penalty. Some of us do want to see 1st and 30, especially if the hold prevented a possible sack that would have made 2 and 20.
That’s my $0.02
No harm, not looking for an argument, just a different perspective..
-
No harm, not looking for an argument, just a different perspective..
None taken. I understand there are many different philosophies that are incorporated into the rules changes. As I said many of the current NCAA philosophies influence my rationale on both changes. That don't make me right and you wrong or vice versa.
-
"IF TWO MEN AGREED ON EVERYTHING, ONLY ONE WOULD BE NEEDED"
Charles O. Finley - prior owner of Oakland A's
"IF YA' DEBATING (arguing) WITH SOMEONE, LOOK FOR IT'S WEAKEST LINK -PRETEND IT'S A LOBSTER TAIL - AND GNAW HARD 8] YA' BREAK THRU IT'S WEAKEST LINK, 'SPECT YA' WILL WIN THE DEBATE (argument). AYUH"
Anonymous seafaring ref on coastal Maine 8]
" FOR THEM THAT IS STRADDLI'NG THE LOBSTER CRATE (Mainer saying) ,MAKE IT AS DANG CUNFUSING AS YA' CAN. THEM AIN'T GOING TO SAY 'AYUH' AND 'SPECT WILL SAY 'SPECT NOT'"
Same anonymous guy 8]
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (7-man crew)
-
I disagree with the whole tackle box/IG/LOS thing. I don't think the rule would work well with 5 man mechanics. Too many moving parts.
I can live with a change on previous spot for OH but I understand the argument against changing it. I guess I've worked with enough NCAA officials that I've had to correct on enforcement in a HS game that it doesn't faze me.
I am for putting the AFD back with DPI.
However, I am beginning to dis-favor allowing penalties on scoring plays to carry over, i.e. DPI but the receiver catches the pass anyway and scores. We aren't supposed to call PI on a pass away from the foul so it seems a bit too extreme to give the score AND 15 yards later for a PI that apparently wasn't that good. Maybe shave it down to only live ball personal fouls.
I realize that isn't a question on this one but I extrapolated out a bit.
-
I disagree with the whole tackle box/IG/LOS thing. I don't think the rule would work well with 5 man mechanics. Too many moving parts.
Texas never seemed to have a problem with this in 5 man...
-
Using "free blocking zone" in the ING proposal is just another way of the NFHS being NFHS and re-inventing the wheel instead of using "tackle box". This happens every single time they adopt a rule from NCAA and they screw it up without fail. Every. Single. Time.
-
Using "free blocking zone" in the ING proposal is just another way of the NFHS being NFHS and re-inventing the wheel instead of using "tackle box". This happens every single time they adopt a rule from NCAA and they screw it up without fail. Every. Single. Time.
With all due respect Bossman I don't believe we screwed it up this time.
Out here in the center of the left coast and on the islands of Hawai'i we "Experimented" with allowing ING with two requirements:
1- The passer must be, or, have been outside the lateral confines of the Free Blocking Zone as established at the snap
2- The pass must be thrown beyond the LOS including the LOS extended OOB.
Yes - In NCAA, the "tackle box" is defined in the NCAA as 5 yards each side of the snapper. NCAA does not have an FBZ.
Yes - In NFHS, the "Free Blocking Zone" is 4 yards each side of the spot of the snap. NFHS does not have a Tackle Box.
FYI - Both the FBZ and the TB extend to the end line behind you.
FYI - Both NCAA and NFHS agree on the LOS extended
FYI - In NCAA The Tackle Box disintegrates when the ball leaves it
FYI - In NFHS The Free Blocking Zone disintegrates when the ball leaves it
Based on these facts and that the NFHS already has an established term that defined the width of 4 yards rather than 5 1/2 we simply used an already established NFHS term quite simply so lunch box Joe could find in his NFHS Rules Book.
This was done to allow for our experiment to be approved by the NFHS without adding a new definition.
We got the experiment approved for three years and this was our first year.
One other state, Iowa is using virtually the same experiment but they just complete their 2nd year.
Again, these are simply experiments and as such I guess we could have called it the Intentional Grounding Zone or the ZULU Zone? Adding the term Tackle Box which would be a different width in NFHS than it is in NCAA is why, right, wrong or indifferent, we chose not to go down that path.
Please don't shoot the messenger!
-
Texas never seemed to have a problem with this in 5 man...
I'd say it's one of the most challenging things to call, because often the wing is drifting downfield into coverage and may not have eyes on where the ball landed in relation to LOS. Happened to me once this year. The ideal positioning for this, is not the ideal positioning for almost anything else.
-
With all due respect Bossman I don't believe we screwed it up this time.
Out here in the center of the left coast and on the islands of Hawai'i we "Experimented" with allowing ING with two requirements:
1- The passer must be, or, have been outside the lateral confines of the Free Blocking Zone as established at the snap
2- The pass must be thrown beyond the LOS including the LOS extended OOB.
Yes - In NCAA, the "tackle box" is defined in the NCAA as 5 yards each side of the snapper. NCAA does not have an FBZ.
Yes - In NFHS, the "Free Blocking Zone" is 4 yards each side of the spot of the snap. NFHS does not have a Tackle Box.
FYI - Both the FBZ and the TB extend to the end line behind you.
FYI - Both NCAA and NFHS agree on the LOS extended
FYI - In NCAA The Tackle Box disintegrates when the ball leaves it
FYI - In NFHS The Free Blocking Zone disintegrates when the ball leaves it
Based on these facts and that the NFHS already has an established term that defined the width of 4 yards rather than 5 1/2 we simply used an already established NFHS term quite simply so lunch box Joe could find in his NFHS Rules Book.
This was done to allow for our experiment to be approved by the NFHS without adding a new definition.
We got the experiment approved for three years and this was our first year.
One other state, Iowa is using virtually the same experiment but they just complete their 2nd year.
Again, these are simply experiments and as such I guess we could have called it the Intentional Grounding Zone or the ZULU Zone? Adding the term Tackle Box which would be a different width in NFHS than it is in NCAA is why, right, wrong or indifferent, we chose not to go down that path.
Please don't shoot the messenger!
Gotcha. I thought it meant the literal free blocking zone, which has a depth of 3 yards and would disintegrate on any shotgun snap. I feel better now.
-
I'd say it's one of the most challenging things to call, because often the wing is drifting downfield into coverage and may not have eyes on where the ball landed in relation to LOS. Happened to me once this year. The ideal positioning for this, is not the ideal positioning for almost anything else.
Even if you are drifted down field, this is an easy call. There's really no judgment to it. You can see where the ball hits whether it's a person, an object, the ground, etc. All you have to do is run up to that location where it hit, stand on/near it, and look at the down box. You can easily judge behind/beyond that way. No need to have any perspective.
-
I disagree with the whole tackle box/IG/LOS thing. I don't think the rule would work well with 5 man mechanics. Too many moving parts.
I can live with a change on previous spot for OH but I understand the argument against changing it. I guess I've worked with enough NCAA officials that I've had to correct on enforcement in a HS game that it doesn't faze me.
I am for putting the AFD back with DPI.
However, I am beginning to dis-favor allowing penalties on scoring plays to carry over, i.e. DPI but the receiver catches the pass anyway and scores. We aren't supposed to call PI on a pass away from the foul so it seems a bit too extreme to give the score AND 15 yards later for a PI that apparently wasn't that good. Maybe shave it down to only live ball personal fouls.
I realize that isn't a question on this one but I extrapolated out a bit.
Yes. I hate the scoring plays carry overs.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Gotcha. I thought it meant the literal free blocking zone, which has a depth of 3 yards and would disintegrate on any shotgun snap. I feel better now.
Annnnnd, here’s the problem.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
FYI - Both the FBZ and the TB extend to the end line behind you.
This was done to allow for our experiment to be approved by the NFHS without adding a new definition.
Adding the term Tackle Box which would be a different width in NFHS than it is in NCAA is why, right, wrong or indifferent, we chose not to go down that path.
1. I’m assuming you mean the FBZ extends to the end line ONLY in regard to determining ING?
2. If my assumption in 1 is true, then that requires a change in the current definition of the FBZ.
3. Why would adding the term tackle box require a different width in NFHS? Why not just adopt the NCAA language making both identical?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
My vote was:
NO on “tackle box” exemption
YES on holding enforcement
YES on AFD for DPI
I also agree that carryover penalties on scoring plays should be limited to safety-related fouls.
-
What would coaches complain about if they don't have to yell "he was out of the tackle box".
Never mind, they will still have plenty to yell about...
-
In Iowa we had the ING as an experiment. I think it went off without many problems with 5-man crews. Many passers who could have grounded the pass did not, yet.
I am still not in favor of making it permanent though. It takes away from a good defensive play and tips the balance of fair play to the offense.
#1 - NO.
#2 - YES.
#3 - YES.
-
I'm of two minds on several of these, but any idea I have to find a middle ground would probably be less popular than either YES or NO.
1) I can make the argument that allowing the QB to throw the ball away prevents an unnecessary hit. I do agree that it will be difficult mechanically in a five man crew. QB rolls to my sideline looking for a pass, I'm releasing a bit downfield to cover receivers... which means, who has the LOS to see if the ball crosses it? U?
However, I also agree that it bails out the offense after a good defensive play. Maybe take away the extra 5 yards on the penalty? QB can "ground" the ball while under duress to "take the sack" without taking the hit. (Offer not valid for an illegal pass while beyond the LOS)
In either case, I would strongly argue for an editorial change -- Eligible receivers cannot occupy an area that is out of bounds. Intentionally throwing the ball into the third row of the stands is ING. Right now, we tend to have this rule by default because we claim a receiver is "in the area" as long as the geostationary orbital flight plan of the ball passes within 2 miles of the location of a receiver and so the QB can chuck the ball away in a manner not intended to be caught, but it was vaguely in the direction of eligible receivers, so it's all good.
2) I don't want to make an exception for offensive holding. Either make the enforcement spot the LOS for all fouls by A behind the LOS or don't. Or, as a terrible compromise, make it even worse -- fouls by A in the FBZ are enforced from the previous spot. This eliminates the 12 yard penalty, but still allows for big losses to stand.
3) If it's 3rd and 2, DPI will be a first down... unless you're at the 3, and that seems wrong. I think I got the worst idea of all for this one -- it's an AFD if the foul occurs beyond the line to gain!
Current situations would still apply, it's 3rd and 10 at the A20, and DPI at the A25 - yardage enforcement moves the ball beyond the LTG, so it's a 1st down on that anyway. However, if it's 3rd and 20 for the same play, then you replay 3rd down at the A35. If the foul was at the 45, then it's a first down at the A35.
Notably, if it's 3rd and 2 at the 3 and the foul occurs in the end zone, the LTG is the goal line, so it would be an AFD even with half the distance enforcement.
Anyway, grab your pitchforks and tell me how wrong I am. These are half baked ideas, so I don't think I've solved all the world's ills.
-
Thanks, guys, for your opinions and keep 'em coming.
A word about fouls on scoring plays..
Prior to 2003, the only fouls carried over during a TD were the dead ball (or live ball treated as dead ball) ones. The rationale of including live ball fouls was the cheap-shot by the defense -knowing the runner was heading to paydirt - going unpunished. Enforce on the PAT.
2004 - WHOOPS, illegal formation on A, B intercepts and scores ::). Let's enforce fouls that occurred after COP on the PAT. 8]
2007 - WHOOPS, a 1 1/2 yard penalty on the PAT isn't much, especially if they are kicking. Lets let 'em to choose to enforce it on the kickoff, too :o ::)
2010 - WHOOPS, what is to happen if there is a dead ball foul on A and a live or dead ball on B on a TD or PAT ??? ...well...which came first the chicken or the egg...let the chick.... pray:; pray:;
I agree, the enforcement possibilities have became very complex hEaDbAnG and easy pi1eOn to blow. Any suggestions...
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (7-man crew + 2 clock operators and chain crew)
-
Thanks, guys, for your opinions and keep 'em coming.
A word about fouls on scoring plays..
Prior to 2003, the only fouls carried over during a TD were the dead ball (or live ball treated as dead ball) ones. The rationale of including live ball fouls was the cheap-shot by the defense -knowing the runner was heading to paydirt - going unpunished. Enforce on the PAT.
2004 - WHOOPS, illegal formation on A, B intercepts and scores ::). Let's enforce fouls that occurred after COP on the PAT. 8]
2007 - WHOOPS, a 1 1/2 yard penalty on the PAT isn't much, especially if they are kicking. Lets let 'em to choose to enforce it on the kickoff, too :o ::)
2010 - WHOOPS, what is to happen if there is a dead ball foul on A and a live or dead ball on B on a TD or PAT ??? ...well...which came first the chicken or the egg...let the chick.... pray:; pray:;
I agree, the enforcement possibilities have became very complex hEaDbAnG and easy pi1eOn to blow. Any suggestions...
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (7-man crew + 2 clock operators and chain crew)
I appreciate the insight to the decision-making process. It helps to understand the "why." However, I'm wondering if this was not overkill? How many times have we ever seen B take a cheap shot on A because the player had enough sense to know the penalty was going to be enforced on the try and it wouldn't cost him much? I've seen cheap shots during scores, but question the ability of players to think that fast on their feet. But, if that's the rationale, fine. Make the carryover enforcements only those types of fouls. Leave the "routine" stuff alone. There's no way DPI should carryover if A scores anyway. 7 points + 15 yards is way overboard.... Anything dead ball, or USC, Taunting, etc... Yeah, i'm ok with those.
-
Even if you are drifted down field, this is an easy call. There's really no judgment to it. You can see where the ball hits whether it's a person, an object, the ground, etc. All you have to do is run up to that location where it hit, stand on/near it, and look at the down box. You can easily judge behind/beyond that way. No need to have any perspective.
The problem that I had, is that once my spidey senses/eyeballs detected the ball was in the air, I switched to the receiver and was only looking at him, not the path/position of the ball. I didn't realize he was throwing it away, and when R asked me if it crossed LOS, I wasn't sure, because I wasn't watching where the ball went.
I can see where you're coming from though, and will work on this. You're right, the more I think about it, I should be able to discern where the ball is going a little better, and just need to be more mindful in situations like that.
-
Wouldn’t the U likely be best positioned to rule on beyond LOS of a pass, they’re already ruling on ineligible a downfield on the pass. As an L you really do need to be looking at the receivers and action around them on a pass.
Note 1: we don’t use NFHS mechanics in my state.
Note 2: I am adamentaly against allowing for ING out of a tackle box
-
I'm of two minds on several of these, but any idea I have to find a middle ground would probably be less popular than either YES or NO.
1) I can make the argument that allowing the QB to throw the ball away prevents an unnecessary hit. I do agree that it will be difficult mechanically in a five man crew. QB rolls to my sideline looking for a pass, I'm releasing a bit downfield to cover receivers... which means, who has the LOS to see if the ball crosses it? U?
However, I also agree that it bails out the offense after a good defensive play. Maybe take away the extra 5 yards on the penalty? QB can "ground" the ball while under duress to "take the sack" without taking the hit. (Offer not valid for an illegal pass while beyond the LOS)
In either case, I would strongly argue for an editorial change -- Eligible receivers cannot occupy an area that is out of bounds. Intentionally throwing the ball into the third row of the stands is ING. Right now, we tend to have this rule by default because we claim a receiver is "in the area" as long as the geostationary orbital flight plan of the ball passes within 2 miles of the location of a receiver and so the QB can chuck the ball away in a manner not intended to be caught, but it was vaguely in the direction of eligible receivers, so it's all good.
2) I don't want to make an exception for offensive holding. Either make the enforcement spot the LOS for all fouls by A behind the LOS or don't. Or, as a terrible compromise, make it even worse -- fouls by A in the FBZ are enforced from the previous spot. This eliminates the 12 yard penalty, but still allows for big losses to stand.
3) If it's 3rd and 2, DPI will be a first down... unless you're at the 3, and that seems wrong. I think I got the worst idea of all for this one -- it's an AFD if the foul occurs beyond the line to gain!
Current situations would still apply, it's 3rd and 10 at the A20, and DPI at the A25 - yardage enforcement moves the ball beyond the LTG, so it's a 1st down on that anyway. However, if it's 3rd and 20 for the same play, then you replay 3rd down at the A35. If the foul was at the 45, then it's a first down at the A35.
Notably, if it's 3rd and 2 at the 3 and the foul occurs in the end zone, the LTG is the goal line, so it would be an AFD even with half the distance enforcement.
Anyway, grab your pitchforks and tell me how wrong I am. These are half baked ideas, so I don't think I've solved all the world's ills.
You're not really wrong, ncwingman. IMHO, a little complex on the DPI = AFD suggestion. Exceptions are as popular to NFHS rules as a Yankee fan at a Red Sox home game. IMHO, most of the time AFD is not needed as the 15 yards takes care of that. Thanks for your post.
-
After more than 50 years of studying High School Football Rules I am strong in my opposition to exceptions. The more of them we have the messier the Rules Book wording gets and the harder it is for the Rules to be logical. Therefore, they become more difficult to learn and correctly apply.
I understand that there are valid and fair reasons for some exceptions. PSK, Carry-over enforcement on Scoring Plays, and Tack-on for Roughing the Passer are a few that come to mind. However, too many exceptions will really muddy the water for anyone trying to see clearly and to understand the NFHS rules.
We certainly don’t want to get like the NCAA where Coaches knee jerk reactions to one play that bit them last year gets written in as an exception or change (usually poorly worded and in need of clarification). Exceptions are often not even referenced in the section of the book that states the rule.
Or worse yet – like the NFL where some interpretations and end of game timing exceptions are only disseminated to the White Hats and not written for all to digest.
Please advocate for definitions and rules to be clearly written and consistent -- and to not govern by exception.
Regarding potential changes:
I do not like “just throw it away outside of the “tackle box”. I feel strongly that this negates good play by the defense.
I would like to see defensive pass interference be a spot foul if it occurs less than 15 yards from the line of scrimmage.
-
I appreciate the insight to the decision-making process. It helps to understand the "why." However, I'm wondering if this was not overkill? How many times have we ever seen B take a cheap shot on A because the player had enough sense to know the penalty was going to be enforced on the try and it wouldn't cost him much? I've seen cheap shots during scores, but question the ability of players to think that fast on their feet. But, if that's the rationale, fine. Make the carryover enforcements only those types of fouls. Leave the "routine" stuff alone. There's no way DPI should carryover if A scores anyway. 7 points + 15 yards is way overboard.... Anything dead ball, or USC, Taunting, etc... Yeah, i'm ok with those.
I agree, Calhoun, while I've seen fortune tellers at the Bangor Fair I've not seen any on a high school football field. While I can understand the cheap shot 15-yard fouls being penalized, in IP (12 B men in) -certainly the 12th man didn't help or DPI (B didn't interfere very well) shouldn't be treated the same and certainly NOT the 10 or 5 yard variety. The problem being, you would need exceptions....and you know the rest!
-
After more than 50 years of studying High School Football Rules I am strong in my opposition to exceptions. The more of them we have the messier the Rules Book wording gets and the harder it is for the Rules to be logical. Therefore, they become more difficult to learn and correctly apply.
I understand that there are valid and fair reasons for some exceptions. PSK, Carry-over enforcement on Scoring Plays, and Tack-on for Roughing the Passer are a few that come to mind. However, too many exceptions will really muddy the water for anyone trying to see clearly and to understand the NFHS rules.
We certainly don’t want to get like the NCAA where Coaches knee jerk reactions to one play that bit them last year gets written in as an exception or change (usually poorly worded and in need of clarification). Exceptions are often not even referenced in the section of the book that states the rule.
Or worse yet – like the NFL where some interpretations and end of game timing exceptions are only disseminated to the White Hats and not written for all to digest.
Please advocate for definitions and rules to be clearly written and consistent -- and to not govern by exception.
Regarding potential changes:
I do not like “just throw it away outside of the “tackle box”. I feel strongly that this negates good play by the defense.
I would like to see defensive pass interference be a spot foul if it occurs less than 15 yards from the line of scrimmage.
Thanks, DCH, for your opinion, I strongly agree with much. I believe DPI being a spot foul has been on the docket before, but will little support. The reason : another EXCEPTION :).
-
FYI - Both the FBZ and the TB extend to the end line behind you.
This was done to allow for our experiment to be approved by the NFHS without adding a new definition.
Adding the term Tackle Box which would be a different width in NFHS than it is in NCAA is why, right, wrong or indifferent, we chose not to go down that path.
1. I’m assuming you mean the FBZ extends to the end line ONLY in regard to determining ING? Yes of course - Previously ask and answered above.
2. If my assumption in 1 is true, then that requires a change in the current definition of the FBZ. No, not really! We are only dealing with the width as determined at the snap!
3. Why would adding the term tackle box require a different width in NFHS? Why not just adopt the NCAA language making both identical? One reason would be, unlike NCAA, NFHS has 6, 8, 9, and 11-man football, and because it does, the width of the FBZ, as like many other dimensions, will vary.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Even if you are drifted down field, this is an easy call. There's really no judgment to it. You can see where the ball hits whether it's a person, an object, the ground, etc. All you have to do is run up to that location where it hit, stand on/near it, and look at the down box. You can easily judge behind/beyond that way. No need to have any perspective.
Yes - Bossman is right on the money! AND, any one of the officials can accomplish this task!
-
You're not really wrong, ncwingman. IMHO, a little complex on the DPI = AFD suggestion. Exceptions are as popular to NFHS rules as a Yankee fan at a Red Sox home game. IMHO, most of the time AFD is not needed as the 15 yards takes care of that. Thanks for your post.
Yeah, part of my point is trying to find a compromise means carving an exception, in pretty much any case -- neither side (yes or no) is perfect, but a compromise is somehow worse?
I wonder if you could address it slightly more generally, as the issue comes up a lot more close to the goal line where penalty yardage should have resulted in a first down, except that it was reduced to half the distance. Therefore, the defense can "get away" with more of a foul because the penalty is lessened. I don't know how to fix that without making Rule 10 resemble the NCAA or NFL rule books in ridiculous complexity. Even if you just address that situation, you'd address most of the complaining, even if you still have to explain the 3rd and 20 ruling a bunch more times.
Another spitballed bad idea -- any 15 yard penalty on the defense that is enforced as half the distance becomes an AFD? I like that idea when it's goal to go from the 3, but less so when it's 3rd and 20 from the 29.... and now we're creating more problems than we're solving.
-
Yes - Bossman is right on the money! AND, any one of the officials can accomplish this task!
the only potential issue I see is what if the ball lands out of bounds. we would have to 'guess' where it left the field of play. Like a punt very tough.
-
If you've already answered the questionnaire, thanks, we do see the national results and your opinions may sway some that are "straddling the lobster crate" (some non-Mainers may say: "Sitting on the fence ??? ").
DPI = auto 1st down - YES! This would prevent the potential foul from preventing a TD or a new series in some situations. DPI penalty often creates a new series with yardage (80+% of the time), while OPI ALWAYS costs B a loss of down. OPI should not be changed.
Ralph, I respectfully am disagreeing with you on this. I think automatic first downs should be reserved for the more flagrant roughing the passer type fouls. It would be tough on the defense in long yardage situations to get called for a dinky dpi that is not even close to the line to gain. The automatic first down even when the LTG has not been acheived is too big a penalty in my opinion.
2. can you clarify what you mean by saying "OPI always costs B a loss of down"?
-
ncwingman- My understanding of the IG POE was to remind us that it IS Intentional Grounding if the QB chucks into the stands but yet in the general direction of his WR's general location near the sideline.
Ralph- I remember the term "cheap shot" being thrown around as the reason when the rule was changed to allow the scoring team to keep the TD and assess the yardage but as time has gone by, do any of us consider a really crappy DPI attempt, a defensive hold, or an illegal sub on the defense a "cheap shot"? I just think a score AND subsequent yardage for that type of foul is a bit harsh. PF's heck yeah, lay it to them.
-
All that makes sense. Thanks.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
ncwingman- My understanding of the IG POE was to remind us that it IS Intentional Grounding if the QB chucks into the stands but yet in the general direction of his WR's general location near the sideline.
Yes, but in my (probably more limited) experience, a POE doesn't actually change anything regarding how fouls are called. If you want, especially old-guard, officials to call something a certain way, you need to emphasize a change in the rule itself... and even then...
As an extreme example, we could have a POE about proper field markings next year. What happens the first week when you go to the field with the logo covering up the 50 yard line? Nothing is going to happen and you're going to play football even though it's technically against the rules. If you want it to really change, you need to change the rule to explicitly state "Action X is a foul with penalty Y".
-
Ralph, I respectfully am disagreeing with you on this. I think automatic first downs should be reserved for the more flagrant roughing the passer type fouls. It would be tough on the defense in long yardage situations to get called for a dinky dpi that is not even close to the line to gain. The automatic first down even when the LTG has not been acheived is too big a penalty in my opinion.
2. can you clarify what you mean by saying "OPI always costs B a loss of down"?
I agree, Derek, that AFD should apply to the most dangerous fouls on defenseless players and have used that argument several times in aid to defeat proposals that would make all PFs on B/K an AFD. I still believe that DPI should also carry an AFD to prevent an intentional act by B ,if beaten on a pass play. IMHO, this could raise its ugly head on goal-to-go or half-the distance situations.
Stats show that 80+% of DPI enforcements create a new series without applying AFD. I'm arguing for the 20-% that don't. Under the old "one size fits all rule" all OPI penalties carried LOD . 100% of those costs A a loss of down. Good catch :thumbup my bad...I thought I knew my A,B,Cs :) !
-
the only potential issue I see is what if the ball lands out of bounds. we would have to 'guess' where it left the field of play. Like a punt very tough.
Not true Derick...
For the purpose of this rule, where it crosses the sideline is not considered, rather did it cross the LOS in flight is all that matters.
Again, for the purpose of this rule, the LOS extends OOB to infinity, and all the legal forward pass need do, is cross the LOS in flight.
While they likely don't word it the same way i am, the requirement's are the same for NCAA and NFL. This is why when the result is the pass is it lands in the stands and it is ruled legal.
(Ralph has addressed some concern that passers may be intentionally aiming for the Prom Queens Mom)
Also, just a legal is when the pass, inflight, crosses the down box, in front of it or behind it.
I hope what I just described makes sense?
-
Not true Derick...
For the purpose of this rule, where it crosses the sideline is not considered, rather did it cross the LOS in flight is all that matters.
Again, for the purpose of this rule, the LOS extends OOB to infinity, and all the legal forward pass need do, is cross the LOS in flight.
While they likely don't word it the same way i am, the requirement's are the same for NCAA and NFL. This is why when the result is the pass is it lands in the stands and it is ruled legal.
(Ralph has addressed some concern that passers may be intentionally aiming for the Prom Queens Mom)
Also, just a legal is when the pass, inflight, crosses the down box, in front of it or behind it.
I hope what I just described makes sense?
yes, ok that answers it. I think all high school coaches would support this rule change and I think we should too because it helps protect the quarterback.
-
I would much prefer to change the penalty for IG to LOD at the spot of the pass. This maintains the balance between offense & defense.
-
........ I still believe that DPI should also carry an AFD to prevent an intentional act by B ,if beaten on a pass play. IMHO, this could raise its ugly head on goal-to-go or half-the distance situations.
Why not consider doing away with the inane "double enforcement" for intentional DPI which it seems has never been called and change DPI enforcement to always be a fixed 15 yards or spot the ball at the 1 yard line if previous spot is the B-16 or inside. Wouldn't that pretty much address the " ... goal-to-go or half-the distance situations."?
-
You're not really wrong, ncwingman. IMHO, a little complex on the DPI = AFD suggestion. Exceptions are as popular to NFHS rules as a Yankee fan at a Red Sox home game. IMHO, most of the time AFD is not needed as the 15 yards takes care of that. Thanks for your post.
Actually Ralph, having been to several Yankee games at Fenway Park, I found Red Sox fans, generally quite hospitable. (although having to wear a "Grocho Marx glasses with mustache disguise") was a little annoying.
-
Wouldn’t the U likely be best positioned to rule on beyond LOS of a pass, they’re already ruling on ineligible a downfield on the pass.
No. The U is watching interior linemen. He's not going to turn with a pass headed toward the sideline, typically, especially if he has some commotion in the interior.
-
No. The U is watching interior linemen. He's not going to turn with a pass headed toward the sideline, typically, especially if he has some commotion in the interior.
Agree. This is a wing call. Also, it might not be as big a problem as we suspect. I think in the vast majority of cases, the wings are going to be close enough to the line to be able to rule in the LOS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I would much prefer to change the penalty for IG to LOD at the spot of the pass. This maintains the balance between offense & defense.
Bama-
I have no issue dumping the 5 yards. But think about this idea:
How about we let him legally throw the ball away, but, when he does, we drop a bean bag at that spot as that is now the succeeding spot.
I believe that more equitably maintains the balance between offense and defense?
And while I realize this is NOT how the NFL and NCAA do it, Frankly Scarlet I don't give a damn!
-
Bama-
I have no issue dumping the 5 yards. But think about this idea:
How about we let him legally throw the ball away, but, when he does, we drop a bean bag at that spot as that is now the succeeding spot.
I believe that more equitably maintains the balance between offense and defense?
And while I realize this is NOT how the NFL and NCAA do it, Frankly Scarlet I don't give a damn!
I really don't see the issue with keeping the 5 yard penalty. Every foul in NFHS is 5, 10, or 15 yards. Not worth changing, IMO.
-
I really don't see the issue with keeping the 5 yard penalty. Every foul in NFHS is 5, 10, or 15 yards. Not worth changing, IMO.
So...Bossman, are you agreeing that when the ball is snapped at the B-30 and A1 rolls outside the FBZ and then legally grounds the football from the B-40,
we drop a bean bag and the the new spot is the B-40?
-
Why not consider doing away with the inane "double enforcement" for intentional DPI which it seems has never been called and change DPI enforcement to always be a fixed 15 yards or spot the ball at the 1 yard line if previous spot is the B-16 or inside. Wouldn't that pretty much address the " ... goal-to-go or half-the distance situations."?
IMHO, if you alter 'half-the distance' to full 15, you would need to apply that when the LOS was inside the 30 not inside the 16. A proposal was put in a few years ago to add AFD to DFI if the LOS was inside the 30. It had little support. The major reason was:
pi1eOnAN EXCEPTION hEaDbAnG
-
Actually Ralph, having been to several Yankee games at Fenway Park, I found Red Sox fans, generally quite hospitable. (although having to wear a "Grocho Marx glasses with mustache disguise") was a little annoying.
ALL fans are accepted at Fenway, AL, however discretion is advised. 8] . The wearing of a Yankee cap :!# or cheering with every Yankee run aWaRd nAnA is not advised :).
-
Bama-
I have no issue dumping the 5 yards. But think about this idea:
How about we let him legally throw the ball away, but, when he does, we drop a bean bag at that spot as that is now the succeeding spot.
I believe that more equitably maintains the balance between offense and defense.
I may be having a senior moment, but isn’t that the same as LOD at the spot of the foul?
-
So...Bossman, are you agreeing that when the ball is snapped at the B-30 and A1 rolls outside the FBZ and then legally grounds the football from the B-40,
we drop a bean bag and the the new spot is the B-40?
No, I would just call ING and penalize 5 yards.
-
I may be having a senior moment, but isn’t that the same as LOD at the spot of the foul?
It's exactly the same...
-
Im not sure you all are tracking with me.
In an effort to pacify those who say "you are taking a great play away from the defense"
I am saying when he legally grounds the football the ball, the succeeding spot is where he threw the pass from rather than returning the ball to the previous spot like say they do in NCAA/NFL
-
I think we understand the concept of what your are saying. At least I do. The problem with the suggestion is that it’s identical to a penalty already in existence for a similar situation. If you’re going to allow A to LEGALLY dump the ball, marking it dead at the spot of the pass seems like a penalty for a legal play.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I think we understand the concept of what your are saying. At least I do. The problem with the suggestion is that it’s identical to a penalty already in existence for a similar situation. If you’re going to allow A to LEGALLY dump the ball, marking it dead at the spot of the pass seems like a penalty for a legal play.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I don't see it as a penalty Calhoun, rather, I it as simply rewarding the defense for the "technical sack" of which they clearly earned.
There would be no foul if the passer met the requirements, but there would also not be an unfair advantage earned by throwing the ball away.
-
Yeah, I don’t have a problem with it. Sounds fair to me.
However, I’m afraid if/when that proposal is made, we will discover that coaches are much more concerned with the loss of yardage than the safety of the QB.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Im not sure you all are tracking with me.
In an effort to pacify those who say "you are taking a great play away from the defense"
I am saying when he legally grounds the football the ball, the succeeding spot is where he threw the pass from rather than returning the ball to the previous spot like say they do in NCAA/NFL
Your suggestion would provide some consolation, to the defense, for their effort in deterring the challenge of the intended pass, but simply lessens the consequence of a deliberate act of the offense to avoid consequence.
-
I was disappointed to see no discussion on timing rules on the survey.
Games have gotten longer and longer on Friday nights and I think the game would be better served by having the clock start on plays that end OOB once the ball is spotted, as in NCAA play, outside of 2 minutes in each half. The 2 minute mark is already a spot where we have different rules now, so this wouldn't be a big change.
Our shortest game this season, other than a playoff game where the winning team threw once (and the losing team threw 9 times), was 2:25. A decade ago, most of our games were under 2:10. And we do not run a slow pace.
As far as these proposals are concerned, I voted YES for the IG, YES for using the previous spot for A fouls behind the LOS, and YES for AFD for DPI. Then again, exceptions don't bother me much.
-
I agree. Having the game clock restart when the ball is ready for play on plays out of bounds, outside the last 2 minutes of each half, is a no-brainer. Now, this is an unnecessary difference between levels, and an excuse for the officials to fudge the rules to shave time by declaring runners in when they were out on a close play. If OOB = RFP is adopted outside the last 2 minutes, officials would be more likely to want to get close OOB plays right without worrying about the timing implications.
-
I was disappointed to see no discussion on timing rules on the survey.
Games have gotten longer and longer on Friday nights and I think the game would be better served by having the clock start on plays that end OOB once the ball is spotted, as in NCAA play, outside of 2 minutes in each half. The 2 minute mark is already a spot where we have different rules now, so this wouldn't be a big change.
Our shortest game this season, other than a playoff game where the winning team threw once (and the losing team threw 9 times), was 2:25. A decade ago, most of our games were under 2:10. And we do not run a slow pace.
As far as these proposals are concerned, I voted YES for the IG, YES for using the previous spot for A fouls behind the LOS, and YES for AFD for DPI. Then again, exceptions don't bother me much.
This is interesting. My crew and I had 14 games this year, and I tracked them all as far as time. We had one game that was 1:45, one that was 2:42, and the rest fell in between those two. Granted, the one that ran long was due to an on-field injury that took some time, (ambulance, etc...), but the ones that ran longer were due to both teams throwing the ball a lot, resulting in incomplete passes. I don't know for sure, but I don't remember a ton of out of bounds plays. I'm just wondering out loud if a rule change like you suggest would speed up the game significantly? It would certainly depend on the percentage of plays that ended out of bounds...
Now, if we were to change the rules and allow the clock to run on incomplete passes, then we would have a short game!
-
Our shortest game this season, other than a playoff game where the winning team threw once (and the losing team threw 9 times), was 2:25. A decade ago, most of our games were under 2:10. And we do not run a slow pace.
You would have to have a lot of OB runs for a winding the game clock when the is spotted to make any significant difference in overall game time. IMHO it's not the runs OB but the passing game that has the big impact on total time.
-
Back in 1996 we adopted starting the clock on the snap following COPs. At our 1997 meeting we were overwhelmed with complaints of games taking 'twice as long' along with a proposal to go back to the old rule. GET THIS: you need 2/3 of voters to pass a rule. Passing the rule in 1996 was achieved by a couple of votes. Changing back to the old rule also required 2/3 voters. It failed by ONE VOTE :!# = nearly 1/3 of the voters changed their mind :!# :!#. I voted both to pass in 1996 and to keep in 1997 ,as I felt the time involved in changing teams, balls, chains, etc should result in starting on the snap.
I wasn't convinced with the 'lobster crate' of complaints and attended a game with clip board, pencil ,stop watch and coffee jug. The final score was 35-27. Game lasted 2:18.
MY FINDINGS:
17 incomplete passes :30 = 8:5 minutes
19 COPs :30 = 9.5 minutes
9 TDs 4:00 = 36.0 minutes
MY OBSERVATION :
There are two major factions controlling the length of our games. After a TD, (1) the players hug & dance; (2) the school song is played, (3) the cheerleaders prance, (4) enter Hans & the kicking team, (5) Hans kicks the ball into the puckerbrush , (6) the most agile of the chain crew retrieves it; (7) teams huddle on sidelines, (8) kickoff teams position.
The second factor is today's passing game.Unless your Coach B's Patriots playing at the Bills (QB threw only 3- 40 MPH winds) ;they are many more passes thrown then yesteryear. More passes= more incomplete pases.
IMHO, the more rules we pass that favors the offense, the more scoring you'll see, the longer the games will last.
tiphat:
-
Back in 1996 we adopted starting the clock on the snap following COPs. At our 1997 meeting we were overwhelmed with complaints of games taking 'twice as long' along with a proposal to go back to the old rule. GET THIS: you need 2/3 of voters to pass a rule. Passing the rule in 1996 was achieved by a couple of votes. Changing back to the old rule also required 2/3 voters. It failed by ONE VOTE :!# = nearly 1/3 of the voters changed their mind :!# :!#. I voted both to pass in 1996 and to keep in 1997 ,as I felt the time involved in changing teams, balls, chains, etc should result in starting on the snap.
I wasn't convinced with the 'lobster crate' of complaints and attended a game with clip board, pencil ,stop watch and coffee jug. The final score was 35-27. Game lasted 2:18.
MY FINDINGS:
17 incomplete passes :30 = 8:5 minutes
19 COPs :30 = 9.5 minutes
9 TDs 4:00 = 36.0 minutes
MY OBSERVATION :
There are two major factions controlling the length of our games. After a TD, (1) the players hug & dance; (2) the school song is played, (3) the cheerleaders prance, (4) enter Hans & the kicking team, (5) Hans kicks the ball into the puckerbrush , (6) the most agile of the chain crew retrieves it; (7) teams huddle on sidelines, (8) kickoff teams position.
The second factor is today's passing game.Unless your Coach B's Patriots playing at the Bills (QB threw only 3- 40 MPH winds) ;they are many more passes thrown then yesteryear. More passes= more incomplete pases.
IMHO, the more rules we pass that favors the offense, the more scoring you'll see, the longer the games will last.
tiphat:
Once AGAIN, Ralph, You nailed it. The shenanigans after a score (& often repeated after the successful try) are apparently universal, although some of the same activities after an unexpected COP (fumble recovery, interception run a close second. 3rd, might be those extra last second instructions, after an anticipated COP (unsuccessful 4th down). Apparently those instructions, assignments can ONLY be discussed and happen AFTER the opponents 4th down fails. A close 4th might be the frequent sideline instructional clinics held during (extended) intermission between periods.
The frequency of dogs running onto the field seems to have improved considerably in recent years, but that seems attributable more likely to local Animal Control than site management attention and/or focus.
-
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/13mLwGra9bNEKQ/giphy.gif)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Just out of curiosity, how long is halftime in your areas?
I can probably speak for all of PA and say we use the full 20 minutes (+3 min warmup period). I hear some states don't do that...
-
Just out of curiosity, how long is halftime in your areas?
I can probably speak for all of PA and say we use the full 20 minutes (+3 min warmup period). I hear some states don't do that...
Excepting state championship games with 20 minute halftimes, all other games have 15 minute halftimes unless they notify the visiting team 24 hours in advance. On occasion a school will ask for the expanded halftime for their homecoming game.
We take it a step further and IF both teams are on the field prior the 15 expiring, we assume that is implied mutual consent to shorten the halftime. We then reset the game clock to 3:00 for the required warmup. In my pre-season meeting with the coaches, I remind them of this and advise that if they want the 'full 15' please let us know and we'll continue the countdown. We've had that protocol for 15+ years without any problems and the number of times a coach has asked for the 'full 15' ,if out early, I could count on one hand ( even if I lose a couple of fingers).
-
We had one 10 minute half this year. Trying to get the game in ahead of an approaching storm. All others were 20.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Here, the total time from the end of the first half to the RFP for the second half is right at 30 minutes.
-
The reality is that our game is taking longer at every level. Note the NFL start times on Sunday were 1:00 & 4:00; now 1:00 & 4:15 ,a the early games were running over. In Maine, our games start at 7:00. Some end a little before 9, while others go beyond 9:30. My Friday nights are for football and once the game is over, I drive to our 'refreshment stand' to have a Koolaide ;) with our other crews and watch 'The Fifth Quarter' - a wrapup of football games on a local channel - to see if everyone's war stories really occurred ;D. That starts at 11, and I always arrive in advance. To me, Friday night gives me the chance to put the worries of the world on the back burner and just enjoy working the game and the camaraderie of my friends thereafter. To me, the length of the game is only secondary. I understand of it being challenging ,if you have other things to do, but I stay in football mode until bedtime around midnight.
I started umpiring baseball 4 years before I began football and may explain my calmness as to game length. I've some baseball games that are over in less than an hour and other that last more then three. In our game you are usually moving, in baseball 90+% of the time you're just standing, watching the pitcher scowl at the batter while the batter scratches his....whatever.
In Maine, 29 out of 75 football programs are eight-man. I worked several of them this Fall and a defensive battle might be 50-40 :o ::) :!#..3 less tacklers = more open field = more TDs = longer games...I still love working them yEs:.
That's My Rant of The Day.... tiphat:
-
Just out of curiosity, how long is halftime in your areas?
I can probably speak for all of PA and say we use the full 20 minutes (+3 min warmup period). I hear some states don't do that...
Standard halftime here is 15+3. It's generally only longer on homecoming night. A pipe dream of mine is getting some coach to have a 14:36 halftime -- not an even number of minutes. There's no rule that says it has to be in full minute increments...
That being said, when I was in high school every halftime was 20 minutes as each band had *exactly* 10 minutes to put on their show. Do NOT anger the band directors by changing that up.
-
Excepting state championship games with 20 minute halftimes, all other games have 15 minute halftimes unless they notify the visiting team 24 hours in advance. On occasion a school will ask for the expanded halftime for their homecoming game.
We take it a step further and IF both teams are on the field prior the 15 expiring, we assume that is implied mutual consent to shorten the halftime. We then reset the game clock to 3:00 for the required warmup. In my pre-season meeting with the coaches, I remind them of this and advise that if they want the 'full 15' please let us know and we'll continue the countdown. We've had that protocol for 15+ years without any problems and the number of times a coach has asked for the 'full 15' ,if out early, I could count on one hand ( even if I lose a couple of fingers).
We do the same here in MA. At least in the 3 leagues that our commissioner is responsible for.
-
We do the same here in MA. At least in the 3 leagues that our commissioner is responsible for.
Pretty much the same in NY, 15 minutes (Set on the game clock when both teams leave the field) unless there is notification of an agreed extension to 20minutes. We also abide in resetting the game clock to 3 minutes when both teams have returned to the field, for the mandatory warm-up period. If games are televised, we adjust to fit television requirements, which are reviewed and accepted by both teams and the officials.
-
Most of ours are 28 minutes. I don't mind it. Gives plenty of time to relax and take care of business.
-
NFHS 3-1-6b :Halftime intermission may be increased to a maximum of 20 minutes.
This may give some of you ammo , if you are lobbying for a shorter intermission. Maybe the band will have to omit a couple of songs :) . Request : Let 'em still play 'Louie, Louie'.
Unsure what the NCAA stance is on this, but by working a game clock at several D-III schools, I'm asked to put up 20:00. Often, in a whisper, the white hat will say: "Shut it off at 1:00, we don't want to penalize 8]. ".
IMHO, starting the clock on RFP after OOB would be viable. It has been on the docket several times and has been ran as an experimental rule by some states. If you run an experimental rule, first you need to get NFHS permission , during the season the number of occurrences, after the season poll both coaches and officials. The poll results showed the coaches liked it while the officials didn't because of the need to change timing rules at the 2:00 mark of each half. It's usually a near 50-50 split on the floor, but needing 2/3 support , has failed. I've lobbied hard for it, and now have more ammo as 3-4-7 (offended team can start penalty on snap in the last 2 min. of each half) has been in town since 2017and we seem to be able to handle that.
Treating incomplete passes the same as OOB was experimented with by NCAA several years back. Their experiment appeared to be a failure and was quickly dropped. Manning the game clock, I recall the confusion of starting the clock on RFP after an incomplete 4th down pass.
-
Once AGAIN, Ralph, You nailed it. The shenanigans after a score (& often repeated after the successful try) are apparently universal, although some of the same activities after an unexpected COP (fumble recovery, interception run a close second. 3rd, might be those extra last second instructions, after an anticipated COP (unsuccessful 4th down). Apparently those instructions, assignments can ONLY be discussed and happen AFTER the opponents 4th down fails. A close 4th might be the frequent sideline instructional clinics held during (extended) intermission between periods.
The frequency of dogs running onto the field seems to have improved considerably in recent years, but that seems attributable more likely to local Animal Control than site management attention and/or focus.
I believe the 40 second clock should begin anytime the covering official gives Signal 5.
(Signal 5 is given following a successful Field Goal, Try or Touchdown)
Further, I believe the 40 second clock should start after a Free Kick, a Punt, any scoring kick and possibly a change of possession down as all of these situations would likely speed the game up.
alas, A 25-second RFP should remain following a safety, as some R's require a little extra time to change ends of the field. 8]
I plan to test the waters on this idea for a possible change in 2023?
What do y'all think about that one???
-
I believe we still don't have all the "civilian" PCO's on board the :40 clock now.
Case in point- Week 11 game (final regular season)- I'm the WH.
CO's in our area rarely meet with us because just as the chain crew guys, "we know what we're a' doin'." The PCO never paid one bit of attention to any of our DBS after the play. He waited until the ball was placed on the ground by the U. As the home team was a predominant run team, I'm thinking "ok, we'll live with it". Then when we started having incomplete passes and he was waiting to start when the U placed a new ball down, I think "Man, I've got to do SOMETHING, we'll be here all night". Finally we start getting rain and the U is holding the ball to keep it dry until A gets to the LOS. I finally figure out I'm going to have to blow a RFP every play to get him to run the play clock-which I did.
We have some PCO's that won't run the :25 before a free kick after the RFP.
-
Case in point- Week 11 game (final regular season)- I'm the WH.
CO's in our area rarely meet with us because just as the chain crew guys, "we know what we're a' doin'." The PCO never paid one bit of attention to any of our DBS after the play. He waited until the ball was placed on the ground by the U. As the home team was a predominant run team, I'm thinking "ok, we'll live with it". Then when we started having incomplete passes and he was waiting to start when the U placed a new ball down, I think "Man, I've got to do SOMETHING, we'll be here all night". Finally we start getting rain and the U is holding the ball to keep it dry until A gets to the LOS. I finally figure out I'm going to have to blow a RFP every play to get him to run the play clock-which I did.
We have some PCO's that won't run the :25 before a free kick after the RFP.
IMHO looks like you had an "experienced" play clock operator who is locked in on the old RFP 25 second play clock. In MA the clock operator(s) are officials and part of the pre-game. In almost all games since we have gone to the 25/40 the play clock is kept by the BJ.
-
I believe the 40 second clock should begin anytime the covering official gives Signal 5.
(Signal 5 is given following a successful Field Goal, Try or Touchdown)
Further, I believe the 40 second clock should start after a Free Kick, a Punt, any scoring kick and possibly a change of possession down as all of these situations would likely speed the game up.
alas, A 25-second RFP should remain following a safety, as some R's require a little extra time to change ends of the field. 8]
I plan to test the waters on this idea for a possible change in 2023?
What do y'all think about that one???
I’m strongly opposed to :40 preceding a free kick. It takes a little bit for the teams to change personnel, get lined up, AND for the officials to get into position and make their count.
-
Up here in Maine we never worry 'bout our play clock operator. That's because we know him as mister back judge. Ain't got none of them there fancy gismos on a pole like many of you fellas got, just a ReadyRef for the BJ. When he starts his 'poor man's stopwatch' (countdown) ,some may think he's waving to the chap in the next lobsterboat, but we know he tellin' them critters with the ball to git moving. yEs:
Does this seem to work OK ??? -AYUH
Will schools start to git them there fancy clocks ??? - 'Spect not
Be careful what you wish for...... tR:oLl
-
I’m strongly opposed to :40 preceding a free kick. It takes a little bit for the teams to change personnel, get lined up, AND for the officials to get into position and make their count.
Plus, rule 3-5-7L calls for a one minute intermission between the score and the succeeding kickoff
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Plus, rule 3-5-7L calls for a one minute intermission between the score and the succeeding kickoff
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Good point Calhoun, So, two options to enhance supporting Rule 3-5-7l
a) Play clock operator waits 20 seconds and then starts the 40 to be used*
Or
b) Play clock operator starts the 25 and when it expires starts the 40 to be used*
Or
c) Program a third button that give you 60 seconds on the play clock to be used* (This would be ideal but requires reprograming the play clock and while this may be a ZERO expense with Daktronics don't know about any other brand)
* For a one-minute intermission between the first and second period and the third and fourth periods and following a try, successful field goal, or safety and prior to the succeeding free kick!
Consider adding: After a Free kick, After a punt and after a COP.
For those concerned the white hat can always "pump the sky" when HE/SHE deems necessary
If you ever record the delays after kickoffs they are sometimes are pushing 1:30 to 2:00 (Our observers do this)
Hustling them up with the play clock would help pick up the game without changing any rules
For those concerned the white hat can always "pump the sky" when HE/SHE deems necessary to reset the running play clock to 25
This might be a grand experimental rule for a state like West Virginia which is virtually 100% on play clocks on High School Fields!
-
Good point Calhoun, So, two options to enhance supporting Rule 3-5-7l
a) Play clock operator waits 20 seconds and then starts the 40 to be used*
Or
b) Play clock operator starts the 25 and when it expires starts the 40 to be used*
Or
c) Program a third button that give you 60 seconds on the play clock to be used* (This would be ideal but requires reprograming the play clock and while this may be a ZERO expense with Daktronics don't know about any other brand)
* For a one-minute intermission between the first and second period and the third and fourth periods and following a try, successful field goal, or safety and prior to the succeeding free kick!
Consider adding: After a Free kick, After a punt and after a COP.
For those concerned the white hat can always "pump the sky" when HE/SHE deems necessary
If you ever record the delays after kickoffs they are sometimes are pushing 1:30 to 2:00 (Our observers do this)
Hustling them up with the play clock would help pick up the game without changing any rules
For those concerned the white hat can always "pump the sky" when HE/SHE deems necessary to reset the running play clock to 25
This might be a grand experimental rule for a state like West Virginia which is virtually 100% on play clocks on High School Fields!
I wouldn't mess with the rule. 25 is needed after kicks because personnel is changing for both teams. I don't think it would speed the game up that much more to be worth the confusing rule change. The juice is not worth the squeeze here.
-
I wouldn't mess with the rule. 25 is needed after kicks because personnel is changing for both teams. I don't think it would speed the game up that much more to be worth the confusing rule change. The juice is not worth the squeeze here.
I here ya bossman - If they really wanted to shorten the game they need look no further than
a) not stopping the clock on 1st downs, (which would remove two or more exceptions) and/or
b) starting it on the RFP after an incomplete pass!
Either of those squeezes might just be worth it for the juice 8]
-
Whos looking to dramatically shorten, a well managed HIGH SCHOOL/b]football game, and more importantly WHY? It would be interesting to actually know how many States have total compliance with electronic/visible play clocks, compared to how many are equipped with +- 25%, or fewer.
Table 3-1 indicates "Intermission Between Periods - 1 minute" which I presume includes retrieving the football, gathering each team to make personnel adjustments and/or last minute planning changes to get teams ready. Officials have responsibilities to attend to getting things (chain crews) ready and set. A simple audible signal (RFP whistle) at 25 seconds has provided appropriate warning of the diminishing time left, to everyone, BEFORE reaching "the Game is Delayed".
If there is an unusual cause of delay, the Referee can be alerted and delay, or interrupt, his RFP depending on the nature of the interruption and act accordingly to that specific issue.
AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL, which experiences somewhat more common and unexpected confusion in most aspects, focus on specific issues and directed flexible management control (by game officials)seems a far more practical and direct route to avoiding repetitive "excessive delays" that may well be largely location specific, than universal technical adjustments that may NEVER be fully implemented, or accounted for, although they work well at higher levels.
One size STILL never fits all.
-
Where it seems that length of games is a hot topic, I dug back into my notes to see how many changes have been made on my watch.....
KEY : + lengthened game, - shortened game, Y/N how I voted, OTO officials time out
1993 : 3-1-1 mercy rule to allow states to have running time ---- Y
1994 : 3-5-7h heat/ humidity OTO/ safety ++ Y
1996 : 3-3-3c IW gives untimed down + Y
3-4-3b,c clock starts on snap after COP +++ Y
2004 :3-1-4 state's choice on weather delay + Y
2005 :3-3-4 no untimed down if loss of down - N
2008 :3-5-1 no carryover TOs into OT- Y
2009 : 9-8-1g Coach=USC if late for 3 min. warmup - Y
2010 : 3-1-2 TIPS suggested for mercy rule - Y
3-2-2 no capts. needed prior to 2nd half - Y
2012 : 3-5-3 player losing hat must leave OTO/safety + Y
2017 : 3--4-7 penalty w/I 2 min can start on snap + N
2019 : 3-6-1 added 40 sec. play clock ?? N
Some of you may feel I'm all wet on all, some mostly wet, some only a little wet. I'd enjoy ( ??? maybe) hearing your opinions…..
pi1eOn ^good ^no :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: pi1eOn
-
Where it seems that length of games is a hot topic, I dug back into my notes to see how many changes have been made on my watch.....KEY : + lengthened game, - shortened game, Y/N how I voted,
Some of you may feel I'm all wet on all, some mostly wet, some only a little wet. I'd enjoy ( ??? maybe) hearing your opinions…..
Actually, your record suggests you've managed to stay pretty dry, and likely warm, on those often chilly & likely damp NE Fall evenings. It would seem that many of those rule adjustments left differing amounts of field Official's managerial discretion allowance to fit/address unique/unusual/site or circumstance situations.
Precise perfection is a laudable objective, but as V. Lombardy advised, "PERFECTION is NOT attainable, but if we chase perfection we can (may) catch excellence", which will hopefully be within our grasp.
-
Honestly, what I'd like to see is a much shorter JV game before the varsity game. We adopt our own timing rules like winding the clock on a COP when the ball is inbounds, but that doesn't do much. When I started... 27 years ago... there was a Varsity crew, JV crew and a freshman crew. Frosh and JV played on Thursday and Varsity played on Friday or Saturday. A move to the North Bay.. Crab Cake City.. and JV and Varsity play on Fridays with the Varsity game starting 30 minutes after the JV game.. 5 man crew does both games, 15 minute halves, unless homecoming, and we rarely leave the field before 10:00. Then it's off to the nearest Crabblebees and I'm usually home by Midnight... We're 40 guys short. We have first year guys doing Varsity games. Youth football actually pays more but I'd rather 3 putt then work youth. Got to work State with some great officials from Sacramento. Last season they worked 4 man across the board and they have some huge programs over there. Something has to change... We do have some new guys and girls who are getting better but they don't have the 4 or 5 years of lower level games you need to be a decent varsity official. Many get discouraged and are one and done. Even sadder state is basketball. I went to a meeting last month and I was the youngest guy there and I'm pushing 60... I don't know if any rules can help the crisis of lack of officials but I would try to remind the rules committee that everything they pass needs to keep that in mind.
-
I don't know if any rules can help the crisis of lack of officials but I would try to remind the rules committee that everything they pass needs to keep that in mind.
aWaRd :bOW
-
I don't know if any rules can help the crisis of lack of officials but I would try to remind the rules committee that everything they pass needs to keep that in mind.
aWaRd :bOW
I rule or law that might help is to post the fields with : NO FIREARMS, ALCHOL, OR CELLPHONES P_S.
In daze of yesteryear, bad calls might be chatted about briefly around the pickle barrel . Today ,half of the frenzied masses will have shown the bad call to the other half via their cellphones. A new official needs a much thicker skin.
\
-
I would not be in favor of using the 40 before a free kick, but maybe a POE on starting the 1:00 clock as soon as the try ends? And hitting the RFP at the end of the 1:00? Crews could do more to speed this part up.
The 40 would be great after punts or other changes of possession. There's no reason a team can't get out fast enough -- I watch them do it every Saturday. Will some teams struggle at first? Yes. Will they adjust? Also, yes.
-
I rule or law that might help is to post the fields with : NO FIREARMS, ALCHOL, OR CELLPHONES P_S.
In daze of yesteryear, bad calls might be chatted about briefly around the pickle barrel . Today ,half of the frenzied masses will have shown the bad call to the other half via their cellphones. A new official needs a much thicker skin.
\
Actually, we may not be experiencing significant growth in really STUPID people, but it's obvious we have a LOT MORE otherwise rational, normal people willing to pay added attention to REALLY STUPID people.