RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Ralph Damren on October 25, 2023, 12:00:02 PM
-
I've submitted the following two rule change proposals and would like you opinions, both negitive and positive, on these. This will provide me with fire power or prepare for at our rules meeting...........
(1) 6-1-10 : If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines touched inbounds by R, OR IS TOUCHED BY OUT OF BOUNDS R WHILE THE KICK IS IN OR ABOVE THE FIELD OF PLAY,the ball is put in play by R at the inbounds spot.
(2) 7-5-10 : It is forward pass interference if any player of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with an opponent's opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass. IF THE FOUL IS ON B A FIRST DOWN IS AWARDED.
(Capital letters = additions to current rule)
HAVE AT IT .......... tR:oLl :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
hEaDbAnG yEs: pi1eOn :!# ^flag 8] ??? LOL
-
I would be overjoyed and extremely satisfied if the rules committee would just focus on fixing rule 10.
-
I like defensive Pass Interference as a Spot Foul and awarded 1st down with a maximum yardage penalty of 15 yards.
This may entice officials to call P.I. when it happens on those short button hooks and slants when the official doesn't think it warrants a full 15 yards.
-
I've submitted the following two rule change proposals and would like you opinions, both negitive and positive, on these. This will provide me with fire power or prepare for at our rules meeting...........
(1) 6-1-10 : If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines touched inbounds by R, OR IS TOUCHED BY OUT OF BOUNDS R WHILE THE KICK IS IN OR ABOVE THE FIELD OF PLAY,the ball is put in play by R at the inbounds spot.
(2) 7-5-10 : It is forward pass interference if any player of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with an opponent's opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass. IF THE FOUL IS ON B A FIRST DOWN IS AWARDED.
(Capital letters = additions to current rule)
HAVE AT IT .......... tR:oLl :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
hEaDbAnG yEs: pi1eOn :!# ^flag 8] ??? LOL
(1) is unnecessarily wordy IMO. And I don't see where too many high school players would go out of bounds and then reach back into the field to touch a free kick. Yes, it could happen, but it should be rare.
Instead, I would adopt the following language:
"If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines untouched by an inbounds player of Team R, it is a foul."
(2) I support a 1st down for DPI wholeheartedly.
(3) To add to your changes, my personal pet peeve with the high school rules is flagging a receiver who accidentally goes out of bounds and returns inbounds with an Illegal Participation foul. That penalty is just all out of proportion to the offense. It makes no sense to me. I would prefer that you adopt the college rule of a loss of down if a receiver goes out on his own, comes back in and is the first to touch a pass.
-
I would be overjoyed and extremely satisfied if the rules committee would just focus on fixing rule 10.
I expect much work to be made on Rule 10, I also expect the Patriots to win more than two games :).
-
I like defensive Pass Interference as a Spot Foul and awarded 1st down with a maximum yardage penalty of 15 yards.
This may entice officials to call P.I. when it happens on those short button hooks and slants when the official doesn't think it warrants a full 15 yards.
One of our goals is to make changes simple and not add to the complexity of the rule.I feel a simple "..add auto 1st down" is enough of a request for this. year.
-
(1) is unnecessarily wordy IMO. And I don't see where too many high school players would go out of bounds and then reach back into the field to touch a free kick. Yes, it could happen, but it should be rare.
Instead, I would adopt the following language:
"If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines untouched by an inbounds player of Team R, it is a foul."
(2) I support a 1st down for DPI wholeheartedly.
(3) To add to your changes, my personal pet peeve with the high school rules is flagging a receiver who accidentally goes out of bounds and returns inbounds with an Illegal Participation foul. That penalty is just all out of proportion to the offense. It makes no sense to me. I would prefer that you adopt the college rule of a loss of down if a receiver goes out on his own, comes back in and is the first to touch a pass.
Where I tried to add on to 6-1-10 in lieu of rewriting it, Ilike your rewritten version better. PROBLEM : My rocket is already in the air (already emailed in) I'll keep your suggestion offer it to Editorial if it passes.. A concern is your proposal could be argued not to cover airborne kics caught by R while straddling the sideline.
-
I've submitted the following two rule change proposals and would like you opinions, both negitive and positive, on these. This will provide me with fire power or prepare for at our rules meeting...........
(1) 6-1-10 : If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines touched inbounds by R, OR IS TOUCHED BY OUT OF BOUNDS R WHILE THE KICK IS IN OR ABOVE THE FIELD OF PLAY,the ball is put in play by R at the inbounds spot.
(2) 7-5-10 : It is forward pass interference if any player of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with an opponent's opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass. IF THE FOUL IS ON B A FIRST DOWN IS AWARDED.
(Capital letters = additions to current rule)
HAVE AT IT .......... tR:oLl :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
hEaDbAnG yEs: pi1eOn :!# ^flag 8] ??? LOL
Is (1) specifically to do away with R player hopping out of bounds and touching the inbounds ball? If so, I like it - doesn't happen often but it's kind of a chicken little move.... Seems like it's an exploitation of regular out of bounds rules.
-
Is (1) specifically to do away with R player hopping out of bounds and touching the inbounds ball? If so, I like it - doesn't happen often but it's kind of a chicken little move.... Seems like it's an exploitation of regular out of bounds rules.
Yes, K didn't kick the ball OOB, R caused it to be OOB by rule.
-
Instead, I would adopt the following language:
"If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines untouched by an inbounds player of Team R, it is a foul."
The problem with that is FED has compounded case book plays and dumb IP rules, so Ralph's proposal works to fix the rule the way FED wants it called.
FED doesn't want the play where the ball is rolling in bounds and the returner puts one foot on the sideline and touches the ball to get a cheap KOB foul.
Case book 6.1.9C seems to only want to call KOB when the ball is over OOB territory when touched.
Case book 9.6.2C wants this play as IP, but it's unclear if they want it to offset with KOB.
Ralph's proposal eliminates the confusion and gets rid of that dumb IP rule.
Here's a similar one I've proposed:
Art 9 … A free kick shall not be kicked out of bounds between the goal lines untouched inbounds by R. It is only a foul if the ball becomes out of bounds while on or above out of bounds territory. If it is kicked out of bounds and R does not accept a penalty for kick-catch interference on the same kick as in 6-5-4, R has the following choices: …
-
I agree with both proposals.
-
The problem with that is FED has compounded case book plays and dumb IP rules, so Ralph's proposal works to fix the rule the way FED wants it called.
FED doesn't want the play where the ball is rolling in bounds and the returner puts one foot on the sideline and touches the ball to get a cheap KOB foul.
Case book 6.1.9C seems to only want to call KOB when the ball is over OOB territory when touched.
Case book 9.6.2C wants this play as IP, but it's unclear if they want it to offset with KOB.
Ralph's proposal eliminates the confusion and gets rid of that dumb IP rule.
Here's a similar one I've proposed:
Art 9 … A free kick shall not be kicked out of bounds between the goal lines untouched inbounds by R. It is only a foul if the ball becomes out of bounds while on or above out of bounds territory. If it is kicked out of bounds and R does not accept a penalty for kick-catch interference on the same kick as in 6-5-4, R has the following choices: …
Thanks, Bossman, for your support. This will give rule support to to the interp that we Mainers have used since the rule change since 200 and the debates we've had on this forum over theyears.
-
I agree with both proposals.
Thanks, ilyazito, I agree with your agreeing. :)
-
(1) I don’t think I’ve ever had this happen, but I’m 99% sure that if I did, I’d “forget” both the KOB and IP considerations and just give the ball to R at the OOB spot.
(2) When AFD was dropped as part of the penalty for DPI, I was dead set against it, as I thought it would lead to abuse by defenses in goal-to-go situations. That hasn’t happened. Also, in most cases, the 15-yard penalty is enough to give A a new series anyway.
That said, I’d vote for it since it would lessen the arguments with coaches who think it’s still part of the penalty.
-
(1) I don’t think I’ve ever had this happen, but I’m 99% sure that if I did, I’d “forget” both the KOB and IP considerations and just give the ball to R at the OOB spot.
(2) When AFD was dropped as part of the penalty for DPI, I was dead set against it, as I thought it would lead to abuse by defenses in goal-to-go situations. That hasn’t happened. Also, in most cases, the 15-yard penalty is enough to give A a new series anyway.
That said, I’d vote for it since it would lessen the arguments with coaches who think it’s still part of the penalty.
Thanks, 'Bama, #1 was our goal when rule was changed in 2000, hopefully now it is clairfied. #2 came from a state championship game last Fall. 4/goal -pass in EZ where A had B beaten, B tackled A to prevent TD - 4/goal after short penalty failed. Several coaches at game thought it was a great idea to teach their D-backs.I believe all other codes have AFD on DPI, why be the lone wolf.
-
1. Yes. Really good officials cannot agree on what the current rule means. Simple clarification is needed.
2. Sure. I too did not like it when the AFD was dropped, but it has be OK, most of the time. Near the goalline is problematic, as in you state finals example. I too like the college rule, AFD at the spot of the foul with a maximum of 15 yards.
3. Possibly no one understands or uses the multiple basic spots and exceptions in the new rule 10. It is so complicated I have no idea how new officials ever memorize all that or how to teach it to them. I still use the all-but-one-principle and know the few exceptions to it. Maybe everyone does.
KISS, fewer words are always better.
-
1. Yes. Really good officials cannot agree on what the current rule means. Simple clarification is needed.
2. Sure. I too did not like it when the AFD was dropped, but it has be OK, most of the time. Near the goalline is problematic, as in you state finals example. I too like the college rule, AFD at the spot of the foul with a maximum of 15 yards.
3. Possibly no one understands or uses the multiple basic spots and exceptions in the new rule 10. It is so complicated I have no idea how new officials ever memorize all that or how to teach it to them. I still use the all-but-one-principle and know the few exceptions to it. Maybe everyone does.
KISS, fewer words are always better.
Thanks, Jeff, for the support on this. Responding to your #3, I stressed to our guys the 3 things they have to know:
(1) Fouls behind the LOS by A = previous spot.
(2) Foulsby B when play ends behind the LOS =previous spot.
(3) 'ball fouls' - ill. pass,kick,bat -=spot fouls.
-
Thanks, Bossman, for your support. This will give rule support to to the interp that we Mainers have used since the rule change since 200 and the debates we've had on this forum over theyears.
Ralph (or anyone else), have you had any issues with the nfhs.org website form to submit rule changes? I tried punching them in last night and this morning and I'm getting an error on the website after I hit submit.
https://www.nfhs.org/RuleChangeProposal
-
Ralph (or anyone else), have you had any issues with the nfhs.org website form to submit rule changes? I tried punching them in last night and this morning and I'm getting an error on the website after I hit submit.
https://www.nfhs.org/RuleChangeProposal
Yes, I got the error message and called NFHS. They told me that the error message was in error and they had my proposal.
-
Yes, I got the error message and called NFHS. They told me that the error message was in error and they had my proposal.
Ok. So they are actually going through then?
-
Ok. So they are actually going through then?
Ayuh, 'spect so yEs:
-
Being a long time official that is very big on definitions and proper penalty enforcement I am mostly baffled by current rule 10 stuff. It seems that the term "basic spot" is now used interchangeably (most of the time) with "enforcement spot". I remember fondly, when the "basic spot" was a step along the way to determine the "enforcement spot" for live ball fouls that occurred during the down (3 & 1). I do find the new 10-4 Table helpful in sorting it out. But, I think it would be perfectly clear and less confusing if the Column Heading of "Basic Spot" was just changed to "Enforcement Spot". Then the term "basic spot" could be entirely deleted from the Rules Book and we could just focus on learning the "Enforcement Spot" for the various situations. Isn't "basic spot" now a historical term and no longer relevant?
-
Ralph, I like to see 2 propose rules changes in 2024. I like to see personal fouls & unsportmanlike fouls by B automatic 1st down for A. exception on 4th down If doesn't get 1st after the down has ended for A. If we have a dead ball personal by B. mark of the penalty set the chains for B. 1st & 10 for B. I do like the college DPI spot of foul with a maximum of 15 yards. Automatic 1st down.
-
Ralph, I'm assuming they're going to fix rule 10, so would it be worth putting a proposal in to fix it?
-
Ralph, I like to see 2 propose rules changes in 2024. I like to see personal fouls & unsportmanlike fouls by B automatic 1st down for A. exception on 4th down If doesn't get 1st after the down has ended for A. If we have a dead ball personal by B. mark of the penalty set the chains for B. 1st & 10 for B. I do like the college DPI spot of foul with a maximum of 15 yards. Automatic 1st down.
AFD on B's PFs & USCs has been on the docket several times with little support. NFHS goal is to keep an even balance between O & D. NFL goal is to sell more tickets, NCAA goal is to gain more $$ alumni support.
Our goal is to try to keep the rules as simple as possible. NCAA is too complex for us.
-
Ralph, I'm assuming they're going to fix rule 10, so would it be worth putting a proposal in to fix it?
As I understand, there's a lobster crate (ole' Mainer saying) of proposals aimed at that. I'll certainly voice my opinion on those,but will let others do the ground work.
-
(1) Fouls behind the LOS by A = previous spot.
(2) Foulsby B when play ends behind the LOS =previous spot.
(3) 'ball fouls' - ill. pass,kick,bat -=spot fouls.
Yet Illegal Touching behind the NZ (a “ball foul”) is a previous spot enforcement, oddly enough.
-
Ralph,
For ALL sets of rules, I want a rule change that awards a touchdown to the opponent when anybody except a squad member in uniform sets foot within 6 feet of the sideline any time - ANY TIME - following the coin toss, without express visual authorization by a game official, which is only to be given to attend to injuries or player control. Lose a few games because you can’t stay off the field just might convince a guy to stay off the frickin’ field - and keep at least 6’ back.
Think that might get passed by anybody?
-
Ralph,
For ALL sets of rules, I want a rule change that awards a touchdown to the opponent when anybody except a squad member in uniform sets foot within 6 feet of the sideline any time - ANY TIME - following the coin toss, without express visual authorization by a game official, which is only to be given to attend to injuries or player control. Lose a few games because you can’t stay off the field just might convince a guy to stay off the frickin’ field - and keep at least 6’ back.
Think that might get passed by anybody?
I like it!
-
My suggestion would be a doggie zap collar be worn by the head coaches. The BJ would hold the remote and 'remind' coaches that were overstepping their boundries. A 3 foot deep moat could be dug around the entire field and stocked with your state's most notable reptile or crustacean. For Maine, an unbanded lobster; for Texas a rattlesnake. Planks would be supplied for those that needed to enter the playing field. Clearance from the ASPCA to insure said creatures were properly fed. :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
-
Ralph, the reason I like to see the personal fouls & unsportmanlike conduct fouls automatic 1st down. Is almost every personal foul called results in 1st down anyway.
-
That makes sense. If the defense commits USC or a personal foul, there would be an immediate consequence (giving a new series to A).
-
The rebuttal to that is....then LOD should occur if same fouls by A (I realize that's apples and clam shells, as LOD is always LOD). As Ted mentioned, usually the 15 yards creates a 1st down. Unlike DPI, I can't see how B could gain such as a beaten D-back tackling a reciever to prevent a TD.
-
I don't see any need for the NFHS to change their position on fouls that also carry an automatic 1st down in the penalty. As has been noted before all four of those fouls are based specifically on players who are in serious at risk situations and deserve the protection that they should not be hit when in those positions. Simple and very valid rationale. I see no need to change that. If the line to gain is so far away that a 15 yard penalty does not result in a 1st down then IMHO that's on the offense and I see no need to fix it.
-
I am still hoping that an accidental step out of bounds by A would be less harsh than the 15 yard penalty for illegal participation.
I have never understood the rationale behind that foul. Therefore, I can honestly admit that I have not and will not have a flag on such a play.
-
In NCAA, the receiver who steps OOB becomes ineligible to catch a forward pass (but can catch the pass if it is deflected by B or an official). The receiver does not lose eligibility if he was forced out. The consequence for an ineligible out-of-bounds player touching the pass is loss of down at the previous spot, or de facto an incomplete pass.
On a kick, a player of the kicking team also cannot go out of bounds and return, unless he was forced out. This is presumably to avoid a player hiding out of bounds and re-appearing to make a tackle. The penalty is 5 yards from the previous spot, or a 5-yard penalty from the succeeeding spot, at the option of the receiving team.
NFHS could easily borrow these rules from NCAA whithout compromising the integrity of NFHS football.
-
In NCAA, the receiver who steps OOB becomes ineligible to catch a forward pass (but can catch the pass if it is deflected by B or an official). The receiver does not lose eligibility if he was forced out. The consequence for an ineligible out-of-bounds player touching the pass is loss of down at the previous spot, or de facto an incomplete pass.
On a kick, a player of the kicking team also cannot go out of bounds and return, unless he was forced out. This is presumably to avoid a player hiding out of bounds and re-appearing to make a tackle. The penalty is 5 yards from the previous spot, or a 5-yard penalty from the succeeeding spot, at the option of the receiving team.
NFHS could easily borrow these rules from NCAA whithout compromising the integrity of NFHS football.
I vote for this. I agree with IA-Ref. 15yds for stepping out is too egregious. I’m in favor of a no harm no foul approach to this.
-
In NCAA, the receiver who steps OOB becomes ineligible to catch a forward pass (but can catch the pass if it is deflected by B or an official). The receiver does not lose eligibility if he was forced out. The consequence for an ineligible out-of-bounds player touching the pass is loss of down at the previous spot, or de facto an incomplete pass.
On a kick, a player of the kicking team also cannot go out of bounds and return, unless he was forced out. This is presumably to avoid a player hiding out of bounds and re-appearing to make a tackle. The penalty is 5 yards from the previous spot, or a 5-yard penalty from the succeeeding spot, at the option of the receiving team.
NFHS could easily borrow these rules from NCAA whithout compromising the integrity of NFHS football.
Here's an IP rule revamp that I've written but never submitted. It breaks down the scenarios where we actually want it called and not have this generic "catch all" of going out of bounds and participating, which is super vague and up to interpretation.
9-6
ART. 1 . . . Prior to a change of possession, or when there is no change of possession, During a scrimmage kick or free kick down, no player of A or K shall go out of bounds and return to the field during the down unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent. If a player is blocked out of bounds by an opponent and returns to the field during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity.
ART. 2 … No player of Team A shall go out of bounds and return to the field and touch a legal forward pass prior to the ball touching a Team B player, unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent. If a player is blocked out of bounds by an opponent and returns to the field during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity.
ART. 2 . . . No player shall intentionally go out of bounds during the down and: (a) Return to the field; (b) Intentionally touch the ball; (c) Influence the play; or (d) Otherwise participate.
ART. 3 … No player of A or B shall intentionally go out of bounds with the obvious intent of avoiding blockers to pursue the runner of the opposing team. If a player is blocked out of bounds by an opponent and returns to the field during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity.
Art. 3 ART. 4 … No replaced player or substitute, coach, athletic trainer, or other attendant shall hinder an opponent, touch the ball, influence the play or otherwise participate.
Art. 4 ART. 5 … It is illegal participation: … (etc)
PENALTY: Illegal participation (Arts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, g [live-ball, basic spot]) (S28, S27) - (Arts 5b-f [live-ball, previous spot]) - (S28, S27) - 15 yards. (Arts. 1, 3 [live-ball, basic spot]) – (S28) – 5 yards. (Art. 2 [live-ball, basic spot]) – (S28, S9) – 5 yards, loss of down.
-
Bossman - I would encourage you to submit it this year. (Deadline is NOVEMBER 1)
There have been variations submitted in recent years so it is moving albeit slowly.
I know one of the concerns was who is watching this without an F or an S.
A (somewhat smartazz) response was "the same people that are seeing it today!"
The re-establishment of an OOB player to return inbounds passed last year step one of the master plan.
What I am saying is my old Chrystal ball is starting to think we may see some movement?
-
Bossman - I would encourage you to submit it this year. (Deadline is NOVEMBER 1)
There have been variations submitted in recent years so it is moving albeit slowly.
I know one of the concerns was who is watching this without an F or an S.
A (somewhat smartazz) response was "the same people that are seeing it today!"
The re-establishment of an OOB player to return inbounds passed last year step one of the master plan.
What I am saying is my old Chrystal ball is starting to think we may see some movement?
Thanks Kevin. I already submitted a few changes to our state rep, so I don't want to bombard him with more changes from me.
Would you or Ralph be willing to let me be your ghostwriter and either of you submit this one?
-
Bossman - I have on good authority your proposal (almost verbatim) is being submitted by a Rules Committee Rep from the island of Oahu
FYI - I am submitting relocating knee pads (and pants covering the knee) from mandatory equipment to auxiliary equipment. hEaDbAnG
-
Bossman - I would encourage you to submit it this year. (Deadline is NOVEMBER 1)
There have been variations submitted in recent years so it is moving albeit slowly.
I know one of the concerns was who is watching this without an F or an S.
A (somewhat smartazz) response was "the same people that are seeing it today!"
The re-establishment of an OOB player to return inbounds passed last year step one of the master plan.
What I am saying is my old Chrystal ball is starting to think we may see some movement?
I would fully support ^TD a blocked PAT kick staying alive for K as a botched snap from SKF would stay alive. Regrettably , I would not support a COP on a PAT ^no remaining alive.
My rationale :
(1) The PAT is an award for scoring a ^good and, like a penalty shot in hockey or a penalty kick in soccer, only the awarded team should be able to score.
(2) The complex case of fouls after COP on PAT is beyond our pay grade :!# :o ??? ::)
(3) As a 78 year old white hat :-[ , chasing kids 90 yards after a botched PAT :puke: and then returning 100 yards for the free kick :puke: is a selfish reason. tR:oLl
This does not mean that, KWH, that we can't still partake of Koolaide from the still while in Windy Indy. eAt&
-
Bossman - I have on good authority your proposal (almost verbatim) is being submitted by a Rules Committee Rep from the island of Oahu
FYI - I am submitting relocating knee pads (and pants covering the knee) from mandatory equipment to auxiliary equipment. hEaDbAnG
Thank you, and excellent suggestion yourself!