RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: bossman72 on December 02, 2024, 11:54:49 PM
-
https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/nfhs-sport-questionnaires
-
I answered it. It's a shame there is not an option to abolish illegal participation. IP is asinine, because it is unclear what the foul is trying to prevent. In other levels, acts that would trigger an illegal participation penalties at the NFHS level would result in a loss of down (illegal touching of a forward pass by an A player who went out during the down and came back without being forced out, or not immediately), illegal substiution (being on the field as the snap as an extra player and remaining in the play), or an unfair act (entering the game during the play and making a tackle).
-
https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/nfhs-sport-questionnaires
All YES answers from me when I received the survey last week.
-
There is a question on reducing IP from 15 to 5. Last year there was a proposal simular to Ilyazhito's proposal that recieved a majority but not a super majority (67%) to pass. It carried a long list of rule changes to comply and, after the debacle on Rule 10 the previous year, wanted the complexity involved. I expect it will be back again.
-
All No's for me. If I wanted to work NCAA I would. NFHS isn't NCAA, why just parrot their rules?
-
All No's for me. If I wanted to work NCAA I would. NFHS isn't NCAA, why just parrot their rules?
THIS!!!! DEAR GOD THIS!!!!!!! A-FARKING-MEN!!!!!!
-
There is a question on reducing IP from 15 to 5. Last year there was a proposal simular to Ilyazhito's proposal that recieved a majority but not a super majority (67%) to pass. It carried a long list of rule changes to comply and, after the debacle on Rule 10 the previous year, wanted the complexity involved. I expect it will be back again.
For an accidental step out and continue play to be a 15 yard penalty is outragous.
THE PENALTY DOES NOT FIT THE CRIME!!!!
Please, please, please rewrite Case Book play for Rule 6.1.9 situation C (b). This has caused Fed rules to be like NCAA when misinterperated as Redding does.
The kicker causes this to be oob becase R who has one foot on the sideline reaches through the plane of the sideline (TO THE OOB SIDE ) and causes the ball to be oob. Reaching for a ball that is still in bounds (while the player is oob) should not be interpreted as the kicker causing the ball to be oob.
-
For an accidental step out and continue play to be a 15 yard penalty is outragous.
THE PENALTY DOES NOT FIT THE CRIME!!!!
Please, please, please rewrite Case Book play for Rule 6.1.9 situation C (b). This has caused Fed rules to be like NCAA when misinterperated as Redding does.
The kicker causes this to be oob becase R who has one foot on the sideline reaches through the plane of the sideline (TO THE OOB SIDE ) and causes the ball to be oob. Reaching for a ball that is still in bounds (while the player is oob) should not be interpreted as the kicker causing the ball to be oob.
We actually had this happen in a game this season, and I got in quite the kerfluffle with our rules interpreter.
I cited the rule and case book play about players "intentionally" reaching in to touch the ball while out of bounds after a head coach literally yelled at one of his players to do just that, and they did.
He tried to make the case that we should ignore that rule since "it was hard to determine intent."
I may have burned a bridge when I asked him publically what other rules in the rulebook we should ignore.
I make the case every year at this time: The more exceptions you make, the more changes, the more variations and exceptions to rules, the more cumbersome the rulebook becomes, and the more enforcement and officiating errors result.
Less is more. Simple is better than complex. Adopting NCAA rules willy-nilly is a loser. As another official said: "If I wanted to officiate NCAA, I'd do it."
-
We/I have a proposal in to treat OOB R touching a free kick that is still inbounds as merely R's ball at that spot. When we tweaked 6-1-9 back in 2000, that was the intent and was supported by case play & illustration for several years. This has always been my interpretation as I proposed the change back then.
-
We/I have a proposal in to treat OOB R touching a free kick that is still inbounds as merely R's ball at that spot. When we tweaked 6-1-9 back in 2000, that was the intent and was supported by case play & illustration for several years. This has always been my interpretation as I proposed the change back then.
As it should be. There’s no way a player should be allowed to create a foul.
-
As it should be. There’s no way a player should be allowed to create a foul.
Agreed. And I did agree with our interpreter that we run into trouble whenever we're asked to judge intent.
-
We/I have a proposal in to treat OOB R touching a free kick that is still inbounds as merely R's ball at that spot. When we tweaked 6-1-9 back in 2000, that was the intent and was supported by case play & illustration for several years. This has always been my interpretation as I proposed the change back then.
:thumbup :bOW :thumbup :bOW :thumbup :bOW :thumbup
7-man crew.
-
Obvious onside kick scenario. As the ball is kicked, the outermost R receiver on the restraining line immediately moves just OOB, turns back to the field, and as the ball bounds towards the restraining line and sideline, he falls forward into the field of play, and reaches out and touches the ball just as K gains physical possession of the ball.
Whose ball is it?
(under the new proposal)
-
Obvious onside kick scenario. As the ball is kicked, the outermost R receiver on the restraining line immediately moves just OOB, turns back to the field, and as the ball bounds towards the restraining line and sideline, he falls forward into the field of play, and reaches out and touches the ball just as K gains physical possession of the ball.
Whose ball is it?
(under the new proposal)
If the kick had traveled 10 yards, it would have been K's ball as R was back in the field of play. If R had touched the ball BEFORE K gained possession and was still OOB, it would be R's ball at that spot. If you ruled R had intentionally gone OOB you woud have IP.
-
If R had touched the ball BEFORE K gained possession and was still OOB, it would be R's ball at that spot.
Would it kick out of bounds foul on K? R gets it +5 from out of bounds spot?
-
Would it kick out of bounds foul on K? R gets it +5 from out of bounds spot?
Not under my interpretation. The kick was still inbounds when touched by OOB R.
-
Not under my interpretation. The kick was still inbounds when touched by OOB R.
But that's my point - R can gain possession simply by touching the loose ball, whereas K has to physically gain possession of the ball that has gone 11 yards (and therefore K can legally recover)?
That doesn't seem right. If I were a coach, in obvious onside kick situations I'm immediately having a kid step right out of bounds in anticipation of falling back to the field of play (feet still OOB) to try to touch the ball as it skims past before K can recover.
-
But that's my point - R can gain possession simply by touching the loose ball, whereas K has to physically gain possession of the ball that has gone 11 yards (and therefore K can legally recover)?
That doesn't seem right. If I were a coach, in obvious onside kick situations I'm immediately having a kid step right out of bounds in anticipation of falling back to the field of play (feet still OOB) to try to touch the ball as it skims past before K can recover.
And if I see a player intentionally go out of bounds with the intent of intentionally intending to influence the play, that's still a 15 yard illegal participation foul. Ralph mentioned that too.
This scenario would only apply to a player accidentally touching the sideline while trying to gain possession of the loose ball.
-
:thumbup