RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Ralph Damren on December 25, 2025, 08:55:16 AM
-
Would like your opinions on the following.....
(1) R protected on juggled fair catch untile he secures.
(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch.
(3) B or R can score on a PAT
(4) Leaping to block kick = ^flag
(5) No 5-yard facemask foul
(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups
(7) Remove knee pad requirements
(8) head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.)
(9) can wear sweatbands anywhere
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards ^flag
(11) Feet-first slide kills play
(12) 2 DB/PFs = :thumbup
(13) Full yardage on ^flag all the way down to 1
Would welcome and respect your opinions on these. Often some of your responses I can use to support my opinion. THANKS
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: tiphat:
-
I absolutely love 7(knee pads)and 13(full yardage to the 1).
Knee pads don’t exist anymore anyway. They are about the size and effectiveness of a saltine cracker. The barn doors are permanently closed on that one.
And I’m sure there was some logical rationale on the half the distance thing many generations ago but it seems gimmicky to me to penalize a team less than they would be penalized further upfield.
-
Thanks, Joe, for your prompt response. It seems that failure of higher levels to enforce their knee-pad rule has trickled down to our level in many areas. The full penalty enforcement was the norm until 1959 in NFHS. When we carved auto. 1st down out of DPI, I felt this could open up intentional fouls by B -if beaten - with ball inside their 30 and half the distance. The potential of moving the ball all the way to their one would probably stop that.
-
(1) R protected on juggled fair catch untile he secures.
No. I think this adds unnecessary complexity to the rule. NCAA has this and I don't particularly care for it.
(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch.
Yes. NCAA has this and it's great. This can lead to getting rid of the "get away" signal by interpretation if that's something NFHS wants to get rid of.
(3) B or R can score on a PAT
No. This is unnecessarily complex for NFHS. Check out the penalty enforcement section in NCAA for tries and overtime. If the NFHS can't write simple Rule 10 stuff for fouls behind the LOS, imagine how royally they'll screw this up. This would take a minimum 6 years of revisions for the brainiacs on the editorial committee to get it 80% right.
(4) Leaping to block kick = ^flag
Indifferent. I'm assuming the foul would be for landing on a K player. Leaning towards No because the way the rule is written could lead to ticky-tack fouls that shouldn't be fouls.
(5) No 5-yard facemask foul
Yes. Everything 15.
(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups
No. What's the point?
(7) Remove knee pad requirements
Yes. NCAA used to have "it's RECOMMENDED that the knee pads cover the knee" in the rulebook which was great. But, that also leads to players wearing biker shorts. So you'd have to figure out how to balance the two.
(8) head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.)
Indifferent. Probably no as it doesn't seem to be a problem.
(9) can wear sweatbands anywhere
Yes
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards ^flag
Yes. The only difference between 5 and 15 is when officials get their count. Yardage should not be determined by how fast we count. Players coming off the sideline to participate after the ball is snapped is still 15. Edited to add: This would not get rid of the dead ball IS foul. So if you line up with 15 guys on defense, we can still shut it down and penalize 5 yards.
(11) Feet-first slide kills play
Yes, because a sliding QB is already defined as defenseless, so he shouldn't get the extra yardage.
(12) 2 DB/PFs = :thumbup
No. Sometimes late hits happen. Like there's a difference between a late hit out of bounds on the sideline and a slap to the head after the play. I would support using our judgment to convert dead ball UNRs into UNS though.
(13) Full yardage on ^flag all the way down to 1
No. I'm sure there's a reason the old timers put half the distance into the rulebook. No need to change it.
-
Thanks, Bossman, for your thoughtful responses. My only disagreement is #5, removing the 5-yard facemask. While I agree that some flags should be for 15 and not 5, they keep the players from being off the mask. IMHO, football currently gets a black eye for saftey at the HS level and removing this would only add to the concern.
-
Ralph I thought I had this original idea all these years that half the distance was dumb and should go to penalize every yard up to the 1. Didn’t realize it used to be a thing.
-
Would like your opinions on the following.....
(1) R protected on juggled fair catch untile he secures.
Don't think it is necessary
(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch.
again think it is much ado about nothing
(3) B or R can score on a PAT
No, have enough issues in 5 man with only one man on the line. Also too many old white hats have to run, could have a bunch of heart attacks
(4) Leaping to block kick = ^flag
dont think it is necessary
(5) No 5-yard facemask foul
might as well get rid of it. it is never called (at least by our crew)
(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups
as a U it would make my job easier, but in the early season in Phoenix, the kids don't want to be in full uniform and I don't blame them
(7) Remove knee pad requirements
No, in my opinion it is a safety issue and I am strick with it
(8) head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.)
alway don''t allow bandanas hanging out of the helmet in Arizona
(9) can wear sweatbands anywhere
Yes, please
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards ^flag
Not sure how I feel. Lean towards no, if they participate in the play not just didn't get off in time.
(11) Feet-first slide kills play
a player goes down it is already dead
(12) 2 DB/PFs = :thumbup
no we already have the ability to eject a player for playing dirty not just happen to draw two personals
(13) Full yardage on ^flag all the way down to 1
No
Would welcome and respect your opinions on these. Often some of your responses I can use to support my opinion. THANKS
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: tiphat:
-
Would like your opinions on the following.....
(1) R protected on juggled fair catch untile he secures.
(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch.
(3) B or R can score on a PAT
(4) Leaping to block kick = ^flag
(5) No 5-yard facemask foul
(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups
(7) Remove knee pad requirements
(8) head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.)
(9) can wear sweatbands anywhere
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards ^flag
(11) Feet-first slide kills play
(12) 2 DB/PFs = :thumbup
(13) Full yardage on ^flag all the way down to 1
Would welcome and respect your opinions on these. Often some of your responses I can use to support my opinion. THANKS
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: tiphat:
1. OK. have not seen in my area.
2. OK. If play blown dead at that point.
3. NO!!!
4. Present rule is adequate.
5. OK.
6. Why? They are warming up, not playing.
7. May as well. It is not enforced now.
8. What would be the reason to prohibit?
9. OK.
10. Good idea.
11. Present rule is sufficient.
12. No! Can eject now for "intent to injure" fouls.
13. No. Sounds like change for change's sake.
-
Would like your opinions on the following.....
(1) R protected on juggled fair catch untile he secures.
Yes
(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch.
Yes
(3) B or R can score on a PAT
Yes. It's a rare event, but it is exciting when it does happen.
(4) Leaping to block kick = ^flag
The foul should be for leaping and landing on an opponent. If the foul is for that, then yes.
(5) No 5-yard facemask foul
Yes.
(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups
Yes. Officials may not have a chance to inspect equipment during warmups, or time to correct if players disappear and re-appear in their actual game equipment just before kickoff. Appearing in game equipment at warm-ups gives officials the chance to see equipment problems that could be corrected before game time.
(7) Remove knee pad requirements
Yes. If this isn't going to be enforced, why keep dead letter rules in the game?
(8) head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.)
No. What is the purpose of this change?
(9) can wear sweatbands anywhere
Yes. I don't see a safety issue with this'
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards ^flag
Yes. This is usually a substitution error and so should be treated as illegal substitution.
(11) Feet-first slide kills play
Yes. A sliding player is defenseless by rule.
(12) 2 DB/PFs = :thumbup
Yes. This can discourage knucklehead behavior by players after the play is over.
(13) Full yardage on ^flag all the way down to 1
Yes. If NFHS will not restore automatic 1st down on DPI, this is the next best option.
Would welcome and respect your opinions on these. Often some of your responses I can use to support my opinion. THANKS
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: tiphat:
-
(1) R protected on juggled fair catch until he secures.
Nope. Hard to judge and rewards bad play.
(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch.
don't really see the need. but don't care.
(3) B or R can score on a PAT
No. K.I.S.S. Why we need this anyway?
(4) Leaping to block kick = ^flag
No. We already have using another player for leverage. That's enough.
(5) No 5-yard facemask foul
No. Feel a lot will not get called and the message is its OK to be on the mask. Bad idea.
(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups
Penalties happen during games, not before.
(7) Remove knee pad requirements
NO. NFHS will not do this after they did a study showing safer with pads. These bike shorts NCAA allows are a travesty to the game.
(8) head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.)
Indifferent. Probably no as it doesn't seem to be a problem.
(9) can wear sweatbands anywhere
Yes, but not those rubber bands which have no purpose.
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards ^flag
I'm fine with this. If we see 12 and stop it like we should it would be 5 anyway. BUT we don't want to encourage playing with 12 and only getting the same penalty as a substitution either. But doubt many would do that.
(11) Feet-first slide kills play
NO need. Unlike NFL, you are down as soon as anything touches anyway. Just mark it properly.
(12) 2 DB/PFs = :thumbup
No. eject if flagrant. If you want an automatic is has to be higher than 2, I'd say 4
(13) Full yardage on ^flag all the way down to 1
There are some inequities this would fix. Ex 1st and goal @ 1 A false starts. Now 1st and goal @ 6 and B roughs the passer. Then 1st and goal at 3? DUMB. the false start was more costly than the PF. So for that reason I can see some benefit.
-
Would like your opinions on the following.....
(1) R protected on juggled fair catch untile he secures.
No, don’t reward muffing the kick
(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch.
No, five yards seems like an appropriate penalty for this
(3) B or R can score on a PAT
No, stretches a 5 man crew way too far, the game issues it causes isn’t worth it
(4) Leaping to block kick = ^flag
Sure, don’t see this already
(5) No 5-yard facemask foul
No, give us the options
(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups
No, I hope this isn’t seriously considered
(7) Remove knee pad requirements
Ill enforce whatever my betters tell me to enforce
(8) head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.)
Never see it so don’t care
(9) can wear sweatbands anywhere
No, it’s called a uniform for a reason, let’s keep it looking decent
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards ^flag
Sure, as others have said our ability to count and flag presnap shouldn’t affect the yardage of the penalty
(11) Feet-first slide kills play
No, all I see this doing is leading to an increase in shouts for DBPF Late Hits
(12) 2 DB/PFs = :thumbup
No, I would like the ability to upgrade a DBPF only to a UNS to count for ejection
(13) Full yardage on ^flag all the way down to 1
I like it, removes most of the inequity from the half the distance rule. Thinking about the half the distance rule it really doesn’t seem like the best option out of the various options that we could use as a rule.
Would welcome and respect your opinions on these. Often some of your responses I can use to support my opinion.
-
(1) Only while the ball remains within the frame of his body, or some similar wordage - if the ball clearly bounces off R and R has to move to catch it, fair game. I do not want to institute some sort of halo rule.
(2) Sure. I'm not sure I've ever seen an invalid (or illegal) fair catch ever penalized before. The only time I've seen it was in a middle school game that we used as a teaching moment.
(3) I've vote no because high school kicking is already sketchy, and I think this would encourage more teams to never kick. However, I wouldn't be too upset if it changes.
(4) Yes. Jumping over the line is dangerous, even if you *technically* jumped over the A-gap and not a player.
(5) Yes
(6) Absolutely no. There's no way this would be enforced, or enforced consistently.
(7) If it's not being enforced anyway, why not?
(8) No, as long as it's not a potential choking hazard
(9) Sure... willing to hear arguments to keep it as it though.
(10) How about if the offended team has the option of enforcing a live ball IP foul, 5 yards from succeeding spot.
(11) At the start of the slide, he's giving himself up, sure.
(12) No. Two late hits shouldn't be an automatic ejection, but I would support ejection for repeated personal fouls at the officials discretion even if none are individually flagrant.
(13) No. That's a weird suggestion, and fixing a problem that doesn't exist.
-
(1) Yes
(2) Yes, the lack of protection on an invalid FC signal is enough of a penalty, we don’t need the five yards.
(3) God no. I’m generally in favor of most NCAA rules but this is one that is unnecessary in HS. Too many complicated penalty enforcements, not to mention having to run 90+ yards the other way only to come back for the kickoff.
(4) Yes, NFHS just needs to copy and paste the NCAA leaping/leverage rule.
(5) Yes freaking please. The 5-yard foul is antiquated and gives officials a cop out to enforce a less severe penalty even when it should be a PF. If it’s incidental contact without grasping then it just shouldn’t be a foul, plain and simple.
(6) Heck no, we really want to add more uniform rules that won’t get enforced?
(7) Yes, no one wants to wear them properly and officials don’t want to enforce it. I’m not a safetyism kind of official and multiple ATs have told me that knee pads don’t provide the protection that we perceive them to.
(8) No, we do not need or want more fashion police rules.
(9) Yes for the same reason just mentioned.
(10) Yes, and while you’re at it just get rid of IP altogether. All of the IP scenarios can easily be reclassified to IS, illegal touching, or UNS.
(11) Yes, if he’s going to get defenseless player protection then he shouldn’t get the yards after his backside goes down. This is just common sense.
(12) No, instead just allow dead ball contact well after the play to be UNS so we can put a counter on those actions.
(13) Only on DPI (which should also be an AFD) in the end zone.
-
(1) R protected on juggled fair catch until he secures.
No. I think this will create countless judgment calls as to whether the player was juggling the ball or in the act of securing it, and may create more injuries rather than reducing them.
(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch.
No. Same. Creates more opportunities for players to "light up" the receiver and claim they thought the signal was invalid.
(3) B or R can score on a PAT
No. Absolutely agree that this will create editorial nightmare that will take a decade to sort out. There's no need for it. All our players know they can't return a PAT - and my routine is to announce "This is the untimed try for point - only the offense can score on this play" which makes it clear.
(4) Leaping to block kick = ^flag
I'm seeing more of this, so I'm not opposed but if the committee can't recommend a clear, well-defined rule that's easy to administer, vote no.
(5) No 5-yard facemask foul
No. Occasionally there's a clear quick-grab of a facemask that everyone sees (and coaches scream for) that you need to put a 5-yard flag down for. It's rare, but still needed.
(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups
I get what you're going for - allowing umpires to correct equipment problems in pregame rather than on the field - but this just won't work in real life.
(7) Remove knee pad requirements
I hate letting the NCAA-parroting high school players win on this, but like most, I've given up the fight. Will be interesting to see if injuries related to knees and players getting hit by knees increases over the next 5 years.
(8) Head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.)
This is really a rule change in search of a problem. We have no issues with that in our state. (And it's so frikking cold you think we'd see a lot of it!)
(9) Can wear sweatbands anywhere
Indifferenct. I've never heard of a player being injured by a sweatband, so as long as there's no hard surfaces, hey, sure.
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards ^flag
No. While the yardage may be determined by how fast we count, the penalty isn't. It's determined by whether a team puts 12 players on the field or not. If teams run hurry-up and can't count to 12, then sorry coach, you get to count to 15.
(11) Feet-first slide kills play
There's no need for this to be in the rules. As soon as the runner's leg above the ankle hit the ground, the play is dead and that's the spot - where he was holding the ball.
(12) 2 DB/PFs =
No. Agree sometimes things happen. If a player continues to be a problem, the flagrant foul designation allows for ejection. And I don't want to go down the NFL route of mixing up UNRs & UNS's.
(13) Full yardage on a flag all the way down to 1
No. No need to change it.
In fact, I want the committee to NOT change ANY rule unless there's been numerous incidents and there's a demonstrated need to protect player safety or there's clear inequity. Otherwise, the default setting should be: No Rule Change.
-
I am surprised at the number who say that they don't enforce the knee pad rule.
-
(1) R protected on juggled fair catch until he secures. Yes, protected until ball hits ground
(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch. Yes, and ball is dead
(3) B or R can score on a PAT. No
(4) Leaping to block kick. As long as don't land on anyone
(5) No 5-yard facemask foul. Yes
(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups. No
(7) Remove knee pad requirements. No, leave as local decision
(8) head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.). Yes
(9) can wear sweatbands anywhere. Yes
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards. No
(11) Feet-first slide kills play. Yes
(12) 2 DB/PFs. = ejection. No, if judged flagrant per 9-4 we can eject
(13) Full yardage on penalty enforcement all the way down to 1. Only on DPI
-
I am surprised at the number who say that they don't enforce the knee pad rule.
I’m not. Even if correct to enforce it, unless you have the full backing of your state and/or assigner, it’s a losing battle. Whether fair or not assigners don’t want their phones blowing up with complaints about guys enforcing what is perceived to be a “nitpicky” rule.
-
I am surprised at the number who say that they don't enforce the knee pad rule.
Unfortunately, many of us were told by our assignors not to deal with it this year - and we weren't happy about it.
-
Thanks, Bossman, for your thoughtful responses. My only disagreement is #5, removing the 5-yard facemask. While I agree that some flags should be for 15 and not 5, they keep the players from being off the mask. IMHO, football currently gets a black eye for saftey at the HS level and removing this would only add to the concern.
To me, the 5 yarder is not worth calling. It's literally just placing your hand on the mask without any twist/turn. The offense should not get 5 more yards and a replay of the down for that, or have that offset another foul.
Any twist/turn should be 15.
-
To me, the 5 yarder is not worth calling. It's literally just placing your hand on the mask without any twist/turn. The offense should not get 5 more yards and a replay of the down for that, or have that offset another foul.
Any twist/turn should be 15.
Totally agree. And the fact that we have the 5-yard option in high school more often than not just allows a cop out to enforce a less severe penalty. The overwhelming majority of 5-yard fouls I see called really should be personal fouls, and the ones that shouldn’t be are so minor that they shouldn’t be a foul period. It’s an antiquated rule that isn’t kept alive by anything more than safetyism.
-
The 5-yard facemask removal has been on the docket before, but I don't believe ever gained much support. While I agree that probably many of the
IFM (incidental facemask) calls could be PFFMs, when we added it back in 2000 one of it's intent was to keep players' hands away from opponents facemasks. IMHO, removing IFM from the NFHS code would send a poor message to the public that are already told of the dangers of football.
After it's passage in 2000, I was asked by coaches and officials to explain the judgement...I developed the following fable (caution PG-13) :
Pretend that you were unknowingly dating an hermaphrodite; 8]
On your 3rd date- you were a gentleman- you slip your hand under their skirt; >:D
You put your hand around an appendage you didn't expect ; :o
AND YOU QUICKLY PULL YOUR HAND AWAY :!# .
IMHO, removing IFM in this era of "safety first" would not help our goal.
CHARLES O'FINLEY'S STANCE : "If two men agreed on everything, only one would be needed."
-
Our NFHS Rules Committee meeting is January 12-14 and I'll be bringing your responses with me. Thank all of you for your replies as I will use some of your opinions to bolster mine's it our debates.
KEEP THOSE POSTS COMING tiphat:
-
Thanks, Joe, for your prompt response. It seems that failure of higher levels to enforce their knee-pad rule has trickled down to our level in many areas. The full penalty enforcement was the norm until 1959 in NFHS. When we carved auto. 1st down out of DPI, I felt this could open up intentional fouls by B -if beaten - with ball inside their 30 and half the distance. The potential of moving the ball all the way to their one would probably stop that.
How long ago did the AFD go away on DPI? What's it been, 7-8 years now? Week one this season A had a fourth and goal at B's 8. Pass to the end zone with DPI. Now it's fourth and goal at the 4 and I see A's coach giving it to my L pretty good and I had a pretty good idea what it was about. Then he called timeout and wanted an explanation from me why he wasn't playing first and goal. So I explained to him that it's no longer and AFD. "He pointed at my L and said, "That's what he said, when the hell did they change that?" "
"I don't know, at least five years ago."
"First I'm hearing of it, you sure that's right?"
"Ummm, yes."
-
(1) R protected on juggled fair catch until he secures.
No.
(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch.
Yes.
(3) B or R can score on a PAT
No. It works fine like it is now.
(4) Leaping to block kick = ^flag
Not a fan.
(5) No 5-yard facemask foul
Yes.
(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups
No. Overly officious.
(7) Remove knee pad requirements
Yes. We get zero support to enforce it so why keep up the charade?
(8) head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.)
Don't care.
(9) can wear sweatbands anywhere
Yes and as long as we're at it can we allow them to wear their play cards on their belts?
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards ^flag
Yes.
(11) Feet-first slide kills play
Yes, this has been how we have been told to interpret it anyhow.
(12) 2 DB/PFs = :thumbup
No. I would be OK with a rule like the NCAA allowing us to penalize as a UNS in certain circumstances
(13) Full yardage on ^flag all the way down to 1
No. Just give us back the automatic first down
-
I’m opposed to #s 3, 6, 10 & 12. I’d be OK with #13 for DPI only, although I’d rather reinstate AFD.
Like others, my wish list includes another rewrite of 10-4.
And while we’re at it, how about letting a few of the members of RefStripes vet the language of all rules and editorial changes? :!#
-
How long ago did the AFD go away on DPI? What's it been, 7-8 years now? Week one this season A had a fourth and goal at B's 8. Pass to the end zone with DPI. Now it's fourth and goal at the 4 and I see A's coach giving it to my L pretty good and I had a pretty good idea what it was about. Then he called timeout and wanted an explanation from me why he wasn't playing first and goal. So I explained to him that it's no longer and AFD. "He pointed at my L and said, "That's what he said, when the hell did they change that?" "
"I don't know, at least five years ago."
"First I'm hearing of it, you sure that's right?"
"Ummm, yes."
In 2013 the NFHS removed AFD and LOD from PI plays. While I didn't have a problem with removing LOD from OPI, I was a strong opponent of removing AFD from DPI. While #13 would help alliviate this concern,IMHO, it would be considered a major change. While some may consider this to be an added advantage to the offense, it also works the other way. Consider an O-holding call at A's 10, moving the ball back to A's 1 may hamper their play choices.
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (5-man crew)
-
I’m opposed to #s 3, 6, 10 & 12. I’d be OK with #13 for DPI only, although I’d rather reinstate AFD.
Like others, my wish list includes another rewrite of 10-4.
And while we’re at it, how about letting a few of the members of RefStripes vet the language of all rules and editorial changes? :!#
I'm leaning with you on those four, 'Bama.
#3 - IMHO, the PAT is a reward for scoring a TD...sorta' like a penalty shot in ice hockey...the opponents shouldn't be allowed to score.
#6 - Wearing helmets while doing jumping-jacks seems unnessary.
#10
- If a #12 is trying to get off the field when the ball is snapped =5; if #12 playes = 15. I'm fine with that.
#12 - Added duty to us as to record. If the act is flagrant, we can toss..that's enough.
-
Hey, Ralph. Here’s an idea. In this day of ‘working remotely,’ why not require ALL coaches to be in the pressbox? Have a set of lights on the sideline - one green and one red - for them to accept or decline penalties.
Think about it. No more sideline interference. No more whining and complaining (that we can hear).
It could work. 😂
-
(1) R protected on juggled fair catch until he secures. No
(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch. No. We have a couple teams known for intentionally making invalid fc signals to stop/slow down K's gunners. Leave rule as-is. There needs to be some consequence
(3) B or R can score on a PAT. No
(4) Leaping to block kick = ^flag No
(5) No 5-yard facemask foul. No. I like the 5 yarder when a defender accidentally grabs a facemask while runner is on the way down and clearly in the grasp of the tackler(s). It is a safety issue so it needs to be called, but it shouldn't have 15 yard impact.
(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups. No
(7) Remove knee pad requirements. No
(8) head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.) No
(9) can wear sweatbands anywhere. Yes
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards ^flag No - leave as-is. A player running off the field who doesn't quite make it shouldn't be a 15 yarder.
(11) Feet-first slide kills play ?? This already kills the play
(12) 2 DB/PFs = :thumbup. No
(13) Full yardage on ^flag all the way down to 1. No
-
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards ^flag No - leave as-is. A player running off the field who doesn't quite make it shouldn't be a 15 yarder.
(11) Feet-first slide kills play ?? This already kills the play
10 - I don't think that's what the rule change is proposing. It's saying if you participate with 12 at the snap, it should only be 5 yards. The only reason that happens is because we didn't shut it down pre snap for Illegal Substitution. This takes the weight off of our shoulders and doesn't screw a team because we can't get our count fast enough. Everything else stays the same.
11 - This is trying to say that as soon as the player starts his slide, the ball is dead. This is because a sliding QB is listed as defenseless. If the defenders are expected to not hit a QB that's sliding, why should the QB be able to get an extra 2 yards on the slide when the defenders can't prevent that? Making it dead when he starts his slide corrects that inequity.
-
(1) R protected on juggled fair catch untile he secures. OK. But I don't have strong feelings on this. Works ok in NCAA, but I don't know that its really required in NFHS.
(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch. YES. Absolutely. Invalid fair catch signal = no penalty, but should still kill the play.
(3) B or R can score on a PAT No, it's not needed
(4) Leaping to block kick = ^flag Yes
(5) No 5-yard facemask foul Yes, absolutely. Its either a foul or its not. And if it is, its a safety foul and we shouldn't give people a chance to wuss out with a 5 yarder.
(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups No
(7) Remove knee pad requirements I'm neutral on this. No strong opinion on it.
(8) head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.) I'm neutral on this. No strong opinion on it.
(9) can wear sweatbands anywhere Ok, but I don't really care either way.
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards ^flag Yes
(11) Feet-first slide kills play Yes, absolutely
(12) 2 DB/PFs = :thumbup No, I don't think its needed. (Although I do like the NCAA rule of making certain DBPF's a UNS instead.)
(13) Full yardage on ^flag all the way down to 1 No. No. NO. If people don't like the DPI penalty, then change the DPI penalty instead of this.
-
Please don't even bring up AFD on DPI at the meeting.
-
10 - I don't think that's what the rule change is proposing. It's saying if you participate with 12 at the snap, it should only be 5 yards. The only reason that happens is because we didn't shut it down pre snap for Illegal Substitution. This takes the weight off of our shoulders and doesn't screw a team because we can't get our count fast enough. Everything else stays the same.
I don’t get this philosophy. The team gets penalized because they screwed up, not us. There’s a huge difference between a player who doesn’t get off in time and a player who actually participates in the play.
I can envision scenarios where a coach intentionally plays with 12 knowing that if he gets caught it will only cost him 5 yards.
-
10 - I don't think that's what the rule change is proposing. It's saying if you participate with 12 at the snap, it should only be 5 yards. The only reason that happens is because we didn't shut it down pre snap for Illegal Substitution. This takes the weight off of our shoulders and doesn't screw a team because we can't get our count fast enough. Everything else stays the same.
What screws the team is them having 12 participating. We can bail them out with our count and killing the play pre-snap for only 5 yds, but the ultimate fault is on the team not us. I realize we absolutely want to catch the IS for 5 yds instead of allowing the play to proceed with 12, but I think it would be a mistake to only penalize 5 yds for 12 participating.
11 - This is trying to say that as soon as the player starts his slide, the ball is dead. This is because a sliding QB is listed as defenseless. If the defenders are expected to not hit a QB that's sliding, why should the QB be able to get an extra 2 yards on the slide when the defenders can't prevent that? Making it dead when he starts his slide corrects that inequity.
The QB shouldn't be given an extra 2 yards on a slide. The play is dead and ball should be spotted at the point where he starts his slide. I don't understand what's different?
-
I don’t get this philosophy. The team gets penalized because they screwed up, not us. There’s a huge difference between a player who doesn’t get off in time and a player who actually participates in the play.
I can envision scenarios where a coach intentionally plays with 12 knowing that if he gets caught it will only cost him 5 yards.
That’s basically what happened in the Ohio State-Oregon regular season game last year that spurred the in-season rule change about resetting the game clock to the time of the previous play. The difference is that in NCAA 12 players on B is always a live-ball foul.
FED would need to adopt the same clock rule to make it most equitable, but that won’t happen since most stadiums don’t have a microphone.
-
The QB shouldn't be given an extra 2 yards on a slide. The play is dead and ball should be spotted at the point where he starts his slide. I don't understand what's different?
A feet-first slide does not immediately kill the play under NFHS currently like it does in NCAA. It makes the QB defenseless but the ball is not dead until a body part other than hand or foot touches the ground. That’s the clear inequity that this proposal is trying to fix and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t pass other than purists whining about how we don’t need to do anything NCAA does.
-
A feet-first slide does not immediately kill the play under NFHS currently like it does in NCAA. It makes the QB defenseless but the ball is not dead until a body part other than hand or foot touches the ground. That’s the clear inequity that this proposal is trying to fix and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t pass other than purists whining about how we don’t need to do anything NCAA does.
I don't know how you're built, but my BUTT isn't a hand or foot.
-
I don't know how you're built, but my BUTT isn't a hand or foot.
I don’t know if you’re being obtuse or if you don’t know how a feet first slide looks, but the runner slides for 2-3 yards before his BUTT actually touches the ground and thus makes the ball dead under current NFHS rules, despite still being considered a defenseless player.
-
IMHO, once a QB starts his slide - like taking a knee - the ball should become dead. This proposal would give rule support to that.
IMHO, if in counting players you've got 12 before the snap = DBIS = 5 yds. If you are still counting and 12th player is on his way off the field when the ball is snapped = live ball IS = 5 yards. If the 12th player is involved in the play = IP = 15 yards.
IMHO, the inequity in our IP rule is the 15 cost of A or K accidently stepping OOB, but this dosen't deal with that.
IMHO, We'll have Patriot/Seahawk Super Bowl.....WHAT SAY YOU.....
-
Referencing an even older axiom, "Beauty is in the eye of the "BEHOLDER", which suggests the location where the runner chooses to surrender his ability to continue his advance, should determine where his advance ends. As a designated observer of "beauty", that seems to be the SOLE judgment of the covering Official, rather than the "hope" of the runner/coach. The spot where the runner/coach DECIDES to surrender seems far more accurate, fair and consistent than any additional yardage gained where the "slide/surrender" actually ends.
Stopping play, at the commencement of the slide, also provides protection to the runner for any loss of control/possession during the slide. Bear in mind, it is the Runner's SOLE decision as to where and when to "slide".
-
I don’t get this philosophy. The team gets penalized because they screwed up, not us. There’s a huge difference between a player who doesn’t get off in time and a player who actually participates in the play.
I can envision scenarios where a coach intentionally plays with 12 knowing that if he gets caught it will only cost him 5 yards.
If a coach intentionally plays with 12, it's the exact same with the new rule as it is today.
Let's say coach intentionally puts 12 players out for the play today. What's your call? Dead ball illegal substitution. 5 yards
What's your call with the new rule change? Dead ball illegal substitution. 5 yards.
The new rule only affects live ball fouls. The only way we get 15 for particpating with more than 11 is because we didn't get the count done in time. Quite literally WE scrwed up. Our competence is the ONLY difference between 5 and 15.
I knew a guy that worked youth football that would intentionally wait until after the snap to call IP on a team that had 12 in formation if the coach was being a jerk. That's case in point that it's 100% on us whether it's 5 vs 15.
If a player runs on the field after the snap and participates, that is IP 15 yards as always.
-
The only time it’s not our fault if a team participates with 12 is if the 12th player is literally running on the field at the snap and we don’t have time to kill the play. Other than that there is no difference between 5 and 15 except our competence. The idea that it’s not our fault just doesn’t hold water. It’s like six players on the court in basketball – there’s almost no reason it should ever happen if we are doing our job.
All of the IP rules can easily moved to ILS, UNS, or ILT easily and then there’s no reason to have IP as a foul at all. If FED wants things to be simple I’m not sure why we need IP at all.
-
Please don't even bring up AFD on DPI at the meeting.
Don't worry, GoodScout, I've brought it up (via proposal) twice and had it shot down twice :( . Needing 2/3 to pass the floor vote, there was always enough voters that felt the AFD should be only for 'roughing fouls'. While penalizing the full distance would help to alleviate the potental inequity of DPI fouls inside the 30, it would be a major change and may not have support.
-
Hey, Ralph. Here’s an idea. In this day of ‘working remotely,’ why not require ALL coaches to be in the pressbox? Have a set of lights on the sideline - one green and one red - for them to accept or decline penalties.
Think about it. No more sideline interference. No more whining and complaining (that we can hear).
It could work. 😂
While yours is a novel idea ;D, we would still need someone/something to keep players from wandering out on the field ???. Another thought is to have the restricted area that needs to be clear during a play wired with players, coaches and the like wearing 'dog collers' that would zap anyone in said area during the play. 8] A sensor could be added to the ball that would activate the zapper once the ball is snapped. :!#
YOUR AND MY IDEAS ARE PROBABLY AT LEAST A FEW YEARS AWAY nAnA
-
While yours is a novel idea ;D, we would still need someone/something to keep players from wandering out on the field ???. Another thought is to have the restricted area that needs to be clear during a play wired with players, coaches and the like wearing 'dog collers' that would zap anyone in said area during the play. 8] A sensor could be added to the ball that would activate the zapper once the ball is snapped. :!#
YOUR AND MY IDEAS ARE PROBABLY AT LEAST A FEW YEARS AWAY nAnA
Back in the 70’s, working intramural softball at college, we worked on fields that had a backstop, but no other form of boundary marking. No fences. No bleachers. Nothing. Regular season wasn’t much of a problem. The few spectators that attended were easy to control. But, come playoff time, the frats would require all of their members to attend, with girlfriends, roommates, homeless vagrants - anybody they could find. Those unruly mobs were impossible to keep behind either an imaginary line, or a chalk line, on the ground extending from the corner posts of the backstop outward some 150’ or so. The unruly mobs would eventually migrate out to dang near the foul lines.
Then, one day, I noticed that we had several “tug of war” ropes in the equipment shed, and thought they might be easier to place along the boundary than marking with chalk (a task that was left to the highly paid student umpiring staff). So, we simply laid them from the corner posts of the backstop, outward, along the imaginary field boundary line. I suppose because these ropes were some 2” in diameter, the 3-dimensionality of the ropes seemed to emit a ‘force field’ of some kind, and they, magically, restrained the unruly mob quite nicely. It was quite easy for both umpires and mobsters to know that someone was over the boundary, and quite easy for the mobsters to know, and keep, their places behind the rope.
So, maybe require a similar soft, but fixed, three-dimensional boundary marker along the players’ lines (with the coaches in the pressbox). 😳. (We can dream, can’t we?)
-
If a coach intentionally plays with 12, it's the exact same with the new rule as it is today.
Let's say coach intentionally puts 12 players out for the play today. What's your call? Dead ball illegal substitution. 5 yards
What's your call with the new rule change? Dead ball illegal substitution. 5 yards.
The new rule only affects live ball fouls. The only way we get 15 for particpating with more than 11 is because we didn't get the count done in time. Quite literally WE scrwed up. Our competence is the ONLY difference between 5 and 15.
Wrong. You have it backwards.
If a coach sends out 12 to participate in a play, it's a 15-yard penalty. We're bailing him out by catching this before the snap and letting him just get away with 5. We're doing him a favor, not the other way around.
-
Wrong. You have it backwards.
If a coach sends out 12 to participate in a play, it's a 15-yard penalty. We're bailing him out by catching this before the snap and letting him just get away with 5. We're doing him a favor, not the other way around.
I think we're also getting lost in the specifics of an edge case, which seems to happen a lot here - we seem to like arguing fine details of rules to prevent very specific situations from happening, despite those situations never really happening.
How many times have you dealt with a coach *intentionally* sending out 12 players to gain an advantage? Really. Has that ever happened to you? Where I am, there are a lot more plays run with 10 because somebody forgets they're supposed to be on the field, and coaches would be ecstatic if they could always play with 11, let alone 12.
I get coaches designing plays that skirt the rules, hoping they won't get caught, but too many men is not exactly a grey area that you can push the limits on.
However, are you also arguing that this shouldn't be a dead ball foul? If there's 12 in formation, we should be killing it now - mark off five yards, don't let a play run, don't let time come off the clock, don't risk injury on a "free" play, etc.
-
Wrong. You have it backwards.
If a coach sends out 12 to participate in a play, it's a 15-yard penalty. We're bailing him out by catching this before the snap and letting him just get away with 5. We're doing him a favor, not the other way around.
Huh? So in today's world, you're not calling illegal substitution before the snap if they have 12 in formation? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
How many times have you dealt with a coach *intentionally* sending out 12 players to gain an advantage?
Forgive me for speaking for everyone else here, but the answer is never. We would shut it down for illegal substitution, so there's no advantage. We would still do this with the new rule change too.
Literally the only difference between 5 and 15 today is how quickly we count.
-
How many times have you dealt with a coach *intentionally* sending out 12 players to gain an advantage? Really. Has that ever happened to you?
I get coaches designing plays that skirt the rules, hoping they won't get caught, but too many men is not exactly a grey area that you can push the limits on.
They don’t do it because they’re risking a major penalty. Changing to a 5-yard penalty removes that deterrent.
-
They don’t do it because they’re risking a major penalty. Changing to a 5-yard penalty removes that deterrent.
I believe that the suggested change would be applicable in those few situations where the replaced player is attempting to leave the field but does not make it in time. We would have a live ball flag down but penalize as a 5 yard Illegal Substitution since the departing player did not actually participate in the play. I still prefer sticking with what we have now.
-
They don’t do it because they’re risking a major penalty. Changing to a 5-yard penalty removes that deterrent.
Do you think that's really going to happen?
Honestly, coaches are going to draw up plays with 12 defenders as a strategic move because it's only a 5 yard and not 15 yard penalty? It's only 5 yards in NCAA and NFL rules, there's no 15 yard option there and you don't see Bill Belicheck drawing up that play.
-
DELIBERATELY drawing up a play with 12 players is far less strategic than it is STUPID (and flagrantly annoying). Mistakes occasionally happen and cost 5 yards. if they are repeated, after being penalized and corrected, repeated behavior could be considered intentional (and deliberately annoying), which could easily produce an USC, subject to it's own penalty of 15 yards. Should ANY coach deem such a second penalty excessive, additional complaints could/should, earn a second USC, providing ample time to reward such behavior, the opportunity of taking an immediate, and private, shower.
None of this requires a rule adjustment.
-
IMHO, if it was learned that a coach was intentionally running a play with 12 players he could qualify for a 9-9-1 USC and add another 15 to the 15 IP already flagged. ^flag ^flag
NOTE: 9-8-1 begin a list of 'naughty' things a coach might do and ends with : "Examples are, but not limited to...." . I feel that gives us rule support for such a call.
-
Do you think that's really going to happen?
Honestly, coaches are going to draw up plays with 12 defenders as a strategic move because it's only a 5 yard and not 15 yard penalty? It's only 5 yards in NCAA and NFL rules, there's no 15 yard option there and you don't see Bill Belicheck drawing up that play.
I guess you don’t remember Oregon vs Ohio State in 2024. Very late in the game, Oregon quite deliberately put a 12th player on defense, knowing it was only a 5-yard penalty from the previous spot (repeat the down), but allowing them a greatly improved chance to prevent a TD, and burning more time off the clock (which it did). For 2025, rule change, inside 2 mins in 2nd/4th periods, for 12 players participating, whether the distance penalty is accepted or not, Team A can have the game clock restored to the time it was at the start of the last down, and starts on the snap.
You know how it works. HS coaches (NCAA or NFHS) see what happens in NCAA and copy it, whether legal or not. If it helps them win a game, they’d trade their families for a first down.
Will the NFHS follow suit and make a rule change? I’ll stay tuned.
-
I guess you don’t remember Oregon vs Ohio State in 2024. Very late in the game, Oregon quite deliberately put a 12th player on defense, knowing it was only a 5-yard penalty from the previous spot (repeat the down), but allowing them a greatly improved chance to prevent a TD, and burning more time off the clock (which it did). For 2025, rule change, inside 2 mins in 2nd/4th periods, for 12 players participating, whether the distance penalty is accepted or not, Team A can have the game clock restored to the time it was at the start of the last down, and starts on the snap.
You know how it works. HS coaches (NCAA or NFHS) see what happens in NCAA and copy it, whether legal or not. If it helps them win a game, they’d trade their families for a first down.
Will the NFHS follow suit and make a rule change? I’ll stay tuned.
Big difference is that in NCAA it's always a live ball foul. You can't shut it down pre snap like you can in NFHS (which would still be the case with the new rule). Shutting it down pre snap prevents any strategic advantage.
-
Big difference is that in NCAA it's always a live ball foul. You can't shut it down pre snap like you can in NFHS (which would still be the case with the new rule). Shutting it down pre snap prevents any strategic advantage.
Is that actually correct? Are you saying that under NCAA rules that you cannot shutdown a play before the snap for IS (12 players on the field)?
-
Is that actually correct? Are you saying that under NCAA rules that you cannot shutdown a play before the snap for IS (12 players on the field)?
I’m sorry to interject NCAA into this NFHS discussion. In NCAA, for defense, yes, Illegal Substitution fouls are live-ball. If that is different in NFHS, then, yeah, the incentive to cheat is reduced. (Not eliminated, but reduced.)
-
I’m sorry to interject NCAA into this NFHS discussion. In NCAA, for defense, yes, Illegal Substitution fouls are live-ball. If that is different in NFHS, then, yeah, the incentive to cheat is reduced. (Not eliminated, but reduced.)
I believe that this was a 2020 change in NCAA. IMHO under NFHS rules that we have been using since our "changeover" to NFHS rules still has all cases where there is 12 on the field with the snap imminent to be DB pre-snap fouls. I never understood the rationale behind the NCAA change since the memo cited "consistency" which IMHO is opposite to what it actually did. NFHS has always been "opposed" to the concept of a "free play" when the foul is clear and identifiable prior to the snap. I really see no need to change that and still don't understand the NCAA rationale to consider this a "consistency" change.
-
Currently, here's our scorecard.....
(1) R protected on juggled fair catch untile he secures. 6-7
(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch. 7-4
(3) B or R can score on a PAT 1-13
(4) Leaping to block kick = ^flag 6-6
(5) No 5-yard facemask foul 7-4
(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups 1-13
(7) Remove knee pad requirements 5-5
(8) head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.) 3-5
(9) can wear sweatbands anywhere 10-1
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards ^flag 7-5
(11) Feet-first slide kills play 7-5
(12) 2 DB/PFs = :thumbup 1-13
(13) Full yardage on ^flag all the way down to 1 ..4-8
While there was 14 responses, not everyone had an opinion on every proposal These and any further suggestions will go with me to the NFHS Football Committee meeting and I'll use your opinions to back up mine during the debates. The only disagreement I have with your majority is # 5 on removing the 5-yard facemask, as I have stated earlier.
Thanks, guys, for your imput. ^good
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: tiphat:
-
This is the Official Manual's print year.Some potential changes are...
The "Ain't got no clue" (non-Mainers may know it as "When in Question" ) chart will be back.
Place U along with BJ under the pipes on kick attempts on 5-man crew. I know several states currently use this. WHAT SAY YOU ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? (5-MAN CREW)
-
Hi Ralph
For question 11, feet first slide. I don't understand what is being proposed. Can you elaborate on what would be different than the current rules?
Thank You
-
Hi Ralph
For question 11, feet first slide. I don't understand what is being proposed. Can you elaborate on what would be different than the current rules?
Thank You
Under the current rule, the runner becomes defenseless(2-32-16g) BUT by our current rule (4-2-2a) until something outher than his hands or feet touch the ground, the ball remains alive. We don't currently have rule support to place the ball where it was when he began his slide. With this rule we would, not where the ball was when his butt touched the ground.
-
This is the Official Manual's print year.Some potential changes are...
Place U along with BJ under the pipes on kick attempts on 5-man crew. I know several states currently use this. WHAT SAY YOU ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? (5-MAN CREW)
I've been fighting to get this made a part of our state's mechanic manual for several years. It works soooo much better. Would love to see this change in the NFHS manual.
-
I've been fighting to get this made a part of our state's mechanic manual for several years. It works soooo much better. Would love to see this change in the NFHS manual.
I like having both wings on the LOS. My only concern is with U back under the pipes, he also would need to focus on roughing the snapper. While he should have a good view on PAT kicks, on a long FGA it could be a challange.
-
Our proposed state mechanic is to have the U under the crossbar for PATs, but not FG's from outside the 15. Goal line can be threatened on PATs and short FG's, but if you have a broken play or fake FG starting from outside the 15, the wing under the bar has plenty of time to get back to the pylon.
-
Our proposed state mechanic is to have the U under the crossbar for PATs, but not FG's from outside the 15. Goal line can be threatened on PATs and short FG's, but if you have a broken play or fake FG starting from outside the 15, the wing under the bar has plenty of time to get back to the pylon.
This makes sense to put a yard line delimiter and I think the 15 is a good one.
-
This makes sense to put a yard line delimiter and I think the 15 is a good one.
Back in the day of 4-man crews, I believe the LG (field judge in my day) when the LOS was outside the 15, was sent to the end line to rule on the cross bar. R would still call if the kick was between the pipes.
-
This makes sense to put a yard line delimiter and I think the 15 is a good one.
This is what most of our R's use for trys and short field goals. We don't like leaving a wing uncovered with no one at the pylon in cases of a fake or bad snap circus.
-
This is what most of our R's use for trys and short field goals. We don't like leaving a wing uncovered with no one at the pylon in cases of a fake or bad snap circus.
We see some of the "swinging gate" formations on PATs. We'll have our wing under the pipes move up to the goal line until they shift back into kick formation, he will return to his post as sentry under the pipes. Most of our wings are faster then the big ole'Bubba lineman waddling back to their spots. sNiCkErS
-
We see some of the "swinging gate" formations on PATs. We'll have our wing under the pipes move up to the goal line until they shift back into kick formation, he will return to his post as sentry under the pipes. Most of our wings are faster then the big ole'Bubba lineman waddling back to their spots. sNiCkErS
Does everyone send the wing that's opposite the Referee to the posts or is it always the LJ in your area?
-
Does everyone send the wing that's opposite the Referee to the posts or is it always the LJ in your area?
We send the wing that sees R's backside and the holder's eyes. This can confuse as the next period , the other wing would have that duty. With U taking the pipes, it would never be confusing.
-
We send the wing that sees R's backside and the holder's eyes. This can confuse as the next period , the other wing would have that duty. With U taking the pipes, it would never be confusing.
It's a lot less confusing to just use the BJ and U. Done & dusted. tiphat:
-
This is the Official Manual's print year.Some potential changes are...
The "Ain't got no clue" (non-Mainers may know it as "When in Question" ) chart will be back.
Place U along with BJ under the pipes on kick attempts on 5-man crew. I know several states currently use this. WHAT SAY YOU ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? (5-MAN CREW)
Please, I have been arguing this in my state for years.
-
Back from 'Windy Indy" after the NFHS Football Rules Committee meeting. As always, my lips are sealed until a NFHS press release announces the rule changes to the entire world. My prediction is that will occur somewhere between Ground Hog Day and Valentine's Day. I can share that a touchdown is still worth six points!
^good ^no ^TD tiphat: tR:oLl
-
Back from 'Windy Indy" after the NFHS Football Rules Committee meeting. As always, my lips are sealed until a NFHS press release announces the rule changes to the entire world. My prediction is that will occur somewhere between Ground Hog Day and Valentine's Day. I can share that a touchdown is still worth six points!
^good ^no ^TD tiphat: tR:oLl
The whole super secret insider club BS with the NFHS Rules Committee is so stupid. Black Box rule making goes a long way towards all the complete disasters they come up with for language...
-
Their stance - and I agree with it - is the NFHS Board of Directors needs to give their final approval. More than once I've seen an equipment restriction be adjusted to advance the requirement date to reduce the financial burden of the schools replacing now illegal items or suppliers having shelves of unsaleable equipment. :-X
-
I’m really hopeful that there will be only one or two that impact on-field play. My old brain can’t handle too many at the same time. cRaZy
FWIW, the baseball change this year was to limit the number of times defensive players can meet with each other to one per inning (a speed-up rule). Double first base will be required next year (a safety rule).
-
I’m really hopeful that there will be only one or two that impact on-field play. My old brain can’t handle too many at the same time. cRaZy
FWIW, the baseball change this year was to limit the number of times defensive players can meet with each other to one per inning (a speed-up rule). Double first base will be required next year (a safety rule).
You're in luck, 'Bama, with your wish :-X . Snow is still on the ground here in Maine so it'll be a while before I can yell : "PLAY BALL". This will be my 60th and last season behind the mask and plan to lobby for the base ump to track the defensive players' meetings. ^talk I assume that will often be pitcher and catcher, while it COULD be leftfielder and firstbaseman :!#.
-
THE NEW RULES ARE HERE...LETS CHAT ^talk ^talk ^talk ^talk ^talk
-
Re a point of emphasis:
Has any official at any level aided his or her career by calling helping the runner, even correctly?
-
Well that was anticlimactic...
-
Well that was anticlimactic...
yEs:
-
I’m surprised that they didn’t drop the sweat bands restriction along with allowing play cards on the belt.
Ralph, was there much discussion about full-yardage penalty for DPI?
-
Re a point of emphasis:
Has any official at any level aided his or her career by calling helping the runner, even correctly?
I have a call in to NFHS to learn the aim of the POE on helping the runner and relay it to you guys as soon as I hear. Our current stance in Maine is not to flag the "tush-push" , but to blow it dead with the rationale that the runner's own forward progress has stopped when his teammates begins to push. Our coaches fully understand and don't coach that.
-
I’m surprised that they didn’t drop the sweat bands restriction along with allowing play cards on the belt.
Ralph, was there much discussion about full-yardage penalty for DPI?
The "sweatband anywhere" proposal made it to the floor for a vote, but failed 28-23 (we need 2/3 to pass = 34). The full yardage penalty failed to come out of it's sub- committee. The proposal was for all fouls and not just DPI.
-
Re a point of emphasis:
Has any official at any level aided his or her career by calling helping the runner, even correctly?
I have called that exactly once.
Middle school game, which means players are at various point of puberty and wildly disparate sizes. Goal line play on the 1, offense calls a QB sneak instead of their usual play of "Hand to the 6' tall running back who is clearly larger than the entire defense combined". 6' tall running back, behind the QB figures he has to do something to help, so he *picks up the QB* and carries him forward through the pile.
Now, did that help my career by calling that? No, that's unlikely.
-
Response from NFHS on HTR POE. The intent is to remind that the 'tush push' isn't allowable in NFHS. If it occurs in a NFHS game, the play should be blown dead as THE RUNNER'S FORWARD PROGRESS has stopped.
While some may be disappointed with the few changes, an 80 year- old member stated : " Rules meetings are like going to the docter's. If there's a lot wrong, you hear : ' Youi need to lose weight, eat better, get more excerise...etc. :puke: ' . If there's little or nothing wrong, you may hear : ' Try parting your hair differently 8] '. There seems to not be alot wrong with our game as is. If 'taint broke ,don't fix 'er. Ayuh, 'spect so. "
-
Well that was anticlimactic...
That's not a bad thing Boss
-
That's not a bad thing Boss
Oh my, I actually with Law Dog
-
Well that was anticlimactic...
I am anticipating the follow up questions in local/regional clinics from the guys who never seem to grasp a rule change, no matter how straightforward.
"So, nobody on the defense can slap a guy in the head?" Nope, nor the offense
"So, the new rule is just the offense? The defense can do it now?" No, nobody can
"But they changed the rule, right?" Yes, so now nobody can
"Nobody on the offense?" Or the defense too!
[Expletive laden 20 minute rant about the free blocking zone deleted]
"What if he slaps in the shoulder, does that count?" *sigh*
-
OFF THE FIELD....
A cheerleader can stil slap big ole' Bubba's head/face if he becomes >:D too frisky >:D.
-
OFF THE FIELD....
A cheerleader can stil slap big ole' Bubba's head/face if he becomes >:D too frisky >:D.
Nowadays, it’s just as likely that the cheerleader is the one being “too frisky”!
-
So I have an actual question for this change...
Does this foul encompass "hands to the face" fouls? If a blocker or defender pins his opponents head back for a prolonged period of time, is that 15 yards under this foul?
-
Re a point of emphasis:
Has any official at any level aided his or her career by calling helping the runner, even correctly?
Called it twice last season. Guy was pulling their team's runner forward
-
The getting rid of half the distance penalty had support for most of the day, but the provision of possibly having a penalty at the end of regulation on a try that would lead to overtime could possibly have a team starting the overtime session on the 1 yard line, which the subcommittee did not support. At one point, this proposal at subcommittee support by a large margin. This proposal will probably return in the future after a couple of edits.
-
yEs:
As someone who usually abhors excessive rule changes, I'm thrilled.
-
The getting rid of half the distance penalty had support for most of the day, but the provision of possibly having a penalty at the end of regulation on a try that would lead to overtime could possibly have a team starting the overtime session on the 1 yard line, which the subcommittee did not support. At one point, this proposal at subcommittee support by a large margin. This proposal will probably return in the future after a couple of edits.
This change seems so sacrilegious. I'm surprised it has that much support.
-
The getting rid of half the distance penalty had support for most of the day, but the provision of possibly having a penalty at the end of regulation on a try that would lead to overtime could possibly have a team starting the overtime session on the 1 yard line, which the subcommittee did not support. At one point, this proposal at subcommittee support by a large margin. This proposal will probably return in the future after a couple of edits.
How would that happen? If the succeeding spot in the extra period is the B-25, a single 15-yard ‘carry-over’ penalty from the succeeding spot would take it to the B-10, right?
-
How would that happen? If the succeeding spot in the extra period is the B-25, a single 15-yard ‘carry-over’ penalty from the succeeding spot would take it to the B-10, right?
In NFHS the "suggested overtime procedure" is to start from B's 10. While I would suport moving DPI the full 15 if inside B's 30, I'm unsure if this would cause officials to be timid of ^flag that would bring the ball down to B's 1. IMHO, the major arguement for removing 5 yd. facemask was an official's timid response in lieu of PFFM. That proposal made it to the floor ,but failed 27-24 (2/3 needed to pass). I voted no.
-
In NFHS the "suggested overtime procedure" is to start from B's 10. While I would suport moving DPI the full 15 if inside B's 30, I'm unsure if this would cause officials to be timid of ^flag that would bring the ball down to B's 1. IMHO, the major arguement for removing 5 yd. facemask was an official's timid response in lieu of PFFM. That proposal made it to the floor ,but failed 27-24 (2/3 needed to pass). I voted no.
Ah. Well, that’s different. As y’all know, I’m NCAA, but, I did a ‘Google’ search for NFHS football extra period, and the “all knowing” information said the extra period starts at the B-25 - no mention of that being a ‘suggestion.’ Is that ‘suggestion,’ then, left up to each crew on a game-by-game basis? Each state?
-
Ah. Well, that’s different. As y’all know, I’m NCAA, but, I did a ‘Google’ search for NFHS football extra period, and the “all knowing” information said the extra period starts at the B-25 - no mention of that being a ‘suggestion.’ Is that ‘suggestion,’ then, left up to each crew on a game-by-game basis? Each state?
Each state may set their own OT procedure. At last count ,a high majority used the NFHS prototype. I was (un)lucky enough to work a then-NFHS record-setting 6 OT game back in Nov. 1983 . It resembled a frat house 'mud-bowl', and no one could score until the 6th. I see the advantage of NCAA's adjustment to prevent such.
-
Each state may set their own OT procedure. At last count ,a high majority used the NFHS prototype. I was (un)lucky enough to work a then-NFHS record-setting 6 OT game back in Nov. 1983 . It resembled a frat house 'mud-bowl', and no one could score until the 6th. I see the advantage of NCAA's adjustment to prevent such.
Thanks, Ralph. Didn’t mean to hijack, just wanted a little clarity, and you gave it. Done.
-
3-1-1
By state association adoption, if, at the end of the fourth period, the teams have identical scores, the tie may be resolved if a method has been approved by the state high school association. This may include extending playing time. The overtime is considered part of the fourth period. An example of an overtime procedure is located in a supplementary section following the rules.
-
Ah. Well, that’s different. As y’all know, I’m NCAA, but, I did a ‘Google’ search for NFHS football extra period, and the “all knowing” information said the extra period starts at the B-25 - no mention of that being a ‘suggestion.’ Is that ‘suggestion,’ then, left up to each crew on a game-by-game basis? Each state?
Each state can set their own guidelines for OT. I belive a couple use the NCAA version. Your info may have came from one of those states. Here's the quote from our NFHS book : "Each state association ...may adopt a procedure by which it allows games tied after the fourth period to be resolved. The following is one possible procedure which would allow for ties to be broken. This procedure may be ACCEPTED AS WRITTEN,AMENDED,OR REJECTED, IN WHOLE OR PART,BY EACH MEMBER STATE ASSOCIATION."
-
There is a "suggestion" involved in sub-varsity games. 8] We are to gather both coaches prior to the game iF they want to play overtime ,if needed. This was a response to this question several years ago...
ME: "Do you guys want to play overtime if needed ??? ?"
HOME COACH :" Ayuh, 'spect so yEs:"
VISITING COACH :" Guess it depends what 'da score is... :o "
ME : "Auh...I guess the score would be tied ::) "
VISITING COACH : " iN THAT CASE, ayuh 'spect so, too :!# "
HOME TEAM WON, 30-0 tiphat:
-
In Mass we have an OT procedure that is a carryover from when we were still using NCAA. It has issues, There's a change of possession; B recovers a fumble or intercepts a pass and on the return run there's a foul by A;
Ruling: Team B has the option of extending the overtime period for one down free of penalty, with Team B putting the ball in play where the penalty leaves the ball, provided Team B has not fouled during the down. Or Team B may choose to penalize as a dead ball foul at the succeeding spot in the subsequent overtime period.
Then; What if Happens B fumbles and A recovers? A-B-A Ruling; A starts a new series 1st and goal from wherever A is tackled.
Not to worry that hasn't happened YET.
But the future looks bright for use. The State MIAA football committee is moving forward to change to the NFHS OT procedures for the 2026 season
-
Response from NFHS on HTR POE. The intent is to remind that the 'tush push' isn't allowable in NFHS. If it occurs in a NFHS game, the play should be blown dead as THE RUNNER'S FORWARD PROGRESS has stopped.
So, I'm guessing they don't want the flag thrown for heloing the runner with te Tush Push. Is the same said when the runner is pulled forward by a teammate? Are we to blow it dead?
-
In Mass we have an OT procedure that is a carryover from when we were still using NCAA. It has issues, There's a change of possession; B recovers a fumble or intercepts a pass and on the return run there's a foul by A;
Ruling: Team B has the option of extending the overtime period for one down free of penalty, with Team B putting the ball in play where the penalty leaves the ball, provided Team B has not fouled during the down. Or Team B may choose to penalize as a dead ball foul at the succeeding spot in the subsequent overtime period.
Then; What if Happens B fumbles and A recovers? A-B-A Ruling; A starts a new series 1st and goal from wherever A is tackled.
Not to worry that hasn't happened YET.
But the future looks bright for use. The State MIAA football committee is moving forward to change to the NFHS OT procedures for the 2026 season
I understood the then Rules Committee put several hours puting togather the NFHS overtime procedure. In Maine, we didn't feel it necessary to re-invent the wheel. IMHO, allowing B to score in either OT or a PAT would need a laundry list of "what-ifs" tht could occur after COP. Let's keep it simple.
-
So, I'm guessing they don't want the flag thrown for heloing the runner with te Tush Push. Is the same said when the runner is pulled forward by a teammate? Are we to blow it dead?
IMHO, the POE would still flag pulling/dragging/carrying the runner. The 'tush push' would kill the play AS the runner's FORWARD PROGRESS has stopped.
-
As someone who usually abhors excessive rule changes, I'm thrilled.
I just wish that they would cleanup their illegal substitution and illegal participation rules. Especially for a receiver accidentally stepping oob. It’s currently just dumb.
Other than that, I agree that it’s probably best not to let the editorial committee anywhere near a word processor…
-
I just wish that they would cleanup their illegal substitution and illegal participation rules. Especially for a receiver accidentally stepping oob. It’s currently just dumb.
Other than that, I agree that it’s probably best not to let the editorial committee anywhere near a word processor…
There was a proposl on the docket to reduce IP to 5 yards. It never made it our of it's sub-committee.
-
There was a proposl on the docket to reduce IP to 5 yards. It never made it our of it's sub-committee.
Obviously I don't know exactly what the proposal said, but just globally lowering it to 5 yards doesn't make sense. I think participating with 12 or having a player come on after the snap should be a different category than an otherwise legal player going out of bounds briefly/accidentally.
If a receiver is running a route and he's not really blocked out of bounds, but runs a little wide to avoid the defender, during which a foot hits the white one time -- the advantage he's gaining is not proportional to a 15 yard penalty.
Tangentially related, back in Super Bowl XLIII, James Harrison ran an interception back 100 yards (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUTXpxNA9BI). Larry Fitzgerald tried to run him down and ran *out of bounds* from about the 50 down to the goal line. I think I understand why that wasn't a foul by the rules, but I don't understand why that wouldn't be a foul. If the idea is that players need to stay in the field of play (and end zones) during the down, why don't they actually need to attempt to stay in the field of play (or return as quickly as possible)?
-
Obviously I don't know exactly what the proposal said, but just globally lowering it to 5 yards doesn't make sense. I think participating with 12 or having a player come on after the snap should be a different category than an otherwise legal player going out of bounds briefly/accidentally.
The difference between participating with 12 (live ball 15) or illegal substitution (dead ball 5 yards) is how fast the officials get their count. Dependent on nothing else. Our slowness can cost a team an extra 10 yards. That's what the rule change was aiming to fix.
12th player running on after the snap would still be Illegal Participation, live ball, 15 yards.
If a receiver is running a route and he's not really blocked out of bounds, but runs a little wide to avoid the defender, during which a foot hits the white one time -- the advantage he's gaining is not proportional to a 15 yard penalty.
Agree. This is way too punitive. You can roll this into illegal touching if you wanted to. You would just be left with the conundrum of "does he lose pass eligibility?". Currently he does not with the IP rule. So today, if you step on the sideline, then the DB interferes with you catching the ball, they would offset. If you change it to Illegal Touching, would they still offset or would you make him ineligible when he steps OOB? This would also delete a football fundamental.
Tangentially related, back in Super Bowl XLIII, James Harrison ran an interception back 100 yards (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUTXpxNA9BI). Larry Fitzgerald tried to run him down and ran *out of bounds* from about the 50 down to the goal line. I think I understand why that wasn't a foul by the rules, but I don't understand why that wouldn't be a foul. If the idea is that players need to stay in the field of play (and end zones) during the down, why don't they actually need to attempt to stay in the field of play (or return as quickly as possible)?
I have a rule change written up to re-write IP that address both of these, but I figured there's other things that need to be submitted before this long winded one. But let me know if you think this would address everything.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m03iN9klsQptpWvsIrUClDJXMfIxKxLv/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=115846223743828963000&rtpof=true&sd=true
-
Last year Steve Shaw, the NCAA Football Rules Editor addressed our national meeting. His major message was : KEEP IT SIMPLE :thumbup . He went on to explain high school sports officials are during this as more of a hobby than a vocation/advocation and we need to beware of the possible complexity. To many of us, who had just passed a near rewrite of Rule 10 the previous year, it made sense. Last year, a rewrite of the IP rule failed on the floor. This year, a good proposal regarding IP>SP didn't make it out of sub-committee.
While I strongly agree that a reciever accidently stepping on OOB line shouldn't be hit with 15, we need to make changes that are simplistically understood. I once heard that there was 75+ exceptions in the NCAA book compared to 16 exceptions in ours. I assume the ratio is still somewhat similar.
-
I once heard that there was 75+ exceptions in the NCAA book compared to 16 exceptions in ours.
Oh, you’ve done it now. I will have an accurate count for you by the end of the day. My wages are on GREATER than 75, but we shall see.
-
115
Counting only the “labeled” Exceptions, there are no less than 115 Exceptions, just in Rules 1 through 10. I didn’t even look at 11,12, or Part II of the book. I say, “…no less than…,” because there are some labeled exceptions that may actually contain more than one distinct difference, depending on conditions. I didn’t try to decipher those conditional differences, so the true number of exceptions is, no doubt, somewhat more than 115, in practice.
No. Not easy. That’s why we get the big bucks. ;)
-
Last year Steve Shaw, the NCAA Football Rules Editor addressed our national meeting. His major message was : KEEP IT SIMPLE :thumbup . He went on to explain high school sports officials are during this as more of a hobby than a vocation/advocation and we need to beware of the possible complexity. To many of us, who had just passed a near rewrite of Rule 10 the previous year, it made sense. Last year, a rewrite of the IP rule failed on the floor. This year, a good proposal regarding IP>SP didn't make it out of sub-committee.
While I strongly agree that a reciever accidently stepping on OOB line shouldn't be hit with 15, we need to make changes that are simplistically understood. I once heard that there was 75+ exceptions in the NCAA book compared to 16 exceptions in ours. I assume the ratio is still somewhat similar.
Well, we don't have 3k a game like the power 4 conferences. We don't even make $300 a game, so yes, people take it as a hobby, but that doesn't mean that we don't try to be our best at it.
-
Well, we don't have 3k a game like the power 4 conferences. We don't even make $300 a game, so yes, people take it as a hobby, but that doesn't mean that we don't try to be our best at it.
We barely make $100 a game... but we're getting a raise next year (allegedly) that I think will take us all the way up to $109.
I'm certainly not doing it for the money, but my fall hobby makes enough to cover my spring hobby expenses.
-
So I have an actual question for this change...
Does this foul encompass "hands to the face" fouls? If a blocker or defender pins his opponents head back for a prolonged period of time, is that 15 yards under this foul?
Does anyone have an answer for this?
-
Does anyone have an answer for this?
I believe the answer is "No", as in "Nobody has the answer for that". Based on previous years, rule changes are voted on the concept of a rule, but then the actual rule might be something completely different or unintended.
If I was a betting man, I'd figure they're just going to strike the word "defensive" from 9-4-7 which still requires a "slap". Is a push a slap? I don't think it would qualify. However, case play 9-4-7B currently has a foul when B1 "contacts ... with an open hand to the head" which seems to imply that it would be any contact to the head, not just a "slap" - but case play 9.2.3B part C has B1 contacting A1's helmet in an attempt to ward off a block, and it is not a foul.
I'm personally surprised that the NFL style "hands to the face" is not explicitly in the rule book. That seems like a safety issue that would get filtered down.
-
IMHO, a stiff-arm by a ball carrier to a defender's helmet when he is trying to make the tackle, isn't a foul.
-
IMHO, a stiff-arm by a ball carrier to a defender's helmet when he is trying to make the tackle, isn't a foul.
Agreed that a "stiff-arm" to ward of tackle is legal, but reaching back and firing out with a forceful blow to the helmet/facemask is a 15 yard PF.
-
"Beauty IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER" as unfortunately/fortunately can be a "PROBLEM" and it is the JUDGMENT of that beholder whether what is being actually observed is allowable, or excessive and deserving of being a violation.
-
"Beauty IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER" as unfortunately/fortunately can be a "PROBLEM" and it is the JUDGMENT of that beholder whether what is being actually observed is allowable, or excessive and deserving of being a violation.
Thanks Al, that was very abstract. ???
-
IMO "hands to the face" has always been inconsistently interpreted between making it a 10 or 15 yard foul.
-
IMHO, a stiff-arm by a ball carrier to a defender's helmet when he is trying to make the tackle, isn't a foul.
:thumbup
-
Thanks Al, that was very abstract. ???
Allow me to try again; YOU (alone) have a decision to make, based on what YOU (alone) have observed. Or did you consider the contact (YOU) observed excessive, dangerous, deliberate, intentional, intended to be otherwise harmful or excessive, or was it incidental to the action and DID NOT cause UNREASONABLE/EXCESSIVE risk, harm, or threat, to the intended defender. iT'S your DECISION, BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULE & OBSERVATION.
-
Allow me to try again; YOU (alone) have a decision to make, based on what YOU (alone) have observed. Or did you consider the contact (YOU) observed excessive, dangerous, deliberate, intentional, intended to be otherwise harmful or excessive, or was it incidental to the action and DID NOT cause UNREASONABLE/EXCESSIVE risk, harm, or threat, to the intended defender. iT'S your DECISION, BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULE & OBSERVATION.
Wow, IMHO much, much simpler than that. Open palm, fixed extended arm at contact - legal. A wind up and forceful blow to the head, a foul. Pretty simple IMHO.