RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: tow on January 26, 2011, 05:16:43 PM
-
Anyone else having trouble getting to fed forum? I keep getting a runtime error message. Tim
-
Yup, same here. Seems the whole thing is down.
-
This is kind of a semi annual thing for them. It will fritz out again some time in June too.
-
It's a conspiracy to stop chatter about the work of the rules committee! ;D
-
As a courtesy they could put a message page in it's place so people will know what is happening and when it will be back online. ^flag
-
As a courtesy they could put a message page in it's place so people will know what is happening and when it will be back online. ^flag
I wonder if they even realize it's down!
-
That's one of the things about the Fed that kind of gripes me. I know that we officials are pretty much run by our individual states. But the Fed did seem to talk about having better officiating and resources for it. So far they've done the video clips, which don't seem to have been updated much. Everything else got farmed out to the Arbiter web site.
USA Football has become a disappointment from the officiating side of it. Once you've progressed past the online course and read the occasional little article online, which usually centers on Bill Lemonnier and/or Team USA, you're pretty much done. I've been a member for several years but probably won't renew as I receive little of value now from my membership. They tried to have some clinics but that died out pretty quick. I paid for one in Atlanta but it was cancelled. Tampa was too far and expensive to pull off.
I guess they may still make a training video, I think our association ordered one last year and I gave them mine from two years ago to use.
-
That's one of the things about the Fed that kind of gripes me. I know that we officials are pretty much run by our individual states. But the Fed did seem to talk about having better officiating and resources for it. So far they've done the video clips, which don't seem to have been updated much. Everything else got farmed out to the Arbiter web site.
USA Football has become a disappointment from the officiating side of it. Once you've progressed past the online course and read the occasional little article online, which usually centers on Bill Lemonnier and/or Team USA, you're pretty much done. I've been a member for several years but probably won't renew as I receive little of value now from my membership. They tried to have some clinics but that died out pretty quick. I paid for one in Atlanta but it was cancelled. Tampa was too far and expensive to pull off.
I guess they may still make a training video, I think our association ordered one last year and I gave them mine from two years ago to use.
The NFHS forum site is only supported by the 1 IT person at the NFHS office. No other staff person does anything with it. I know the IT guy and based on past discussions with him it's something they would rather not have but they know it's a valuable tool for officials.
As for USA Football, they dropped their officiating arm a year ago. I doubt we'll see anything new from them anytime in the near future.
-
Go to the NFHS home page and you see the forum link is pointing to http://www.nfhs.org/forumdown/
-
Go to the NFHS home page and you see the forum link is pointing to http://www.nfhs.org/forumdown/
Here is the message on that page:
We apologize for the inconvenience. The Officials Forum is currently offline as we migrate our servers. The official's forum is schedule to be back online on 2.2.11
-
Feb 2 comes and goes, and the site is not back up. Surprised?
-
I guess the hamster came down with a cold and can't make the wheel go round.
I know, that's mean. I rebuke myself.
-
As of 4:23 this afternnon, it's back up. So they missed by one day. Not too bad.
-
Can the new rule changes be too far behind???
-
As of 4:23 this afternnon, it's back up. So they missed by one day. Not too bad.
Aww man. I guess that hacker I hired didn't do so well. ;D
Only kidding here.
-
Can the new rule changes be too far behind???
If it follows history, should be around Valentine's Day.
-
Wasn't until almost March when they came out last year? I seem to remember us speculating that the committee had all been murdered by the A11 coach. (Or was that just me speculating it?) >:D
-
Wasn't until almost March when they came out last year? I seem to remember us speculating that the committee had all been murdered by the A11 coach. (Or was that just me speculating it?) >:D
There is a difference between speculating and fantasizing. ;)
-
Wasn't until almost March when they came out last year? I seem to remember us speculating that the committee had all been murdered by the A11 coach. (Or was that just me speculating it?) >:D
According to the following, they were released on Feb 23 last year.
http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=6547.0
-
Wasn't until almost March when they came out last year? I seem to remember us speculating that the committee had all been murdered by the A11 coach. (Or was that just me speculating it?) >:D
Fadamor should be suspended for even mentioning that dastardly invention (read: mf'ing offense).
-
According to the following, they were released on Feb 23 last year.
http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=6547.0
IIRC, they released a list of changes in late Feburary, but the full release didn't come out until late March.
-
You'll notice I didn't use the coach's name. No sense giving him any more publicity. Unfortunately, TFTSNBN* hasn't been used in a while and has probably left everyone's memory through disuse, so I had to use the actual formation name.
* TFTSNBN = The Formation That Shall Not Be Named
EDIT: URK! Just got to thinking... if the rule proposal about only requiring four in the backfield (rather than 7 on the line) is passed, does that open the door for some form of TFTSNBN to re-appear? :!#
-
Don't worry, that did not pass.
-
I see (crosses off that proposal).
Hmmm... if the rule proposal about (fill in the blank with all the rest of the proposals, one at a time) is passed, does that open the door for some form of TFTSNBN to re-appear? >:D
-
EDIT: URK! Just got to thinking... if the rule proposal about only requiring four in the backfield (rather than 7 on the line) is passed, does that open the door for some form of TFTSNBN to re-appear? :!#
It wouldn't have opened any doors there. What it would have done is essentially taken away a foul if a team only had 10 players on the field and the missing player was a lineman. That would leave 6 on the line and draw a flag. B didn't gain an advantage by doing it so why should it be a foul. They disadvantaged themselves by not having enough players on the field. We made the rule change in college a couple years ago and it makes so much sense. Not sure why it wouldn't pass the rules committee.
-
You'll notice I didn't use the coach's name. No sense giving him any more publicity. Unfortunately, TFTSNBN* hasn't been used in a while and has probably left everyone's memory through disuse, so I had to use the actual formation name.
* TFTSNBN = The Formation That Shall Not Be Named
EDIT: URK! Just got to thinking... if the rule proposal about only requiring four in the backfield (rather than 7 on the line) is passed, does that open the door for some form of TFTSNBN to re-appear? :!#
No, because last season's rule changes to numbering exception and scrimmage kick formation have you covered in that regard. Nice CYA post Fadamor. :bOW