RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Curious on October 25, 2011, 03:20:03 PM
-
I'm conducting an informal survey about rules we (officials) would like to see changed/deleted/etc. by the NFHS Rules folks. So I thought I'd ask the learned "Refstripes" membership. Your suggestions, along with a "why", if possible, would be appreciated.
Consider nothing sacred.
Personally, I'd like to see DPI eliminated on an "uncatchable" pass; and make all defensive personal fouls an automatic first downs.
Thanks in advance.
-
There are 3 basic levels of Football Rules, NFHS, NCAA and NFL which each serve distinctly different age groups and skill sets. Rules that seem to work well at one level don'y necessarily translate well on the other levels. NFHS rules apply to football starting around the age of 8.
-
I'm conducting an informal survey about rules we (officials) would like to see changed/deleted/etc. by the NFHS Rules folks. So I thought I'd ask the learned "Refstripes" membership. Your suggestions, along with a "why", if possible, would be appreciated.
Consider nothing sacred.
Personally, I'd like to see DPI eliminated on an "uncatchable" pass; and make all defensive personal fouls an automatic first downs.
Thanks in advance.
Honestly, I don't see the need for either change. Just because something works at one level, it doesn't mean it's necessary at all levels.
-
I would like to see the NFHS adopt the NCAA encroachment rules on the defense. I dont see why it is automatically a penalty if the defense is in the NZ following the RFP whistle. I do no think many high school officials call it the way the Fed has it written... Maybe we should start calling it by book rule, the fed would probably change it after the coaches start to complain.
-
There are 3 basic levels of Football Rules, NFHS, NCAA and NFL which each serve distinctly different age groups and skill sets. Rules that seem to work well at one level don'y necessarily translate well on the other levels. NFHS rules apply to football starting around the age of 8.
NCAA rules seem to work fine for players at all ages in the states of Texas and Massachusetts.
-
Five yard horse collar.
I think I would be OK with uncatchable, assuming the hit wasn't hard enough to be classified a personal foul.
I wouldn't mind intentional grounding rules in high school to be the same as the upper levels (can throw it away outside tackle box and beyond LOS). I think that adds an interesting element to the game.
-
Don't mess with NFHS encroachment. It is so easy to administer. The first one in loses. You don't have to keep up with "Was he head up or in the next position over?", the center doesn't have to make a decison to snap it and hope the official sees the same thing, etc. Reduces sideline arguments immensely.
I agree with adding uncatchable to high school DPI.
I'd like to see the "four on one side of the ball" added to the free kick rule. As more and more are using the on-side kick, it would reduce injuries.
Eliminate the toss and choice in OT. Visitor team get's the ball first, home team second, and we play at the end where the offense can see the scoreboard (no advantage to that, but it just makes it simple).
Adopt NCAA intentional grounding rule - just treat it like a sack. A keeps the ball (except on 4th down) at the spot of the pass, loses down, clock is wound on the ready.
-
I know this will shock some of you but I would like to delete the IG rule all together.
I would alos like to see the penalty for kick off OOB removed and do away with automatic TB on kicks crossing the GL.
We saw a kid basically get a Interception for a TD return negated by an IW caused by goal line confusion.
-
Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. Some good thoughts and comments!
Keep 'em coming!
-
Kicks into the end zone remain live.
Formation is legal with no more than 4 backs. If they want to play with 10 & only 6 linemen, let 'em.
OPI is 5 yds plus LOD, just like all the other offense LOD fouls.
Any substantial hit above the shoulders is a PF. The NFL is already there, the NCAA is practically there, why do we allow HS and the little guys to do it?
-
Any substantial hit above the shoulders is a PF. The NFL is already there, the NCAA is practically there, why do we allow HS and the little guys to do it?
Amen, Mike
-
Make it illegal for the defense to slap the ball during the snap ... then we would not have to discuss it here and other sites every year.
-
Make it illegal for the defense to slap the ball during the snap ... then we would not have to discuss it here and other sites every year.
I LOVE THIS ONE!!!
(so where are you AB?????????????????????????)
How come most of the responses are from "U's"? Where are the "'Rs" and the rest of you guys?
-
Encroachment is fine as it is.
Wear any colored freakin towel you want. If it is nicely screen printed with your school logo, that's OK too.
If it says "You suck #42" or "Your momma", eject the towel and give the kid 15 yards.
Wear shooting sleeves, wear Livestrong bands, wear bicep bands around your calves, paint your face like a rodeo clown, hang your play card band from you belt- I don't care.
Eliminate all blocking below the waist and hitting above the shoulders.
-
(1) Illegal formation if more than 4 backs, regardless of number of linemen.
(2) If a team A player goes OOB, comes back in & is first to touch the pass, Illegal Touching.
(3) Basic spot for fouls by Team A behind the LOS previous spot.
(4) OPI penalty 15 yards, no LOD.
(5) No DPI if pass is ruled uncatchable.
-
(1) Illegal formation if more than 4 backs, regardless of number of linemen.
(2) If a team A player goes OOB, comes back in & is first to touch the pass, Illegal Touching.
(3) Basic spot for fouls by Team A behind the LOS previous spot.
(4) Allow passer to dump the ball outside the "tackle box"
(5) Coaches arguing about a sideline warning results in an automatic UNC on the head coach.
(Note: this is bamastripes post with a couple of modifications, us Heart of Dixie boys gotta stick together!)
-
I would like to see fumbles going OOB behind your opponents GL being returned to team last in possession at the spot where possession was lost.
A1 is running at the B-3 when he fumbles, and the ball crosses the GL then goes OOB. This is currently a TB and B gets the ball at the B-20. My rule change would give the ball back to A the B-3. If the ball had gone OOB between the GLs, A would keep possession. I don't know why B should get the ball in the case.
-
"I would alos like to see the penalty for kick off OOB removed ..."
What would you propose?
-
R is responsible for fielding the KO, if it goes out on the fly the K team is rewarded for good placement. Why should it be any different than a punt?
-
Eliminate the 5-yard penalty for an incidental facemask. I believe we use it too much as a "cop-out". Similar to NCAA, an incidental grab & release would be no foul. A grab and twist would be a 15 yard penalty.
-
Maybe I'll catch heat, but with coaches thiking they coach @Oregon (sans the D1 talent) & players emulating what they see on TV, perhaps a few timing items addressed.
We're sometimes playing 12-minute quarter games, with no commercial breaks, played in 3hrs.
NCAA/NFL have 15min quarters, AND commercials and they're playing in 3:15.
-
"R is responsible for fielding the KO, if it goes out on the fly the K team is rewarded for good placement. Why should it be any different than a punt? "
Too easy to do on a free kick. You get to place the ball wherever you want between the hashes, you have no rush, you can easily kick it in the air OOB. Doesn't take much skill to "place it". I would support catching it in the air by K. That takes skill for the kicker and the receiver.
-
Some great stuff/ideas - even from those who don't want to change anything!!!!
One thing I haven't seen yet: How about a spot foul (with auto 1st down) for DPI on passes less than 15 yds?
Thoughts
More ...more...more
If you don't like some of the suggestions, "speak" up. Would like both sides of the argument...
-
Make the penalty for KCI 15 yards from the previous spot or 15 yards and the ball to R at the spot of the foul.
Eliminate LOD on OPI.
Change the rules regarding force so that they are the same as NCAA. In NCAA a new impetus cannot be imparted on a loose ball unless it is at rest or there is illegal batting or kicking the ball.
Allow Team B to decline the penalty for an illegal forward pass thrown from Team A's endzone.
-
Change the rules regarding force so that they are the same as NCAA. In NCAA a new impetus cannot be imparted on a loose ball unless it is at rest or there is illegal batting or kicking the ball.
Slight clarification: any bat, legal or illegal, of a grounded loose ball imparts new impetus in NCAA.
-
Encroachment is fine as it is.
Wear any colored freakin towel you want. If it is nicely screen printed with your school logo, that's OK too.
If it says "You suck #42" or "Your momma", eject the towel and give the kid 15 yards.Wear shooting sleeves, wear Livestrong bands, wear bicep bands around your calves, paint your face like a rodeo clown, hang your play card band from you belt- I don't care.
I think the current rule is perfect. There should be no arguing about what is, or isn't allowed, either it's a wristband worn properly or a white towel - that's it - everything else is prohibited. There is no whining about, "but they're wearing that" or " this is really the equal of that", or "He/they shouldn't be offended by that", or "That's a gang challenge", or any of the other bazillion excuses that the creative American teenager can generate.
We're not the fashion police, it's just that there's no allowance for creative fashion statements from anybody. A team member can wear whatever he wants, HE JUST CAN'T PLAY WEARING IT. The choice to be made is his - not ours, and we already know that choices sometimes bring consequences.
Under the current arrangement there is no room (or need) for argument, UNLESS YOU ARE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO MAKE ROOM FOR ARGUMENT. Unless it's a properly worn wristband or a white towel, it's an illegal uniform adornment. Anyone with a problem understanding that should be directed to the NFHS, and we can continue focusing on the game at hand.
This could, and should, be relegated to the scrap heap of irrelevant with a little more help from coaches.
-
Well.... as regular readers here know, I've got a blend of a couple rule sets.
My main beef with NHFS rules is that offsetting fouls result in a down repeated at LOS, automagically. That could be tweaked.
A PF by the defence ought to be applied at Point Ball Held, Point Ball Dead or PLS at offensive team's option (whichever hurts 'em most), auto first down. My foggy memory of NFHS says that ain't always the case.
My other main beef (oft cited here, I fear) is not with the rules, but the mechnics dictates for the U. The reason umpires suffer injuries is because they are too close to the mayhem zone of the FBZ, due to the requirement they be at or near the LOS on forward pass plays. Let one of the wings do this job, drop the U further back. And fer crying out loud, let the U rule signal majors - he/she is often the best equipped to rule on plunge plays, short goal-scramble situations, etc.
-
I would like to see something similar to the NFL hands to the face thing on the d lineman. Starting to see a lot this from d lineman. Usually I will say something but if it is really bad I flag it as a PF.
-
I think the current rule is perfect. There should be no arguing about what is, or isn't allowed, either it's a wristband worn properly or a white towel - that's it - everything else is prohibited. There is no whining about, "but they're wearing that" or " this is really the equal of that", or "He/they shouldn't be offended by that", or "That's a gang challenge", or any of the other bazillion excuses that the creative American teenager can generate.
We're not the fashion police, it's just that there's no allowance for creative fashion statements from anybody. A team member can wear whatever he wants, HE JUST CAN'T PLAY WEARING IT. The choice to be made is his - not ours, and we already know that choices sometimes bring consequences.
Under the current arrangement there is no room (or need) for argument, UNLESS YOU ARE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO MAKE ROOM FOR ARGUMENT. Unless it's a properly worn wristband or a white towel, it's an illegal uniform adornment. Anyone with a problem understanding that should be directed to the NFHS, and we can continue focusing on the game at hand.
This could, and should, be relegated to the scrap heap of irrelevant with a little more help from coaches.
I agree that towel color is insignificant. Any inciteful language or symbols on the towels should be removed. But if the towel matches the uniform, or is pink, or any color, even with an appropriate school or manufacturer logo, why should I care? More than that, what harm is caused by that?
Anecdote: I showed up at the first home game for a team early this season. Every player on the home team had a blue towel with each players jersey number embroidered on it in red, tucked into his belt. When I told the players to remove the blue towels, they all complained. One player told me the mothers ordered them for the boys. How unsportsmanlike! We allow pink socks in October. We allow any color wrist bands, arm pads, gloves, shoes, shoe laces, chin straps, mouth pieces, but only white towels.
Logical? It's as if they're trying to take judgement away from thsoe who are paid to judge.
-
Slight clarification: any bat, legal or illegal, of a grounded loose ball imparts new impetus in NCAA.
Oops...you are correct, good catch!
-
REPLY:
1. For judging a false start, get rid of 7-1-7b. Reason: 7-1-7a and 7-1-7c are sufficient for ruling whether or not a false start has occurred.
2. Illegal formation for more than 4 in backfield, rather than for less than seven on the line. Reason: If A has less than seven on the line but no more than four in the backfield, they're already at a disadvantage.
3. Eliminate DPI for uncatchable. Reason: If B holds, pushes, etc. A receiver who has no possibility of catching the pass, how has he interfered with his attempt? Must be accompanied with a very clear statement that when in question, the pass IS catchable.
-
REPLY:
1. For judging a false start, get rid of 7-1-7b. Reason: 7-1-7a and 7-1-7c are sufficient for ruling whether or not a false start has occurred.
2. Illegal formation for more than 4 in backfield, rather than for less than seven on the line. Reason: If A has less than seven on the line but no more than four in the backfield, they're already at a disadvantage.
3. Eliminate DPI for uncatchable. Reason: If B holds, pushes, etc. A receiver who has no possibility of catching the pass, how has he interfered with his attempt? Must be accompanied with a very clear statement that when in question, the pass IS catchable.
Agreed #2 big time.
If they have 10 on the field w/ only 6 on the line, no advantage whatsoever - hurting themselves.
Love to see that NCAA rule trickle down.
-
I agree that towel color is insignificant. Logical? It's as if they're trying to take judgement away from thsoe who are paid to judge.
Perhaps you're right about "color", it's really not a big deal, but the rest of it simply takes the field officials totally out of the discussion. No arguing, no pleading, no discussion about what words, symbols, whatever might be insulting, offensive, derogatory.
After you've done this "thing we do" long enough, you'll note that "one-ups-manship" is an ever present cloud on this game, and most other games young men play. Not always a bad thing, but one that can get out of control (and has in the past) real quick and get real ugly. The current rule eliminates a ton of endless BS and provides a solid brick wall to reference.
It's not our choice, opinion, fashion statement or anything else, it's a simple, unambiguous, non discussable rule. A young man can wear all the dodads his heart desires, or he can play the game, he just can't do both. Ultimately, the player is the one making the choice.
Learning that some choices come with consequences is a valuable life lesson.
-
(1) Illegal formation if more than 4 backs, regardless of number of linemen.
(3) Basic spot for fouls by Team A behind the LOS previous spot.
(4) OPI penalty 15 yards, no LOD.
I don't care much one way or the other on Bama's other two suggestions, but I can definitely support these. Especially the loss of down on a 'routine' OPI - we're already penalizing the team 15 yards, and taking away a down on top of it. I see the logic that DPI results ibn an auto first down, so OPI has a down issue as well, but that seems like too harsh of a penalty for a garden-variety OPI. Now, for an "intentional" a a"flagrant" OPI, 15 and LOD should still apply, but I suspect we'd see that called about as often as we do the 30-yard "intentional" DPI.
And as others have said, if A has 10 players in the game and 4 backs, they're at enough of a disadvantage with the 6-man line that throwing a penalty on top of that always feels like insult to injury to me.
-
(3) Basic spot for fouls by Team A behind the LOS previous spot.
REPLY: I would go along with this one also provided it was paired with the other piece: Fouls by B during a running play that ends behind the neutral zone are also enforced from the previous spot.
-
I believe that a foul by the defense in or behind the LOS should be a previous spot foul. At this time you can bring down a runner or QB twenty yards behind the LOS, team A gets the down over and still loses 5 yards. I have never understood this rule.
-
I believe that a foul by the defense in or behind the LOS should be a previous spot foul. At this time you can bring down a runner or QB twenty yards behind the LOS, team A gets the down over and still loses 5 yards. I have never understood this rule.
They don't lose twenty yards and a down.
-
Re: White Towels
If you are old enough to remember the discussion regarding this rule, gang members were wearing towels, including bandanas, hanging from their belts in their gang colors.
-
I believe that a foul by the defense in or behind the LOS should be a previous spot foul. At this time you can bring down a runner or QB twenty yards behind the LOS, team A gets the down over and still loses 5 yards. I have never understood this rule.
You might look at this situation from a defensive perspective. The defense has clearly outplayed the offense in these situations. In addition to being outplayed, the offense commits a foul against the defense, for which there is a proscribed penalty.
Arbitrarily enforcing the foul from the previous spot totally eliminates the honestly earned advantage the defense had gained by it's superior play. Also, it would be reasonable to expect that an offense, who is in the process of suffering a significant loss, because of superior defensive play, may very well be encouraged to foul if the risk of fouling was limited to (in part or entirely) yardage already lost due to the defensive play.
-
Arbitrarily enforcing the foul from the previous spot totally eliminates the honestly earned advantage the defense had gained by it's superior play. Also, it would be reasonable to expect that an offense, who is in the process of suffering a significant loss, because of superior defensive play, may very well be encouraged to foul if the risk of fouling was limited to (in part or entirely) yardage already lost due to the defensive play.
I think skip meant that team B fouls behind the neutral zone, thus causing team A to lose yardage on the down. In that case you cannot really argue that team B should be rewarded for "good" effort, because that effort might have been caused by the foul.
-
After last night, the second half in 40 degree weather and raining -
Overtime in junior high games. Seriously?
-
I think skip meant that team B fouls behind the neutral zone, thus causing team A to lose yardage on the down. In that case you cannot really argue that team B should be rewarded for "good" effort, because that effort might have been caused by the foul.
Thank you for clarifying that the reference was to a defensive foul, I read right through that. For NFHS, the foul in that case would be from the spot of the foul, the presumption being the defense got that far on it's own without fouling.
-
Eliminate all blocking below the waist.
Allow the QB to throw the ball away without a IG call.
Any hit above the shoulders or grabbing of a players head is a penalty.
-
I know they have been hit but the big two IMO is
1.) 5 in the backfield and not 6 on the line
2.) LOD for OPI and make it 10yards
-
Consider nothing sacred.
I'm going way outside the box here.
Get rid of the forward pass. Why do we call it FOOTBALL anyways when so little of it is played with the foot?
-
I'm going way outside the box here.
Get rid of the forward pass. Why do we call it FOOTBALL anyways when so little of it is played with the foot?
Interesting....but isn't this already called Rugby?
-
Get rid of the forward pass. Why do we call it FOOTBALL anyways when so little of it is played with the foot?
With apologies in advance but you touched upon three topics I find fascinating...sports, history and etymology.
Well let's see...in 1814 we took a little trip...no wait, wrong story.
I'm sure you know this but I found it quite interesting when I first learned it so I'm going to share. Soccer is also known as association football. (Soccer is a shortening of association by the way and was a term coined by the British) Association football got it's name not because the game was played with the feet but because it was played ON feet. This distinguished it from a game played on horseback, hence making it a game for the commoners.
American football also known as gridiron football is a derivative of the other types of football such rugby, soccer, etc. Here in America and in pockets of other countries, we drop the gridiron from the name. Same as most of the rest of the world drops the word "association" from the name.
Here's an article in Der Spiegel with more detail:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,420024,00.html
Sorry for the threadjack, Curious. :)
-
Sorry for the threadjack, Curious. :)
No problem...I find all these thoughts fascinating!!!!
-
Make "holding" by the offense legal and change the name of the foul to "restraining".
Change 9-2-1c to: An offensive player shall not restrain an opponent who is in the vicinity of the runner by tackling, jerking the opponent and pulling him back, hook and restrict with an extended arm, or grab and twist the opponent. Grasping an opponent's uniform is legal unless it significantly restrains the opponent in the vicinity of the runner.
-
Make "holding" by the offense legal and change the name of the foul to "restraining".
Change 9-2-1c to: An offensive player shall not restrain an opponent who is in the vicinity of the runner by tackling, jerking the opponent and pulling him back, hook and restrict with an extended arm, or grab and twist the opponent. Grasping an opponent's uniform is legal unless it significantly restrains the opponent in the vicinity of the runner.
I really like this idea. You've expressed it effectively and it captures the spirit and intent behind the penalty for holding/"restraining" (which is followed by MOST officials anyway).
-
Make "holding" by the offense legal and change the name of the foul to "restraining".
I don't see the difference. If "restraining" were something that was always illegal, I could see the point: holding is sometimes legal and sometimes not. But the terms have approximately the same meaning. Restraining an opponent is sometimes legal and sometimes not.
And grabbing the uniform and restraining an opponent near the runner is legal if done correctly.
-
I don't see the difference. If "restraining" were something that was always illegal, I could see the point: holding is sometimes legal and sometimes not. But the terms have approximately the same meaning. Restraining an opponent is sometimes legal and sometimes not.
And grabbing the uniform and restraining an opponent near the runner is legal if done correctly.
In my mind, the difference is "restricting" would finally acknowledge what coaches already know but what officials struggle to effectively articulate. I don't know how many times I've had coaches tell me that crews are telling them that "holding" is legal - solely IF they lock onto their opponent inside the shoulders - instead of using the "advantage/disadvantage" argument.
While the Rule Book actually doesn't address "advantage/disadvantage" per se, common sense officiating does. Nevertheless, a rule-based distinction as wingnut argues, could alleviate some of the unnecessary and unpleasant discourse.
And help me understand your last comment about the legality of "grabbing the uniform near the runner if done correctly"....
-
And help me understand your last comment about the legality of "grabbing the uniform near the runner if done correctly"....
Using proper blocking technique -- not taking his man to the ground, keeping his hands inside his opponent's frame, moving his feet, etc. -- a blocker can hold jersey all day, even at the point of attack, and not commit a foul.
-
In my mind, the difference is "restricting" would finally acknowledge what coaches already know but what officials struggle to effectively articulate. ..... instead of using the "advantage/disadvantage" argument.
It's clearly imperative to understand the rules and to be able to succinctly explain your understanding when questioned, but coaches, who think they already know the answer, at some point simply need to accept your answer, whether they like it or not. Expecting coaches to acknowledge, much less accept, the advantage/disadvantage logic when that explanation doesn't support their objective, is most often, wishful thinking.
-
Using proper blocking technique -- not taking his man to the ground, keeping his hands inside his opponent's frame, moving his feet, etc. -- a blocker can hold jersey all day, even at the point of attack, and not commit a foul.
With respect, you're stating what blocking has evolved into - not what is defined in 2-3-1,2 and 3. This is exactly the point I'm trying to make; that this technique is NOT legal by rule - but we let it go (and should)when it gives no unfair advantage or has no bearing on the play. The "restriction" idea seems to give a little clearer picture of a blurry situation.
At the point of attack especially, I would vehemently argue, grabbing and holding your opponent's jersey IS a foul; but is also adequately addressed by the "restriction" idea.
-
It's clearly imperative to understand the rules and to be able to succinctly explain your understanding when questioned, but coaches, who think they already know the answer, at some point simply need to accept your answer, whether they like it or not. Expecting coaches to acknowledge, much less accept, the advantage/disadvantage logic when that explanation doesn't support their objective, is most often, wishful thinking.
"Because I said so" is no answer; and frankly does nothing to make a complicated game easier to understand!
While I firmly believe coaches, in general, do not spend enough time understanding the rules - let alone philosophy - the rules, and officials' differing "interpretations", are often sources of frustration. Why not spend the time to explain - or better yet - simplify the rules for everyone?
-
Lets us have the ability to announce the number of the fouling player. Basketball, you announce the foul to the scorekeeper, soccer you call the player over by himself and show him the card. Baseball, well if you toss a player generally everyone knows. Volleyball they get cards just like in soccer, track if a player starts early they all know who did it. Hockey they have the 'sin bin'. It just seems Football is the only sport that wants to keep the players number a secret. If we were just able to announce the number over the intercom system it would help getting that number to the coach faster, instead of us having to route the number across the field.
-
"Because I said so" is no answer; and frankly does nothing to make a complicated game easier to understand!
I'm not sure how you arrived at "because I said so" being an appropriate, or recommended response. I presume the response, and explanation, would be an accurate and rational answer to whatever the question might be. The message, you seemed to miss, is that once an accurate and rational explanation is offered, there is nothing to be gained by either party, in rehashing it.
Regarding announcing the number of fouling players; I believe the reason we don't announce the numbers is that there is no purpose gained by doing so. Alerting the player's coach is a courtesy to assist the coach in working with a particular player to understand what he may have done wrong. Alerting spectators and the other team as to which player might be making mistakes serves no constructive purpose.
-
I'm not sure how you arrived at "because I said so" being an appropriate, or recommended response. I presume the response, and explanation, would be an accurate and rational answer to whatever the question might be. The message, you seemed to miss, is that once an accurate and rational explanation is offered, there is nothing to be gained by either party, in rehashing it.
I didn't "miss" anything. What is "rational" to you is often "Greek" to the rest of the world. The point of this thread was how we might make rules CLEARER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND! Officials are not the only people capable of comprehending and interpreting the rules; but unfortunately the rulesmakers choose to make them (the rules) often very muddy. With some consolidation and simplification of the three codes, we can cut down on misunderstanding, arguments, and "rehashing"....
-
I didn't "miss" anything. What is "rational" to you is often "Greek" to the rest of the world.
Still don't see the dots you're trying to connect, or how you arrived at "because I said so", which is your idea, not mine. If you want to run a series of rule clinics during your games, that's entirely up to you. When asked a civil question, a civil, concise and clear response is appropriate. That is simply not an open invitation to engage in a prolonged debate, unless of course, a debate is what you're looking for.
One, fairly certain, way to, "cut down on misunderstanding, arguments, and "rehashing" is to deftly replace the question mark at the end of your answer with a period, and simply move on. I wouldn't think ANY official would provide an irrational answer to any question, although if the person asking the question shows no interest in understanding or accepting the answer, it's probably best, for both parties to make the exchange as brief as possible.
-
Still don't see the dots you're trying to connect... o
Obviously!
One, fairly certain, way to, "cut down on misunderstanding, arguments, and "rehashing" is to deftly replace the question mark at the end of your answer with a period, and simply move on.
For the FINAL time: The point of this thread was how we might make rules CLEARER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND!
-
For the FINAL time: The point of this thread was how we might make rules CLEARER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND!
Forgive me, I must have missed the part that designated YOU as the final arbiter of deciding exactly what, "CLEARER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND" is supposed to mean for everyone else.
-
I would like to see the NFHS adopt the NCAA encroachment rules on the defense. I dont see why it is automatically a penalty if the defense is in the NZ following the RFP whistle. I do no think many high school officials call it the way the Fed has it written... Maybe we should start calling it by book rule, the fed would probably change it after the coaches start to complain.
REPLY: Actually it's not. There are two ways for defensive encroachment to occur: (1) after the RFP, it's encroachment if a player other than the snapper touches the ball or the defense enters the NZ to call signals, or (2) after the snapper has placed his hands on the ball, if any player enters the NZ.
So generally, if a defensive player is in the NZ after the RFP, he hasn't fouled--until the snapper places hands on the ball. Then he's guilty.
-
my list:
1) No LOD on OPI
2) KCI is 15 from the spot of KCI or 15 from prev spot
3) Totally re-do the illegal participation rule and make the action of going out of bounds and returning and touching the pass before the defense an illegal touching foul instead of IP. This eliminates the too-punitive current rule for that action and they don't need the rule change they made last year to eliminate the "participating out of bounds" loop hole.
4) Mechanics: let us announce the number of the fouling player. If it's good enough for basketball, it's good enough for football. It also prevents the coaches from screaming "WHAT NUMBER??? WHAT NUMBER!!!???"
5) Mechanics: Don't frown upon auxiliary signals (ie Juggled pass, pass hit the ground, receiver OOB, covering official giving prelim to R on the way in).
Thinks I like from NCAA which would never happen in NFHS:
1) Holding / Illegal Blocks / Personal Fouls always enforced from the prev spot if occurring behind LOS. (Too many exceptions for HS officials to remember. Too many opportunities to screw up)
2) 40/25 sec play clock - too hard to administer without a good play clock operator and frankly officials would screw it up too much
-
40/25 sec play clock - too hard to administer without a good play clock operator and frankly officials would screw it up too much
We have play clock operators who can't keep up with 25 seconds now and they want to blame the officials. I shudder at the thought of giving a PCO two things to keep straight!
-
Fot over 50 years our Association has assigned officials to operate all field clocks at High School games, where schools elect to utilize field clocks. Otherwise the game time is kept by the field crew, on the field. 25 second clocks are somewhat rare at this point, in this area, but if a school elects to provide this functionality, we will provide a separate operator to service that need.
-
NCAA rules seem to work fine for players at all ages in the states of Texas and Massachusetts.
That's a matter of opinion. It would seem that 48 states disagree.
-
That's a matter of opinion. It would seem that 48 states disagree.
And isn't it true that both states have adopted modifications to some of those rules?
-
A smart fellow once told me:
"NFL rules are made for television. College rules are made for the coaches. High school rules are made for the safety of the players."
-
A smart fellow once told me:
"NFL rules are made for television. College rules are made for the coaches. High school rules are made for the safety of the players."
That is a good quote!
-
I agree w/ tampa steve,games are taking longer,most so-called OC's are simply copycats of what they see on TV,knowing they dont,and NEVER WILL have the talent/personnel to run SPREAD OPTION LIKE OREGON,ETC.--DOG's need Clock start on RFP instead of snap(which delays game even more),and NCAA rule on ENC/NZI by B(give A the freebie),eliminate 5 yd FMK,and some tweaks to mech on kickoffs for H & U to box in players better... pray:; :bOW
-
I see a lot of calls for eliminating the five yard face ask foul but was it not imposed because coaches wanted facemasks called and officias didn't as there wasn't any twisting or turning?
-
I see a lot of calls for eliminating the five yard face ask foul but was it not imposed because coaches wanted facemasks called and officias didn't as there wasn't any twisting or turning?
Split the difference... make 'em all 10. :sTiR:
-
Split the difference... make 'em all 10. :sTiR:
Simply ignoring what the sideline thinks, solves a lot of problems.
-
Simply ignoring what the sideline thinks, solves a lot of problems.
And it's this kind of thinking that leads to there being far more coaches on the rules committee than officials!
-
And it's this kind of thinking that leads to there being far more coaches on the rules committee than officials!
I don't think so, our role is to enforce the rules that are created, not to decide what the rules should be. Perhaps my comment should have been more precise, but I favored brevity rather than detail. Allow me to presume that every last one of us knows what a facemask is, and what the difference is between a 5 and 15 yard violation.
We call what we see, it really doesn't matter what someone else thought they saw, or actually saw, our response is based on what we see and should not be persuaded, in any direction, by outside comments. The options we have are limited to explaining what we have seen, or ignoring what we hear. A lot depends on how, what we hear, was said and whether, or not, it merits an explanation, but far more likely it is far better to ignore the first comment(s) we hear, as a general practice.
Judgments on whether any kind of explanation is warranted is made by the covering official, and to a large degree is determined by how the manner in which the inquiry was made, and who actually made it.
-
...I dont see why it is automatically a penalty if the defense is in the NZ following the RFP whistle.
REPLY: WCFB...how did you arrive at the conclusion you did? After the RFP, the defense is restricted from the NZ for the purpose of giving defensive signals and cannot touch the ball. Other than that, they're not restricted until the snapper places his hands on the ball. So if a defensive player crosses from one side of the formation to the other by going through the NZ, there's no foul as long as the snapper hasn't gripped the ball.