RefStripes.com

Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Rulesman on February 11, 2017, 01:54:44 PM

Title: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Rulesman on February 11, 2017, 01:54:44 PM
Highlights of the changes are listed below. The complete press release is attached.

New rules on blindside blocking are the most recent steps taken by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Football Rules Committee in minimizing the risks associated with the sport.

The establishment of a new definition of a blindside block in Rule 2-3-10 and the addition of Rule 9-4-3n prohibiting a blindside block were two of 11 rules changes recommended by the NFHS Football Rules Committee at its January 20-22 meeting in Indianapolis. All rules changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

The definition of a blindside block established by the committee is “a block against an opponent other than the runner, who does not see the blocker approaching,” and now results in a 15-yard penalty.

The committee stated that the blindside block “involves contact by a blocker against an opponent who, because of physical positioning and focus of concentration, is vulnerable to injury. Unless initiated with open hands, it is a foul for excessive and unnecessary contact when the block is forceful and outside of the free-blocking zone.”

Another significant risk-minimization change was elimination of a pop-up kick in new Rule 6-1-11. A new definition of a pop-up kick in Rule 2-24-10 is defined as “a free kick in which the kicker drives the ball immediately to the ground, the ball strikes the ground once and goes into the air in the manner of a ball kicked directly off the tee.”

The committee implemented this change in an effort to reduce risk of injury due to the increased use of the pop-up kick on onside kickoffs. Such kicks will be penalized as a dead-ball free-kick infraction, as noted with new Rule 6-1-11 PENALTY.

The NFHS Football Rules Committee also expanded Rule 2-32-16 regarding a defenseless player by adding specific examples of a defenseless player. Those examples include, but are not limited to:

a)      A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass;

b)      A receiver attempting to catch a pass who has not had time to clearly become a runner;

c)      The intended receiver of a pass in the action during and immediately following an interception or potential interception;

d)      A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped;

e)      A kickoff or punt returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier;

f)       A player on the ground including a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first;

g)      A player obviously out of the play or not in the immediate vicinity of the runner; and

h)      A player who received a blindside block with forceful contact not initiated with open hands.

Changes to Rule 7-1-6 expand on the situations required for encroachment to occur after the ready-for-play and after the snapper has placed his hand(s) on the ball. The rule previously stated that encroachment occurred if “any other player breaks the plane of the neutral zone.” In addition, now defensive players are restricted from contacting the ball prior to the end of the snap or making contact with the snapper’s hand(s) or arm(s) until the snapper has released the ball.

The remaining changes approved by the NFHS Football Rules Committee touched on a new ball specification (1-3-1h), uniforms 1-5-1b(3), game officials 1-5-4, post-scrimmage kick fouls 2-16-2h, penalty time clock management 3-4-7, prosthetic limbs 4-2-2l , and forward-pass interference 7-5-10, in which the previous foul for non-contact face guarding was eliminated as forward-pass interference.

Regarding the uniform change in Rule 1-5-1b(3), effective with the 2021 season, “the jerseys of the home team shall be a dark color that clearly contrasts to white.”

“The committee revised the rule to provide schools and manufacturers more clarification regarding the game’s current trend of utilizing lighter gray shades,” Colgate said. “The requirement for teams to wear contrasting colors to white is not a new rule, and it is the committee’s expectation that this new clarification will allow changes to be made during normal replacement cycles.”

A complete listing of all rules changes will be available soon on the NFHS website at www.nfhs.org. Click on “Activities & Sports” at the top of the home page, and select “Football.”
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: SouthGARef on February 16, 2017, 10:47:24 AM
What are we thinking is coming though?
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 16, 2017, 10:59:56 AM
What are we thinking is coming though?
There are 11 new changes that will be revealed in a NFHS press release. Soon, I would expect.
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: VALJ on February 16, 2017, 01:51:39 PM
11?  Holy cow!
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 17, 2017, 08:33:42 AM
11?  Holy cow!

 :!#FOOTBALL HAS 11 PLAYERS...NFHS HAS 11 NEW RULES....THE PLANETS HAVE ALIGINED :!# :!#
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 22, 2017, 09:04:56 AM
Just got a "heads-up" from NFHS. Press release with new rules will be available shortly. Rulesman will assist in posting them here.

MAY THE.....

 :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:

.BEGIN tiphat:
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: Rich on February 22, 2017, 09:28:20 AM
Already on our state's webpage and the NFHS site.  I'll let the boss here post on the appropriate thread.

Ralph, can you comment on the penalty time clock management item in 3-4-7?  What does that refer to?
Title: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: ALStripes17 on February 22, 2017, 09:40:51 AM
Disallowing of pop up kicks? .... Why not follow NCAA suit and allow receiving team to fair catch those kicks?
That's gonna be fun to officiate in crucial moments...
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 22, 2017, 09:50:38 AM
In a nutshell, the changes mentioned but not explained are :

 1-3-1h : NFHS, state and school logos are not considered ads on a football.

 1-5-1b(3) : Requires home team uniforms be dark. Laundry list of non-white colors not
                 considered dark will be provided (silver, gray, yellow,etc).

 1-5-4 : If ump is taking a dump, another official can go with R to greet coach.

 2-16-2h : IP /IS that occurs during play (kid's hat coming off) qualifies for PSK.

 3-4-7 : Offended team can choose to start clock on snap on accepted penalty
           during last 2 minutes of either half.

 4-2-2l : If prosthetic limb comes off runner, ball's dead (yes, it happen in Ohio).

 7-1-6 : B touching snap/snapper's hands before snap completed = encroachment.

 7-5-10 : face guarding is no longer a PI foul.

   :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
 
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: Rich on February 22, 2017, 10:07:12 AM
3-4-7 supersedes the status of the ball on the play?

So if A holds on an incomplete pass and the penalty is accepted, B can choose to run the clock on the RFP?

That's actually a big change.  Maybe in 2018 we can start the clock on the RFP on runs that go out of bounds, too. :)
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: Patrick E. on February 22, 2017, 10:08:29 AM
 1-5-1b(3) : Requires HOME team uniforms be dark.
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: sir55 on February 22, 2017, 11:28:46 AM
Blind side blocks are now a 15 yard penalty unless they start with open hands. The new rule defines it as well as a new list of defenseless players. This is on the NFHS website.
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: sir55 on February 22, 2017, 11:31:45 AM
Defenseless player definitions:
The NFHS Football Rules Committee also expanded Rule 2-32-16 regarding a defenseless player by adding specific examples of a defenseless player. Those examples include, but are not limited to:

a)      A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass;

b)      A receiver attempting to catch a pass who has not had time to clearly become a runner;

c)      The intended receiver of a pass in the action during and immediately following an interception or potential interception;

d)      A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped;

e)      A kickoff or punt returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier;

f)       A player on the ground including a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first;

g)      A player obviously out of the play or not in the immediate vicinity of the runner; and

h)      A player who received a blindside block with forceful contact not initiated with open hands.
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 22, 2017, 11:41:19 AM
Disallowing of pop up kicks? .... Why not follow NCAA suit and allow receiving team to fair catch those kicks?
That's gonna be fun to officiate in crucial moments...
The NCAA rule was on the docket last year and failed. The general feeling is that coaches would no longer teach that technique and it wouldn't occur. The official(s) on K's line would make the call = blow & throw -dead ball foul.
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 22, 2017, 11:45:39 AM
1-5-1b(3) : Requires HOME team uniforms be dark.
Thanks, Patrick, I've corrected that. Being left-handed, I sometimes get things bass-ackwards :)!
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: bama_stripes on February 22, 2017, 02:01:27 PM
Hard to believe that the committee was worried about how to handle a prosthetic limb, but STILL didn't define whether an airborne player is inbounds or out of bounds.    hEaDbAnG
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: KWH on February 22, 2017, 02:54:40 PM
Disallowing of pop up kicks? ....
Yes - Keep it simple!

Why not follow NCAA suit and allow receiving team to fair catch those kicks?
NCAA games are typically officiated by 7 (or 8) officials.  NCAA Onside kick situations have 6 (or 7) in the box and sometimes, they only get it right when they review the replay. With most high school games having 3 or 4 in the box and no option for replay,  it makes sense to keep just it simple and safer by making the pop-up kick illegal! Just like "softening up the long snapper" you will not ever see a "pop-up kick" two years from now!

That's gonna be fun to officiate in crucial moments...
Actually Al it will be quite simple since, by rule,  the ball NEVER becomes live.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: FLAHL on February 22, 2017, 10:24:45 PM
If a player in the act of throwing a pass is a defenseless player, do we now have a foul if the QB is hit just as (or just after) he throws a pass?
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: ALStripes17 on February 23, 2017, 06:12:11 AM
Yes - Keep it simple!
NCAA games are not officiated by 7 (or 8) officials.  NCAA Onside kick situations have 6 (or 7) in the box and they sometime only get it right when they review the replay. With most high school games having 3 or 4 in the box and no option for replay,  it makes sense to keep just it simple and safer by making the pop-up kick illegal! Just like "softening up the long snapper" you will not ever see a "pop-up kick" two years from now!
Actually Al it will be quite simple since, by rule,  the ball NEVER becomes live.
The point was that footballs aren't necessarily a sphere. Weird bounces happen and even one kicked sharply parallel to the ground could catch an end and pop-up. I understand their point and where they are getting at. Just tough to see practicality in judging it in some situations.


 That was more so the point I was trying to get across.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 23, 2017, 06:55:55 AM
If the kicker kicks a grounder that takes a hop that wouldn't be a foul, just a lousy kick. A pop-up kick is easy to spot as the kicker drills the kick directly into the ground. A pop-up kick needs both practice and talent on the part of the kicker. With it now being illegal, it is assumed that coaches will no longer be teaching the technique.

In discussing safety rules several of us ole' duffers recalled 1996 when we passed today's roughing the snapper rule. Prior to that, many coaches  instructed their nose guards/middle linebackers to go after the center as he snaps as it hopefully will intimidate him and draw a bad snap later. It was reported that some coaches would have a gentleman's agreement prior to the game not to rough each other's snapper. A rule needed to be added and we then added today's rule. The coaches then taught their players to shoot the gap and leave the snapper alone. Since then, I cannot recall ever having a roughing the snapper foul in any of my games. Why ?? - The coaches taught the new rule and the problem was corrected. We feel the same will occur with this.   
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 23, 2017, 07:04:05 AM
Hard to believe that the committee was worried about how to handle a prosthetic limb, but STILL didn't define whether an airborne player is inbounds or out of bounds.    hEaDbAnG
I'll try again next year.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: bossman72 on February 23, 2017, 08:21:52 AM
If the kicker kicks a grounder that takes a hop that wouldn't be a foul, just a lousy kick. A pop-up kick is easy to spot as the kicker drills the kick directly into the ground. A pop-up kick needs both practice and talent on the part of the kicker. With it now being illegal, it is assumed that coaches will no longer be teaching the technique.

You know it when you see it.  Example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bb94fXT0pU
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: SouthGARef on February 23, 2017, 08:43:41 AM
3-4-7 supersedes the status of the ball on the play?

So if A holds on an incomplete pass and the penalty is accepted, B can choose to run the clock on the RFP?

That's actually a big change.  Maybe in 2018 we can start the clock on the RFP on runs that go out of bounds, too. :)

There's no way that's actually the rule, right? Maybe this is a bad assumption, but I would assume that the rule only permits an offended team to start the clock on the snap, but doesn't allow them to supercede the other rules to start on the RFP.
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 23, 2017, 10:21:44 AM
There's no way that's actually the rule, right? Maybe this is a bad assumption, but I would assume that the rule only permits an offended team to start the clock on the snap, but doesn't allow them to supercede the other rules to start on the RFP.
You're correct. I wasn't correct when I originally posted. I have since corrected my post. Don't blame Rich, as correctly read my incorrect post.
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: bama_stripes on February 23, 2017, 10:55:12 AM
I made another tactical error by including in the rationale :
"...This is the NCAA rule."

Your rationale should have been: "The FED basketball rule is....."
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 23, 2017, 11:52:42 AM
If a player in the act of throwing a pass is a defenseless player, do we now have a foul if the QB is hit just as (or just after) he throws a pass?
No, the laundry list of defenseless players is intended to indicate that a player in a venerable position needs to be observed a little closer by the officials to ensure the contact is legal and not excessive. This also gives rule support to a similar list published in the case book. On the questionnaire that many of us took, 85% were in favor of a published list.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Stinterp on February 23, 2017, 12:48:39 PM
Bossman's video is now a dead ball foul as soon as ball is kicked,  5 yards and rekick.
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: KWH on February 23, 2017, 01:46:54 PM
There's no way that's actually the rule, right? Maybe this is a bad assumption, but I would assume that the rule only permits an offended team to start the clock on the snap, but doesn't allow them to supercede the other rules to start on the RFP.

No, that is not the rule and for (among others) the aforementioned reasons:

Here is a typical situation where the rule change could be applied:

Team A is leading 10-9 with the clock running in the 4th quarter.
The white hat blows the RFP with 2:15 on the game clock.
With 1:55 remaining A77 commits a False Start Foul.
Under pre-2017 Rules, the Referee had to use his judgement (and Rule 3-4-6) to determine if the clock should start on the Snap or the RFP. (It was felt that Referees were inconsistent in this situation) DUH!!!
Under the 2017 rule, the Referee shall, by rule, have the offended captain choose if he/she would like the clock to start on the Snap rather than on the RFP.

Simple Change - It Eliminates a little glitch in the rules that, even though it directly violated the Coaches Code of Ethics, some coaches allegedly COACHED, to gain an unfair advantage. Many argue that coaches never coached players to do that, and, in my heart I believe that to be true!
However, right wrong or indifferent, that opportunistic door has been shut. 

Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: kenref1 on February 23, 2017, 02:37:19 PM
There's no way that's actually the rule, right? Maybe this is a bad assumption, but I would assume that the rule only permits an offended team to start the clock on the snap, but doesn't allow them to supercede the other rules to start on the RFP.

I'm interpreting it as Team A trails by 7, they have the ball, 3rd and 4, 1:25 left in the 4th quarter with the clock running. Team B encroaches. The way I see it is Team A now has the option to have the clock start on the ready or elect to have it start on the snap after the penalty enforcement.
Title: Re: AND THE NEW RULES ARE......
Post by: KWH on February 23, 2017, 03:31:14 PM
I'm interpreting it as Team A trails by 7, they have the ball, 3rd and 4, 1:25 left in the 4th quarter with the clock running. Team B encroaches. The way I see it is Team A now has the option to have the clock start on the ready or elect to have it start on the snap after the penalty enforcement.

Yes. You would be interpreting the new rule correctly Ken!!!
For clarification however, they would only have the option of choosing to start the clock on the snap. If the do not choose to start on the snap, in your scenario, the clock would start on the ready as per rule 3-4-2

EDIT: To be clear, In either case, A can take the 5 yard penalty.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: VALJ on February 23, 2017, 03:50:35 PM
Ralph, is 3-4-7 only intended to apply in cases similar to when the NCAA would do a zap-10, where the clock is running and somebody commits a dead ball foul?
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: bama_stripes on February 24, 2017, 06:23:42 AM
PLAY:  Team A trails by 2 points late in either half.  They complete a pass to the B-10 yard line, and B22 is flagged for DPI or RTP.  The game clock shows 0:03.

Does A now have the snap/RFP option?
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: kenref1 on February 24, 2017, 07:15:45 AM
PLAY:  Team A trails by 2 points late in either half.  They complete a pass to the B-10 yard line, and B22 is flagged for DPI or RTP.  The game clock shows 0:03.

Does A now have the snap/RFP option?

The way I'm interpreting this new rule, if A accepts the penalty and the clock normally would have started on the ready, Team A has the option to have it start on the snap.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 24, 2017, 10:03:09 AM
Ralph, is 3-4-7 only intended to apply in cases similar to when the NCAA would do a zap-10, where the clock is running and somebody commits a dead ball foul?
It could also include live ball fouls - note 'Bama's post on such.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 24, 2017, 10:04:46 AM
PLAY:  Team A trails by 2 points late in either half.  They complete a pass to the B-10 yard line, and B22 is flagged for DPI or RTP.  The game clock shows 0:03.

Does A now have the snap/RFP option?
You are correct, they do.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 24, 2017, 10:05:53 AM
The way I'm interpreting this new rule, if A accepts the penalty and the clock normally would have started on the ready, Team A has the option to have it start on the snap.
You are also correct.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: VALJ on February 24, 2017, 10:58:32 AM
It could also include live ball fouls - note 'Bama's post on such.

Wow.  I like it, as I've always hated when A has the ball late in the game, picks up ten yards so B accepts the penalty the prevent the first down, but gets another 25 seconds to burn.  That's a pretty significant change, though.  Kinda surprised to see that buried so far down the press release.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Magician on February 24, 2017, 06:04:42 PM
Wow.  I like it, as I've always hated when A has the ball late in the game, picks up ten yards so B accepts the penalty the prevent the first down, but gets another 25 seconds to burn.  That's a pretty significant change, though.  Kinda surprised to see that buried so far down the press release.
The referee already had the discretion to start it on the snap if they felt A would benefit by starting on the ready. In many cases where a team will choose to start on the snap, the R likely would have done it that way anyway. This is just another way of addressing it. Remembering to ask the offended team to make sure will be the biggest change.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on February 25, 2017, 01:22:25 PM
The referee already has the discretion to start it on the snap if he feels the offending team would benefit by starting on the ready. In many cases where a team will choose to start on the snap, the R likely would have done it that way anyway. This is just another way of addressing it. Remembering to ask the offended team will be the biggest change.
You hit that one on the head Brian!!!
Additionally, how many R's will be asking the defense if they want to start the clock on, say, OPI on an incomplete pass because, well, they didn't actually READ or comprehend the new rule, and they were cracking jokes and not paying any attention during the clinic.
Oh, wait, were never gonna train those guys anyway!!!  hEaDbAnG
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Badger1 on February 25, 2017, 06:33:46 PM
Imagine all the deer in the headlight looks your going to get from the captains when you include this with the penalty options considering most schools have a different captain every game. 
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: SouthGARef on February 25, 2017, 07:13:04 PM
Imagine all the deer in the headlight looks your going to get from the captains when you include this with the penalty options considering most schools have a different captain every game.

Easy solution to that, but I won't stir up that debate again.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on February 26, 2017, 08:30:09 AM
Patience and calmness, when everyone else might be exited or confused, is still one of our most important attributes.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on February 26, 2017, 05:21:15 PM
Imagine all the deer in the headlight looks your going to get from the captains when you include this with the penalty options considering most schools have a different captain every game.
First: Officials need to completely comprehend and understand the rule and the typical times it will occur.
Second: Coaches need to completely comprehend and understand the rule and the typical times it will occur.
Third: We need to completely explain the options to the captain (Sometimes this means coaching him/her) so that they may make an informed and correct (Sometimes this means coaching him/her) decision.
Fourth: Don't ever allow a captain make the wrong decision! (Sometimes this means coaching him/her)
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: bossman72 on February 26, 2017, 09:32:13 PM
Imagine all the deer in the headlight looks your going to get from the captains when you include this with the penalty options considering most schools have a different captain every game. 

This is why I don't ask captains anything, ever.  If I need info, I go to the head coach.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 27, 2017, 07:22:09 AM
IMHO, if the choice is obvious ...team B up 40-0 when team A false starts w/ :30 left in game... we would treat it like accepting/declining a penalty. Just move on without putting the kids in position of making a mistake.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on February 27, 2017, 08:23:51 AM
This is why I don't ask captains anything, ever.  If I need info, I go to the head coach.

Why not just include it, like the rule suggests, and when (in those relatively few instances) an obviously bad choice is made, or there's obvious confusion, take the time to explain it more completely.  HS Football is a learning opportunity and even deer have to be taught how to deal with headlights.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: bbeagle on February 27, 2017, 08:23:55 AM
I understand the new pop-up rule is written to stop possible injuries from a horde of players in which most players are looking up waiting for a ball to come down, and a few other players punishing those paying attention to the ball with blindside hits.

If a kicker practices and perfects kicking the ball with a spin towards the ground so it hits 3/5 yards downfield (i.e. not 'immediately'), then pops up to cause the same situation, is this something that is still legal, or are we looking at the spirit of this rule?

Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: VALJ on February 27, 2017, 08:47:38 AM
Easy solution to that, but I won't stir up that debate again.

+1.  No, plus a lot more than one... :)
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Magician on February 27, 2017, 08:52:35 AM
I understand the new pop-up rule is written to stop possible injuries from a horde of players in which most players are looking up waiting for a ball to come down, and a few other players punishing those paying attention to the ball with blindside hits.

If a kicker practices and perfects kicking the ball with a spin towards the ground so it hits 3/5 yards downfield (i.e. not 'immediately'), then pops up to cause the same situation, is this something that is still legal, or are we looking at the spirit of this rule?
No because that's not likely to get the ball as high as a pop-up kick. I haven't heard it in the context of the NFHS rule, but when the NCAA came out with their rule they also stated it's hard to discern a pop-up kick from a pooch kick. This was true for both players and officials. The resulting action was very similar so the player and/or official may not realize a pop-up kick has already hit the ground and treat it like a pooch kick. I never thought it was hard to discern, but that was part of the discussion at the time. That would definitely not be the case if a ball hopped 3-5 yards away from the kicker.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on February 27, 2017, 11:26:19 AM
This is why I don't ask captains anything, ever.  If I need info, I go to the head coach.

That must make your coin toss ceremony a little awkward!
I get your point, and it admittedly it works quite well in other codes.
However, in NFHS contests, and until the Rules Book changes, the NFHS Rules Book requires us to receive the choice from the offended captains. See 10-1-1 There is a specific reason the Rule is written and remains that way.
Take your time, and explain to the captain all of his choices. The Rules book does not preclude us from "Assisting" or "Steering" the offended captain into the making the correct choice!
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: twref on February 27, 2017, 01:56:06 PM
That must make your coin toss ceremony a little awkward!
I get your point, and it admittedly it works quite well in other codes.
However, in NFHS contests, and until the Rules Book changes, the NFHS Rules Book requires us to receive the choice from the offended captains. See 10-1-1 There is a specific reason the Rule is written and remains that way.
Take your time, and explain to the captain all of his choices. The Rules book does not preclude us from "Assisting" or "Steering" the offended captain into the making the correct choice!

KWH-What is the specific reason the Rule is written and remains that way? Not an attempt to put you on the spot, but would appreciate knowing why you, any other official or member of the committee believes it's better to ask a captain vs head coach their preference on a rule enforcement
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on March 01, 2017, 12:47:04 PM
KWH-What is the specific reason the Rule is written and remains that way? Not an attempt to put you on the spot, but would appreciate knowing why you, any other official or member of the committee believes it's better to ask a captain vs head coach their preference on a rule enforcement
  The general feeling is high school sports should involve the student in decision-making such as this. There is not any penalty for bringing the captain within hearing distance of the coach or for the captain to be listening to his coach's advice as you explain his options. I try not to put a captain in position of needing to make a challenging decision without the coach not hearing the options.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on March 01, 2017, 01:08:53 PM
  The general feeling is high school sports should involve the student in decision-making such as this. There is not any penalty for bringing the captain within hearing distance of the coach or for the captain to be listening to his coach's advice as you explain his options. I try not to put a captain in position of needing to make a challenging decision without the coach not hearing the options.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE NFHS Rules apply to High School (and younger) athletes, and hopefully being designated a "Captain" is still considered an honor (to those athletes) worth pursuing.  Therefore it is a position worth RESPECTING.

There is NOTHING in the rules (written or UNwritten) preventing a Referee from moving the explanation of a penalty option from wherever, to a place where the explanation can be overheard by his coach, who can offer advice, or correction, (if necessary) to the decision the CAPTAIN is making.

RESPECTING the Captain can pay enormous dividends, should it be better for him to provide assistance in situations, where YOU might prefer a subtle suggestion from him, rather than, and to avoid, a hammer from YOU. 

The difference between NFHS and "other codes" is we work with developing children, as opposed to (sometimes young) and experienced grown men.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: bama_stripes on March 01, 2017, 01:51:40 PM
I have NEVER, at any age group, had a captain complain about not being consulted on a penalty option.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Kalle on March 01, 2017, 02:37:00 PM
KWH-What is the specific reason the Rule is written and remains that way? Not an attempt to put you on the spot, but would appreciate knowing why you, any other official or member of the committee believes it's better to ask a captain vs head coach their preference on a rule enforcement

AIUI this comes from the original college rules, where the coach had absolutely no business on anything that happened on the field - he couldn't even order substitutions. This was gradually relaxed to the point NCAA is now, where the coach makes more or less all decisions.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on March 01, 2017, 03:36:59 PM
I have NEVER, at any age group, had a captain complain about not being consulted on a penalty option.

I've NEVER had a bartender complain about my ability to drive.  Thank God I have a hard working guardian angel backing me up.  Would you REALLY expect a teenage Captain to complain to a Referee about talking to his Coach?
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: bama_stripes on March 01, 2017, 03:39:01 PM
I've NEVER had a bartender complain about my ability to drive.  Thank God I have a hard working guardian angel backing me up.  Would you REALLY expect a teenage Captain to complain to a Referee about talking to his Coach?

I would if he felt like his team was being disadvantaged, or he was being disrespected.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Rulesman on March 01, 2017, 06:15:57 PM
I would if he felt like his team was being disadvantaged, or he was being disrespected.
Disrespected? Sorry, Bama. Give us a break from the political correctness. 👎
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: sir55 on March 01, 2017, 07:38:29 PM
4 more questions. A receiver is defenseless player until he becomes a runner. Does that mean that the defense can not make contact with the receiver to break up a pass? Does the defender now stand there until the catch is complete and the receiver begins to run? Does the receiver of a punt or free kick, as a defenseless player, now get fair catch protection without the signal? Does the snapper now get the same protection he did when the offense was in a SKF, except now it is a 5 yard encroachment (dead ball?) unless they are in a SKF? Last question, Ralph, when do the rule interpretations come out for these new rules?
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on March 01, 2017, 10:33:21 PM
Regarding your questions related to a "defenseless player" , the examples shown in the press release relate to expanding 2-32-16 by adding specific examples.  Penalties associated with "defenseless  players are related to 9-4-3i-3, which refers to "Illegal helmet-to-helmet contact against a defenseless player.", so unless the contact against any of the newly listed descriptions involved helmet-to-helmet contact, it doesn't seem as if very much has changed, from the current interpretations, that hopefully have already been drawing flags for violating
9-4-3i-3 when illegal helmet contact is observed.

The Snapper is protected, in a SKF,  from "Roughing" by 9-4-6, which would usually supercede most encroachment fouls. 
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: bama_stripes on March 02, 2017, 06:05:20 AM
Disrespected? Sorry, Bama. Give us a break from the political correctness. 👎

No "PC" intended.  Perhaps that's just a result of my spending a lot of time with teenagers, who feel that "disrespect" is a near-capital offense.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on March 02, 2017, 07:48:31 AM
4 more questions. A receiver is defenseless player until he becomes a runner. Does that mean that the defense can not make contact with the receiver to break up a pass? Does the defender now stand there until the catch is complete and the receiver begins to run? Does the receiver of a punt or free kick, as a defenseless player, now get fair catch protection without the signal? Does the snapper now get the same protection he did when the offense was in a SKF, except now it is a 5 yard encroachment (dead ball?) unless they are in a SKF? Last question, Ralph, when do the rule interpretations come out for these new rules?
IMHO, MY four answers....
 (1) The list of defenseless players is for us to pay close attention to players in those vaunerble positions and ensure that all contact is legal. Targeting/excessive contact/etc. should be called if not.
 (2) See #1.
 (3) The 5 yd dead ball encroachment penalty was added to answer the age ole' question of ; "Can a 'faster than a speeding bullet' defender intercept/disrupt the snap before it leaves the snapper's hands?" The answer is now NO. This would only be RTS if contact was made with the snapper's body and K was in SKF. RTS =live ball,15 yds & AFD.
 (4) Interpretations on new rules will be published and released in the new Case Book. Further interpretations would normally be published shortly after the NFHS Interpreters Meeting in July.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on March 02, 2017, 08:12:23 AM
I have NEVER, at any age group, had a captain complain about not being consulted on a penalty option.
Two situations from my murky memory that I felt you guys might enjoy....

   SITUATION : 4th & 10, incomplete pass & flag for OPI (back in the days of LOD on such). I go to B's captain to inform that he'll have the ball & the 15 yds , when... captain hears his coach yelling "DECLINE IT,DECLINE IT..."
   Captain : "We'll de..."
   Me : " :)I'm the elder, let me talk first :). By taking the penalty you'll still get the ball BUT you'll also get 15 more yards. 8]"
   Captain : " Coach don't know crap, does he??"
   Me : " Everyone can have their own opinions, captain ;)."
      ...and the band played on.

  SITUATION : 1st & 10 @ A's 20, :05 left in 0-0 1st half...
  (1) A's pass is intercepted by B10 @ 50;
  (2) During the return, there's a flag for BIB on B11 @ A's 20;
  (3) B10 runs OOB @ A'15 where there's a late hit by A5;
  (4) The clock now reads : 00:00.0.

 SURPRISE QUIZ : WHO WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE OPTIONS TO AND WHAT WOULD THEY BE???

     ^flag ^talk ^talk ^flag
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: ncwingman on March 02, 2017, 08:21:58 AM
Disrespected? Sorry, Bama. Give us a break from the political correctness. 👎

I don't think that's a PC thing -- it's more basic human decency. If you're talking down to a high school varsity player like he's a 6 year old pee wee kid -- "Hey, let's go ask your coach what he wants to do!" -- he will probably think you're not taking him seriously and he probably won't respect you in return. If you treat them like adults, they're more likely to act like adults.

And, it's not *that* you asked the coach instead of the captain that is the problem, it's *how* -- and the wrong way to do it is easily avoidable. It's very easy to get the coach involved and not be dismissive or disrespectful of the captain.

Now, if he claims that actually throwing the flag when he commits a foul was a microagression on your part... okay, yes, that's some dumb PC garbage.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Kalle on March 02, 2017, 08:28:58 AM
Two situations from my murky memory that I felt you guys might enjoy....

   SITUATION : 4th & 10, incomplete pass & flag for OPI (back in the days of LOD on such). I go to B's captain to inform that he'll have the ball & the 15 yds , when... captain hears his coach yelling "DECLINE IT,DECLINE IT..."

In situations like these I love the NCAA rule 10-1-1-a, the penalty is completed when the choice is obvious to the referee. No need to let team B to shoot themselves in the foot even if they'd want to.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: ncwingman on March 02, 2017, 08:34:46 AM
IMHO, MY four answers....
 (1) The list of defenseless players is for us to pay close attention to players in those vaunerble positions and ensure that all contact is legal. Targeting/excessive contact/etc. should be called if not.
 (2) See #1.

I want to make sure I'm interpreting the new rules right as well -- mostly, the defenseless player definition is NOT actually a new rule. It just expanded the explicit definition of who is defenseless. If you launch at a player to make a big hit just for the sake of making a big hit/block and it's unnecessary and excessive, it's 15 yards... but it should have been 15 yards last year as well.

B56 launches themselves at receiver A88 stretching to catch a high throw and is contacted shoulder to sternum (B56's arms are tucked in to his chest, not extended). It's not contact to the head/targeting, but it is excessively violent when B56 could have tried to wrap up or played the ball instead. Last year, the officials might hold their flag thinking that A88 is "fair game" since he's involved in the play, despite the excessive nature of the hit. This year, the book clearly states, "No, you can't just hit a guy to hit a guy, even if he's trying to make a play on the ball."

(3) The 5 yd dead ball encroachment penalty was added to answer the age ole' question of ; "Can a 'faster than a speeding bullet' defender intercept/disrupt the snap before it leaves the snapper's hands?" The answer is now NO. This would only be RTS if contact was made with the snapper's body and K was in SKF. RTS =live ball,15 yds & AFD.

Just the enforcement clarification, if B99 swats at the ball in the snapper's hands, it's 5 yards for encroachment -- unless he's the long snapper (in scrimmage kick formation), then it's 15 for roughing?
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on March 02, 2017, 08:42:39 AM
I want to make sure I'm interpreting the new rules right as well -- mostly, the defenseless player definition is NOT actually a new rule. It just expanded the explicit definition of who is defenseless. If you launch at a player to make a big hit just for the sake of making a big hit/block and it's unnecessary and excessive, it's 15 yards... but it should have been 15 yards last year as well.

B56 launches themselves at receiver A88 stretching to catch a high throw and is contacted shoulder to sternum (B56's arms are tucked in to his chest, not extended). It's not contact to the head/targeting, but it is excessively violent when B56 could have tried to wrap up or played the ball instead. Last year, the officials might hold their flag thinking that A88 is "fair game" since he's involved in the play, despite the excessive nature of the hit. This year, the book clearly states, "No, you can't just hit a guy to hit a guy, even if he's trying to make a play on the ball." IMHO, It would have been a foul last year IF you felt he was defenseless. Now that we have a list of what a defenseless player is, he would have deemed to be such.

Just the enforcement clarification, if B99 swats at the ball in the snapper's hands, it's 5 yards for encroachment -- unless he's the long snapper (in scrimmage kick formation), then it's 15 for roughing?
IMHO, swatting the ball out of the snapper's hands wouldn't be RTS, swatting the ball out of the snapper's hands AND knocking the snapper over would.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on March 02, 2017, 09:25:01 AM
Two situations from my murky memory that I felt you guys might enjoy....

   SITUATION : 4th & 10, incomplete pass & flag for OPI (back in the days of LOD on such). I go to B's captain to inform that he'll have the ball & the 15 yds , when... captain hears his coach yelling "DECLINE IT,DECLINE IT..."
 

For, whatever it might be worth, a response to situations where a Captain may offer (an obviously) bad choice either in contradiction to the advice of a listening Coach, or all by himself, we ALWAYS have two options;

1. He made his choice, now he has to live with it.
                             
                               (or)
2. Suggesting, "Perhaps, I didn't explain YOUR options as well as I intended, so let ME try again..." and repeating the options (with whatever emphasis YOU deem necessary to help him understand, what he needs to).  Then, whatever choice he makes, he has to live with.

Avoiding unnecessary problems is usually a lot less strain, that cleaning up after them.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: VALJ on March 02, 2017, 10:14:40 AM
2. Suggesting, "Perhaps, I didn't explain YOUR options as well as I intended, so let ME try again..." and repeating the options (with whatever emphasis YOU deem necessary to help him understand, what he needs to).  Then, whatever choice he makes, he has to live with.

Avoiding unnecessary problems is usually a lot less strain, that cleaning up after them.

"Mr. Captain, you can decline the penalty for the illegal forward pass on 4th down and get the ball right here. Or, you can accept the penalty, which moves them back 5 yards, and get the ball up there. You want the penalty, right?"
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on March 02, 2017, 10:39:01 AM
^flag ^talk ^flag

I'M STILL WAITING WITH BOTH CAPTAINS ,AND HALFTIME ABOUT TO BEGIN, AS TO WHAT/WHERE/HOW TO DO REGARDING THE SURPRISE QUIZ 7 POSTS AGO....HELP :) :)
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Kalle on March 02, 2017, 10:46:47 AM
I'M STILL WAITING WITH BOTH CAPTAINS ,AND HALFTIME ABOUT TO BEGIN, AS TO WHAT/WHERE/HOW TO DO REGARDING THE SURPRISE QUIZ 7 POSTS AGO....HELP :) :)

I'll bite. Ask team A captain if he wants to let team B run one play from A-15 or take a 15 yard penalty on the 2nd half kickoff. I'm guessing he'll choose the kickoff, but this isn't entirely obvious.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on March 02, 2017, 11:17:49 AM
I'll bite. Ask team A captain if he wants to let team B run one play from A-15 or take a 15 yard penalty on the 2nd half kickoff. I'm guessing he'll choose the kickoff, but this isn't entirely obvious.
Good job, Kalle, ya' nailed it aWaRd! As I recall, the actual happening went sorta' like this....

 (1) Told A's captain ,and invited B's captain to tag along, that we should go over toward his coach as the choice could get complicated. Captain A responded : "Complicated stuff made his head ache."
 (2) Explained to A's captain, in front of A's coach : "They blocked in the back @ your 20, if you accept, we first will move the ball back to the 30 BUT then we'll enforce your late hit and move the ball to your 15 and give them one more play. IF you decline their penalty the half ends but your penalty would be tacked onto your 2nd half kickoff and you'd kick from your 25."
 (3) Captain A : ??? ??? ???, coach A : "Do they have a good field goal kicker :o??"
 (4) Me : "Their opening kickoff went into the endzone, coach, you can either give 'em an extra play from your 15 and clean the sleight or kickoff from your 25."
 (5) A's coach told his captain to decline the penalty.
 (6) I announced that halftime had arrived.
 (7) The home bandleader yelled at me : "You wasted 5 minutes of our performance and it's HOMECOMING >:(!!"
 (8) I pointed at the clock that still said 20:00 and gave signal #2 - the bandleader was now  ;D!
 (9) B's coach inquired why I didn't ask his captain if he wanted an untimed down - I responded that I had only brought him across the field for learning purposes 8].

   .....and the band played on.                 
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on March 03, 2017, 02:28:12 PM
KWH-What is the specific reason the Rule is written and remains that way?
Because Rule 10-1-1 requires it.
Not an attempt to put you on the spot, but would appreciate knowing why you, any other official or member of the committee believes it's better to ask a captain vs head coach their preference on a rule enforcement
Because Rule 10-1-1 requires it. Further, rule change proposals to get the coaches to choose the options have been submitted and the football committee chooses not to make the change, and as a result Rule 10-1-1 remains unchanged.

I have no issue with speaking to the Captain within earshot of the coach. (I do this)
I have no issue with creatively repeating the question when the Captain makes the wrong choice. (I do this)
I have an issue with the statement "This is why I don't ask captains anything, ever.  If I need info, I go to the head coach." (I don't recommend this)

If you don't like a particular rule, there is an established NFHS path to make a change. However, if the majority of NFHS member states don't choose the change, then the rule remains in place and remains unchanged.

But as they say in East Kentucky, "Never let the Rules Book get in the way of a good ball game!"
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Bugolathe on March 05, 2017, 10:54:41 AM
Because Rule 10-1-1 requires it.Because Rule 10-1-1 requires it. Further, rule change proposals to get the coaches to choose the options have been submitted and the football committee chooses not to make the change, and as a result Rule 10-1-1 remains unchanged.

I have no issue with speaking to the Captain within earshot of the coach. (I do this)
I have no issue with creatively repeating the question when the Captain makes the wrong choice. (I do this)
I have an issue with the statement "This is why I don't ask captains anything, ever.  If I need info, I go to the head coach." (I don't recommend this)

If you don't like a particular rule, there is an established NFHS path to make a change. However, if the majority of NFHS member states don't choose the change, then the rule remains in place and remains unchanged.

But as they say in East Kentucky, "Never let the Rules Book get in the way of a good ball game!"

I know what the rule book says, but ever since our crew got radios and we can talk to each other, we've taken the captains out of penalty decision making (a captain got me sideways with a coach a couple years ago.)  I simply radio over to my wing official and have him give the coach his options and get a decision.  I cover this in our pre-game with the coaches and they ALL love it.  It helps with the flow of the game and keeps us out of trouble.  If a coach makes a bad decision, it's on him/her.  I still use captains to help us with players who are getting out of control.

As for the coin toss (which is usually a pre-toss,) I find out during the pre-game what they want to do and give each captain that option during the toss.  There are a couple of coaches that tell me that their captain knows what to do but most tell me.  It has worked perfectly and kept us and the captains out of trouble to start the game.

Most of the crews in the area are pretty much doing the same thing.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on March 05, 2017, 12:02:43 PM
Why not kill 2 birds with one stone?  Continue having your wing officials explain the penalty and options to the Coach (if/when he chooses to be involved) while the Referee simultaneously explains them to the Captain.  If (when) should there be a difference in selection, your technology should make resolution really simple, and you'd be complying with the spirit and intent of the rule.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on March 05, 2017, 01:57:20 PM
Why not kill 2 birds with one stone?  Continue having your wing officials explain the penalty and options to the Coach (if/when he chooses to be involved) while the Referee simultaneously explains them to the Captain.  If (when) should there be a difference in selection, your technology should make resolution really simple, and you'd be complying with the spirit and intent of the rule.

I can't believe what I am about to type but here goes nothing:
I agree with ALF!    pi1eOn
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on March 05, 2017, 02:28:56 PM
Great, halfway to being as smart as a broken clock (even if only for 1 day).
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on March 06, 2017, 11:33:50 AM
Bug -
I understand what you are saying, but by doing such you are completely ignoring the Rules Book.
The radios are a great advancement in officiating, but, and until changed or modified, the Rules Book still requires that the Captains make penalty decisions. (10-1-1)

again, there have been proposals to include the coach in penalty decisions and those proposals have never passed muster.

I don't disagree that your method is worthy of discussion - but  "we've taken the captain completely out of penalty decision making" is complete a disregard of the wording or the spirit of 10-1-1.

For what its worth, Back Judges have gotten me sideways with coaches on more than one occasion.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: scrounge on March 06, 2017, 01:23:51 PM
Ok, the rules say the captain makes the decision. They also say that the opponent of the scoring team shall designate which team will make the subsequent free kick. Has anyone EVER asked this?

Come on, man...what are we talking about here? I mean, I think it's commendable you are involving the captains so actively like this. The 99.2% rest of use will keep on as we are :)
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Chunk571 on March 06, 2017, 04:28:08 PM
I am not sure how I feel about the rule change with a QB becoming a defenseless player, when they are just about to throw the ball. 
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on March 06, 2017, 06:09:04 PM
I am not sure how I feel about the rule change with a QB becoming a defenseless player, when they are just about to throw the ball.

The new rule adjustment seems to only describe various situations in which circumstances render a player as potentially "defenseless".  Penalties regarding such (defenseless) players is covered in 9-4-4-I-3 referring to "Illegal helmet-to-helmet contact against a defenseless player", which is the current remedy in place prior to this expanded identification, and is unchanged. 
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Rulesman on March 06, 2017, 06:12:01 PM
I would expect some of this will be clarified when the Case Plays are released.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: bossman72 on March 07, 2017, 07:45:16 AM
I am not sure how I feel about the rule change with a QB becoming a defenseless player, when they are just about to throw the ball. 

Again, poor job clarifying by the NFHS.  Everybody thinks it's illegal to hit a defenseless player, which is not the case.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on March 07, 2017, 12:24:22 PM
I am not sure how I feel about the rule change with a QB becoming a defenseless player, when they are just about to throw the ball.

For clarification,
The "QB" (2-32-3) did NOT just "become" a defenseless player! 
The "Passer" (2-32-11) did NOT just "become" a defenseless player.
See 2016 NFHS Case Book - Pages 77 & 78;  9.4.3 COMMENT - Examples (a) and (c)


The "QB" and "The Passer" have been defenseless players in NFHS since the onset of the term defenseless player,
The only thing New in NFHS for 2017, is a long time Case Book COMMENT has become codified, so existing Rule 2-32-16 will be lengthened to include a list examples of Defenseless Players.
Note that the new list, while slightly rearranged, is essentially the same as the existing list already provided in 9.4.3 COMMENT.

Exception;  Example (j)  A player who receives a blindside block, now requires contact to be initiated with the hands to be a legal blindside block. Any contact against a player receiving a BSB, ie; not initiated with the hands, results in a Personal Foul.

Hope that makes sense.
Title: No , scrounge! Not our responsibilty to ask. Rather, they "shall designate!"
Post by: KWH on March 15, 2017, 01:25:42 PM
Ok, the rules say the captain makes the decision. They also say that the opponent of the scoring team shall designate which team will make the subsequent free kick. Has anyone EVER asked this?
No! I typically don't ask since the Rules Book indicates they "shall designate which team will kick off!" When they choose to "Kick off" they will tell you. Silence, by default, is designating their choice is to have the scoring team kick off.
Yes, I have, over they years, on several occasions, had them "Designate" by notifying an official they choose to "Kick" after being scored upon. Had a coach do it two times in one game just this last season. (Bad part - Just like after a safety, the White Hat gets to do the 100 yard dash.)
(Good Part - It messes with everybody's head who is watching the game on HUDL!)

Come on, man...what are we talking about here? I mean, I think it's commendable you are involving the captains so actively like this. The 99.2% rest of use will keep on as we are :)
As they say in Eastern Kentucky - "Never let that dad-gummed Rules Book get in the way of a good ball game!"  :)
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: CalhounLJ on March 18, 2017, 04:04:58 PM
I have NEVER, at any age group, had a captain complain about not being consulted on a penalty option.

Where I'm from the captains think their only job is to walk out to the simulated coin toss and find out what option their coach chose at the REAL coin toss. If it's such a bad thing not to include the captain in the penalty process, why is it ok to let the coaches make the choice in the coin toss?

Also, if we are splitting hairs over the wording of the kickoff option, why not split hairs over the captain-consulting. 10-1-1 says the captains are consulted, but doesn't specifically say said captain MUST make the decision. Only that if he does, he can't change his mind.

IMPO, if the coach wants the opportunity to make the decision, I'm giving it to him. It's his job on the line.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on March 18, 2017, 06:13:53 PM
Where I'm from the captains think their only job is to walk out to the simulated coin toss and find out what option their coach chose at the REAL coin toss. If it's such a bad thing not to include the captain in the penalty process, why is it ok to let the coaches make the choice in the coin toss?

Also, if we are splitting hairs over the wording of the kickoff option, why not split hairs over the captain-consulting. 10-1-1 says the captains are consulted, but doesn't specifically say said captain MUST make the decision. Only that if he does, he can't change his mind.

IMPO, if the coach wants the opportunity to make the decision, I'm giving it to him. It's his job on the line.

Why not do both, it's really easy, all you have to do is put your mind to it.  Nothing wrong, or confusing, about asking the HC before the coin toss, what he wants his Captain to do.  Most often the Captain will remember, and for those few exceptions, just asking him if he's really, REALLY sure might jog his memory.

If you want to see where the Captain's specific responsibilities are spelled out, take a look at 2-32-5,a-c. With just a little thought, you can always help the Coach do his job, without needing to  abandon yours.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on March 19, 2017, 02:58:40 PM

Also...why not split hairs over the captain-consulting. 10-1-1 says the captains are consulted, but doesn't specifically say said captain MUST make the decision. Only that if he does, he can't change his mind...

Serious Calhoun???
For what other reason would 10-1-1 direct the Referee to consult a captain for after a foul occurred? Do you really think it is just to ask the captain "Hey Cap' which coach makes the penalty decisions around here?"

In additional to the applicable definition ALF pointed out which is found in 2-32-5b
A captain of a team is a player designated to represent his team during Penalty decisions following a foul.


Have you read 3-5-2a?  ...
When a decision on a penalty is pending, a time out shall not be granted to either team until the captain makes his choice.


Have you had a chance to look at 10-1-2? ...
The captain may accept or decline the penalty.


How about 10-2-4?...
The offended captain may choose
which one shall be administered, or the captain may decline all penalties[/u]

I'm not seeing alot of Grey area or wiggle room in any of those four rules?
I have yet to find anywhere where it directs us to consult with the coach on any penalty decisions.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with everything in the NFHS Rules Book. (This would be yet another example)
But they don't hire us to AGREE with the rules, and they don't hire us to WRITE the rules,  rather,
they simply hire us to ENFORCE the rules as the NFHS has written them!!!

Additionally, YOU would NEVER be placing a coaches job on the line by following the NFHS Rules Book.
YOU could however, in given situations, be placing your job on the line by choosing not to follow the NFHS Rules Book.

..."and that's about all I have to say about that!"

That's my message!   Let the shootings begin!
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: prab on March 19, 2017, 04:40:01 PM
That's my message!   Let the shootings begin!

I don't think that anyone would disagree with you on what the rules say.  However, the fact of the matter is that several posters have hinted at or outright stated that they have in the past and will in the future skirt or ignore these rules.  This subject matter has been discussed in depth over the past few seasons and it seems like no one has convinced anyone else to change their mind.  Maybe it is time to change the conversation to the ages old question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: SouthGARef on March 20, 2017, 09:42:18 AM
Find me in the rulebook where it says "If a holding foul is committed but not egregious and not at the point of attack, the foul should be ignored". It's not there. And everyone now accepts the practice that holding fouls are only called at the point of attack. Because we know it's for the betterment of the game.

The rule book is very important. I know it very well. I also know how to use a little common sense and officiate and practice some good game management. My many years of officiating experience have told me that if I go to a captain and ask him his options on a penalty, he's just going to turn and look at his coach. And if it's something really confusing, now I have to go grab that captain and walk him over close to his sideline and loudly explain it so that the coach can here?

No thanks. I'm eliminating the middle man and going straight to the person that's going to make the decision, anyway. It's less time consuming, leads to less confusion, and it speeds the game up and allows us to get back to football quicker. It's better for the game.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on March 20, 2017, 12:12:50 PM

 It's less time consuming, leads to less confusion, and it speeds the game up and allows us to get back to football quicker. It's better for the game.

Geez -  Now if we could only convince the NFHS to change that dad-gummed Rules Book! 
Wouldn't that be an accomplishment?
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Rulesman on March 20, 2017, 12:38:24 PM
Geez -  Now if we could only convince the NFHS to change that dad-gummed Rules Book! 
Wouldn't that be an accomplishment?
It needs to be changed. The Fed sometimes loses sight of common sense officiating.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on March 20, 2017, 04:04:17 PM

No thanks. I'm eliminating the middle man and going straight to the person that's going to make the decision, anyway. It's less time consuming, leads to less confusion, and it speeds the game up and allows us to get back to football quicker. It's better for the game.

Let's be honest, whether the Captain makes the decision, the Coach makes the decision or the Captain & the Coach collaborate on the decision, the earth will continue to rotate on it's access.  Referee's are going to do, what they do, but all this nonsense about, "It's less time consuming, leads to less confusion, and it speeds the game up and allows us to get back to football quicker." is absolute HORSE HOCKEY, and doesn't impact "the game", one way or the other.

The rule makers decided, long ago, that Interscholastic Football has some different objectives than either NCAA or NFL, that are worthy of spending a few seconds of extra time attending to.  Those who have decided not to bother with that "student athlete" stuff, have already chosen not to bother with it - and the beat goes on.

Those who understand, and believe there's value in "student athlete" stuff, will likely continue to spend those few seconds respecting that effort - and the beat STILL goes on.  If you don't want to be bothered with it, that's pretty much your choice, to choose to disregard what is a firmly entrenched foundation of what we're supposed to do, at the High School level.

Spectators, Coaches and even most players, most likely, won't know the difference, but you should.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: the clown on March 20, 2017, 07:53:08 PM
What I would love to end this debate by having the coaches tell the referee, "My Captains are #11, #25, #56 and #77.  They will make all decisions pertaining to the coin toss and penalty's."  If we stop asking the coaches in our pregame what "He" wants to do then maybe he'll take the time to tell his Captains what he wants them to do.  When a flag is dropped he will pay attention to the preliminary signal and signal his captains his opinion....
One of the reasons this doesn't happen is that we go way beyond the questions of proper equipment and trick plays.  We ask right footed, left footed, right handed, left handed, what do they want to do if the kickoff goes out of bounds?  We tell the coach that we will handle all the simple calls, when this might be a great learning opportunity for the captains.  We tell the coach that we'll look to him for any questionable enforcement's.  Are we speeding up the game by doing this? Yes.  Do I do it? Yes.  What if we all went back to making the captains do there jobs and honor the intent of the rule?  We might have a a few more leaders on the field...  And we might have to pay attention when the teams are warming up which leg is doing the kicking.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on March 20, 2017, 09:41:08 PM
It needs to be changed. The Fed sometimes loses sight of common sense officiating.

That is clearly the opinion of some on this particular board. However, unfortunately for them,
That is clearly never been the rule nor the intent issued by the NFHS.
These particular rules and the thought behind them have (to the best of my research) never changed.


As for your thoughts on the NFHS, I completely disagree!
I would however offer, sometimes game officials may lose sight of what level they are officiating! And, 
By doing so, they may just be forgoing common sense!

My 2 cents
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: prab on March 20, 2017, 10:12:29 PM
This subject matter has been discussed in depth over the past few seasons and it seems like no one has convinced anyone else to change their mind.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on March 21, 2017, 08:15:31 AM
A few years ago, using NCAA verbiage, I submitted a proposal to go directly to the coaches on penalty options. It received very little support and my understandings of it's failure was two fold :

 (1) High schools are for learning and developing skills. Involving the captains in decision making is helping develop their leadership skills.

 (2) There isn't a restriction for a coach to verbally assist his captain in making his decision.

I am not and never have been an educator but I understand that position. I always get the names of speaking captains and ask for them by name when looking for a penalty decision. They usually promptly join me and I'll lead them within hearing distance of their coach. It probably takes a few seconds longer then searching out the coach to ask but, IMHO, I feel that it is in the spirit of high school education. IMHO, aprox 75% of the choices are obvious and I only tell the offended captain ,in passing, what is occurring. I fully understand that many of you don't agree with our rule and understand your rationale. I've been on the national rules committee since 1993 and ,with the exception of my failed proposal, cannot recall of it ever being on the docket.

IF TWO MEN AGREED ON EVERYTHING ,ONLY ONE MAN WOULD BE NEEDED!!!

 :sTiR: ^talk ^talk ^talk ^talk :sTiR:
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on March 21, 2017, 11:59:19 AM
I would suggest a possible solution.
Perhaps a version of Ralph's proposal is resubmitted. The proposal would modify all the applicable rules to indicate Captain or Coach with a Rationale that includes among other things: 

* Some Officials prefer dealing directly with the Coach on penalty decisions,

* Some Coaches prefer dealing directly with the Officials on penalty decisions and;

* Some Captains prefer Officials dealing directly with their Coach.

* Tugboat couldn't make a decision to save his own life! (OK maybe not that one)

Possibly include advancements in technology such as wireless headsets on officials making communications with sideline quicker and seamless (as was suggested by Bugolathe earlier in this thread).
If the Committee approves the proposal, the applicable rules are modified and we move on.
Or,
Should the proposal not receive support, I would like to urge the Committee to make Communicating with the Captain on Penalty decisions a Point of Emphasis for 2018.
In other words, provide some background, some expectations, and some clear direction.

Thoughts?
Volunteers to write such a proposal?
Ralph?

Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on March 21, 2017, 01:18:36 PM
I would suggest a possible solution.
Perhaps a version of Ralph's proposal is resubmitted. The proposal would modify all the applicable rules to indicate Captain or Coach with a Rationale that includes among other things: 

* Some Officials prefer dealing directly with the Coach on penalty decisions,

* Some Coaches prefer dealing directly with the Officials on penalty decisions and;

* Some Captains prefer Officials dealing directly with their Coach.

* Tugboat couldn't make a decision to save his own life! (OK maybe not that one)

Possibly include advancements in technology such as wireless headsets on officials making communications with sideline quicker and seamless (as was suggested by Bugolathe earlier in this thread).
If the Committee approves the proposal, the applicable rules are modified and we move on.
Or,
Should the proposal not receive support, I would like to urge the Committee to make Communicating with the Captain on Penalty decisions a Point of Emphasis for 2018.
In other words, provide some background, some expectations, and some clear direction.

Thoughts?
Volunteers to write such a proposal?
Ralph?

I batted leadoff on this and struck out pi1eOn hEaDbAnG pray:; ^no ^no ^no

We need to find someone to bat second :-\ :-\ deadhorse: tiphat:

 tR:oLl tR:oLl tR:oLl tR:oLl tR:oLl tR:oLl tR:oLl
Title: Well - Lets try it again
Post by: KWH on April 06, 2017, 01:33:41 PM
Ralph -
If you would be so kind as to e-mail me your "batting order" from a few years ago, I can perhaps rearrange the order slightly and hand it to the Umpires. (Of course I would have you and Steve review it first)

Whaddaya think about them lobsters???
Title: Re: Well - Lets try it again
Post by: Ralph Damren on April 07, 2017, 08:37:36 AM
Ralph -
If you would be so kind as to e-mail me your "batting order" from a few years ago, I can perhaps rearrange the order slightly and hand it to the Umpires. (Of course I would have you and Steve review it first)

Whaddaya think about them lobsters???
I PMed you with the batting order. I leave the shelled lobster for them there tourists as I don't enjoy fighting with my food. Now lobster chowdah and lobster rolls are another story. eAt& eAt& eAt&
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: refjeff on April 07, 2017, 07:03:17 PM
The Ohio HSAA has created an Approved FB Officiating Mechanics, Regulations,  Rules & Philosophies Handbook which is used by all crews.

The coin toss is done with the team captains 20 minutes prior to the start of a varsity game.  We do not ask the coaches what their choices will be.  They need to coach their captains.  (If a coach tries to tell me his choices I tell him, "Sorry coach, your captains need to know.")

"98% of penalties are enforced without asking because we know.  The 2% we are not sure, we look at the HC."  That is not National Federation, but it is Ohio "Gold Book."

You can read/download the Gold Book here. 

http://ohsaafb.com/mechanics/ohsaa-goldbook-approved-football-officiating-mechanics-regulations-standards-handbook/

Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on April 08, 2017, 09:28:41 AM
When in Rome, best to behave like a Roman.
Title: The Gold Book will save you every time!
Post by: KWH on April 08, 2017, 12:46:56 PM
Yep - The Ohio Gold Book provides lots of information!!!

One example is the Gold Book guidelines on how to handle a Coach/Referee Conference.
See Gold Book Pages 10 & 11 - A, B, C & D
It warns officials that failure to follow these REQUIREMENTS may get you suspended for 2 years.
The instructions REQUIRE, should a coach and the Referee disagree on a ruling, the Referee must provide a copy of the NFHS Rules Book, the NFHS Case Book, and the Ohio Gold Book so he can show the coach where the Referee's ruling is found. (It is also REQUIRED that these three books be on the field)

So what could possibly go wrong?

Here's a possible game Situation:
During a down, A1's helmet comes completely off not as a result of a foul.
H stops the clock and tells A1 he must go out for a play.
Team A takes a time out
During the next down and while the ball is live the H observes A1 is in the game.
H drops a flag.
R and H confer. Whats the foul for that? I dunno! Lets go with (Insert foul Here) OK sounds good!
Coach of A:  I want a Coach/Referee conference!  During the conference the coach of A disagrees and challenges the ruling. He requests, you show him, specifically, where to find your ruling!
R says No Problem coach, give us a second. The H grabs his handy sideline repair kit which includes the three publications, and...
The R grabs the Rules Book and starts flipping thru the pages
The H grabs the Case Book and starts flipping thru the pages
The B grabs the Gold Book and starts flipping thru the pages
The U graps a Snickers and rips the cover off.
The L grabs a smoke

This shouldn't take anyone much time at all!!!
Hint: (Good Luck with this one)

I look forward to ANY responses!
Please include Rule #, Case Play #, and/or Gold Book Page or section where you found your answer.

Oh and just for fun, lets pretend it is pouring down rain and the wind is blowing a good 20 mph.
Title: Re: The Gold Book will save you every time!
Post by: GA Umpire on April 08, 2017, 06:00:13 PM
Yep - The Ohio Gold Book provides lots of information!!!

One example is the Gold Book guidelines on how to handle a Coach/Referee Conference.
See Gold Book Pages 10 & 11 - A, B, C & D
It warns officials that failure to follow these REQUIREMENTS may get you suspended for 2 years.
The instructions REQUIRE, should a coach and the Referee disagree on a ruling, the Referee must provide a copy of the NFHS Rules Book, the NFHS Case Book, and the Ohio Gold Book so he can show the coach where the Referee's ruling is found. (It is also REQUIRED that these three books be on the field)

So what could possibly go wrong?

Here's a possible game Situation:
During a down, A1's helmet comes completely off not as a result of a foul.
H stops the clock and tells A1 he must go out for a play.
Team A takes a time out
During the next down and while the ball is live the H observes A1 is in the game.
H drops a flag.
R and H confer. Whats the foul for that? I dunno! Lets go with (Insert foul Here) OK sounds good!
Coach of A:  I want a Coach/Referee conference!  During the conference the coach of A disagrees and challenges the ruling. He requests, you show him, specifically, where to find your ruling!
R says No Problem coach, give us a second. The H grabs his handy sideline repair kit which includes the three publications, and...
The R grabs the Rules Book and starts flipping thru the pages
The H grabs the Case Book and starts flipping thru the pages
The B grabs the Gold Book and starts flipping thru the pages
The U graps a Snickers and rips the cover off.
The L grabs a smoke

This shouldn't take anyone much time at all!!!
Hint: (Good Luck with this one)

I look forward to ANY responses!
Please include Rule #, Case Play #, and/or Gold Book Page or section where you found your answer.

I'll bite.

Rule 3-5-10d states that a player whose helmet comes off must sit out one down.  Case 3.5.10 Situation E states that a charged time out does not exempt the player from sitting out a down. 
However, no penalty is prescribed in 3-5-10 for the action in the OP.  The officials crew can only require the player to leave the field for one down,  unless they invoke 9-6-4b for illegal participation.  Since the helmet coming off is covered under the rule for injured players, it is illegal participation if he is not replaced for one play.

How did I do??
Title: Re: The Gold Book will save you every time!
Post by: scrounge on April 08, 2017, 07:19:34 PM
I'll bite.

Rule 3-5-10d states that a player whose helmet comes off must sit out one down.  Case 3.5.10 Situation E states that a charged time out does not exempt the player from sitting out a down. 
However, no penalty is prescribed in 3-5-10 for the action in the OP.  The officials crew can only require the player to leave the field for one down,  unless they invoke 9-6-4b for illegal participation.  Since the helmet coming off is covered under the rule for injured players, it is illegal participation if he is not replaced for one play.

How did I do??

Indeed. Not to mention that 3-7-1 says that eligible substitutes may enter - where these players, by the clear and explicit text of 3-5-10, are obviously not eligible for that one play. It's either illegal substitution or illegal participation, depending on the various factors. The helmet-off player is a replaced player, and a replaced player can't substitute or participate. KWH - was this supposed to be a trick question or something?

I get it, the Gold Book isn't for everyone. And sure it can get into some minutia. But after years of working with it, it has been so much more pro than con, and has improved immensely since the initial rollout. I find it very liberating - not at all stunting or limiting - to have a common base of knowledge and standard operating procedures, so that we can use limited time in pre-game with a sub or new member (subvarsity here is not crew based, it's very common to meet them for the first time in the parking lot) going over other things instead of the basics. To each their own, but this works for us, and I'm quite happy to have it.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on April 09, 2017, 02:14:06 PM
GA UMPIRE -

Congrats is in order to GA UMPIRE
You shall receive the coveted, Ralph Damren,  AWARD OF DISTINCTION aWaRd
(Of course after you agree to pay a small shipping and handling charge)
The consensus of my NFHS colleagues believe that a player who's helmet comes completely off (not from a foul) is to be treated as an injured player as the Rules Book somewhat eludes to when/if you believe everything under 3-5-10 relates to injured players.
Since/If he is treated as an injured player, should he return, you (sort of) have Rules Book support for IP under 9-6-4b.
While I realize that is truly a mouthful and I also accept that some will disagree with this interpretation! 
Therefore, It is my intention to propose to the NFHS Rules Committee for their consideration the following re-wording of 9-6-4b which should eliminate any gray area:

9-6-4b... If any player described in 3-5-10 an injured player is not replaced for at least one down, unless the halftime or overtime intermission occurs.
Rationale: To clarify the intent of the 2012 NFHS committee when 3-5-10d was added.

Before submitting, I would be interested in any of your thoughts?.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scrounge -
No, not a trick question. Just pointing out one of many kinks which still exist with the Gold Book.
Even the best of Rule Bookworms will struggle with finding the correct ruling for this situation, especially while standing on the field in the presence of the coach in the blowing wind and rain. I say this as some of you may still be looking since the Rules Book is not definitive. 
Don't get me wrong,
Yes The Ohio Gold Book is a good thing, however it continues to be a "work in progress!"
I merely provided an example of how, if you followed the literal wording of the Gold Book, you could be suspended for two years since it is "technically" not possible to provide the Rules Book wording to the coach as he has requested since, "technically," none currently exists for this given situation.

It is likely, reporting to a coach, in a 20 mph windstorm, after a 20 minute delay, while standing their with three rain soaked Rule Books and while handing him a Snickers wrapper, that, "while I couldn't find it in any of the publications coach, you can rest assure we are correct as some guy on a chat board indicated their is a consensus that agree this is an IP situation!" And, that guys knows Ralph personally.
No, it is likely that approach may not go over so good with the coach.

That being said I am hopeful that someday, (and of course after Ohio does all the work) someone may submit this change for consideration::

The NFHS Ohio Gold Book

 
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: bama_stripes on April 10, 2017, 07:13:46 AM
I agree that it's IP if a "helmet-off player doesn't sit out one play.  We've always officiated it that way here.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: GA Umpire on April 10, 2017, 02:19:32 PM
GA UMPIRE -

You shall receive the coveted, Ralph Damren,  AWARD OF DISTINCTION aWaRd
(Of course after you agree to pay a small shipping and handling charge)

How small????
Title: Re: The Gold Book will save you every time!
Post by: riffraft on April 10, 2017, 02:34:11 PM
Yep - The Ohio Gold Book provides lots of information!!!

One example is the Gold Book guidelines on how to handle a Coach/Referee Conference.
See Gold Book Pages 10 & 11 - A, B, C & D
It warns officials that failure to follow these REQUIREMENTS may get you suspended for 2 years.
The instructions REQUIRE, should a coach and the Referee disagree on a ruling, the Referee must provide a copy of the NFHS Rules Book, the NFHS Case Book, and the Ohio Gold Book so he can show the coach where the Referee's ruling is found. (It is also REQUIRED that these three books be on the field)

So what could possibly go wrong?

Here's a possible game Situation:
During a down, A1's helmet comes completely off not as a result of a foul.
H stops the clock and tells A1 he must go out for a play.
Team A takes a time out
During the next down and while the ball is live the H observes A1 is in the game.
H drops a flag.
R and H confer. Whats the foul for that? I dunno! Lets go with (Insert foul Here) OK sounds good!
Coach of A:  I want a Coach/Referee conference!  During the conference the coach of A disagrees and challenges the ruling. He requests, you show him, specifically, where to find your ruling!
R says No Problem coach, give us a second. The H grabs his handy sideline repair kit which includes the three publications, and...
The R grabs the Rules Book and starts flipping thru the pages
The H grabs the Case Book and starts flipping thru the pages
The B grabs the Gold Book and starts flipping thru the pages
The U graps a Snickers and rips the cover off.
The L grabs a smoke

This shouldn't take anyone much time at all!!!
Hint: (Good Luck with this one)

I look forward to ANY responses!
Please include Rule #, Case Play #, and/or Gold Book Page or section where you found your answer.

Oh and just for fun, lets pretend it is pouring down rain and the wind is blowing a good 20 mph.

It doesn't have to be quite this bad. When I was in Ohio I had the rules book, case book and gold book on my phone in electronic format and fully searchable. I can generally find anything I need pretty quickly. I still have the rules and case books on my phone here in Arizona. Never had to refer to them on the field, but have many times before, at the half and at the end of the game. 
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: scrounge on April 10, 2017, 09:42:00 PM
GA UMPIRE -

 I say this as some of you may still be looking since the Rules Book is not definitive. 
 


I get where you're coming from, and not saying there isn't something to it, but I'd still disagree that it isnt addressed. Admittedly, it takes piecing two things together, but reasonably so IMO. 3-7-1 says that any number of *eligible* substitutes may enter between downs. This necessarily means that ineligible ones may not enter. A violation of 3-7-1 is specified as illegal substitution. Per 3-5-10, a player sent off for no helmet can't come in the next down. Therefore, that player can't possibly be an eligible substitute per 3-7-1. If that player were to enter, it's at minimum IS and possibly IP.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on April 11, 2017, 09:57:08 AM
This exchange seems like a perfect example of why, the NFHA Rule Makers added long LONG ago the simple and direct solution to avoid prolonged rule debates and discussions between Game Officials and Coaches regarding conflicting understandings and interpretations of NFHS rules, when it added NFHS 1-1-6 to the code ("The referee has authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, on any situation not specifically covered in the rules. The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game.")

The idea is simple; at least at the Interscholastic level, players play, coaches teach and officials manage the application of rules, all participating and addressing their assigned tasks in a manner that avoids DISRUPTING the contest.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on April 11, 2017, 12:53:16 PM
ALF -

I used 1-1-6.
Situation:
1- Player A1 helmet comes completely off not due to a foul during a play which results in a 1st down.
2- H stops clock and advises A1 he must leave for a play. A1 leaves.
3- Head Coach of A calls time-out
4- Time out ends and RFP is blown
5- Team a snaps the ball, play begins to develops and H blows his whistle and throws a flag shutting down the play.
6- R - Whattya got?
7- H - I got number 1 back in without sitting out a play.
8- Coach of A yells "We called a timeout I thought that gets him back in?
9- R - Shook my head and said "No, it does not in High School!"
10- Now, the cogs in my head started turning, "What do we have?"
11- Well boys and girls what we actually have is an IW bigger than Dallas!
11a- A 15 yard IP did not seem fair as we did not let them complete the play.
11b- There was no intent to deceive as the Head coach actually thought the TO bought him back in.
11c- This situation sucks as I happen to know already that this rule is a little skewed in the Rules Book.
11d- We still have an IW no matter how you want to phrase it.
11d- Rule 1-1-6 Pops into my head. I ask Team B if they would accept a 5-yard substitution infraction from the previous spot. (Kinda/Sorta the intent of 4-2-3d)
12- 1st and 15 for Team A and A1 was not allowed to participate in the next play.
13- I was advised later it should have been IP. (This interpretation from a long time rules committee member)
14- While we may not have done the CORRECT RULES BOOK thing, all things considered, including a dad-gummed IW, I believe we did the RIGHT thing!
15- I am proposing the following rewording of 9-6-4b for 2018 Rules Committee's consideration:
9-6-4b... If any player described in 3-5-10 an injured player is not replaced for at least one down, unless the halftime or overtime intermission occurs.

Thoughts???
 
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on April 11, 2017, 07:09:29 PM
Asking for "thoughts" can be dangerous, but since you asked.  With the play stopped and everyone wondering what happened, I'd be inclined to ask the Coach, "what part of he doesn't play for 1 down didn't you understand", because I know sometimes young players are told what to do, but don't always follow instructions, and may have simply misunderstood his Coach's instructions.

Depending on how he answered, would dictate where we go from here.  On one end is (no foul, no harm) IW (or if you prefer, (do-over) and young Johnie needs to have his foot nailed to his team area, for 1 play (giving the coach time to fix the helmet, which he may have been focused on doing).  I'd try really hard to avoid looking for a solution on the other end, because I can guarantee nobody would be happy with it. 

A lot depends on how my first questioned was answered.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on April 12, 2017, 12:07:55 AM
Asking for "thoughts" can be dangerous, but since you asked.  With the play stopped and everyone wondering what happened, I'd be inclined to ask the Coach, "what part of he doesn't play for 1 down didn't you understand", because I know sometimes young players are told what to do, but don't always follow instructions, and may have simply misunderstood his Coach's instructions.
No I did not!  And nor I would ever be inclined to address a coach with that type of a snarky and unprofessional comment!

Depending on how he answered, would dictate where we go from here.  On one end is (no foul, no harm) IW (or if you prefer, (do-over) and young Johnie needs to have his foot nailed to his team area, for 1 play (giving the coach time to fix the helmet, which he may have been focused on doing).  I'd try really hard to avoid looking for a solution on the other end, because I can guarantee nobody would be happy with it.
So apparently ALF, you are still a member of the Eastern Kentucky Officials Association whose slogan is:
"Never let the Rules Book get in the way of a dang-good ball game!"

A lot depends on how my first questioned was answered.
Again, unprofessional and snarky questions or comments do not belong on the field at any level.
Restated for clarification: 
The attitude you suggest needs to remain locked in your car while you are working a game!
Nuff said...
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: bama_stripes on April 12, 2017, 07:36:09 AM
I'd like to see this handled as we would having 12 players in the formation before the snap -- a 5-yd IS foul.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on April 12, 2017, 07:58:15 AM
ACT I : Bubba loses hat but doesn't sit out one play;

ACT II : Rule 3-5-10d sez' he must;

ACT III : No rule sez' what to do if he doesn't;

ACT IV : Rule 1-1-6 tells us what to do if there ain't no rule;

WIWD (what I would do)....
  IF BUBBA WAS IN NEXT PLAY : apply 9-6-4b = IP
  IF BUBBA SHOWS UP IN HUDDLE : apply 3-7-3 = IS
  IF BUBBA HEADS OUT ON FIELD : "Sorry, dude, ya' gotta sit for one" = no harm/no foul

That's my opinion, I welcome yours......... :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Rulesman on April 12, 2017, 08:34:29 AM
Address fixing Act III next January.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on April 12, 2017, 09:08:41 AM
Address fixing Act III next January.
Fully agreed, Rulesman, a rule without a penalty is sorta' like saying :

" YOU CAN'T DO THAT, BUT IF YOU DO I CAN'TDO ANYTHING ABOUT IT."
 ^no ^no ^no ^no ^no
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: AlUpstateNY on April 12, 2017, 01:40:22 PM
No I did not!  And nor I would ever be inclined to address a coach with that type of a snarky and unprofessional comment!
So apparently ALF, you are still a member of the Eastern Kentucky Officials Association whose slogan is:
"Never let the Rules Book get in the way of a dang-good ball game!"
Again, unprofessional and snarky questions or comments do not belong on the field at any level.
Restated for clarification: 
The attitude you suggest needs to remain locked in your car while you are working a game!
Nuff said...

Let's be certain we're on the same page, at the same line.  My "thoughts" followed the previous summaries which I understood to have included a detailed conference with the Coach, in which I would have carefully and politely explained my understanding of the rule in question, after which the Coach was advised what the "Decision" made was, and that the player in question is required to sit out 1 play.

As suggested, after stopping play, I would give the Coach the benefit of the doubt, about the player (inadvertently) entering the game on his own.  If that was the case, I'd allow the Coach to handle the player, and after confirming he MUST sit out one play, declare the ball RFP, without further action.

What would happen with a different answer, depends entirely on that answer.  I have no idea what stupid references to Eastern KY mean, and always follow my explicit understanding of the NFHS rules.  However, I've long followed advise I heard in the movie "Roadhouse".  "Always be nice, until it's time not to be nice", which has worked pretty well for me, over a number of years.

I totally agree, "unprofessional and snarky questions or comments do not belong on the field at any level", but fully expect such behavior is bi-directional.  It is never my intention to be "disrespectful", but it is also never my intention to accept, or receive, disrespectful behavior.

The point, you may have missed, is that NFHS 1-1-6 assigns the role of FINAL arbiter to the Referee, who should be willing and competent to accept the responsibility of that assignment, and where necessary answer any legitimate questions and explain decisions, which when made - are final and are EXPECTED to be accepted by all. 

I'm still seeking my first perfect game, and am willing to deal with and accept the responsibilities of being subsequently proven to be less than perfect. Prolonged arguments and unnecessarily extended discussions about decisions made, have no place on any field, and should be, when deemed necessary, handled elsewhere .
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on April 14, 2017, 08:50:39 PM
As previously posted, I would be interested in any comments on my proposed change to 9-6-4b.
The underlined wording is the proposed change.
The strike-thru wording would then be deleted

9-6-4b... If any player described in 3-5-10 an injured player is not replaced for at least one down, unless the halftime or any overtime intermission occurs.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on April 15, 2017, 09:38:09 AM
As previously posted, I would be interested in any comments on my proposed change to 9-6-4b.
The underlined wording is the proposed change.
The strike-thru wording would then be deleted

9-6-4b... If any player described in 3-5-10 an injured player is not replaced for at least one down, unless the halftime or any overtime intermission occurs.

Ya' got my vote. It could be labeled "the Oregonian don't lose your hat, you brat" rule. tiphat:
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: CoachM on May 09, 2017, 03:05:41 PM
So, on the new kickoff. I have a kid who can pop it up in the air off the tee, doesn't bounce off the ground, teams can fair catch if they want to. Is that still legal? Also, what about squibs and ground balls, are they still OK?
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: bossman72 on May 09, 2017, 03:24:13 PM
So, on the new kickoff. I have a kid who can pop it up in the air off the tee, doesn't bounce off the ground, teams can fair catch if they want to. Is that still legal? Also, what about squibs and ground balls, are they still OK?

Yes and Yes.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on May 10, 2017, 12:36:58 AM
I agree with Bossman.
All acts you described remain legal in 2017
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on May 10, 2017, 07:55:41 AM
So, on the new kickoff. I have a kid who can pop it up in the air off the tee, doesn't bounce off the ground, teams can fair catch if they want to. Is that still legal? Also, what about squibs and ground balls, are they still OK?
Welcome, CoachM, to our forum. I hope you'll find it both entertaining and informative. While coaches and officials often appear to be on opposite sides, we are all on the same team...that of Team Football. Looking forward to your opinions and ideas...from the other side  tiphat:!
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: backjudge79 on June 16, 2017, 09:40:15 AM
Anyone have the penalty signals for the new rules? I am working on updating a penalty chart showing the signals.
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: KWH on June 16, 2017, 10:27:17 AM
There are really only three rule changes that involve signals:

Illegal Blindside Block, 2-3-10 (NEW), 9-4-3n (NEW), 9-4 PENALTY (S38)
(Some former experimental states will continue using (S38-48) however, S48, just like S17 & S26, have yet to be adopted by the NFHS)

Free Kick Infraction (Pop-UP kick) 2-24-10 (NEW); 6-1-11 (NEW), 6-1 PENALTY (S7-19)

Encroachment 7-1-6a; 7-1-6b (NEW), 7-1-6c (NEW) (S7-18)

Penalty Summary Changes for 2017

Loss of 15 yards

7. Illegal Block below the waist                9-3-2   S40  No change to BBW they separated it from #8 below
8. Illegal Block on a Free kicker or Holder  9-3-4   S30  Signal change from 2016 - No longer S40

15. Hurdle an opponent                           9-4-3d  S38  Added to Penalty Summary for 2017

20. Blindside Block                                 9-4-3n  S38  NEW Foul for 2017     

Additionally, they converted the PENALTY SUMMARY from 1 page with size .002 Font, to two pages and used size 12 Font.  This allows us all to read it without a dad-gummed magnifying glass!
Wait just a minute! Is this yet another sign of "The Graying of the Official?" yEs:

Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: backjudge79 on June 21, 2017, 10:09:06 AM
Thank you :)
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: Ralph Damren on June 21, 2017, 11:08:04 AM
KWH (the founder of the Oregonian Flea-flicker museum) has just opened another of life's perceived limitations. If one references pages #82-83 of the Officials Manual, one may notice the caption : "Signal numbers 17 and 26 are for future expansion." We all have worries of some nature and I have the following (in random order).....

  WILL THE RED SOX WIN THE AL EAST ?
  WILL THE RED SOX WIN THE AL PENNANT?
  WILL THE RED SOX WIN THE WORLD SERIES?
  WILL I MAKE IT TO AGE 72 ? (I'm currently 71)
  WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THE RUSSIAN JET HAD HIT THE US JET?
  WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AFTER WE HAD ADDED SIGNALS #17 & 26?
    ..Would we never be able to add anymore signals??? ???
    ..Would we have to remove a current signal (#17 used to be uncatchable pass)??

KWH has opened a whole new universe by suggesting adding #48 ---that will open the door for future #49, 50,  51...... . In research ,opening a 1972 NFHS Rules Book, I noticed we only had 27 signals back then and they were numbered 1-27 - life was simpler back then.

I have removed my numbering worries from my worry list and have consolidated my worries about the Russian fighter jet crashing into an American one with being unable to reach 72. :bOW

I feel happier now, I feel that I will even feel more happy when football starts and we can get back to debating what just happened last Friday :) :)
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: BG5 on November 01, 2017, 08:23:08 AM
Good Morning,

I cannot find the signal for pop up kick.  Can somebody please help.

Thanks,
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: VA Official on November 01, 2017, 08:30:39 AM
Good Morning,

I cannot find the signal for pop up kick.  Can somebody please help.

Thanks,

6-1-11: Free-kick infraction. S7-19 (Dead ball + free-kick infraction / false start signal)
Title: Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
Post by: BG5 on November 01, 2017, 08:45:54 AM
Again thank you so much