RefStripes.com

Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Harry on February 14, 2011, 02:26:34 PM

Title: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Harry on February 14, 2011, 02:26:34 PM
Chop Block Rule Redefined in High School Football
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Bob Colgate

INDIANAPOLIS, IN (February 14, 2011) — A change in the definition of a chop block in high school football, along with a strong emphasis on proper use of the helmet to minimize risk of injury, highlighted the January 21-23 meeting of the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Football Rules Committee in Indianapolis.

The modification of the chop block rule was one of 11 rules changes recommended by the Football Rules Committee and approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

The new language in Rule 2-3-8 defines a chop block as “a combination block by two or more teammates against an opponent other than the runner, with or without delay, where one of the blocks is low (at the knee or below) and one of the blocks is high (above the knee).”

Previous language defined a chop block as “a delayed block at the knees or below against an opponent who is in contact with a teammate of the blocker in the free-blocking zone.”

Bob Colgate, NFHS assistant director and liaison to the Football Rules Committee, said that any combination block where one block is high (above the knee) and one block is low (at or below the knee) will constitute a chop block – with or without delay between the blocks. He also noted that a low-low combination block is no longer a chop block.

Although not an official rules change, perhaps the most significant action by the committee was the issuance of the 2011 Points of Emphasis on concussions, helmets and contact above the shoulders.

The NFHS has been the leader in establishing playing rules to deal with concussions. Last year, the NFHS implemented new guidelines for the management of a student exhibiting signs, symptoms or behaviors consistent with a concussion. In addition, the NFHS developed a free online course entitled Concussion in Sports – What You Need to Know, which has been viewed by more than 135,000 persons.

“The committee chose not to change many of the playing rules as it intends to ensure the continued focus on minimizing risk of injury to high school football players,” said Julian Tackett, chairman of the NFHS Football Rules Committee and commissioner of the Kentucky High School Athletic Association. “The minimal number of rules changes in high school football this year verifies that the country feels like the game is in great shape.”

In other rules changes, the committee standardized the rules regarding the replacement of apparently injured players, players who exhibit concussion signs and symptoms, and players who are bleeding or have blood on their body or uniform. Players removed in any of these situations must leave the game for at least one down, and the time-out is an officials’ time-out, not one charged to the team.

The rules committee also defined two types of authorized team conferences – the “Outside Nine-yard Mark Conference” and the “Between Nine-yard Mark Conference.” When an injury occurs and the referee grants an authorized conference, it must be an “Outside Nine-yard Mark Conference.” Colgate said this will provide medical personnel time and space to address the injured player.

Three changes were approved in Rule 1 – The Game, Field, Players and Equipment. In Rule 1-1-8, language was added to note that “game officials maintain administrative responsibilities for the contest through the completion of any required reports or correspondence in response to any action occurring while the officials have jurisdiction.” The revised rule further notes that “state associations may intercede in the event of unusual incidents after the officials have signaled the end of the game or in the event a game is terminated prior to the conclusion of regulation play.”

In Rule 1-5-1, the detailed specifications for thigh guards were deleted because they were not necessarily applicable to newer technologies used in current production. The requirements for wearing thigh guards and that the guards be unaltered from the manufacturer’s original design/production remain part of the rule.

Restrictions on eye shade were added to Rule 1-5-3c. If used, eye shade must be applied using a single solid stroke under each eye.

“The committee’s intent was that eye shade be located below and within the width of the eye socket and not extend below the cheekbone,” Colgate said. “No words, numbers, logos or other symbols of any type may be included within the eye shade.”

Four changes were approved by the committee in Rule 9 – Conduct of Players and Others. Those revisions include the following:

·       All horse-collar fouls being treated as live-ball fouls.

·       Roughing-the-passer penalties being enforced from the dead-ball spot when there is no change of team possession and the dead-ball spot is beyond the line of scrimmage.

·       The illegal participation rule including a player who intentionally goes out of bounds and, while out of bounds, affects the play, touches the ball or otherwise participates.

·       Establishing an unsportsmanlike foul against the head coach for failure to adhere to the limits on squad members being on the field of play during the coin toss.

A final change was made regarding running clock/mercy rules in nine-, eight- and six-player rules.

Football is the No. 1 participatory sport for boys at the high school level with 1,135,052 participants in the 2009-10 school year, according to the High School Athletics Participation Survey conducted by the NFHS through its member state associations. In addition, the survey indicated there were 1,350 girls who played football in 2009-10.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: FredFan7 on February 14, 2011, 03:26:38 PM
On first blush, it doesn't look too earth shaking. 

I guess they want to take the high-low block completely out of the high school game and that's fine by me.  It takes an official's judgement out of the equation too.  See a high-low block,  ^flag.

I wonder the thought process behind the official maintaining "administrative responsiblilites" after the contest is concluded?  Is that to make sure they fill out special reports?
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: jjseikel on February 14, 2011, 07:33:54 PM
I guess they want to take the high-low block completely out of the high school game and that's fine by me.  It takes an official's judgement out of the equation too.  See a high-low block,  ^flag.

The way I read it the low/high block is included as a foul.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Rulesman on February 14, 2011, 07:46:02 PM
The way I read it the low/high block is included as a foul.
Yes, and a low/low combination in the FBZ isn't. Am I missing something, or did the Federation take a step backwards?
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: GoGoGo on February 15, 2011, 06:48:06 AM
The news rule changes don't look earth shattering.

Does anyone enforce the eye-black and number of members on field for coin toss?

Does anyone else also enforce the uniform adornment rule of long belts hanging, tape stripping on belt or face mask, play sheets on the belts, and colored towels?
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: jjseikel on February 15, 2011, 07:22:00 AM
Does anyone enforce the eye-black and number of members on field for coin toss?

Yep.

Quote
Does anyone else also enforce the uniform adornment rule of long belts hanging, tape stripping on belt or face mask, play sheets on the belts, and colored towels?

Absolutely.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: GoGoGo on February 15, 2011, 07:34:31 AM
Good to hear jaybird. I enforce them and get flack from other officials in my chapter that those shoudl be over looked and are ticky-tack.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Harry on February 15, 2011, 09:13:25 AM
Yes, and a low/low combination in the FBZ isn't. Am I missing something, or did the Federation take a step backwards?

Low-Low isn't much of an issue.  High-Low is, but the NFHS rule is still more lenient than the NCAA rule.  Fed is knee and below.  NCAA is thigh and below.  I think there will be a good number more chop blocks called now that more action is considered a chop block.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Harry on February 15, 2011, 09:15:14 AM
The news rule changes don't look earth shattering.

Does anyone enforce the eye-black and number of members on field for coin toss?

Does anyone else also enforce the uniform adornment rule of long belts hanging, tape stripping on belt or face mask, play sheets on the belts, and colored towels?

We don't allow war paint and we follow the procedure for the coin toss.  I wonder if the eye black rule allows the tape.  It's not clear the way this is written.  I've never liked the writing on the eye black.

I don't think belts are an adornement issue.  They are a saftey issue.  The long belt can get pulled a number of ways which could injure the puller and the pullee.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: LarryW60 on February 15, 2011, 10:35:13 AM
I don't see why the eye-black tape would be disallowed as long as it meets the requirements here (no wider than the eye, not below the cheekbone, and no writing or logos on them)  Of course, if you can't put your team name on the tape strips, what's the point of using them instead of the the old eye black?  I imagine they cost more per use.

Quote
The illegal participation rule including a player who intentionally goes out of bounds and, while out of bounds, affects the play, touches the ball or otherwise participates.

And THAT should have taken care of the "stands behind the end zone, jumps up, and bats a pass back in play" play.  It SHOULD have, but the new rule still specifies that this has to happen "while out of bounds".  We're back to the same ol' "If he's not touching out of bounds or touching something out of bounds, then he's not 'out of bounds'" nonsense.  Why did they even bother with this if that's the best they could do?
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: GoGoGo on February 15, 2011, 10:40:45 AM
Excellent point...........
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: fbrefga on February 15, 2011, 12:27:04 PM
Does anyone else also enforce the uniform adornment rule of long belts hanging, tape stripping on belt or face mask, play sheets on the belts, and colored towels?
I have, as well as my entire association, been making an effort to have long belts tucked in and removing the play bands from the waist.  This was also the direction given by the GHSA.  In every GHSA state championship game this past season, at least one player had a play band on their belt.  Numerous players had long belts.  It was even ironic that some players were standing next to the executive director of the GHSA during the trophy ceremonies with, yes, play bands on their waist.  I may not even worry about it next season.  We look foolish enforcing these type of dress code regulations when the televised games show that it is not enforced throughout the state.  Frustrating!
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: HLinNC on February 15, 2011, 12:29:57 PM
Quote
Does anyone enforce the eye-black and number of members on field for coin toss?

Does anyone else also enforce the uniform adornment rule of long belts hanging, tape stripping on belt or face mask, play sheets on the belts, and colored towels?

You do not in NC at your own peril.  We've been warned, if it shows up on  any video sent to Chapel Hill, the crew is out of the playoffs in the worst case scenario.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: LarryW60 on February 15, 2011, 01:29:11 PM
And THAT should have taken care of the "stands behind the end zone, jumps up, and bats a pass back in play" play.  It SHOULD have, but the new rule still specifies that this has to happen "while out of bounds".  We're back to the same ol' "If he's not touching out of bounds or touching something out of bounds, then he's not 'out of bounds'" nonsense.  Why did they even bother with this if that's the best they could do?


Mr. RalphDamren over on the NFHS site explained it for me:

Quote
Part of the proposed rule change was to change 2-29-1: "A player or otherperson is out of bounds when any part of the person HAS TOUCHED anything other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line." It was felt changing present tense (is touching) to past tense(HAS TOUCHED) would correct that loophole. The Editorial Committee will provide the final verbage.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: GAHSUMPIRE on February 16, 2011, 06:36:41 AM
I have, as well as my entire association, been making an effort to have long belts tucked in and removing the play bands from the waist.  This was also the direction given by the GHSA.  In every GHSA state championship game this past season, at least one player had a play band on their belt.  Numerous players had long belts.  It was even ironic that some players were standing next to the executive director of the GHSA during the trophy ceremonies with, yes, play bands on their waist.  I may not even worry about it next season.  We look foolish enforcing these type of dress code regulations when the televised games show that it is not enforced throughout the state.  Frustrating!

AMEN!!! tiphat:
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: bama_stripes on February 16, 2011, 08:25:37 AM
The news rule changes don't look earth shattering.

Does anyone enforce the eye-black and number of members on field for coin toss?

Does anyone else also enforce the uniform adornment rule of long belts hanging, tape stripping on belt or face mask, play sheets on the belts, and colored towels?
We aren't strict on towel color.  Otherwise, we enforce all the things you mentioned.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: bama_stripes on February 16, 2011, 08:28:56 AM
I'm disappointed that FED didn't change the illegal formation definition to "more than four in the backfield".

I also would have liked to see the OPI penalty modified.  (I understand that the proposal received majority support, but not enough to pass)
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: GoGoGo on February 16, 2011, 10:10:09 AM
AMEN!!! tiphat:

I second the AMEN and feel the same frustration.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: LarryW60 on February 16, 2011, 10:18:02 AM
We run into the same thing... we enforce the state's wishes, only to watch a different association within the state seemingly ignoring the state's wishes.  Whatever.  As the State is the one that certifies us to work with the public schools, we're going to do what they want.  And for now, they want the entire NFHS Rules book enforced.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: VALJ on February 16, 2011, 04:43:37 PM
And THAT should have taken care of the "stands behind the end zone, jumps up, and bats a pass back in play" play.  It SHOULD have, but the new rule still specifies that this has to happen "while out of bounds".  We're back to the same ol' "If he's not touching out of bounds or touching something out of bounds, then he's not 'out of bounds'" nonsense.  Why did they even bother with this if that's the best they could do?

We'll have to see the final verbiage to be sure.  The fact that they've gone this far leads me to hope that they'll tweak a definition or two to prevent this play, though.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: VALJ on February 16, 2011, 04:46:18 PM
The news rule changes don't look earth shattering.

Does anyone enforce the eye-black and number of members on field for coin toss?

I haven't been looking at eye-black (though I will now); our association is pretty clear that we need to watch the team for the coin toss, though, as directed by the state.

Quote
Does anyone else also enforce the uniform adornment rule of long belts hanging, tape stripping on belt or face mask, play sheets on the belts, and colored towels?

Yessir.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: LarryW60 on February 17, 2011, 12:09:36 PM
We'll have to see the final verbiage to be sure.  The fact that they've gone this far leads me to hope that they'll tweak a definition or two to prevent this play, though.
It looks like they're going to change the definition of "out of bounds" from "is touching" to "has touched", making anything done by a player to affect the play after they step out of bounds subject to the illegal participation rule.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Kirby on February 17, 2011, 12:14:59 PM
It looks like they're going to change the definition of "out of bounds" from "is touching" to "has touched", making anything done by a player to affect the play after they step out of bounds subject to the illegal participation rule.

If a receiver inadvertanly steps on the sideline then immediatley jumps to try catch a pass, it would seem based on "has touched" that once the receiver touches the ball, it is now technically dead in mid-air. Interesting...
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: bama_stripes on February 17, 2011, 12:46:14 PM
If a receiver inadvertanly steps on the sideline then immediatley jumps to try catch a pass, it would seem based on "has touched" that once the receiver touches the ball, it is now technically dead in mid-air. Interesting...
I don't think so.  Illegal participation doesn't cause the ball to become dead.  The editorial change will simply add a provision to the IP rule that previously lacked clear coverage.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: LarryW60 on February 18, 2011, 09:08:43 AM
If a receiver inadvertanly steps on the sideline then immediatley jumps to try catch a pass, it would seem based on "has touched" that once the receiver touches the ball, it is now technically dead in mid-air. Interesting...
The rule change in the OP specifies that the player has to intentionally go out of bounds. Inadvertantly stepping out of bounds is considered "intentionally" going out of bounds, so yes, I believe that would be the ruling.  The only time it wouldn't happen would be if a player was pushed out of bounds and immediately returned to the field.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: GoGoGo on February 21, 2011, 12:49:26 PM

The rules committee also defined two types of authorized team conferences – the “Outside Nine-yard Mark Conference” and the “Between Nine-yard Mark Conference.” When an injury occurs and the referee grants an authorized conference, it must be an “Outside Nine-yard Mark Conference.” Colgate said this will provide medical personnel time and space to address the injured player.


When we stop play for an injury is that an authorized time-out? Do you allow the coaches to talk to their playes during this period?

Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: LarryW60 on February 21, 2011, 02:35:38 PM
When we stop play for an injury is that an authorized time-out? Do you allow the coaches to talk to their playes during this period?

A time-out for an injury is an official's time-out.  ALL official's time-outs are "authorized."  nAnA

During injury timeouts, we have allowed players to walk to NEAR the sideline and have the coaches talk to them from out of bounds.  Any player that steps off the field cannot play the next down (like usual).  This wasn't a time-out that allowed an authorized conference, so the coach(es) could not go onto the field to talk to their players.  I guess we can allow them to come on now that the referee can grant an authorized conference for an injury timeout - but only between their sideline and the 9-yard marks.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: LarryW60 on February 21, 2011, 02:44:08 PM
I don't think so.  Illegal participation doesn't cause the ball to become dead.  The editorial change will simply add a provision to the IP rule that previously lacked clear coverage.
Of course it will depend on the final wording, but one of the Rules Committee members indicated that this change to the illegal participation rule would be accompanied by a change to the Rule 2 definition for out-of-bounds.  If they changed the definition of out-of-bounds to include the phrase "...HAS touched...", then someone who stepped on the sideline then later touched the ball would render the ball dead (and the player still guilty of illegal participation).  It wouldn't change the game much, because the IP foul would bring the ball back whether the ball was dead or still live when touched.  The only change will be the receiver who illegally participates won't be able to catch the ball and run into the endzone, then claim the official's robbed him of a TD.  Well, I guess he's STILL going to do that but he'll be running while a whistle is blowing.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Atlanta Blue on February 21, 2011, 03:46:12 PM
Of course it will depend on the final wording, but one of the Rules Committee members indicated that this change to the illegal participation rule would be accompanied by a change to the Rule 2 definition for out-of-bounds.

Another committee member has said that Rule 2 was NOT changed.  Depending on the actual wording, they may or may not have taken care of the problem.  Perhaps a case play will make it clear.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Welpe on February 21, 2011, 05:06:42 PM
Another committee member has said that Rule 2 was NOT changed.  Depending on the actual wording, they may or may not have taken care of the problem.  Perhaps a case play will make it clear.

Maybe they'll add the caseplay back in that clearly defined this a few years ago.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Bob M. on February 21, 2011, 09:21:23 PM
REPLY: How about this one...
"Roughing-the-passer penalties being enforced from the dead-ball spot when there is no change of team possession and the dead-ball spot is beyond the line of scrimmage."

This was intended to answer once and for all the question about what happens when the team A receiver fumbles--let's say at midfield--and the fumble is recovered by a prone A10 at B's 45. Does enforcement take place at midfield or at B's 45? There's no definition of 'run' in the Fed rule book, so the old wording "enforced from the end of the last run..." raised the question of whether or not the prone recovery by A10 constituted a new run that begins and ends simultaneously. Without a definition of 'run,' a reasonable argument could be made each way. And there's no case play to guide us. So they're changing the rule to fix that. Now they're saying "from the dead ball spot." Fine...but what about when the A receiver fumbles at B's 5 and the ball rolls into and out of B's endzone. Now what??? You can't enforce a penalty against B from his goal line. And don't say go back to the previous spot since there was no change of possession and the dead ball spot is beyond the line of scrimmage. What they've created is a large hole that they need to plug.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: bama_stripes on February 22, 2011, 07:32:34 AM
The only change will be the receiver who illegally participates won't be able to catch the ball and run into the endzone, then claim the official's robbed him of a TD.

I was looking at it from a defensive viewpoint.  If A88 steps on the sideline, comes back in (flag) & touches the pass, but B15 intercepts, aren't we taking away a turnover if we kill the play after A88's touch?
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Atlanta Blue on February 22, 2011, 09:07:20 AM
REPLY: How about this one...
Fine...but what about when the A receiver fumbles at B's 5 and the ball rolls into and out of B's endzone. Now what??? You can't enforce a penalty against B from his goal line. And don't say go back to the previous spot since there was no change of possession and the dead ball spot is beyond the line of scrimmage. What they've created is a large hole that they need to plug.

Since (absent the penalty), the next down would start with a new team in possession, I would argue team possession DID change, and therefore the previous spot is the only spot available for enforcement.  That or we have to go back to "end of the run", and that's been eliminated with the "dead ball spot" change.  But the dead ball spot is ONLY available when there is no change of team possession, and fumbling the ball out of B's end zone is forfeiting possession.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: HLinNC on February 22, 2011, 09:33:36 AM
Quote
I was looking at it from a defensive viewpoint.  If A88 steps on the sideline, comes back in (flag) & touches the pass, but B15 intercepts, aren't we taking away a turnover if we kill the play after A88's touch?

Fundamental III-2.  No live-ball foul causes the ball to become dead.

They'll have to change the fundamentals to do it.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Magician on February 22, 2011, 05:40:20 PM
Fundamental III-2.  No live-ball foul causes the ball to become dead.

They'll have to change the fundamentals to do it.
He wasn't saying the ball would become dead because of the foul.  It would become dead because it was touched by someone who WAS out of bounds.  That's why I don't believe the rule 2 definition was changed.  The thought with the definition change was to consider that guy who steps out of bounds and leaps to still be considered out of bounds.  This scenario hadn't been thought out entirely.  A better approach would be to define in bounds and out of bounds and then say something like "a player is out of bounds if he is touching or has touched something out of bounds and has not re-established himself in bounds."  Or something along those lines.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: HLinNC on February 23, 2011, 09:45:50 AM
I must be getting confused then. :-\

Bama stripes question was aren't we taking away a turnover if we kill the play after A88's touch?  His play scenario is no different than the ruling already is- A88 goes out, comes back in, touches pass, flag at the spot of reentry for IP, if B intercepts , B is going to decline the foul and take the ball.  My response to him about changing the fundamentals was regarding the portion where he asks if we kill the play after A88's touch.  We aren't going to do that.

The fundamentals aren't being changed as I understand it. If A goes out and touches the pass while not yet being "back in" under the rule change/clarification, isn't it merely an incomplete pass at the moment he has touched it?  That is how I understood it to be.

Since we don't yet have ther full wording and rules changes, the Fed may do that or they may just leave this as a case play example to guide us without going and changing the definition of IB or OOB.  They've been known to do that occasionally.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: jg-me on February 23, 2011, 11:22:28 AM
I beleive there is no change ot the definition of being OOB. The rule change only affects rule 9 (IP). If a player goes OOB and is touching OOB at the same time he touches a loose ball, the ball will become dead as always. If a player goes OOB and touches a loose ball while that player is airborne (i.e. is not OOB but has not yet returned to the field of play), the ball remains live but the player has committed a foul for IP. Previously the ball would have remained live and there would be no foul at that point in time.
Two scenarios -1) A88 goes out for a pass, goes OOB, leaps from OOB and touches the legal forward pass prior to the player landing either inbounds or OOB. There is an IP foul at the spot of contact with the ball and the ball remains live.
                      2) A88 goes out for a pass, goes OOB, returns inbounds and then touches a legal forward pass. There is an IP foul at the spot where A88 returned inbounds and the ball is still live.
  In either case if A88 was OOB due to an opponent's block he has committed no foul presuming any return inbounds is made promptly.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Atlanta Blue on February 23, 2011, 12:24:44 PM
1) A88 goes out for a pass, goes OOB, leaps from OOB and touches the legal forward pass prior to the player landing either inbounds or OOB. There is an IP foul at the spot of contact with the ball and the ball remains live.
                      2) A88 goes out for a pass, goes OOB, returns inbounds and then touches a legal forward pass. There is an IP foul at the spot where A88 returned inbounds and the ball is still live.

A88 running near the sideline, sees the pass is going to be high, leaps for the ball, but steps on the sideline as part of his leap.  While airborne, he touches but does not catch the high pass.

By your explanation, he is guilty of IP (he stepped OOB, leapt in the air, and touched a pass).  But PLEASE tell me you don't call anything but an incomplete pass in this situation.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: AlUpstateNY on February 23, 2011, 03:40:30 PM
Ah, those pesky details.  Hopefully, the final wording will help us all understand what has changed about someone being OOB.  Trying to fit an action into a pre-described penalty seems to cause as many problems as it's intended to fix.  Currently we have a fairly simply, reasonably clear understanding that when a player becomes OOB, he's OOB.  An exception was made for when a player is forced, or caused to be OOB, by someone else, we ignore his being OOB.

Thay makes sense and follows the logic that we ignore someone be forced into touching a ball, or forced into contacting someone.  The game seems a lot simpler and straightforward when you insist that it's played by people within the boundry lines.  If you go OOB (by yourself) you take yourself out of play and you can no longer participate. 

There was no confusion when everyone accepted that once you went OOB you were OOB, then this assinine notion developed that beause of the wording, a person who took himself out of play by stepping OOB could somehow miraculously eliminate his being OOB by jumping up into the air (and no longer "touching" OOB) which created a slew of really ridiculous scenarios (that by the way, proponents of have NEVER been able to explain rationally) caused by ignoring common sense and insisting on semantic purity.

Hopefully this revision is intended to, and the final language will accomplish reenforcing and simplifying the understanding that when a player goes OOB, on his own, he is simply OOB from that point on until the play is over. All else then falls neatly into place.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: bama_stripes on February 24, 2011, 07:24:55 AM
There was no confusion when everyone accepted that once you went OOB you were OOB, then this assinine notion developed that beause of the wording, a person who took himself out of play by stepping OOB could somehow miraculously eliminate his being OOB by jumping up into the air (and no longer "touching" OOB) which created a slew of really ridiculous scenarios (that by the way, proponents of have NEVER been able to explain rationally) caused by ignoring common sense and insisting on semantic purity.
The problem arose because of the "back of the end zone" play that some teams were using.  A receiver went beyond the end line, jumped, and batted a pass back to a teammate.  Although common sense tells us that's not right, no one could find a rule that prohibited it.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: LarryW60 on February 24, 2011, 08:32:06 AM
Yeah, we all know it's not in the spirit of the rules to allow that play, but the way the rules were written we couldn't really prevent it unless we trotted out the "God" rule.  Once a loophole in the rules is uncovered, it needs to be plugged quickly so the "God" rule remains a very rare event.  Even if they make the OOB phrase "has touched" only in the case of illegal participation due to intentionally going OOB, it will make it easier to shut down this kind of play. :thumbup
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: HLinNC on February 24, 2011, 12:13:15 PM
Courtesy of Ralph from Bangor:   http://www.nfhs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=005563 (http://www.nfhs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=005563)

Quote
After even further discussion with the author: This rule change would not kill the pass that was batted by an airborne player who was OOB, it would make it a foul for IP. The pass would remain alive until it fell incomplete or the play ended. This would allow B to intercept or recover a fumble after a completed pass and decline the foul.

So my assumption is wrong.   :-\

Next they'll have me flinging my hat to the OOB spot. >:(

Maybe us wings will need to be preventative like the WH's letting rushers know the pass or kick is away .   DON'T TOUCH IT 88!!!!!
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: GoGoGo on February 24, 2011, 02:42:02 PM
HL - That is just too darn funny because that is what I say all the time.
Why do us WH's do that?

Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: LarryW60 on February 25, 2011, 07:52:28 AM
A88 running near the sideline, sees the pass is going to be high, leaps for the ball, but steps on the sideline as part of his leap.  While airborne, he touches but does not catch the high pass.

By your explanation, he is guilty of IP (he stepped OOB, leapt in the air, and touched a pass).  But PLEASE tell me you don't call anything but an incomplete pass in this situation.
I'm still not comfortable with calling someone who leaps into the air as being "in-bounds" so I would probably just signal incomplete in this specific situation UNLESS by "touching" the pass he attempts to tip it back into play.  Otherwise it's no different than a pass that goes wide and the player takes a few steps OOB before catching it. 
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: AlUpstateNY on February 25, 2011, 09:12:32 AM
I'm afraid there will always be those who insist on the need to separate intertwined gnats eyelashes and will find some way to fit an Illegal Participation call into an otherwise simply incomplete pass scenario.  This whole issue has been created by an inability, or reluctance, on the part of some to apply basic common sense and an understanding of the objective of the game, instead choosing to adhere to an arbitrary gramatical interpretation (nobody has been able to demonstrate) makes any sense or contributes positively to the game. 

Of course the final wording will "tell the tale", but simply changing "is touching" to "has touched" in 2-29 should satisfy all but the most stubborn that 99+% of these scenarios will be best handled as an OOB incomplete pass.   
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Atlanta Blue on February 25, 2011, 11:20:12 AM
Of course the final wording will "tell the tale", but simply changing "is touching" to "has touched" in 2-29 should satisfy all but the most stubborn that 99+% of these scenarios will be best handled as an OOB incomplete pass.   

Except that 2-29 has not been changed as part of this.  Probably should have been, but according the person that wrote the rule change, it wasn't.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: LarryW60 on February 25, 2011, 12:19:33 PM
Yeah, Ralph corrected himself and retracted the part about Rule 2 getting modified.  The definition for "out of bounds" will remain unchanged.  So we're going to have to pay attention to the final wording of the rule change in Rule 9 to see if it really will handle these types of plays.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: AlUpstateNY on February 25, 2011, 06:34:22 PM
Except that 2-29 has not been changed as part of this.  Probably should have been, but according the person that wrote the rule change, it wasn't.

That's too bad, it seemed like such a simple fix to such a silly problem.  Hopefully the language they do use will be as corrective.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Magician on February 28, 2011, 04:52:53 PM
Of course the final wording will "tell the tale", but simply changing "is touching" to "has touched" in 2-29 should satisfy all but the most stubborn that 99+% of these scenarios will be best handled as an OOB incomplete pass.   
The main problem with doing that (and I believe why it was not approved as submitted) is his scenario.  A88 runs a route and accidentally steps out of bounds.  He cuts to toward the middle of the field where A10 throws a pass toward him.  He leaps and tips the ball and it is ultimately caught by B22 and returned for a TD.

Updating 2-29 to say a player is out of bounds if he "has touched" anything out of bounds would do what to this play?  It would make the ball dead as soon as A88 touches it and the pass is incomplete.  Does that make sense?

I think a better approach would be to say a player is out of bounds if he "has touched" anything out of bounds and has not re-established himself "in-bounds".  Of course that would also require a definition for in-bounds.  He would still be guilty of illegal participation but at least the ball isn't dead when he touches it.  I agree the leap and bat after touching out of bounds should not be allowed by it very clearly is by the current rules.  We don't need to have that debate again because nobody's mind is going to be changed.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: AlUpstateNY on March 03, 2011, 09:45:26 AM
I would most certainly agree that the"final wording" of any change usually proves to be significant, and the clearer the better, when clarity and specificity is the objective.  Sometimes however, deliberate ambiguity is intended to provide flexibilityas  useful tool to support the good judgment of field officials. 

I would differ, however, with your analysis that the current wording ( related to the leap and bat after touching out of bounds) is "very clearly (allowed) by the current rules".    That I submit, is determined by interpretation of the "inartful" language of the current rule.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: LarryW60 on March 03, 2011, 01:39:42 PM
Al, I agree with you, but I can't tell if Magician agrees with you or not.  The sentence you parsed from him is severely fragmented, so I don't know WHAT he meant to say. ^flag
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Magician on March 14, 2011, 04:33:37 PM
Al, I agree with you, but I can't tell if Magician agrees with you or not.  The sentence you parsed from him is severely fragmented, so I don't know WHAT he meant to say. ^flag
I agree the rule should be the way Al interprets the current rule.  I completely disagree with him on the current interpretation however.  A player should not be able to step out of bounds, leap and while still airborn be able to bat or catch and throw the ball.  The current wording of the rule however only makes that a dead ball if he's touching something out of bounds while touching the ball.  There is no point is arguing that again as we will not agree.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: AlUpstateNY on March 17, 2011, 09:49:54 AM
I agree the rule should be the way Al interprets the current rule.  I completely disagree with him on the current interpretation however.  A player should not be able to step out of bounds, leap and while still airborn be able to bat or catch and throw the ball.  The current wording of the rule however only makes that a dead ball if he's touching something out of bounds while touching the ball.  There is no point is arguing that again as we will not agree.

Perhaps, one definition of bureauocracy is, "when rule (or in this case, only, one relatively new interpretation of a rule) creates a conflict with common sense, deciding to blindly follow that interpretation, rather than reason the objective." The ultimate decision is made by the individual and reflects which path he chooses to follow, and all that goes with that decision.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: VALJ on March 18, 2011, 04:21:08 PM
 deadhorse:
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Magician on March 21, 2011, 04:35:49 PM
Perhaps, one definition of bureauocracy is, "when rule (or in this case, only, one relatively new interpretation of a rule) creates a conflict with common sense, deciding to blindly follow that interpretation, rather than reason the objective." The ultimate decision is made by the individual and reflects which path he chooses to follow, and all that goes with that decision.
I refuse to get into a debate about this with a clock operator.  Come back when you are on the field and actually have to make a call.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Crash11 on March 21, 2011, 07:41:05 PM
I refuse to get into a debate about this with a clock operator.  Come back when you are on the field and actually have to make a call.

Uff-da
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Magician on March 21, 2011, 08:39:11 PM
Uff-da
A fellow Norwegian!!  I bet very few people have any idea what you are saying!
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: gsrc on March 22, 2011, 06:21:32 AM
A fellow Norwegian!!  I bet very few people have any idea what you are saying!
Growing up in MN that's a phrase I heard often.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: hoochycoochy on March 22, 2011, 07:26:50 AM
Since (absent the penalty), the next down would start with a new team in possession, I would argue team possession DID change, and therefore the previous spot is the only spot available for enforcement.  That or we have to go back to "end of the run", and that's been eliminated with the "dead ball spot" change.  But the dead ball spot is ONLY available when there is no change of team possession, and fumbling the ball out of B's end zone is forfeiting possession.
The definition of change of possession (2-34-3) requires possession by an opposing player, ie, an opposing player has to catch or recover the ball.  Therefore there is no change of possession in this case.  So we still have to dispose of the RTP foul and there's no spot to use.  The logical thing to do is to use the end of the run like it's been.  
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: hoochycoochy on March 22, 2011, 07:34:02 AM
I refuse to get into a debate about this with a clock operator.  Come back when you are on the field and actually have to make a call.
LOL 

Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: AlUpstateNY on March 22, 2011, 08:58:30 AM
I refuse to get into a debate about this with a clock operator.  Come back when you are on the field and actually have to make a call.

Your refusal to debate is a surprisingly wise call, Magician. The only thing you could do in such a discussion would be embarrass yourself.  You "come back" if you stay on the field long enough to learn something worth sharing, or might  matter.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: footballref on March 22, 2011, 06:10:17 PM
I refuse to get into a debate about this with a clock operator.  Come back when you are on the field and actually have to make a call.
Clock operator? There is no way that someone that gives us as much insight as Al is an ECO only, is there?
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: jjseikel on March 22, 2011, 10:52:41 PM
Clock operator? There is no way that someone that gives us as much insight as Al is an ECO only, is there?

You're right. That's giving him way too much credit.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: hoochycoochy on March 23, 2011, 10:51:37 AM
Clock operator? There is no way that someone that gives us as much insight as Al is an ECO only, is there?
Well, he makes up for that in his day job as a technical writer and editor. 
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: AlUpstateNY on March 23, 2011, 04:19:43 PM
Well, he makes up for that in his day job as a technical writer and editor. 

Excuse me "hoochy", does your mother know you're playing on the computer again?  She's going to be really upset with you.
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: hoochycoochy on March 23, 2011, 04:40:12 PM
Excuse me "hoochy", does your mother know you're playing on the computer again?  She's going to be really upset with you.
You having an off day?  That's lame. 
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: Curious on April 03, 2011, 10:03:48 AM
I don't think so.  Illegal participation doesn't cause the ball to become dead.  The editorial change will simply add a provision to the IP rule that previously lacked clear coverage.

'Bama, you're right; IP doesn't, by itself, cause the ball to become dead.  But 2-29-3 is pretty clear that "a loose ball (the pass) is o/o/b when it touches anything, INCLUDING a player or game official that is o/o/b".
Title: Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
Post by: LarryW60 on April 04, 2011, 08:10:32 AM
Curious, we've already been down that road.  IP was never the issue by itself.  It was a rumored change to the definition for OOB that would only be in effect when IP is being considered.  Ralph subsequently corrected himself by saying that the OOB definition would not be changed.  The reason is probably because of the scenario we discussed: Player steps out, then back in and leaps to try and catch the ball but instead tips it to a defender.  If he became, AND REMAINED, an OOB player after stepping back in because of a new definition change, the turnover would be nullified because the ball would be dead as soon as the OOB player touched it.  Now we have to go with assurances that the change to the IP rule in Rule 9 will suffice WITHOUT any changes to the definition of who is OOB in Rule 2.