Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
It seems like another case of the NFHS changing a rule but not seeing how all the others are affected. I honestly wonder if these committees in Indianapolis actually read the entire rule book and understand how one rule affects others?! We're left cleaning up the chicken Sh__ and are expected to make chicken salad with the leftovers and the proverbial know-it-all reply from them, "You know what we meant!"   ???
2
National Federation Discussion / Re: 2019 Rule Changes
« Last post by NVFOA_Ump on Yesterday at 01:23:16 PM »
The vast majority of the rules, when read slowly and deliberately, using common rules of grammar, are simple and clear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably true 75-85% of the time, but the real problem is very few rules implementations can be correctly understood from a single location within the rule book.  Many of them have seriously overlap areas, most of those involving rules 2, 6, 9, and 10, making the simple straightforward read & understand impossible.  If these books were being reviewed by the same people who reviewed my work with the FDA and NRC they would have so much red it would take a superhuman effort to fix it.  The repeatedly stated idea that NFHS rules have few if any exceptions is a mirage, they just have literally dozens of overlapping wording in the rules attempting IMHO to cover exceptions without using the word.  A good example is the definitions section where a brief, clear and concise definition is provided for many terms and then changed later in the books.  That violates every concept of technical writing and should not happen.

A good example of words with no specific meaning is Case Book 3.6.1 Comment 1 that explains "2) The umpire will need to be alert to substitutions and not leave the ball too quickly after placing it down without observing both teams to prevent possible substitution advantages and fouls."  I was told and have read here many times that the case book is analogous to the interpretations section of the NCAA rule book and gives specific guidance for specific sets of conditions during the game.  How does the " Ö The umpire will need to be alert Ö"  give us any real guidance? ???
3
Iíve slowly come around to the idea of the :40, but I swear, the more we talk about it the more it sounds like what weíve already been doing. Are we sure we havenít tried to fix something that wasnít broken?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It depends entirely on the crew. Some crews probably had a fairly consistent pace and that won't change. But even the most consistent pace probably still varied 3-5 seconds on the front end throughout the game. For them the two main changes will be a lot fewer RFP whistles (saves the R's ears and allows him to worry about other things between snaps) and a very consistent back end of the play clock especially at the end of a half when one team wants thinks you are going too fast (trying to burn time) or too slow (wanting to get the ball back).

It will force some crews to go a little faster if they either just moved slow or intentionally delayed the RFP until the offense was ready with their play call and getting into formation. That's what the coaches appreciated the most. They had the same amount of time to get the ball snapped week to week. It also just seems to flow better. I had to work a game last winter with only a 25-second play clock and it felt clunky. Great technical analysis huh?

The good news is everyone who has done adapted quickly and loved it. I think everyone else will feel the same way this Fall.
4
National Federation Discussion / Re: 2019 Rule Changes
« Last post by CalhounLJ on Yesterday at 12:11:25 PM »
The vast majority of the rules, when read slowly and deliberately, using common rules of grammar, are simple and clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
5
Iíve slowly come around to the idea of the :40, but I swear, the more we talk about it the more it sounds like what weíve already been doing. Are we sure we havenít tried to fix something that wasnít broken?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
6
Exactly. There's nothing stating that we're going to hold for late subs... but to be honest, the introduction of the 40 second play clock isn't going to influence the ability of the offense to substitute late. They could have done it before with a 25 second play clock. The could have previous waited for the RFP, then subbed a player and snapped quickly -- as long as everybody was set and inside the numbers momentarily, that was fine and legal before and it's the exact same situation now, except the play clock starts sooner.

Until a new rule change comes down or I get word from the state office that we're going to introduce our own new rules, we didn't hold for subs before and we're not holding for subs now either. It's simply irrelevant to the 40 second play clock.

I would look at it this way. With the 25-second clock if a play ended at the feet of the U and the ball was on the ground he could possibly have it spotted within 3-5 seconds of the previous play ending. The R would probably hold the RFP a little longer than normal so as not to go to fast. This may just be saying the same thing but putting it on the umpire now to delay stepping away. I agree that flow shouldn't change with the new rule. The intent of the 40-second play clock isn't to run around like crazy to be ready to go ASAP. Make sure the crew has plenty of time to process dead ball activity and get ready for the next play.
7
National Federation Discussion / Re: 2019 Rule Changes
« Last post by ucanfindmj on Yesterday at 11:21:11 AM »
In defense of my fellow brothers on the rules committee, I offer the following :

All approved rule proposals are screened closely prior to publication. An intent is to make the reading as short and clear is possible. The final wordage comes from the Editorial Committee, who spend nearly a full day of proof-reading and review. While I can't speak to the background of all it's members, I can say that I know and fully respect the superior rule knowledge of Steve Hall (NH) and Tyler Cerimeli (AZ) , who are both very active and highly-rated field officials. I haven't had a chat with Mark Uyl but where he represents the National Association of Sports Officials, I assume he, too, is both very active and very knowledgeable about the game we all love. He is also a member of our Editorial Committee.

We don't have any Ivy League English Professors on the NFHS Football Rules Committee. That may be a good thing.

I appreciate that input.  However, I am still looking for the solution to why we have so many different interpretations from the veteran officials.  Some of us feel like these rules can be written much more simply and clear. 
8
That's an unusual thing to state in the case play because there is nothing in the 40-second clock rule that allows for defensive match up for subs.

Exactly. There's nothing stating that we're going to hold for late subs... but to be honest, the introduction of the 40 second play clock isn't going to influence the ability of the offense to substitute late. They could have done it before with a 25 second play clock. The could have previous waited for the RFP, then subbed a player and snapped quickly -- as long as everybody was set and inside the numbers momentarily, that was fine and legal before and it's the exact same situation now, except the play clock starts sooner.

Until a new rule change comes down or I get word from the state office that we're going to introduce our own new rules, we didn't hold for subs before and we're not holding for subs now either. It's simply irrelevant to the 40 second play clock.
9
That's an unusual thing to state in the case play because there is nothing in the 40-second clock rule that allows for defensive match up for subs. If the defense is late with their subs and the ball is ready for play that's on them. The sub match-up rule in NCAA has nothing to do with the 25 or 40-second play clock. Generally you won't be stepping away from the ball significantly sooner than you would have blown the whistle for a 25-second play clock.

One thought is did they put this in here because they didn't want the U to spot the ball quickly and step away immediately if a run ended at his feet and the ball is on the ground. You still need to make sure your crew is ready to definitely take your time. If the ball is RFP by the U stepping back at 25-30 you are fine.

The editorial committee was probably trying to be helpful and tell us not to hurry, but they shouldn't have used substitution as the reason. They should have just said make sure the crew is ready before making the ball ready for play just like you did with a 25-second play clock.
10
Good grief. This is like an oyster. The more we chew it the bigger it gets.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

+1
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10