Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
NCAA Discussion / Re: Blindside Block?
« Last post by centexsports on Yesterday at 08:55:10 AM »
When I was in high school during the off-season, we played military football.   The backs against the linemen.   The favorite activity was catching someone not looking while following a ball carrier and laying one in his chest (de-cleating him).   That is a blind side hit.   I would like to see them change the name of BSB to BSH which would then automatically be a penalty.   In the video at the beginning of this is a great block by the wide receiver. 
National Federation Discussion / Re: 2019 Rule Changes
« Last post by bossman72 on Yesterday at 08:51:43 AM »
However, our mechanics never allowed for a crew to just count the backfield.  R and U count and confirm 11.  L and LJ count 7 on the line and confirm. 

The new rule is easier to officiate.

It's easy to count 4 backs.  Counting linemen can get tricky since they could do the "russian dolls" where the giant tackle completely eclipses the shorter stocky guard and you can't see him.  You also don't have to look at your wing across the field giving 3rd base coach signals and you can concentrate on the LOS.
National Federation Discussion / Re: 2019 Rule Changes
« Last post by CalhounLJ on Yesterday at 08:29:40 AM »
I agree with the "no more than 4 in the backfield philosophy." We have been using it for years to quickly know if there weren't enough players on the line. Also, we made sure to count 11 before every snap. I have no problem either way. My question for the rulesmakers is this: What is the NCAA rule on this formation? Do they require 5 numbered 50-79? If it is clear, why not simply adopt it? It seems that we are getting closer to NCAA rules every year ( and I have no problem with that either.) My suggestion is that if we are adopting an NCAA rule (such as :40), then adopt it in its entirety. In other words, do it like the NCAA does it. Adopt their mechanics and everything. They have been doing it long enough to have worked the kinks out. When we try to tweak NCAA rules at the HS level, we invariably mess it up.
NCAA Discussion / Re: Blindside Block?
« Last post by ElvisLives on Yesterday at 08:12:29 AM »
I think there are three questions we need to answer.

1. Is this a block? Yes, it is.

2. Is it from outside the opponent's field of vision? Yes, it is.

3. Is it an open field block? I don't think so, but this is something we will be needing guidance on.

Kalle has hit the biggest nail head for this play, i.e., is it "open field?"  No one has received a lot of guidance on this, yet.  The "open field" component of the rule is clearly intended, for example, to allow an offensive tackle to take a couple of steps and blind-side an opponent in the general vicinity of the neutral zone.  We get that.  But this play is the quintessential example of the real gray area in this rule. The block isn't well behind or well beyond the NZ; rather, is it in the general area of the neutral zone extended to the sideline.  But, the blocker is able to draw a bead on the unsuspecting opponent from a significant distance, and, with that distance, is able to attain enough speed to give him a huge advantage in momentum as he contacts the opponent.   Put this action anywhere else on the field, and it would clearly qualify as "open field" (IMHO).  Combine that with element of surprise and the inability of the opponent to prepare himself for the contact, or take evasive action, you have the resulting "big hit" that has the potential to cause direct injury.  Not just momentary discomfort - but actual physical injury.  And that is what the rules makers at all levels are attempting to mitigate. 
We may get direction from NCAA folks that differs - or confirms - this conclusion (with rationale).  But, we just don't have that, yet.

In today's political and legal environment, governing organizations are having to take pro-active steps to reduce their exposure to legal challenges related to what some folks may see as preventable injuries, whether immediately serious (or catastrophic), or long-term pathological conditions.  That is what is driving these rule changes.  Rightly or wrongly, we, as officials are being asked to play a part in changing the culture of football, to move away from the highlight reel "big hit" made on players that can't defend themselves.  This is a huge, and very emotionally charged, change that everyone are being asked to embrace.  Obviously, players and coaches are resistant to such a major behavioral change, and are struggling to accept it.  I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise, but many officials are, likewise, struggling to adjust to this change, as well.  Personally, I don't see this "going back to the way it was."  We need to get on board and help make this a positive change.  We shouldn't be afraid to make these calls (BSB and TGT, in particular), as unpopular as they may be with players, coaches, and fans.  As I see it, it is already working.  We already see players making wrap-up tackles in many cases that, in the past, they would have just blasted the ball carrier or receiver.
Let's work together for the good of the game.  If we don't, we could see something happen that no one should ever want, and that is governmental intervention.  That will be the death of the game as we know it.

National Federation Discussion / Re: Timing Rules?
« Last post by Ralph Damren on Yesterday at 08:11:03 AM »
I'm with Calhoun.  We have a first down awarded after a legal kick, which is a major clock stopper.  Start the game clock on the snap, play clock at 25 on the ready.

The rationale of 3-4-3b,c is that a "major clock stopper" should apply when teams are changing their units ..i.e. ...A>B, K or R> A.

Hump day trivia : When could a "major clock stopper " occur a  ^flag during a scrimmage kick down  ^flag with the kick remaining inbounds AND no new series is awarded ???
National Federation Discussion / Re: 2019 Rule Changes
« Last post by Ralph Damren on Yesterday at 07:57:24 AM »
A word about unable to field 11.....

I started doing this in 1969 and have never been involved in a game where a team ran out of players. Once in a sub-varsity game , after a couple of injuries to linesmen, a coach claimed he didn't have any more players that could play line and asked to end the game. The other coach agreed. I would feel that if a team was unable to field 11 in a contact sport like ours, that both the coaches and officials would want to end the game, too.

A word about the new rule......

We didn't invent the wheel on this one, as NCAA has had it for several years. It was reported that nearly 50% of the IF fouls were called on special teams, while less than 10% of the plays involved them. These were usually caused by K only having 10 men on the field - while OL big ole' Bubba was watching the cheerleaders and forgot that he should be out on the field. Playing with 10 certainly didn't give K any advantage. In honor of Teddy Roosevelt's dislike of the flying-wedge, we still shouldn't allow more than 4 players in the backfield - thus, the new rule. If a team was not in a scrimmage kick formation, 5 players on the line would still be needed with numbers between 50-79 - that part didn't change. From an officials perspective, it should be easier to count to 5 than 7, and backs are easier to count than linemen  :).

Hope this helps to understand the logic in all of this.

From a grumpy ole' guy on a wet morning in Maine....

When reading / studying / discussing / applying a rule , it's good to start with why the rule is there. As Magician was first to mention, it prevents a hide-out play or player sneaking in late.  P_S Aren't interested if you are driving 25 MPH in a 15 MPH school zone at midnight  P_S . IMHO, we should treat calls  ^flag / non-calls  yEs: the same way.
NCAA Discussion / Re: Blindside Block?
« Last post by Kalle on Yesterday at 03:56:55 AM »
I think there are three questions we need to answer.

1. Is this a block? Yes, it is.

2. Is it from outside the opponent's field of vision? Yes, it is.

3. Is it an open field block? I don't think so, but this is something we will be needing guidance on.
NCAA Discussion / Re: Blindside Block?
« Last post by KWH on Yesterday at 01:39:39 AM »

It appears you two are digging for reasons not to call this a foul.

I guess I am not as nice of guy as you two.

The isolation shot shows he leads with his shoulder, so I would go with Blindside Block in both NCAA and NFHS

Perhaps I am just a bigger prick than you too.

However, In Texas, new rule and all, I would assume they would pas on this???
National Federation Discussion / Re: 2019 Rule Changes
« Last post by ucanfindmj on June 25, 2019, 11:00:34 PM »
I appreciate your input, Magician.  Sometimes digging into the weeds of rules is what helps some of us understand them better and why they were written, as well as having a procedure when/if the last or worst case scenario happens that it is backed by the rules.  Those little details, ie, how many players before a game is forfeited, matter.  Absolutely you have other issues to address, but that's what we do.

I can understand that they did not want to continue to have a 5 yd penalty to an offense that is already playing at a disadvantage with 6 on the line and 10 total.  However, our mechanics never allowed for a crew to just count the backfield.  R and U count and confirm 11.  L and LJ count 7 on the line and confirm.  I can tell that you have some doubt yourself on the change and is open for discussion among your peers.  Again, there is a better way and I appreciate you trying to explain that one.  I agree with the rational of why penalize a team that is already at a disadvantage.  We are now discussing that there are 2 people unaccounted for, but must be on the LoS if the offense has 11 or 10 or 9, you know what, it doesn't matter apparently.

Where I come from, even bad crews do not let the Kickoff occur until both teams have 11, so I am glad we share that.

My post was not meant to be satirical, nor was it ever intended to mock anyone, except maybe the process, the details, and I guess myself.  You are correct, nobody's perfect.  I do feel that those in charge of the rules should be able to consider the outcome of even simple changes, that in some cases, affect more than just the simple change made.  I also think that rules CAN be written to be black and white, or at least on a level a 3rd grader could understand.  Sorry we don't share the same vision on that.  I may not be seasoned, or a vet, however, I am passionate about what I do on the field and I like stuff to make sense, and yes, common sense, or some kind of football sense anyway.  Its frustrating and I am venting and you are probably right, I'll never be an excellent official, like yourself.  I'm just happy giving back and that's good enough for me.  Those that know the rules and the meaning behind them have a much easier time using common sense when explaining them however, I'm going to throw a 40 sec play clock in with the 25 sec play clock and mix it up just "to keep a more consistent time period between downs."
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10