Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
51
National Federation Discussion / Re: 2019 Rule Changes
« Last post by Magician on June 25, 2019, 10:58:16 PM »
in as far as kickoffs, why not let them play with less than 11? - clearly it's preventative have someone on K to verify they have 11, but how do we know a coach has a crazy scheme on a kick where he only wants 9 out there? now if we call attention to it, we and we alone medded up his scheme which is perfectly legal - albeit unusual.

Go ahead and do that in your games. I've worked a lot of games in my nearly 20 years and nobody has ever intentionally run a kickoff with less than 11 players. This has been pretty good advice given to me by NFL, NCAA and veteran HS officials since I started. I'm going to trust their guidance.
52
NCAA Discussion / Re: Blindside Block?
« Last post by bctgp on June 25, 2019, 08:10:28 PM »
Forcible is always a judgment but is there any cushioning by the blocker here? It does appear he may be cushioning by leading with his arms but the angle is not the best to 100% confirm. When in doubt it is a BSB correct?
53
National Federation Discussion / Re: 2019 Rule Changes
« Last post by TampaSteve on June 25, 2019, 07:09:39 PM »
in as far as kickoffs, why not let them play with less than 11? - clearly it's preventative have someone on K to verify they have 11, but how do we know a coach has a crazy scheme on a kick where he only wants 9 out there? now if we call attention to it, we and we alone medded up his scheme which is perfectly legal - albeit unusual.
54
it seems reasonable that once the ball is set by U that L/J should have their eyes peeled for players inside 9yd.
it seems reasonable for when U is in place to fulfill this 9yd requirement; however, there's times every game where U is not ready & in place today and we're at the ready.
55
NCAA Discussion / Re: Blindside Block?
« Last post by Magician on June 25, 2019, 05:53:36 PM »
I assume you are referring to the block by the wideout at the 25? That meets all the criteria except possibly forcible contact. I wouldn't consider this contact to be forcible because the blocker stops before he initiates the contact. He could make it even more obvious if he puts his hands in front. This isn't a violent hit, but it still takes the defender out of the play.
57
National Federation Discussion / Re: 2019 Rule Changes
« Last post by Magician on June 25, 2019, 02:18:53 PM »
Secondly, simply changing a rule to read that a team must have 5 on the LoS and no more than 4 in the backfield, also changes the number of participants a team may play with if fewer than 11 (which used to be 8, including a back to snap to, now this number is 6.)  Technically, rewriting this rule cleared nothing up and did not make anything easier in identifying legal or illegal formations.  The rules committee tried to fix what was not broken.  However, I would like an example of how it was broken, in their opinion.
If they only have 6 or 8 players we have much bigger issues than formations. I don't think the minimum number of players is or should be a concern of the rules committee. What they fixed here was a situation where a team only sent out 10 players (usually on a scrimmage kick but occasionally on a regular scrimmage play) and the missing player was a lineman (could be a receiver who was supposed to be on the line). They are already playing at a disadvantage because they are short a player, but they also commit a foul for an illegal formation because they didn't have 7 on the line. Most crews counted backs anyway because it's much easier to see them and quicker to count so this rule change was perfectly logical. Trying to turn it into a minimum number of players before forfeiting is digging into weeds that don't need to be touched.

Then we run into the situation of having "at least 4 on each side of the kicker for a free kick."  While I understand that this rule is intended to avoid an unbalanced side for an onside kick, it now means that a team cannot continue to participate with fewer than 9 players for its kickoff.  This rule should have been rewritten to say that "at the time of the kick, no more than 6 players may be on either side of the kicker."  Stating it this way, in no way changes how few players a team may participate with, if fewer than 11 as well as keeps one side from being overloaded.  It is obvious that if 6 on one side, there must be a kicker and 4 on the other side of the kicker making 11 and also allows for 5 and 5. 
Every good crew I've ever talked with will not start a free kick if there aren't exactly 11 players on both sides. If they have fewer than 11 available to play I'm not likely allowing the game to continue unless everyone agrees to continue under somewhat modified rules (i.e. numbering could be an issue depending on what they have left). Again, the important criteria here isn't what is the minimum number of players you can get away playing with.

So, as written, a team may play with 6 (new) until they have to kickoff.  At that point, the game is forfeited.[/quote]

SMH at the rules committee for the past 3 years.  Seemingly, they have no concept of the game of football, much less how to properly implement rule changes and everything affected by them.  Rules should be black and white, like the shirts we wear.  However, it is easy to get 3 different interpretations out of veteran officials because of the way the rule book is now written.  I am also guessing these guys never had to study these rules for an exam or to go out and actually work a game.  If they had, they would/should know.

Mike
It's really easy to be critical of the rules committee, But like us officials on the field, they are human and it's not easy to be perfect. Adding the statement about the minimum of 5 on the line was unnecessary and has created a lot of confusion, but they didn't put it there because they are idiots or were trying to be difficult. They thought it would help clarify and support the rule. They strive to make the rules black and white but that is also impossible.

I hope your post was somewhat satirical and mocking some of the things people post on discussion forums. But if not I hope you take my words as common sense approaches to understanding the rules rather than just knowing the rules. That's what separates really good officials from excellent officials.
58
National Federation Discussion / Re: Apple Watch 40/25 clock app
« Last post by SCline on June 25, 2019, 02:17:20 PM »
I have only ever timed one game from on the field but I would think the standard timer app would work pretty well for the purpose, the problem is that the pause and resume button is so close to reset. I donít know if any other good ones though.
59
National Federation Discussion / Re: Timing Rules?
« Last post by CalhounLJ on June 25, 2019, 01:54:12 PM »
Yes thatís correct. This situation canít have PSK enforcement because R didnít have possession at the end of the down. Since the ball was still in Ks possession at the time of the ill-timed-toot, K retained possession. If the play had been allowed to play out, most likely R would have been in possession at the end of the down and PSK would have applied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
60
National Federation Discussion / Re: Timing Rules?
« Last post by Ref4bills on June 25, 2019, 01:20:00 PM »
If I am reading this right, the kick never ended due to the inadvertent whistle so the penalty cannot be enforced from the end of the kick? Therefore it gives K 10 yards and a fresh set of downs? Penalty enforcement is definitely my weak point. Whereas, without the inadvertent whistle, it likely would have been Rís ball 1st and 10 around the 7 yard line after their block in the back penalty was enforced?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10