Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10]
91
National Federation Discussion / Re: Facemask Foul - Penalty Enforcement
« Last post by Morningrise on April 12, 2019, 08:41:31 AM »
What is meant by "Snap 25" above? Yes, the play clock would be 25 anytime a flag flies, but wouldn't the game clock start on the ready, not the snap, in situations 1, 3, 4, and 5?
92
It may be simpler, but it definitely isn't fair. Your kick return analogy is not applicable because it's going to be 1st and 10 after enforcement. Enforcing holds at the previous spot is already a huge penalty that almost always stalls the drive. Best case scenario is 1st and 20. Enforced from behind could result in 1st and 25 or 1st and 30. A previous spot enforcement on a scrimmage play is still a significant penalty that will likely stall the drive, but at least it gives them a fighting chance. Anything beyond that almost guarantees it.

As a bitter Massachusetts official, I also find "1st and 26" after a holding call to be preposterous - but: If the yardage penalty were reduced from 10 to 5, then marching it off from the spot of the foul wouldn't be so severe.

And it kinda makes more sense this way: Isn't a holding foul, 9 yards behind the NZ, that saves an 9-yard sack, a more grave offense than a foul 3 yards behind the NZ that saves a 3-yard sack? That's a pretty good justification for enforcing from the flag instead of the PS. So I don't, in theory, have a problem with the NFHS method. I just feel that THAT, plus TEN yards, is too severe. Especially at the HS level where players are less skilled and [citation needed] a 16-yard loss is harder for an offense to overcome.
93
NCAA Discussion / Re: Keep our minds working...
« Last post by Kalle on April 12, 2019, 08:32:26 AM »
As far as a 1 point safety conceded by the offense, something like this could happen. https://youtu.be/QC3t5W1zlfQ

Wow. Usually you have at least one bat or kick but looks like all touches were real muffs.
94
NCAA Discussion / Re: Keep our minds working...
« Last post by Legacy Zebra on April 12, 2019, 07:44:44 AM »
Robert, I agree with the impossible scores.

As far as a 1 point safety conceded by the offense, something like this could happen. https://youtu.be/QC3t5W1zlfQ
95
NCAA Discussion / Re: Keep our minds working...
« Last post by Kalle on April 12, 2019, 06:49:03 AM »
Harvard scored a touchdown. On the try from the B-3, sophomore long snapper Clark Kent accidentally snapped the ball 108 yards backward.

A more plausible scenario would be that on the try A12 muffs the snap, B33 recovers and runs almost to a score but fumbles at A-1, A55 bats the subsequent loose ball backwards in the field of play, and A99 recovers grounded in team A's end zone.
96
NCAA Discussion / Re: Keep our minds working...
« Last post by ElvisLives on April 12, 2019, 05:40:01 AM »
Related question: which final scores - apart from all ties - are impossible in a game?

2-1, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, 7-1. 
Since a 1-point safety can only happen during a Try, the opponent would have to have at least 6 points.  But, if Team A scores a TD and a 1-point field goal on the Try, team B couldnít suffer a 1-point safety.  Otherwise, everything else would seem to be mathematically possible.
1-0 is not possible through play, but can be the awarded score in the case of a forfeit awarded to a team not ahead in score.

Thatís what I see.  Did I miss something?

Robert
97
NCAA Discussion / Re: Keep our minds working...
« Last post by Kalle on April 12, 2019, 01:13:49 AM »
Related question: which final scores - apart from all ties - are impossible in a game?
98
thank you.  I AM overthinking this and I've just concluded I will know it when I see it.  If there is any doubt in  my mind I won't call it.
99
National Federation Discussion / Re: opinion on crew position
« Last post by AlUpstateNY on April 11, 2019, 04:47:22 PM »
How about asking the new guy where he would like to  work and WHY.  His answers might help you decide where to put him.  (I hereby plead guilty to failing to use gender neutral pronouns.  In my defense though, I still vote for Millard Fillmore.)

Easy correction, I long ago declared the term guy (guys) is totally genderless, and applies equally to any and all human individuals.
100
t

I am probably getting way to technical but I could envision the instance when a tackler is grabbing the runner's jersey by the name plate area but only enough to slow the runner down, and in that moment the runner is tackled backwards by another defender.

Did the tackler from behind pull him back down to the ground or was it the tackler from in front that pushed him down?  Penalty or not?

The 2018 Rule Book, NFHS 9-4-3-k Provides a very specific definition and description of what constitutes a "Horse-Collar" tackle, including an implicit responsibility for "pull (Backward or sideward) that opponent to the ground".  In a situation where multiple defenders may be in contact with the runner, the responsibility of the defender for the horse-collar violation is dependent on the actions of THAT player as determined by the official observing the action deciding whether, or not, the rule (9-4-3-k) has been violated.

That judgment will be enhanced by the calling official's complete understanding of the specific details of 9-4-3-k.  (Presuming there are no additional relevant adjustments to 9-4-3-k included in the 2019 revision).   
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10]