Author Topic: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)  (Read 17354 times)

Offline twref

  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #50 on: February 27, 2017, 01:56:06 PM »
That must make your coin toss ceremony a little awkward!
I get your point, and it admittedly it works quite well in other codes.
However, in NFHS contests, and until the Rules Book changes, the NFHS Rules Book requires us to receive the choice from the offended captains. See 10-1-1 There is a specific reason the Rule is written and remains that way.
Take your time, and explain to the captain all of his choices. The Rules book does not preclude us from "Assisting" or "Steering" the offended captain into the making the correct choice!

KWH-What is the specific reason the Rule is written and remains that way? Not an attempt to put you on the spot, but would appreciate knowing why you, any other official or member of the committee believes it's better to ask a captain vs head coach their preference on a rule enforcement

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2402
  • FAN REACTION: +287/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #51 on: March 01, 2017, 12:47:04 PM »
KWH-What is the specific reason the Rule is written and remains that way? Not an attempt to put you on the spot, but would appreciate knowing why you, any other official or member of the committee believes it's better to ask a captain vs head coach their preference on a rule enforcement
  The general feeling is high school sports should involve the student in decision-making such as this. There is not any penalty for bringing the captain within hearing distance of the coach or for the captain to be listening to his coach's advice as you explain his options. I try not to put a captain in position of needing to make a challenging decision without the coach not hearing the options.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3221
  • FAN REACTION: +249/-464
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #52 on: March 01, 2017, 01:08:53 PM »
  The general feeling is high school sports should involve the student in decision-making such as this. There is not any penalty for bringing the captain within hearing distance of the coach or for the captain to be listening to his coach's advice as you explain his options. I try not to put a captain in position of needing to make a challenging decision without the coach not hearing the options.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE NFHS Rules apply to High School (and younger) athletes, and hopefully being designated a "Captain" is still considered an honor (to those athletes) worth pursuing.  Therefore it is a position worth RESPECTING.

There is NOTHING in the rules (written or UNwritten) preventing a Referee from moving the explanation of a penalty option from wherever, to a place where the explanation can be overheard by his coach, who can offer advice, or correction, (if necessary) to the decision the CAPTAIN is making.

RESPECTING the Captain can pay enormous dividends, should it be better for him to provide assistance in situations, where YOU might prefer a subtle suggestion from him, rather than, and to avoid, a hammer from YOU. 

The difference between NFHS and "other codes" is we work with developing children, as opposed to (sometimes young) and experienced grown men.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2176
  • FAN REACTION: +68/-23
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #53 on: March 01, 2017, 01:51:40 PM »
I have NEVER, at any age group, had a captain complain about not being consulted on a penalty option.

Online Kalle

  • *
  • Posts: 2637
  • FAN REACTION: +94/-30
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #54 on: March 01, 2017, 02:37:00 PM »
KWH-What is the specific reason the Rule is written and remains that way? Not an attempt to put you on the spot, but would appreciate knowing why you, any other official or member of the committee believes it's better to ask a captain vs head coach their preference on a rule enforcement

AIUI this comes from the original college rules, where the coach had absolutely no business on anything that happened on the field - he couldn't even order substitutions. This was gradually relaxed to the point NCAA is now, where the coach makes more or less all decisions.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3221
  • FAN REACTION: +249/-464
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #55 on: March 01, 2017, 03:36:59 PM »
I have NEVER, at any age group, had a captain complain about not being consulted on a penalty option.

I've NEVER had a bartender complain about my ability to drive.  Thank God I have a hard working guardian angel backing me up.  Would you REALLY expect a teenage Captain to complain to a Referee about talking to his Coach?

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2176
  • FAN REACTION: +68/-23
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #56 on: March 01, 2017, 03:39:01 PM »
I've NEVER had a bartender complain about my ability to drive.  Thank God I have a hard working guardian angel backing me up.  Would you REALLY expect a teenage Captain to complain to a Referee about talking to his Coach?

I would if he felt like his team was being disadvantaged, or he was being disrespected.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3800
  • FAN REACTION: +309/-233
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #57 on: March 01, 2017, 06:15:57 PM »
I would if he felt like his team was being disadvantaged, or he was being disrespected.
Disrespected? Sorry, Bama. Give us a break from the political correctness. 👎
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline sir55

  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • FAN REACTION: +10/-3
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #58 on: March 01, 2017, 07:38:29 PM »
4 more questions. A receiver is defenseless player until he becomes a runner. Does that mean that the defense can not make contact with the receiver to break up a pass? Does the defender now stand there until the catch is complete and the receiver begins to run? Does the receiver of a punt or free kick, as a defenseless player, now get fair catch protection without the signal? Does the snapper now get the same protection he did when the offense was in a SKF, except now it is a 5 yard encroachment (dead ball?) unless they are in a SKF? Last question, Ralph, when do the rule interpretations come out for these new rules?

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3221
  • FAN REACTION: +249/-464
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #59 on: March 01, 2017, 10:33:21 PM »
Regarding your questions related to a "defenseless player" , the examples shown in the press release relate to expanding 2-32-16 by adding specific examples.  Penalties associated with "defenseless  players are related to 9-4-3i-3, which refers to "Illegal helmet-to-helmet contact against a defenseless player.", so unless the contact against any of the newly listed descriptions involved helmet-to-helmet contact, it doesn't seem as if very much has changed, from the current interpretations, that hopefully have already been drawing flags for violating
9-4-3i-3 when illegal helmet contact is observed.

The Snapper is protected, in a SKF,  from "Roughing" by 9-4-6, which would usually supercede most encroachment fouls. 
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 10:37:46 PM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2176
  • FAN REACTION: +68/-23
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #60 on: March 02, 2017, 06:05:20 AM »
Disrespected? Sorry, Bama. Give us a break from the political correctness. 👎

No "PC" intended.  Perhaps that's just a result of my spending a lot of time with teenagers, who feel that "disrespect" is a near-capital offense.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2402
  • FAN REACTION: +287/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #61 on: March 02, 2017, 07:48:31 AM »
4 more questions. A receiver is defenseless player until he becomes a runner. Does that mean that the defense can not make contact with the receiver to break up a pass? Does the defender now stand there until the catch is complete and the receiver begins to run? Does the receiver of a punt or free kick, as a defenseless player, now get fair catch protection without the signal? Does the snapper now get the same protection he did when the offense was in a SKF, except now it is a 5 yard encroachment (dead ball?) unless they are in a SKF? Last question, Ralph, when do the rule interpretations come out for these new rules?
IMHO, MY four answers....
 (1) The list of defenseless players is for us to pay close attention to players in those vaunerble positions and ensure that all contact is legal. Targeting/excessive contact/etc. should be called if not.
 (2) See #1.
 (3) The 5 yd dead ball encroachment penalty was added to answer the age ole' question of ; "Can a 'faster than a speeding bullet' defender intercept/disrupt the snap before it leaves the snapper's hands?" The answer is now NO. This would only be RTS if contact was made with the snapper's body and K was in SKF. RTS =live ball,15 yds & AFD.
 (4) Interpretations on new rules will be published and released in the new Case Book. Further interpretations would normally be published shortly after the NFHS Interpreters Meeting in July.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2402
  • FAN REACTION: +287/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #62 on: March 02, 2017, 08:12:23 AM »
I have NEVER, at any age group, had a captain complain about not being consulted on a penalty option.
Two situations from my murky memory that I felt you guys might enjoy....

   SITUATION : 4th & 10, incomplete pass & flag for OPI (back in the days of LOD on such). I go to B's captain to inform that he'll have the ball & the 15 yds , when... captain hears his coach yelling "DECLINE IT,DECLINE IT..."
   Captain : "We'll de..."
   Me : " :)I'm the elder, let me talk first :). By taking the penalty you'll still get the ball BUT you'll also get 15 more yards. 8]"
   Captain : " Coach don't know crap, does he??"
   Me : " Everyone can have their own opinions, captain ;)."
      ...and the band played on.

  SITUATION : 1st & 10 @ A's 20, :05 left in 0-0 1st half...
  (1) A's pass is intercepted by B10 @ 50;
  (2) During the return, there's a flag for BIB on B11 @ A's 20;
  (3) B10 runs OOB @ A'15 where there's a late hit by A5;
  (4) The clock now reads : 00:00.0.

 SURPRISE QUIZ : WHO WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE OPTIONS TO AND WHAT WOULD THEY BE???

     ^flag ^talk ^talk ^flag

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 480
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #63 on: March 02, 2017, 08:21:58 AM »
Disrespected? Sorry, Bama. Give us a break from the political correctness. 👎

I don't think that's a PC thing -- it's more basic human decency. If you're talking down to a high school varsity player like he's a 6 year old pee wee kid -- "Hey, let's go ask your coach what he wants to do!" -- he will probably think you're not taking him seriously and he probably won't respect you in return. If you treat them like adults, they're more likely to act like adults.

And, it's not *that* you asked the coach instead of the captain that is the problem, it's *how* -- and the wrong way to do it is easily avoidable. It's very easy to get the coach involved and not be dismissive or disrespectful of the captain.

Now, if he claims that actually throwing the flag when he commits a foul was a microagression on your part... okay, yes, that's some dumb PC garbage.

Online Kalle

  • *
  • Posts: 2637
  • FAN REACTION: +94/-30
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #64 on: March 02, 2017, 08:28:58 AM »
Two situations from my murky memory that I felt you guys might enjoy....

   SITUATION : 4th & 10, incomplete pass & flag for OPI (back in the days of LOD on such). I go to B's captain to inform that he'll have the ball & the 15 yds , when... captain hears his coach yelling "DECLINE IT,DECLINE IT..."

In situations like these I love the NCAA rule 10-1-1-a, the penalty is completed when the choice is obvious to the referee. No need to let team B to shoot themselves in the foot even if they'd want to.

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 480
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #65 on: March 02, 2017, 08:34:46 AM »
IMHO, MY four answers....
 (1) The list of defenseless players is for us to pay close attention to players in those vaunerble positions and ensure that all contact is legal. Targeting/excessive contact/etc. should be called if not.
 (2) See #1.

I want to make sure I'm interpreting the new rules right as well -- mostly, the defenseless player definition is NOT actually a new rule. It just expanded the explicit definition of who is defenseless. If you launch at a player to make a big hit just for the sake of making a big hit/block and it's unnecessary and excessive, it's 15 yards... but it should have been 15 yards last year as well.

B56 launches themselves at receiver A88 stretching to catch a high throw and is contacted shoulder to sternum (B56's arms are tucked in to his chest, not extended). It's not contact to the head/targeting, but it is excessively violent when B56 could have tried to wrap up or played the ball instead. Last year, the officials might hold their flag thinking that A88 is "fair game" since he's involved in the play, despite the excessive nature of the hit. This year, the book clearly states, "No, you can't just hit a guy to hit a guy, even if he's trying to make a play on the ball."

(3) The 5 yd dead ball encroachment penalty was added to answer the age ole' question of ; "Can a 'faster than a speeding bullet' defender intercept/disrupt the snap before it leaves the snapper's hands?" The answer is now NO. This would only be RTS if contact was made with the snapper's body and K was in SKF. RTS =live ball,15 yds & AFD.

Just the enforcement clarification, if B99 swats at the ball in the snapper's hands, it's 5 yards for encroachment -- unless he's the long snapper (in scrimmage kick formation), then it's 15 for roughing?

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2402
  • FAN REACTION: +287/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #66 on: March 02, 2017, 08:42:39 AM »
I want to make sure I'm interpreting the new rules right as well -- mostly, the defenseless player definition is NOT actually a new rule. It just expanded the explicit definition of who is defenseless. If you launch at a player to make a big hit just for the sake of making a big hit/block and it's unnecessary and excessive, it's 15 yards... but it should have been 15 yards last year as well.

B56 launches themselves at receiver A88 stretching to catch a high throw and is contacted shoulder to sternum (B56's arms are tucked in to his chest, not extended). It's not contact to the head/targeting, but it is excessively violent when B56 could have tried to wrap up or played the ball instead. Last year, the officials might hold their flag thinking that A88 is "fair game" since he's involved in the play, despite the excessive nature of the hit. This year, the book clearly states, "No, you can't just hit a guy to hit a guy, even if he's trying to make a play on the ball." IMHO, It would have been a foul last year IF you felt he was defenseless. Now that we have a list of what a defenseless player is, he would have deemed to be such.

Just the enforcement clarification, if B99 swats at the ball in the snapper's hands, it's 5 yards for encroachment -- unless he's the long snapper (in scrimmage kick formation), then it's 15 for roughing?
IMHO, swatting the ball out of the snapper's hands wouldn't be RTS, swatting the ball out of the snapper's hands AND knocking the snapper over would.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3221
  • FAN REACTION: +249/-464
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #67 on: March 02, 2017, 09:25:01 AM »
Two situations from my murky memory that I felt you guys might enjoy....

   SITUATION : 4th & 10, incomplete pass & flag for OPI (back in the days of LOD on such). I go to B's captain to inform that he'll have the ball & the 15 yds , when... captain hears his coach yelling "DECLINE IT,DECLINE IT..."
 

For, whatever it might be worth, a response to situations where a Captain may offer (an obviously) bad choice either in contradiction to the advice of a listening Coach, or all by himself, we ALWAYS have two options;

1. He made his choice, now he has to live with it.
                             
                               (or)
2. Suggesting, "Perhaps, I didn't explain YOUR options as well as I intended, so let ME try again..." and repeating the options (with whatever emphasis YOU deem necessary to help him understand, what he needs to).  Then, whatever choice he makes, he has to live with.

Avoiding unnecessary problems is usually a lot less strain, that cleaning up after them.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 09:26:35 AM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2190
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-10
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #68 on: March 02, 2017, 10:14:40 AM »
2. Suggesting, "Perhaps, I didn't explain YOUR options as well as I intended, so let ME try again..." and repeating the options (with whatever emphasis YOU deem necessary to help him understand, what he needs to).  Then, whatever choice he makes, he has to live with.

Avoiding unnecessary problems is usually a lot less strain, that cleaning up after them.

"Mr. Captain, you can decline the penalty for the illegal forward pass on 4th down and get the ball right here. Or, you can accept the penalty, which moves them back 5 yards, and get the ball up there. You want the penalty, right?"

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2402
  • FAN REACTION: +287/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #69 on: March 02, 2017, 10:39:01 AM »
^flag ^talk ^flag

I'M STILL WAITING WITH BOTH CAPTAINS ,AND HALFTIME ABOUT TO BEGIN, AS TO WHAT/WHERE/HOW TO DO REGARDING THE SURPRISE QUIZ 7 POSTS AGO....HELP :) :)

Online Kalle

  • *
  • Posts: 2637
  • FAN REACTION: +94/-30
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #70 on: March 02, 2017, 10:46:47 AM »
I'M STILL WAITING WITH BOTH CAPTAINS ,AND HALFTIME ABOUT TO BEGIN, AS TO WHAT/WHERE/HOW TO DO REGARDING THE SURPRISE QUIZ 7 POSTS AGO....HELP :) :)

I'll bite. Ask team A captain if he wants to let team B run one play from A-15 or take a 15 yard penalty on the 2nd half kickoff. I'm guessing he'll choose the kickoff, but this isn't entirely obvious.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2402
  • FAN REACTION: +287/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #71 on: March 02, 2017, 11:17:49 AM »
I'll bite. Ask team A captain if he wants to let team B run one play from A-15 or take a 15 yard penalty on the 2nd half kickoff. I'm guessing he'll choose the kickoff, but this isn't entirely obvious.
Good job, Kalle, ya' nailed it aWaRd! As I recall, the actual happening went sorta' like this....

 (1) Told A's captain ,and invited B's captain to tag along, that we should go over toward his coach as the choice could get complicated. Captain A responded : "Complicated stuff made his head ache."
 (2) Explained to A's captain, in front of A's coach : "They blocked in the back @ your 20, if you accept, we first will move the ball back to the 30 BUT then we'll enforce your late hit and move the ball to your 15 and give them one more play. IF you decline their penalty the half ends but your penalty would be tacked onto your 2nd half kickoff and you'd kick from your 25."
 (3) Captain A : ??? ??? ???, coach A : "Do they have a good field goal kicker :o??"
 (4) Me : "Their opening kickoff went into the endzone, coach, you can either give 'em an extra play from your 15 and clean the sleight or kickoff from your 25."
 (5) A's coach told his captain to decline the penalty.
 (6) I announced that halftime had arrived.
 (7) The home bandleader yelled at me : "You wasted 5 minutes of our performance and it's HOMECOMING >:(!!"
 (8) I pointed at the clock that still said 20:00 and gave signal #2 - the bandleader was now  ;D!
 (9) B's coach inquired why I didn't ask his captain if he wanted an untimed down - I responded that I had only brought him across the field for learning purposes 8].

   .....and the band played on.                 

Online KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • FAN REACTION: +51/-35
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #72 on: March 03, 2017, 02:28:12 PM »
KWH-What is the specific reason the Rule is written and remains that way?
Because Rule 10-1-1 requires it.
Not an attempt to put you on the spot, but would appreciate knowing why you, any other official or member of the committee believes it's better to ask a captain vs head coach their preference on a rule enforcement
Because Rule 10-1-1 requires it. Further, rule change proposals to get the coaches to choose the options have been submitted and the football committee chooses not to make the change, and as a result Rule 10-1-1 remains unchanged.

I have no issue with speaking to the Captain within earshot of the coach. (I do this)
I have no issue with creatively repeating the question when the Captain makes the wrong choice. (I do this)
I have an issue with the statement "This is why I don't ask captains anything, ever.  If I need info, I go to the head coach." (I don't recommend this)

If you don't like a particular rule, there is an established NFHS path to make a change. However, if the majority of NFHS member states don't choose the change, then the rule remains in place and remains unchanged.

But as they say in East Kentucky, "Never let the Rules Book get in the way of a good ball game!"
« Last Edit: March 03, 2017, 03:18:51 PM by KWH »

Offline Bugolathe

  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-11
  • KSHSAA/Kansas
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #73 on: March 05, 2017, 10:54:41 AM »
Because Rule 10-1-1 requires it.Because Rule 10-1-1 requires it. Further, rule change proposals to get the coaches to choose the options have been submitted and the football committee chooses not to make the change, and as a result Rule 10-1-1 remains unchanged.

I have no issue with speaking to the Captain within earshot of the coach. (I do this)
I have no issue with creatively repeating the question when the Captain makes the wrong choice. (I do this)
I have an issue with the statement "This is why I don't ask captains anything, ever.  If I need info, I go to the head coach." (I don't recommend this)

If you don't like a particular rule, there is an established NFHS path to make a change. However, if the majority of NFHS member states don't choose the change, then the rule remains in place and remains unchanged.

But as they say in East Kentucky, "Never let the Rules Book get in the way of a good ball game!"

I know what the rule book says, but ever since our crew got radios and we can talk to each other, we've taken the captains out of penalty decision making (a captain got me sideways with a coach a couple years ago.)  I simply radio over to my wing official and have him give the coach his options and get a decision.  I cover this in our pre-game with the coaches and they ALL love it.  It helps with the flow of the game and keeps us out of trouble.  If a coach makes a bad decision, it's on him/her.  I still use captains to help us with players who are getting out of control.

As for the coin toss (which is usually a pre-toss,) I find out during the pre-game what they want to do and give each captain that option during the toss.  There are a couple of coaches that tell me that their captain knows what to do but most tell me.  It has worked perfectly and kept us and the captains out of trouble to start the game.

Most of the crews in the area are pretty much doing the same thing.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3221
  • FAN REACTION: +249/-464
Re: 2017 NFHS Football Rule Changes (Release Date Feb 22, 2017)
« Reply #74 on: March 05, 2017, 12:02:43 PM »
Why not kill 2 birds with one stone?  Continue having your wing officials explain the penalty and options to the Coach (if/when he chooses to be involved) while the Referee simultaneously explains them to the Captain.  If (when) should there be a difference in selection, your technology should make resolution really simple, and you'd be complying with the spirit and intent of the rule.