PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL

[ElvisLives]

Oh, and I see no UIL action on other editorial changes:
1-4-2-d
Player has to report to the referee if he enters the game wearing a number other than that on the "game day roster." WTF is a "game day roster"? Never saw one in my years in FBS, and certainly not in UIL football. By taking no other action, is the UIL accepting this change? Are they going require schools to provide us with an official "game day roster"? What a mess.

12-3-3-d-3 is a Replay rule, and there is no reason not to accept it, for those 12 annual games using replay.

12-3-6-i and j is a Replay rule, and there is no reason not to accept it, for those 12 annual games using replay.

I'll see what I can find out about those.

[ElvisLives]

UIL 2024 Modification to Exception #52

OK, I know a little more.

Firstly, the 2024 'action' document published by the UIL is not the final Exceptions document. That will probably not be issued until after the actual 2024 NCAA Rules book is released (which should be any time now, I would think).

I have it on good authority that yes, the language in the 'action' document from the UIL is not properly edited, as it relates to a 'snap' and a 'fumble,' as both as defined.  I expect that will be corrected.

As I now understand it, if Team A executes a 'routine' field goal attempt, the UIL does not want 'upright' players of Team B who are positioned within one yard of their LOS at the snap to initiate contact with any opponent. They can rush, but they just can't initiate any significant contact. If they can run through a gap or around an end with anything more than minor contact, they are legal. I also understand that those 'restricted' Team B players will be responsible to avoid contact with Team A, even if a Team A player moves into their path. Let's say a wingback steps toward a 'restricted' edge rusher and blocks him below the waist, we may have offsetting fouls. BBW by offense, UNR by defense.

But a bona fide muff of the snap, or a fumble of the ball (after possession is gained) will eliminate the restriction on Team B players.
A 'bad' snap does not necessarily mean the restriction is eliminated. If the ball reaches the holder without him having to leave his position to recover the ball, and then he is able to place the ball, and the kicker makes the kick, that will work as a routine kick, and the restriction applies. 
If Team B does anything other than continue their attempt to execute a place kick, like a pass or a run, the restriction is eliminated.

Potential holder A11 tries to catch the snap in flight, but bobbles it in hands and against his chest, then completes the catch. That will be a simple, clean catch, for #52 purposes. Restriction applies.
So, what does count as a muff? Not totally sure yet. Maybe if it hits the ground (?). Surely, that would have to qualify. (Yeah, I know - Stop calling you Shirley. )

How about a fumble?
Potential holder A11 catches the ball, but then fumbles it as he is moving to place the ball for the kick. That's a fumble, and the restriction is eliminated.

The idea is that the defense must be allowed to attempt to recover a ball loose from a muff or a fumble, make a play for a pass, or pursue a Team A ball carrier attempting to advance. But, if the kick is normal and routine, those restricted folks can't initiate contact with a Team A player.

One way for teams to avoid problems is simply have everybody on the line in 3 or 4 point stances. And B players more than 1 yard off their line are not restricted.

Oh. Also, I understand that we will not have to deal with 'game day rosters.'  Although not addressed in the 'action' document, the UIL will not approve that NCAA editorial change for the UIL. Whew!

[Zebra Watcher]

Thank you ElvisLives for doing all this work to clarify UIL's own wording of their rules. A major help.

[Legacy Zebra]

And B players more than 1 yard off their line are not restricted.

This part doesn’t make sense to me from a “Why?” stand point. If a player starts at 2 yards standing up and hits a lineman, how is that more safe than a player starting on the line hitting a back? And how is it safer than starting on the line and hitting a lineman?

[ElvisLives]

This part doesn’t make sense to me from a “Why?” stand point. If a player starts at 2 yards standing up and hits a lineman, how is that more safe than a player starting on the line hitting a back? And how is it safer than starting on the line and hitting a lineman?

Don’t get me started. I’m just trying to mitigate the ambiguities in the rule we are getting, and make it as ‘black and white’ as possible, so we can all officiate it consistently.
This will be covered in the Webinar on Wednesday. Tune in.

[dammitbobby]

This part doesn’t make sense to me from a “Why?” stand point. If a player starts at 2 yards standing up and hits a lineman, how is that more safe than a player starting on the line hitting a back? And how is it safer than starting on the line and hitting a lineman?

The only rationale I can think of (assuming the wording is intentional) is that there's enough of a delay when they are two yards off the ball to allow the lineman to get their head up. He's still going to get knocked onto his butt, most likely, but much less chance of head/neck injury.