Rulebooks arrived in mail yesterday....

[HLinNC]

from the state office.  Handbook was not included this year.  Also we're in the second year of the two year manual cycle so no new manual this year.

The Arbiter also has them updated on their web site for Fed members.  The handbook wouldn't open, got an error pop-up when I tried.

[Tom.OH]

Ohio will ship them in mid July ...

[DJW201]

And there will be an addendum.  As printed, Rule 10-1-6 still states that OPI is a loss of down penalty and Rule 10-1-7 still states that DPI carries an automatic first down.

[VALJ]

And 10-1-7 will be printed correctly in next year's rulebook...

(Just in time for them to realize that they should change DPI back to an auto first down...)

[HLinNC]

And 10-1-7 will be printed correctly in next year's rulebook...

(Just in time for them to realize that they should change DPI back to an auto first down...)

 

[Rulesman]

And 10-1-7 will be printed correctly in next year's rulebook...

(Just in time for them to realize that they should change DPI back to an auto first down...)

...like I said months ago, this change is a train wreck looking for a rail crossing.

[maven]

Ohio will ship them in mid July ...

I got mine (from OHSAA) yesterday.

[Tom.OH]

I got mine (from OHSAA) yesterday.

Maybe mine will arrive soon, I paid my dues Monday.

[bama_stripes]

And there will be an addendum.  As printed, Rule 10-1-6 still states that OPI is a loss of down penalty and Rule 10-1-7 still states that DPI carries an automatic first down.

Perhaps NFHS should seriously consider vetting the books through RefStripes before printing.

Ralph?

[Rulesman]

Perhaps NFHS should seriously consider vetting the books through RefStripes before printing.

Ralph?

In all seriousness, both the Fed and the NCAA need to do a better job in this regard. This is not the first year for issues like this to happen.

[Ralph Damren]

I was on the Editorial Committee back at the turn of the Century, and the procedure then was for the four committee members, chairman and editor to review rule changes and ensure everything was updated. Usually everything is, sometimes it isn't. I'm sure NFHS will issue a correction along with their supplemental case plays that are usually published in August.

[VALJ]

...like I said months ago, this change is a train wreck looking for a rail crossing.

No argument from me in the slightest.

[Rulesman]

I was on the Editorial Committee back at the turn of the Century, and the procedure then was for the four committee members, chairman and editor to review rule changes and ensure everything was updated. Usually everything is, sometimes it isn't. I'm sure NFHS will issue a correction along with their supplemental case plays that are usually published in August.

I understand where you are coming from, but this is a MAJOR change. If the current committee is composed of the same number of individuals, how could 6 people miss the same thing?

[bama_stripes]

I understand where you are coming from, but this is a MAJOR change. If the current committee is composed of the same number of individuals, how could 6 people miss the same thing?

Especially with modern searchable electronic files........

[Curious]

What about Case book plays?  No plays with updated rulings either?

[Curious]

What about Case book plays?  No plays with updated rulings either?

Sorry...I am referring to the OPI and DPI issues....

[Ralph Damren]

Hopefully the corrections will be forthcoming shortly. The proofreaders of yesteryear were the originators of the term "OK". They would label an article "ALL CORRECT" as their seal of approval to the typesetters. So the "ALL CORRECT" wouldn't be considered as part of the article, it was deliberately misspelled "OLL KORRECT'" which was shortened to "OK". It sounds like many of you would not give the Rule Book and Case Book an OK. I value your opinions.

[HLinNC]

I understand mistakes.  I'm sure the proofreaders get cross eyed pretty quick.  To leave in an invalid ruling where they actually made a major change is pretty screwy though.

Now if we can ever get to the bottom of the resurrected OPI ineligible case play, we'll have a real Scooby-doo mystery solved!
 

[prab]

Before you accept the premise that NFHS proofreaders are simply human beings who sometimes make mistakes, I would like to remind you of the great "Hash Mark" incident of 2010.

Thru the 2009 season, hash marks were placed on the field so that they were bisected by their respective yard lines.  In 2010, the NFHS rule book changed that to having the hash marks placed so that they bisect the yard lines.  (See 2010 Rules Exam question 7.)  Some of us fought the good fight and railed against the injustice.  However to no avail. 

To recap the problem, if the hash marks were actually placed so that they bisect the yard lines, there would be BY DEFINITION OF THE WORD BISECT, one set of hash marks running down the middle of the field, instead of the familiar two sets of hash marks which divide the field into three parts. 

The 2011 rule book reverted to what had been the rule prior to 2010, with not so much as a "we goofed".  The rift in the space time continuum was mended and peace was returned to the universe. 

It has taken two years of counseling and therapy, but I am finally coming to grips with the unspeakable trauma that it caused.

However, I am not yet willing to accept that NFHS proofreaders are simply humans who sometimes make mistakes.  I believe that they (at least the ones around during the 2010 season) are actually space aliens who tried to slip one by.  So now we have the great DPI flap of 2013.  Coincidence?  I don't think so!

[Ralph Damren]

To dissect the word bisect may not have been the intent of the Rules Committee as the issue back then was that everyone called "hash marks" hash marks except the rule book that referred to them as "inbound lines". Many from large cities became confused with the inbound lines they faced every work morning in line for the commuter rail . We were only trying to clarify  for the humbled masses that enjoyed our fine game without the reminder of their trip to work . The Rules Committee of 50 (NO, Texas & Mass don't have reps, but the Coaches' Assoc. & Officials' Assoc. does)  is comprised of approx. 30% officials, a couple of coaches and the remainder state assoc. reps. The term "we goofed"  is not in many of our vocabularies . I don't believe there are any aliens on the committee, as the Canadian Football League is not represented . Hope this helps to clarify. Enjoy Independence Day, all

[StripedOutlaw]

I know we aren't supposed to have them, but does anyone have a PDF or electronic version? TIA jesspeterson@live.com

[Tom.OH]

Maybe mine will arrive soon, I paid my dues Monday.

Update: got my books today...

[HLinNC]

I know we aren't supposed to have them, but does anyone have a PDF or electronic version?

Little too early, perhaps.  I think some org in IA eventually posted one.  Just Google NFHS rules every once in a while.

[prab]

Still waiting for rulebooks in Wisconsin. 

[Atlanta Blue]

Still waiting for rulebooks in Wisconsin.

They refuse to send them to any officials that still wear shorts for Varsity football games!