Author Topic: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes  (Read 44184 times)

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +324/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« on: February 06, 2014, 12:24:25 PM »
The link to the press release can be found here: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 07:52:40 AM by Rulesman »
"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 HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2221
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2014, 08:49:57 AM »
My immediate thoughts:

1st down on DPI not "fixed" as originally rumored.

Are we going to have to revise the 5 man free kick mechanics AGAIN?

Not sure how targeting is any different than existing illegal helmet contact or illegal use of hands.

younggun

  • Guest
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2014, 08:54:04 AM »
As weird as it sounds I do not think we will have a problem with the new free kick rules. I have noticed over the last 2 years that 80% of the schools we were at the teams were doing it already. Goes back to them NOT knowing the rules and just doing what they see on TV.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2221
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2014, 09:05:41 AM »
The only overload situations I see are in obvious onside kick plays.

The blocking restrictions imposed a few years ago were overblown.  On most normal free kicks, early blocking by K isn't a problem, even squibs.

Another rule change in search of a problem.

younggun

  • Guest
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2014, 09:08:45 AM »
Also... What does this mean... I take this to mean two different things...


"In addition, roughing the passer fouls now include all illegal personal contact fouls listed in Rule 9-4-3, which result in automatic first down in addition to a 15-yard penalty."

Offline skip1

  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-1
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2014, 09:23:50 AM »
If I am reading this correctly all illegal personal contact fouls are now an automatic first down. For the NFHS this is a major change.

Offline RMR

  • *
  • Posts: 490
  • FAN REACTION: +10/-5
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2014, 09:25:32 AM »
Also... What does this mean... I take this to mean two different things...


"In addition, roughing the passer fouls now include all illegal personal contact fouls listed in Rule 9-4-3, which result in automatic first down in addition to a 15-yard penalty."

Poorly written, but I think all personal fouls are now automatic first downs.

Will this apply to dead ball fouls on 4th down when the line to gain has not been attained?
"Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong."

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2221
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2014, 09:26:06 AM »
In other words, when a coach incorrectly wishes to apply a college rule, he will now be correct >:D

Offline jg-me

  • *
  • Posts: 415
  • FAN REACTION: +22/-4
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2014, 09:28:32 AM »
I think you are misreading it although the wording in the release is not the most clear. Pretty sure the intent is that if a passer is fouled by an act that is also a PF other than RTP (face mask for example), that foul will be treated as a roughing the passer foul. This means that the penalty for that particular act, when it is committed against the passer, will include an automatic first down just as RTP would.

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2193
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-12
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2014, 09:29:24 AM »
So, any PF on a passer is now a RTP.  I'm good with that.

Does that definition of targeting bring us back to trying to divine intent, since it includes "aiming"?  And is targeting only possible on the new defenseless player, or on any player?

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2221
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2014, 09:29:57 AM »
That was my thought jg.

younggun

  • Guest
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2014, 09:44:34 AM »
I have a hard time understanding the NFHS mindset. We give auto first downs for QBs, holders, long snappers, and kickers because they are 'defenseless'. Even though that wording has never been used we all know that is why they had the auto first down applied to their fouls. Why do they continue not to apply it to helmet fouls, like the three in the past and addition to the new targeting foul for this year. Just does not make sense to me. If you dont want to give it on all PFs I get that, but at least make all defenseless player fouls equal.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 09:48:05 AM by younggun »

Online bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2244
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-25
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2014, 09:52:35 AM »
Another rule change in search of a problem.

Really surprised that the "4 in the backfield" proposal didn't pass.

Offline skip1

  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-1
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2014, 10:00:43 AM »
There really is no change when it comes to targeting. It's just a personal foul that we would probably have called all along. If you want to stop targeting an automatic DQ would work

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2221
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2014, 10:05:04 AM »
Quote
Really surprised that the "4 in the backfield" proposal didn't pass.

Yeah, pretty much anything I support goes down in flames.  Maybe I need to get into coaching?

Offline Rich

  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-4
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2014, 10:05:17 AM »
Really surprised that the "4 in the backfield" proposal didn't pass.

That one and adjusting the timing rules on runs OOB.  Our games have gotten longer and longer and I've got a very fast pace as a WH.

The NFHS is so loathe to make any substantial changes - they just disappoint year after year.  No offense, Ralph.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2014, 10:55:24 AM »
That one and adjusting the timing rules on runs OOB.  Our games have gotten longer and longer and I've got a very fast pace as a WH.
The 4 in the backfield rule makes sense, I don't see why it would fail.

OOB timing changes SHOULD fail.  There is no reason for it.  There is nothing wrong with the time of a HS game.  If it takes a little longer than it used to (and we haven't had a substantial change in game time in the 14 years I've been tracking it), fine, then it takes a little longer.

It kills me when I'm working a baseball game, and my partner is all worried about how quickly we can get the game done.  If you're that worried about getting out of there, don't take the game!
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 11:16:06 AM by Atlanta Blue »

younggun

  • Guest
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2014, 10:59:14 AM »
The 4 in the backfield rule makes sense, I don't see why it would fail.

OOB timing changes SHOULD fail.  There is no reason for it.  There is nothing wrong with the time of a HS game.  If it takes a little longer than it used to (and we haven't had a substantial change in game time in the 14 years I've been tracking it), fine, then it takes a little longer.

It kills me when I'm working a baseball game, and my partner is all worried about how quickly we can get the game done.  If your that worried about getting out of there, don't take the game!

Thank you... I love being out there I dont care how long the game lasts. Being out on the field is the best part of my week.

Offline Rich

  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-4
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2014, 01:04:22 PM »
The 4 in the backfield rule makes sense, I don't see why it would fail.

OOB timing changes SHOULD fail.  There is no reason for it.  There is nothing wrong with the time of a HS game.  If it takes a little longer than it used to (and we haven't had a substantial change in game time in the 14 years I've been tracking it), fine, then it takes a little longer.

It kills me when I'm working a baseball game, and my partner is all worried about how quickly we can get the game done.  If you're that worried about getting out of there, don't take the game!

Eh, feel free to think I hate being out there because I'd like games to feel crisp and end in 2:10 and not 2:30.  Couldn't be farther from the truth.  If I hated it so much, I'd give up working freshman and JV games and I still do those every week even though there's no requirement for me to do so.

I just read an article recently (and I can't find it now) that game times have increased by about 15 minutes in the last 10 years or so.  To me, that's substantial.  My personal experience bears that out, too.

I work college football too.  I had HS games that took longer this past season than some non-televised college games.  And we play the equivalent of 5 HS quarters.

These questions were on the list for discussion, so I'm not the only one asking the questions.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3360
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-489
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2014, 01:10:48 PM »
My immediate thoughts:

Not sure how targeting is any different than existing illegal helmet contact or illegal use of hands.

What seems a significant difference between the 3 existing "helmet contact" violations and this "targeting" definition is the inclusion of "the shoulder" as a weapon meriting this foul.  It seems since the targeting focus at upper levels has received to much attention in recent years,  there have been far more efforts to complete the targeted collision with the shoulder, hopefully avoiding the foul.  Those shoulder contacts have often been equally dangerous to a helmet to helmet collision.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2221
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2014, 01:20:10 PM »
I could live with no changes to timing if my state would implement a "mercy rule" instead of leaving it to the whim of coaches to agree.  There's always the one coach who wants to "teach my kids a lesson" or "we're a passing offense", but not a very good one) when they're down 63-7 in the third quarter.  We are not even supposed to bring up the topic in the game but wait for one of the coaches to mention it and then relay to the opposing sideline and wait for an answer.  I feel like I ought to be working for the State Department.

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1219
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2014, 01:53:43 PM »
I think you are misreading it although the wording in the release is not the most clear. Pretty sure the intent is that if a passer is fouled by an act that is also a PF other than RTP (face mask for example), that foul will be treated as a roughing the passer foul. This means that the penalty for that particular act, when it is committed against the passer, will include an automatic first down just as RTP would.

If any of these fouls occurred against a passer, when, historically, would RTP not have been called?

Also, so now if a defensive player hurdles the QB to avoid hitting him, is THAT RTP? :!# :!#

Ralph, what is going on in Indy?

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1234
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-22
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2014, 01:54:24 PM »
Also... What does this mean... I take this to mean two different things...


"In addition, roughing the passer fouls now include all illegal personal contact fouls listed in Rule 9-4-3, which result in automatic first down in addition to a 15-yard penalty."


Basically, the old RPS rule was that it's only RPS when you hit the QB late.  So, if you hit the QB helmet to helmet, but it was immediately after he had thrown the ball, technically by the letter of the law, this was just a normal personal foul and not RPS, since it wasn't a late hit.  The new rule book language changes that.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2014, 01:59:42 PM »
If any of these fouls occurred against a passer, when, historically, would RTP not have been called?
RTP was ONLY charging into a passer after the ball was released.  That was it.  If the defense grabbed the passer's face mask, or pulled the QB down from behind, that was NOT RTP, even though most officials INCORRECTLY called it that way anyway.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #24 on: February 13, 2014, 02:17:36 PM »
I just read an article recently (and I can't find it now) that game times have increased by about 15 minutes in the last 10 years or so.  To me, that's substantial.  My personal experience bears that out, too.

If true (and it's not in our case), then time has increased 11%.  In the last 10 years, game fees have climbed 15% in Georgia, so officials are now getting paid MORE per hour than before!

Get rid of the ridiculous mandatory 3 minute warm up.  Mandate halftimes of no more than 15 minutes.  Make sure your mechanics have the kickoff coming in more than 60 seconds after the try.  Set the ball in 12 seconds from the end of the last play.  Allow officials to get a new ball from the ball boy as soon as the play ends and let ball boys chase incomplete passes.  There are plenty of ways to "speed up" a game that don't require new timing rules.

Quote
These questions were on the list for discussion, so I'm not the only one asking the questions.
So were allowing a fair catch on kickoffs that bounce once, allowing balls to be spiked from a shotgun, eliminating face guarding, changing dead ball contact fouls to be USC instead of PFs, automatic first downs on PFs, dead balls fouls on both teams offsetting, previous spot on defensive fouls in the offensive backfield, and numerous others.

Why?  Because they are NCAA rules, not because they are right for FED.  There are many FED people that want FED to be more like the NCAA.  That doesn't make them good ideas.