Author Topic: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes  (Read 39274 times)

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3271
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-472
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #100 on: February 20, 2014, 01:01:15 PM »

 I complain when there is documented proof that they are in error, and would not correct it.  You just gave it to me.

The Rules Committee agreed with me, which is why we have a RULE change, not an EDITORIAL change which is used to make minor revisions, or even a case play which is used to correct questionable or possible misinterpretations.  In order to get this right, the RULE had to be changed, and it was.

Thankfully, the 2014 revision will eliminate whatever confusion, by some, about what had seemed like a pretty clear understanding of what was the purpose of the RTP foul.  Clarification is always a good thing.  I have no idea whether the revised language was intended as a revision of the Rule, or an Editorial change or why one might be selected over the other, as the benefit of clarification seems to be what is really important. 

I do not consider myself competent to render an assessment of any football coach's capabilities, although I admit to questioning some, because I have yet to walk in a professional  football coaches shoes, and despite many years of close proximity have never personally experienced the rigors and stresses unique to coaching football.  I understand the nature of the inherent differences between coaching and officiating, the same sport.

Contemplating the philosophy directing and reasons for any rule has always been a serious consideration in helping me achieve proper execution of rules based on their common sense application.  Any doubt, or possible confusion has been been eliminated by consistent dialogue with designated "interpretors" and fellow experienced officials at the High School and upper levels.  Although my personal experience is limited to only 46 years working in 4 Chapters in 3 States, at the High School level, I have yet to work, or consult, with any official anywhere who has strictly limited illegal contact with a "Passer" to whatever might be interpreted to the undefined/under defined term of "charging into". 

In recent years, I was similarly gratified by the inclusion of a definition for the term "Flagrant", which althought fairly universally understood, previously, was improved by specific clarification.

As I've stated, I respect the input of any challenge, appropriately raised by any Coach, and deem such challenge worthy of consideration prior to rendering my judgment.  However after such consideration, being aware of NFHS 1-1-6 and 1-1-9 I I have accepted those responsibilities and whatever consequences may follow. In the scenario being discussed, my respose, "Thank you for your input, Coach, we're going to go with RTP", meets my understanding of a respectful, appropriate response, after which I expect the game to continue.

Offline Boodle

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #101 on: February 21, 2014, 04:20:28 PM »
I will provide an example I see many times where the 50-79 does not apply.  On extra points, 4-5 times a year in varsity games, a player will forget he is on the EP team resulting in 10 on the field and only 6 on the line.  We penalize the team and make them redo the play.  Mostly just a waste of time.  The no more than 4 in the backfield would benefit this scenario.  We seldom see 10 on the field during normal offensive plays.

Offline Johnponz

  • *
  • Posts: 248
  • FAN REACTION: +36/-22
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #102 on: February 22, 2014, 05:11:09 AM »
I believe we are overthinking the no more than 4 in the backfield rule.  The NCAA has had this rule for years and still has the 5 on the line requirement.  There are very few issues and you simply call the foul the few times that there are ten players and fewer than 5 of them are "on the line."  Most of the time if there are 10 players there are still 5 numbered 50-79 on the line.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #103 on: February 22, 2014, 08:26:27 AM »
But if the philosophy is to not penalize a team for playing shorthanded as long as they are not deceiving the defense, why should we care if the missing lineman is an eligible or ineligible number?

Offline Johnponz

  • *
  • Posts: 248
  • FAN REACTION: +36/-22
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #104 on: February 22, 2014, 10:38:46 AM »
AB you won't like the answer but in the NCAA the reality is if you don't have 5 and are only 10 the officials would pass and no one would say a word.

You would have more issues if you nit picked the rule.  That is how college coordinators think and it is really best for the game.  You can argue the point but that is reality and generally it works.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2469
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #105 on: March 10, 2014, 08:53:51 AM »
Opinion of opinions : (1) Removing LOD & AFD from the PI fouls was passed as a single rule change so it was presented as a single rule change on this year's questionnaire. I've been on the Rules Committee since 1994 and the only time I can recall of a negitave majority appearing on the previous year's rule change was in 1997 regarding starting clock on snap after COP -- coaches, officials & state administrators alike all voted against the change. it's repeal was on the 1997 docket --it had passed 34-16 the previous year (by one vote) so 18 members would need to change their minds. It becomes very tough to change a rule back. (2) I didn't mean to imply that some voters were against the "5 backs drawing a flag" proposal because it would make it easier for the officials, just that isn't a reason for votes (other than from we officials) . Hope this helps to clearify . Like our crews on the field, I'm part of the Rules Committee's team and stand by their decisions even if I don't agree with them all.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 08:55:37 AM by Ralph Damren »

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2203
  • FAN REACTION: +69/-24
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #106 on: March 11, 2014, 07:48:04 AM »
(2) I didn't mean to imply that some voters were against the "5 backs drawing a flag" proposal because it would make it easier for the officials, just that isn't a reason for votes (other than from we officials) .

So they were against the proposal because they wanted to further punish a team who can't even get 11 players on the field?

I'm thinking there are some RC members who never vote for a change.    hEaDbAnG

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2469
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #107 on: March 11, 2014, 08:37:39 AM »
Some proposed changes pass with a unanimous vote, so on occasion everyone has a "yea" vote in them. There are some that won't support a change unless they feel it is necessary to improve the game and enough felt it wasn't necessary . The passing of ten new rules this year is on the high end of our average and the emphasis was on safety. I supported it , as my criteria is : (1) Is it good for the game? -yes, why penalize a team for playing a man short ^flag ; (2) Will it be easy to officiate? - yes, it's easier to count to 5 than to 7 yEs: ; (3) Will it be easy to teach new officials? - see reason #2 yEs:.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #108 on: March 11, 2014, 09:10:41 AM »
Not only is it easier to count to 5 than 7, typically it's easier to see those 5 that are spread out, than the 7 that are bunched together.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2469
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #109 on: March 11, 2014, 09:38:01 AM »
Agreed, AB. I lobbied harder to pass a proposed change to treat all fouls by B behind the LOS as previous spot fouls, but that failed ,too. My lone "success" from an officiating perspective was the passage of modifying the untimed down rule to only be applied if time expired during the play.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2469
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #110 on: May 29, 2014, 09:42:18 AM »
I don't like the untimed down change. I suppose I can live with the rest.

Also HLinNC, do you not ask coaches to run the clock for state purposes or because of the local association? I'm in NC and have asked on numerous occasions (and everytime the coach says "Clearly we have work to do, we're gonna play")
It was easy to trip over the old untimed down rule...I know, as been there....this occurred in my game several years ago :
              (1) A flagged and penalized for illegal formation with 20 sec to go in 3rd period.
              (2) Started clock on RFP, B encroached with 10 sec left.
              (3) Enforced dead ball foul & started clock on RFP.
              (4) Clock hits 0:00.
              (5)  :P Period can end on dead ball foul ??? :-[ -I think-  pray:;
              (6) Teams huddle on sidelines, chains move to opposite end,clock resets,band plays,etc.
              (7) Teams break their huddle as I blow RFP...and pi1eOn I recall the last play included
                   an accepted live ball foul :( :o cRaZy :!# :'(....
              (8) I kept that secret to myself :-[...until our post game...and bought the first round ::).

Our revised rule won't be tripped over as easily :)

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2191
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-10
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #111 on: July 23, 2014, 08:47:45 AM »
Sorry to bring this thread back from the dead - Ralph, how much consideration has there been towards the elimination of all low blocks?  Head shots and helmet contact have gotten so much attention lately - and rightly so - but low blocks can be pretty dangerous, too.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2469
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #112 on: July 23, 2014, 09:18:43 AM »
There were proposals to eliminate low blocks entirely and to eliminate low blocks while in the shotgun. The shotgun elimination came out of committee for a floor vote but failed.

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2191
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-10
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #113 on: July 23, 2014, 01:46:28 PM »
I really think that should be the next step, safety wise.  Thanks!