Author Topic: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes  (Read 45600 times)

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1238
  • FAN REACTION: +29/-44
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #25 on: February 13, 2014, 02:56:22 PM »
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.

Maybe TECHNICALLY (although 9-4-3b certainly could be interpreted to apply).  If a Passer, by definition, remains a passer until the pass the pass ends or he moves to participate, common sense would be the act is RTP.  The change only brings the code into "reality".

 

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2014, 04:27:30 PM »
Maybe TECHNICALLY (although 9-4-3b certainly could be interpreted to apply).  If a Passer, by definition, remains a passer until the pass the pass ends or he moves to participate, common sense would be the act is RTP.  The change only brings the code into "reality".
9-4-3b doesn't apply anymore to a passer than it does to anyone else, which is why that action was a PF, not RTP.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • FAN REACTION: +74/-25
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #27 on: February 13, 2014, 04:29:15 PM »
Mandate halftimes of no more than 15 minutes.

Now you're messin' with the band.  DUCK !!!!!   :sTiR:

Offline Bwest

  • *
  • Posts: 236
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-3
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #28 on: February 13, 2014, 05:32:04 PM »
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")

Offline ljudge

  • *
  • Posts: 397
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-2
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #29 on: February 13, 2014, 05:49:40 PM »
Over the years I have noticed that Fed (IMO) isn't as thorough in their final print as the NCAA seems to be.  In the event they don't cite examples of exactly who should be considered defenseless here are some guidelines especially since the language in the rule itself is exactly the same.

Straight from the NCAA rule book:

Defenseless Player ARTICLE 14. A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury.

Examples of defenseless players are:
a.  A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
b.  A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
c.  A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
d.  A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
e.  A player on the ground.
f.  A player obviously out of the play.
g.  A player who receives a blind-side block.
h.  A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
i.  A quarterback any time after a change of possession.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3475
  • FAN REACTION: +263/-504
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2014, 07:20:31 PM »
Straight from the NCAA rule book:

Defenseless Player ARTICLE 14. A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury.

Examples of defenseless players are:
a.  A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
b.  A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
c.  A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
d.  A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
e.  A player on the ground.
f.  A player obviously out of the play.
g.  A player who receives a blind-side block.
h.  A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
i.  A quarterback any time after a change of possession.

Even detailed lists of examples can create confusion. In "c" above is a kicker chasing a return of his kick automatically defenseless?

In "i" is a QB (or perhaps more precisely a "passer" defensless when standing between someone who intercepted a pass and the goal?  Are these players defenseless because of who they are, or because of what they might be doing?  Does a "kicker" who has regained his balance and has decided to participate in chasing a return man, remain exempt from contact, or a passer who has escaped any sort of contact related to his vulnerability associated with his passing, and decides to participate in the play, chasing an opponent who has intercepted a pass, or recovered a subsequent fumble and is advancing, remain "defenseless"?

Lists of examples are usually intended to be representation od what "might" happen, not strictly limited specifics.

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 528
  • FAN REACTION: +109/-4
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2014, 07:25:38 PM »
Even detailed lists of examples can create confusion. In "c" above is a kicker chasing a return of his kick automatically defenseless?

In "i" is a QB (or perhaps more precisely a "passer" defensless when standing between someone who intercepted a pass and the goal?  Are these players defenseless because of who they are, or because of what they might be doing?  Does a "kicker" who has regained his balance and has decided to participate in chasing a return man, remain exempt from contact, or a passer who has escaped any sort of contact related to his vulnerability associated with his passing, and decides to participate in the play, chasing an opponent who has intercepted a pass, or recovered a subsequent fumble and is advancing, remain "defenseless"?

Lists of examples are usually intended to be representation od what "might" happen, not strictly limited specifics.
Defenseless doesn't mean you can't contact them.  You just can't target them.  On a return a high hit could be legal against other players, but it would be targeting against a kicker or passer.  You may recall the hit against I think the Saints punter this year.  The NFL rule may be similar.  The NCAA rule is providing a little extra protection to these players throughout the down, not just when they are truly defenseless.  Don't think of defenseless in the true definition of the word.  A better choice would probably be "protected".

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +337/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #32 on: February 13, 2014, 09:30:49 PM »
Over the years I have noticed that Fed (IMO) isn't as thorough in their final print as the NCAA seems to be.  In the event they don't cite examples of exactly who should be considered defenseless here are some guidelines especially since the language in the rule itself is exactly the same.

Straight from the NCAA rule book:

Defenseless Player ARTICLE 14. A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury.

Examples of defenseless players are:
a.  A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
b.  A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
c.  A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
d.  A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
e.  A player on the ground.
f.  A player obviously out of the play.
g.  A player who receives a blind-side block.
h.  A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
i.  A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
The Fed will have guidelines written. Bank on it.
"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: 2275
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-13
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #33 on: February 14, 2014, 07:50:36 AM »
Quote
The Fed will have guidelines written. Bank on it.

How well they are written is what scares me.  My confidence in their editing process is not high.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +337/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #34 on: February 14, 2014, 07:58:38 AM »
How well they are written is what scares me.  My confidence in their editing process is not high.
Check your PM inbox.
"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: 2275
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-13
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #35 on: February 14, 2014, 09:56:39 AM »
Quote
Also HLinNC, do you not ask coaches to run the clock for state purposes or because of the local association?

My recollection is that comes from Chapel Hill but I could be wrong.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2275
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-13
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #36 on: February 14, 2014, 10:00:03 AM »
Quote
Check your PM inbox.

What scares me about targeting is I've watched CFO and ACC video clips and there are plays I can't tell a difference when Redding and Doug say this one is targeting and that one isn't.  Now I fully admit I do not remotely work at that level of football.  If those that do can discern the difference in real time then tiphat:

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #37 on: February 14, 2014, 10:32:29 AM »
34% of targeting calls were overturned by replay.  So in real time, a THIRD of targeting calls that are made are incorrect.

What we don't know is how many were passed on by the crew that replay would have supported as targeting.

It's my contention that even the best college officials don't know targeting in real time.  How is a HS official supposed to get it right?

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2232
  • FAN REACTION: +81/-12
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #38 on: February 14, 2014, 10:39:26 AM »
How well they are written is what scares me.  My confidence in their editing process is not high.

+1 

How many rules over the years have been revised over the next couple of years to correct oversights or mistakes?  And Ralph, are we any closer to having the verbiage vetted her at RefStripes yet?  :)

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2275
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-13
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #39 on: February 14, 2014, 11:06:17 AM »
Quote
And Ralph, are we any closer to having the verbiage vetted her at RefStripes yet? 


Don't bother Ralph right now, he should be doing his PT.


Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1238
  • FAN REACTION: +29/-44
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #40 on: February 14, 2014, 11:22:50 AM »
9-4-3b doesn't apply anymore to a passer than it does to anyone else, which is why that action was a PF, not RTP.

Or any less! ^flag ;)

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3475
  • FAN REACTION: +263/-504
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #41 on: February 14, 2014, 12:38:02 PM »
Defenseless doesn't mean you can't contact them.  You just can't target them.  On a return a high hit could be legal against other players, but it would be targeting against a kicker or passer. 

Is language the problem, or is the constant search for relieving the responsibility of judgment the issue? I don't argue with your conclusion, but that simply is  NOT what the NCAA "Samples List" says.  The list STATES: (c).......or during the kick or the return.  (i).......any time after a change of possession. 

When a kicker or a passer is finished their unique and defined action and chooses to participate in whatever is then happening, he becomes a PLAYER and all players are subject to the same consequences and responsibilities, or at least should be.

What we do is all about perception, interpretation and judgment, and how well (or not) we apply those traits.  Sample lists can be extremely helpful, to form our perceptions and interpretations but they only contribute to our final perceptions and interpretations, along with all sorts of additional inputs, including mistakes, challenges, arguments and a lot of serious study and experience

If only there was a "Silver Bullet" or a magic pill.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 12:43:24 PM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline OHref71

  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #42 on: February 14, 2014, 12:59:10 PM »
34% of targeting calls were overturned by replay.  So in real time, a THIRD of targeting calls that are made are incorrect.

What we don't know is how many were passed on by the crew that replay would have supported as targeting.

It's my contention that even the best college officials don't know targeting in real time.  How is a HS official supposed to get it right?

Quite a few of the calls that were reversed should not have been reversed according to the powers that be so for me that 34% number is a little higher than it really should be.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #43 on: February 14, 2014, 01:05:28 PM »
Quite a few of the calls that were reversed should not have been reversed according to the powers that be so for me that 34% number is a little higher than it really should be.
All the more evidence that even learned officials can't agree on what is or isn't targeting!

SJ: That's targeting!
RO: No, it's not!
Super: Yes, it is!

younggun

  • Guest
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #44 on: February 14, 2014, 01:12:16 PM »
All the more evidence that even learned officials can't agree on what is or isn't targeting!

SJ: That's targeting!
RO: No, it's not!
Super: Yes, it is!

So get rid of the replay official? aWaRd

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • FAN REACTION: +74/-25
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #45 on: February 14, 2014, 02:15:19 PM »
Quote
With this change, in order to extend or not extend a period with an untimed down, time must expire during the down.

Am I the only one who thinks this should have read:

With this change, in order to extend or not extend a period with an untimed down, time must expire during the down.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #46 on: February 14, 2014, 03:20:29 PM »
Or any less! ^flag ;)
I agree, but that's why it wasn't RTP.  It was a PF that many officials mistakenly called RTP.  By rule, RTP was ONE thing, charging into a passer.

If they changed the rule because the old rule was poorly written and we shouldn't differentiate between PFs and the traditionally defined RTP, OK, good reason to do it. 

If they changed it because, "That's the way officials call it anyway", then shame on them.  Teach officials the rules!

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #47 on: February 14, 2014, 03:23:34 PM »
When a kicker or a passer is finished their unique and defined action and chooses to participate in whatever is then happening, he becomes a PLAYER and all players are subject to the same consequences and responsibilities, or at least should be.
The NCAA disagrees with you. 

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3475
  • FAN REACTION: +263/-504
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #48 on: February 14, 2014, 04:54:48 PM »
The NCAA disagrees with you.

That may well be true, and certainly is their right to determine that.  At the NFHS level, once an individual assumes the duties of a player, and chooses to then participate as a player, he enjoys all the benefits of a player and accepts all the responsibilities and consequences of being a player.

As for RTP under the NFHS code,  I would consider any and all "roughing" fouls (Slapping, unecessarily knocking down, Grasping the face mask, any of the hemet contact violations, (otherwise legally) blocking and illegally blocking an individual who is acting in the capacity of a "Passer" (NF:2-32-11) 'A player who throws a legal forward pass. He continues to be a passer until the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play.", as RTP, as the individual, by rule, is still a passer.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 04:57:13 PM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #49 on: February 14, 2014, 07:47:51 PM »
As for RTP under the NFHS code,  I would consider any and all "roughing" fouls (Slapping, unecessarily knocking down, Grasping the face mask, any of the hemet contact violations, (otherwise legally) blocking and illegally blocking an individual who is acting in the capacity of a "Passer" (NF:2-32-11) 'A player who throws a legal forward pass. He continues to be a passer until the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play.", as RTP, as the individual, by rule, is still a passer.
Under the new rule in 2014, that would be correct.  Under the previous rule, the ONLY thing that was RTP was "charging into the passer".  But many officials incorrectly applied the RTP penalty (AFD) to what were actually personal fouls.

That is why the rule was changed to what you are now quoting.