Author Topic: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes  (Read 44984 times)

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2286
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-25
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #75 on: February 18, 2014, 12:07:09 PM »
This was bogged down by the impact on the "5 w/# 50-79" rule. need 34 votes to pass and only 17 to fail.

I don't understand.  The rule requiring 7 on the line could be changed to limiting Team A to 4 backs without affecting the numbering requirements.

The difference would be that we wouldn't penalize Team A beyond the inherent disadvantage of playing with less than 11 players.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2286
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-25
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #76 on: February 18, 2014, 12:08:51 PM »
The timing proposal was modified to RFP on all OOB plays w/no exceptions for last 2 mins of half. There wasn't big support for length of game issues.

I wouldn't be in favor of that either, if I were a coach.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #77 on: February 18, 2014, 12:32:11 PM »
I wouldn't be in favor of that either, if I were a coach.
As a coach, I will say, there is nothing wrong with the time of games, leave the timing rules alone!  This isn't a race, the sideline is part of clock management all the time, not just in the last two minutes.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #78 on: February 18, 2014, 12:38:45 PM »
This was bogged down by the impact on the "5 w/# 50-79" rule. need 34 votes to pass and only 17 to fail.
That's an easy fix.

ART. 5 . . . Player formation and numbering requirements include:
a. At the snap, no more than four A players shall be off their line of scrimmage.
b. At the snap, all A players on their line of scrimmage must be numbered
50-79, unless they are on the end of the line.

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1279
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-22
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #79 on: February 18, 2014, 02:59:32 PM »
Addressing HL's first immediate thought : The on-line questionnaire that many of us took had the following results on the revision of the PI rules..coaches - 2149-778 (73%) favor; officials - 5150-2510 (67%) favor ; state - 31-9 (78%) favor. The proposal to reinstate auto first down died on the vine.

When you say "favor", do you mean they favor the current rule or they favor a change to the current rule?

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +332/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #80 on: February 18, 2014, 04:16:34 PM »
When you say "favor", do you mean they favor the current rule or they favor a change to the current rule?
I took it to mean they favored a change to the current rule. Obviously that wasn't the case.
"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 bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1279
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-22
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #81 on: February 19, 2014, 10:34:31 AM »
I took it to mean they favored a change to the current rule. Obviously that wasn't the case.

So 73% of coaches dislike the DPI rule as it's currently written?

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2691
  • FAN REACTION: +328/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #82 on: February 19, 2014, 11:31:18 AM »
I took it to mean they favored a change to the current rule. Obviously that wasn't the case.
The first third of the questionnaire deals with last year's rule changes and are you in favor of them . The response indicated that a strong majority felt the rule change was good.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2691
  • FAN REACTION: +328/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #83 on: February 19, 2014, 11:41:01 AM »
That's an easy fix.

ART. 5 . . . Player formation and numbering requirements include:
a. At the snap, no more than four A players shall be off their line of scrimmage.
b. At the snap, all A players on their line of scrimmage must be numbered
50-79, unless they are on the end of the line.
With the 2/3 super majority required to pass a new rule, it doesn't take much to muddy the waters. I gave the pitch of "why flag a team for having 10 players?" ; one with an opposing opinion brought up the 5 50-79 issue. The "nays" had more than the 17 votes needed.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #84 on: February 19, 2014, 11:45:10 AM »
The "nays"  had more than the 17 votes needed.
How much of that is, "Well, we've always done it that way"?

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2691
  • FAN REACTION: +328/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #85 on: February 19, 2014, 12:14:25 PM »
How much of that is, "Well, we've always done it that way"?
Probably at lot. TR once said : "Outlaw the flying wedge or I'll outlaw football"... or something theresuch :). Some of the opponents to this rule change may still remember that.  Excluding the "why flag 10 men ???" argument, the only other that surfaced was that it would make it easier for the officials. Few rules are passed solely for that reason. :(

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2691
  • FAN REACTION: +328/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #86 on: February 19, 2014, 12:38:45 PM »
I'm off to sunny Florida tommorrow for two weeks of R & R. My trusty computer, Ole' Dell, will not be making the journey with me . So if you don't see any posts for a while, it's not because I don't have anything to say - it's just that I don't have any way to say it. With my doctor's blessing, it'll be much more enjoyable walking in the warm sun of St Pete Beach than slipping on the frozen tundra of Bangor,Maine :).

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 525
  • FAN REACTION: +108/-4
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #87 on: February 19, 2014, 12:47:59 PM »
The first third of the questionnaire deals with last year's rule changes and are you in favor of them . The response indicated that a strong majority felt the rule change was good.

Many of the questions on the survey are not worded well.  For example, there are several that start with "Is there a problem in your area with..."  Many of them are situations that aren't a problem, but the rule should be updated.  For example, the 7 on the line vs. 4 in the backfield options.  It's not a problem, but it's logical to me to make that change.

If I recall correctly the OPI/DPI rule change was part of the same question.  If people are happy that OPI LOD was removed they may have picked that option.  I kept an unofficial survey of officials and coaches and it was 100% against it.  Nobody I talked to though removing AFD on DPI made sense.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2286
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-25
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #88 on: February 19, 2014, 02:41:09 PM »
Excluding the "why flag 10 men" argument, the only other that surfaced was that it would make it easier for the officials. Few rules are passed solely for that reason. :(

Yeah, why in the world would they want to make it easier for us to get the calls right?     :sTiR:

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1279
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-22
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #89 on: February 19, 2014, 03:16:58 PM »
Many of the questions on the survey are not worded well.  For example, there are several that start with "Is there a problem in your area with..."  Many of them are situations that aren't a problem, but the rule should be updated.  For example, the 7 on the line vs. 4 in the backfield options.  It's not a problem, but it's logical to me to make that change.

If I recall correctly the OPI/DPI rule change was part of the same question.  If people are happy that OPI LOD was removed they may have picked that option.  I kept an unofficial survey of officials and coaches and it was 100% against it.  Nobody I talked to though removing AFD on DPI made sense.

Wait until a Texas team loses a championship because of not getting an auto 1st on DPI.  Heck, I heard that's how the force out got taken out of the HS rule book!  haha

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #90 on: February 19, 2014, 03:31:02 PM »
Wait until a Texas team loses a championship because of not getting an auto 1st on DPI.  Heck, I heard that's how the force out got taken out of the HS rule book!  haha
A Texas team DOES get an auto 1st on DPI.  It's the rest of us (minus Massachusetts) that don't.

Offline wvoref

  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-0
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #91 on: February 19, 2014, 07:10:07 PM »
Probably at lot. TR once said : "Outlaw the flying wedge or I'll outlaw football"... or something theresuch :). Some of the opponents to this rule change may still remember that.  Excluding the "why flag 10 men ???" argument, the only other that surfaced was that it would make it easier for the officials. Few rules are passed solely for that reason. :(

Ralph.  I know the "Why make it easier on the officials" sentiment is not your point of view.  But to those that did feel that way and used it as an excuse to not pass this change I find that insulting and short-sighted on their part.  This change would have gone a long way to providing more competitive fairness. There is no way a team gains an advantage playing with 10 players but we still penalize them for only having 6 on the line.   Also I don't understand how this couldn't still be combined with five 50-79 on the line.  They don't have to be mutually exclusive.  Also what is so magical about having 5 50-79 on the line.  Why not just have a rule allowing no more than 6 players not numbered 50-79 on offense at any time.

As to the kick rule changes at this point they seem to be more of a solution looking for a problem at our level.  But if they prevent future problems I guess its better to be proactive than wait for a problem and be reactive.

Offline fudilligas

  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-0
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #92 on: February 19, 2014, 08:30:58 PM »
That's an easy fix.

ART. 5 . . . Player formation and numbering requirements include:
a. At the snap, no more than four A players shall be off their line of scrimmage.
b. At the snap, all A players on their line of scrimmage must be numbered
50-79, unless they are on the end of the line.

AB, why is it necessary to add " unless they are on the end of the line".  The rule still states that there must be 5 on the line numbered 50-79.   If there are more than that fine, regardless of what numbers they are wearing. Shouldn't it just read that "at least 5 players on their line of scrimmage must be numbered 50-79.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #93 on: February 19, 2014, 09:03:47 PM »
AB, why is it necessary to add " unless they are on the end of the line".  The rule still states that there must be 5 on the line numbered 50-79.   If there are more than that fine, regardless of what numbers they are wearing. Shouldn't it just read that "at least 5 players on their line of scrimmage must be numbered 50-79.
If you leave the "5 between 50-79", here's the problem: the only time it would NOT be a foul for having 6 on the line would be if you forgot an eligible numbered end.  That shouldn't be the point.  If we are going to say it's not a foul to play with 10 as long as there aren't more than 4 in the backfield, they we shouldn't care if the missing lineman is #50-79, or an eligible number.

No matter how many are on the line, a maximum of 2 of them are going to be eligible, so playing with 6 on the line, no matter what numbers they are, is not going to disadvantage the defense.  Now, we don't want to go to go the way of the "The offense that shall not be named" and have everyone wearing an eligible number, so that's why I said all interior linemen must wear 50-79, without putting a number on it.  But someone pointed out a problem with my rule: if a team has an 8 man line, or covers a TE, now it would be a foul.  Don't want that either, so I need to work on the wording.

Offline fudilligas

  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-0
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #94 on: February 20, 2014, 01:01:01 AM »
If you leave the "5 between 50-79", here's the problem: the only time it would NOT be a foul for having 6 on the line would be if you forgot an eligible numbered end.  That shouldn't be the point.  If we are going to say it's not a foul to play with 10 as long as there aren't more than 4 in the backfield, they we shouldn't care if the missing lineman is #50-79, or an eligible number.

No matter how many are on the line, a maximum of 2 of them are going to be eligible, so playing with 6 on the line, no matter what numbers they are, is not going to disadvantage the defense.  Now, we don't want to go to go the way of the "The offense that shall not be named" and have everyone wearing an eligible number, so that's why I said all interior linemen must wear 50-79, without putting a number on it.  But someone pointed out a problem with my rule: if a team has an 8 man line, or covers a TE, now it would be a foul.  Don't want that either, so I need to work on the wording.



AB, what am I missing in your interpretation. I still don't understand the insistence on interior lineman being numbered 50-79. You can have a 7,8,9 or 10 man line, however unlikely, and have them all numbered 50-79.  Where does it say the ends must be eligible. There is no foul, only ineligible receivers.  If the rule change would be no more than 4 in the backfield I don't see how it would affect the numbering (50-79) on the line.  You would still need a minimum of 5 (50-79) no matter where they are lined up.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2244
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-13
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #95 on: February 20, 2014, 05:44:51 AM »
Because ends and backs are eligible by position also, thus they need to have an eligible number or your offense becomes extremely limited.  There are six eligible positions, leaving five that are not, thus the 5 numbered 50-79 so the defense knows who those five are.  Otherwise, we're back to the Kurt Bryan offense-placing a bunch of eligible numbers on the field and shifting in and out to confuse the defense.

If you run an offensive formation with 7, 8, 9, 10 players wearing ineligible numbers on the line , pretty easy to figure for the defense what is coming at you.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #96 on: February 20, 2014, 06:59:50 AM »
AB, what am I missing in your interpretation.
Let's say we go to the no more than 4 in the backfield rule, so as not to penalize a team for playing with 10.  Unless they missing player on the line is an eligible receiver, there would still be a foul.  THAT foul is what I'm trying to eliminate.  Why should we care if the missing player is an end (eligible number) or an interior lineman.  There is still no advantage gained by the offense by playing with ten.

So if we change to no more than 4 in the backfield and don't change the 5 numbered between 50-79, we've really accomplished nothing in terms of not penalizing a short handed team.  However, if we go so far as to eliminate the 50-79 numbering altogether, we are back to the "The offense that shall not be named", and no one rational person wants to go there.

I think wvoref may be on to the answer.  We don't require at least 5 players numbered 50-79, we require no more than 6 players with eligible numbers.  That way, if a team has 4 in the backfield, 6 on the line, and the missing player is an interior lineman, there is still no foul.  If a team has 11 players, and wants to use an 8 man line and cover up an eligible number, that's OK too, which would have been a problem with my suggestion.

So, the new 7-2-5 should read:

ART. 5 . . . Player formation and numbering requirements include:
a. At the snap, at no more than four A players shall be off their line of scrimmage.
b. At the snap, at no more than 6 A players may be numbered 1-49 or 80-99.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +332/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #97 on: February 20, 2014, 07:59:48 AM »
AB, so your 7-2-5b example would then eliminate the numbering exception rule. Correct?
"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 bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1279
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-22
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #98 on: February 20, 2014, 08:50:33 AM »
A Texas team DOES get an auto 1st on DPI.  It's the rest of us (minus Massachusetts) that don't.

Ah, yes.  Must have been another state where that happened...

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 525
  • FAN REACTION: +108/-4
Re: 2014 NFHS Football Rule Changes
« Reply #99 on: February 20, 2014, 09:47:14 AM »
AB, so your 7-2-5b example would then eliminate the numbering exception rule. Correct?
No you would still need the numbering exception.  It would just be an exception allowing more than 6 eligible numbers rather than less than 5 ineligible numbers on the line.