2014 Editorial Changes

[TXMike]

Some interesting ones here.   As usual, devil is in the details.  Can't wait to hear the explanations of some of them, i.e. "forcible contact"...are we back to "flagrant" again? 

NCAA FOOTBALL RULES
2014 Key Editorial Changes

1. Numerals not in contrast with the jersey: Clarification of 2013 Interpretation
Add paragraph d to Rule 1-4-8 (FR-24)
d.  Teams wearing jerseys that do not conform to Rules 1-4-4-c and 1-4-5 will be asked to change into legal jerseys before the game and before the start of each quarter until the jerseys are changed.  Officials shall charge a team timeout at the start of each quarter the illegal jerseys are worn.
   
2. Classify receiver of a backward pass as a Defenseless Player
Amend Rule 2-27-14-b (FR-41) to read:
“b. A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass…”
Adjust Note 2 of Rule 9-1-4 (FR-88) accordingly.

3. More than eleven players on defense—live-ball foul
Clarification of Rule 3-5-3-c (FR-56):
“If officials do not detect the excessive number of players until during the down or after the ball is dead, or if Team B players have entered the field just before the snap but have not been in the formation, the infraction is treated as a live-ball foul. (A.R. 3-5-3-V)”

4. Targeting Fouls
(a) Amend Rule 9-1-3 (FR-86) to read:
“No player shall target and initiate make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet.”

(b) Amend Rule 9-1-4 (FR-87) to read:
“No player shall target and initiate make forcible contact to the head or neck area…”

5.  Personal Fouls by Team B on Pass Plays--Clarification of Enforcement
Addition to 9-1 Penalty statement (FR-86)
For Team B personal fouls during a legal forward pass play (Rule 7-3-12):
Enforcement is at the end of the last run when it ends beyond the neutral zone and there is no change of possession during the down.
Enforcement is at the previous spot for personal fouls during all other pass plays.

New Article 12 to Rule 7-3 (FR-79)
Team B Personal Fouls During Legal Forward Pass Play
Penalties for personal fouls by Team B during a completed legal forward pass play are enforced at the end of the last run when it ends beyond the neutral zone.  If the pass is incomplete or intercepted, or if there is a change of possession during the down, the penalty is enforced at the previous spot. (Rule 9-1 Penalty)

6. Allow Intentional Grounding to be reviewable in clearly obvious situations when the penalty results in a safety.
Amend Rule 12-3-2 (FR-107) by adding a new paragraph f:
“f.  Location of the passer when he is obviously in the field of play and a ruling of intentional grounding would result in a safety by penalty.”

7. Include recovery of a loose ball as a reviewable play
Amend Rule 12-3-3 (FR-107) by adding a new paragraph j:
“j.  Catch or recovery of a loose ball in the field of play or an end zone.”

[dvasques]

so no change to the coin toss procedure?

[TXMike]

These may be the "major" editorial changes.  That could be considered a "minor" one and we will not see it till later.

[Johnponz]

 What is the possible change to the coin toss?

[TXMike]

DV discovered a flaw in the rulebook

He pointed out something that most of us never realized.  The current rulebook really does not specify who should get the 1st option for the 2d half KO.   I looked back at the old rulebooks and through 2008, there was this in 3-1-1-:

a. The winner of the toss shall choose one of the following options for the first or second half at the beginning of the half selected:
   1. To designate which team shall kick off.
   2. To designate which goal line his team shall defend.
b. The loser shall choose one of the above options for the half the winner of the toss did not select.

But starting with 2009 (the year of the great number of editorial changes as Dr Redding started to clean up the language throughout the book), it only says this:

a. The winner of the toss shall choose one of the following options :
   1. To designate which team shall kick off.
   2. To designate which goal line his team shall defend.
    3.  To defer his selection to the second half.

b. The opponent shall then choose option 1 or 2 above, as  available.

c.  If the winner of the toss chooses option 3 above, then after the opponent’s choice the winner selects the available option (1 or 2 above). 

We all know if the winner selects the 1st or 2d option , the opponent then gets first choice in the 2d half but it is not clear from the written rule this is the case.

[Johnponz]

That's interesting.  I never would have noticed that

[Andrew McCarthy]

"target and initiate make forcible contact"

That right there is already in need of an editorial change.

[TXMike]

Dayum!!!  Looks like the document did not   cut and paste well.  I am attaching it. The word initiate is removed and replaced with makes forcible contact.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[bossman72]

"target and initiate make forcible contact"

That right there is already in need of an editorial change.

There are some strike through words that don't copy properly onto these message boards.

[younggun]

So RR spoke at the Honig's clinic. There is one more ed change that is coming down. It will be the definition of a player inbounds. Essentially, players will now be required to establish themselves inbounds before being considered inbounds. Example: If A88 is running his route and goes oob and then jumps from oob to catch the ball or touch the ball, this is no longer illegal touching, it would be an incomplete pass. If he established him self after going oob and came back into the field of play then jumped to catch the ball then you would still have the illegal touching.

[TXMike]

Gonna have to see how this gets written.   What if the receiver is forced out and leaps from OOB before grabbing ball and landing inbounds?

[Magician]

Gonna have to see how this gets written.   What if the receiver is forced out and leaps from OOB before grabbing ball and landing inbounds?

Incomplete pass.

The other example he gave was the receiving team player on a free kick jumping in bounds, controlling the ball, and then landing out of bounds. Previously this was a free kick out of bounds. Now it will be B's ball at the spot where the ball crossed the sideline. Since he touched it while in bounds it was not untouched by B before going out of bounds.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

[TXMike]

And if the kick receiver jumps from Outabounds, grabs a ball in the air and lands in bounds, the ball is dead immediately and declared a kick out of bounds?

[younggun]

Even better is what if the Kicking team jumps from inbounds and catches the ball and lands oob?

[bossman72]

What problem does this solve?  Why do we need this change?

[TXMike]

I assume it was done to help clear up that age-old question about the airborne player who touches the ball and whether that player is inbounds or Outabounds and therefore whether the ball was touched and bounds are Outabounds.  There is an AR in the book that is hard to make sense of re an airborne player and a free kick .  Maybe he is trying to do something that will explain that

[Magician]

He gave the two examples at Honig's when presenting this change:

Receiver touches out of bounds, leaps, controls the ball, and either lands in bounds or legally bats it to a teammate.  Previously live ball (could be foul for illegal touching depending on how he went OOB).  Now incomplete pass.

Receiving team player jumps from in bounds, controls the ball, and lands out of bounds.  Previously free kick out of bounds.  Now B's ball at the spot the ball crossed the sideline.  He felt this was consistent with the player standing near the sideline and touching the ball before it goes out of bounds.

RR felt this was a logical definition for out of bounds and in bounds.  We all know Alf has argued this should be the interpretation of the previous rule, but that's not the case.  Even though this is an editorial change, it is a change in the rule and not just a change in philosophy.

[Kalle]

This sounds good to me. It clears up the confusion created by the previous free kick out of bounds A.R.'s, even if it does change the other in bounds/out of bounds rules.

[jg-me]

If one really just wanted to clear up the free kick OOB situation, why not write the AR to conform to the existing rule and leave the rest alone?

[Magician]

If one really just wanted to clear up the free kick OOB situation, why not write the AR to conform to the existing rule and leave the rest alone?

Because it needed a rule change to change the definition of out of bounds.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

[EVW]

Isn't this an "off year" inside the 2-year rule cycle (2013-2014) in which only rule changes are to be made only if it involves player safety?
If that is the case, how does this "establish" inbounds/out-of-bounds rule apply to player safety for 2014? 
Seems that 2015 would be the appropriate season to implement this.

[Magician]

Isn't this an "off year" inside the 2-year rule cycle (2013-2014) in which only rule changes are to be made only if it involves player safety?
If that is the case, how does this "establish" inbounds/out-of-bounds rule apply to player safety for 2014? 
Seems that 2015 would be the appropriate season to implement this.

It's not a rules change. It's an editorial change. 

[jg-me]

Because it needed a rule change to change the definition of out of bounds.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

I presume this discussion is based around AR 6-2-2-IV. That AR states that if an airborne B player has leapt from inbounds, is the first to touch a free kick and subsequently lands OOB then we are to rule that the kick is out of bounds untouched by B and the A has committed a foul. I may be wrong but I believe this is the only AR or rules interp that contradicts the rule book definition of a player OOB. If one wants to change the interpretation to make this particular play as having no foul, then either rewrite it to conform to the current definition of a player OOB or eliminate the AR.
  Perhaps this editorial change is intended to 'fix' other play situations but it appears to be a solution in search of a problem.

[Andrew McCarthy]

I think they're trying to get rid of the play that happens once every 10 years where a receiver will jump up from out of bounds, grasp the ball, and toss (by interpretation bat) it to a teammate who is in bounds and makes the catch.

[bossman72]

Receiving team player jumps from in bounds, controls the ball, and lands out of bounds.  Previously free kick out of bounds.  Now B's ball at the spot the ball crossed the sideline. 

So by this logic... if a receiver jumps from in bounds, controls a pass, then lands out of bounds, this is a completed catch now?  Will we have to make an exception for kicks vs passes now?

I think this is an asinine rule change (pardon, "editorial change").