Author Topic: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes  (Read 39994 times)

Offline Tdjr

  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-1
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #50 on: February 14, 2015, 11:43:28 AM »
Whew....
After all that, can anyone now explain the rationale behind the change to the spearing definition.
Seems like it was fine as is, but I'm assuming there must have been a reason.

Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 530
  • FAN REACTION: +33/-35
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #51 on: February 14, 2015, 01:32:27 PM »
Whew....
After all that, can anyone now explain the rationale behind the change to the spearing definition.
Seems like it was fine as is, but I'm assuming there must have been a reason.

Alas, I can not explain the rationale that you are asking for.  However, I am still trying to come to grips with the 2009 rule change that had the hash marks bisecting the yard lines followed by the 2010 reversion to the original rule, both without any explanation.  I know that it is time to move on to other injustices in the space time continuum but the disturbance in The Force seems to linger.

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 661
  • FAN REACTION: +41/-7
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #52 on: February 15, 2015, 08:57:02 AM »
Say (for example) on a change of possession play when an offensive player decides to cheap-HOT AIR-slobber-knock an opponent and send him into the third row when he could have just as easily set a basketball screen on the opponent and accomplished the same result.   


+1
"Never argue with stupid people.  They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3271
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-472
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #53 on: February 15, 2015, 01:27:57 PM »

I am talking about Blindside blocks not involving the QB.  Say (for example) on a change of possession play when an offensive player decides to cheap-HOT AIR-slobber-knock an opponent and send him into the third row when he could have just as easily set a basketball screen on the opponent and accomplished the same result.

Language is not the problem, the verbiage used in NFHS: 9-4-3-b & g has taken care of what you describe for the past 40 years.  However, it's not our responsibility to judge whether the action chosen is the "best" option available, our judgment is restricted to whether whatever action chosen is executed legally, or violates the intent of 9-4-3. 

Players ARE RESPONSIBLE for being aware of their surroundings, and there most certainly are consequences for being careless, however that carelessness doesn't give license for one player to take an UNFAIR advantage of an opponent, but there have never been two "cheapshots" exactly alike, so trying to generate a "one size fits all" definition is NEVER going to happen (nor should it).

That is a conclusion, made exclusively, by the covering official, who hopefully has the knowledge to recognize it, and the courage to call it. 

   

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 285
  • FAN REACTION: +57/-37
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #54 on: February 15, 2015, 05:13:11 PM »
Language is not the problem, the verbiage used in NFHS: 9-4-3-b & g has taken care of what you describe for the past 40 years.  However, it's not our responsibility to judge whether the action chosen is the "best" option available, our judgment is restricted to whether whatever action chosen is executed legally, or violates the intent of 9-4-3.
While your interpretation was correct for the last 40 years, now that the word "excessive" has never been introduced into the wording of 9-4-3g, your 40 year interpretation is replaced and goes the way of the return kick. 

Players ARE RESPONSIBLE for being aware of their surroundings, and there most certainly are consequences for being careless, however that carelessness doesn't give license for one player to take an UNFAIR advantage of an opponent, but there have never been two "cheapshots" exactly alike, so trying to generate a "one size fits all" definition is NEVER going to happen (nor should it).
We actually agree that no two cheap shots are alike. But judging if the contact was excessive, in many cases, should be no more difficult that any other personal foul call.  You use Judgement!  Restated, the 40 year interpretation of "That's just football"  no longer has a place in today's NFHS game.


That is a conclusion, made exclusively, by the covering official, who hopefully has the knowledge to recognize it, and the courage to call it.
Actually, better worded, this is a judgement call by the game official, and, if in the judgement of the game official the contact was deemed "excessive" for the situation, the act is suspect of a personal foul flag.

I don't expect every corner of the nation to buy in on day one, but, just like any other change, eventually they all will. 
One closing thought for you Alf; While the rules committee (most of whom are men) writes the rules, it is the Mom's (most of whom are women) who decide if they are going to let little Johnny play youth football.  As such, the game we all love must get safer or the Mom's may make go the way of the Faro Table


« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 10:03:24 PM by KWH »

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3271
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-472
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #55 on: February 16, 2015, 08:03:25 AM »
If a couple of new words helps clarify things for you, KWH, that's beneficial, but the message that's been available (for 40 years) hasn't changed, and will be viable for the next 40 years. "That's just football" hasn't condoned excessive, or inappropriate contact for at least 40 years, and the judgment of the covering official, in many respects, has helped guide the game to it's current level of success.

Perfection may well be the ultimate goal, a laudable one, and admittedly we're not quite there,  yet.  "One size fits all" hasn't, nor likely ever will, function to the extent some hope might eliminate their personal responsibility. Recognizing when it's appropriate to "pull the trigger" is important, but it's still the judgment of the covering official, assessing multiple facets of what is specifically being observed and unique to that observation, that determines "IF" the trigger is pulled, or not.

 

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2469
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #56 on: February 16, 2015, 08:11:02 AM »
My crystal ball tells me :
      (1) There will be more discussion/debate/argument about when violence/brutality/contact of our beloved game of football becomesEXCESSIVE :sTiR: ^talk :sTiR then the other changes combined:. Many of the frenzied masses today cheer a violent/ brutal hit. Few would cheer if ^flag was thrown.
       (2) The Red Sox will once again win the World Series. aWaRd
       (3) Someday the snow will melt 8]- probably not before MLB's opening day :'(.


My crystal ball isn't always correct.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2469
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #57 on: February 16, 2015, 09:07:50 AM »
Hey Ralph, good job getting this one passed!!!!  This one I'm excited about.
Thanks, Bossman, and thanks for the verbage. :thumbup

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2469
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #58 on: February 16, 2015, 09:17:07 AM »
Ralph, what exactly was changed by this rule.  So any hard hits are flags now?
We were presented a video with several vicious hits were made on unsuspecting players. While the hits were all legal , by rule, the contacted players were often helped/carried off the field while the "conquerer" was cheered loudly. The major concern was : "Is this the direction we want our beloved game to evolve to???" Most felt that it wasn't (including several coaches that were present). There will be much discussion about this, I'm sure.

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1162
  • FAN REACTION: +52/-21
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #59 on: February 16, 2015, 10:51:33 AM »
We were presented a video with several vicious hits were made on unsuspecting players. While the hits were all legal , by rule, the contacted players were often helped/carried off the field while the "conquerer" was cheered loudly. The major concern was : "Is this the direction we want our beloved game to evolve to???" Most felt that it wasn't (including several coaches that were present). There will be much discussion about this, I'm sure.

So, here's a good example from college football season.  We've all seen this play.  Michigan St vs Baylor and the kicker gets lit up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7xgKsxk9I4

For argument's sake, let's say this block was definitely NOT targeting.  Is this play a foul under this new rule?


Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #60 on: February 16, 2015, 11:23:44 AM »
IF you are removing the variable of targeting, the K player  is a potential tackler and thus not well out of the play.

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 661
  • FAN REACTION: +41/-7
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #61 on: February 16, 2015, 11:24:43 AM »
So, here's a good example from college football season.  We've all seen this play.  Michigan St vs Baylor and the kicker gets lit up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7xgKsxk9I4

For argument's sake, let's say this block was definitely NOT targeting.  Is this play a foul under this new rule?


I think this is a perfect example of the type of play that the new rule is intended to eliminate.  To me, anything that would have qualified for ESPN's "He got JACKED UP" segment is a candidate.  Looking forward to hearing our state's official interpretation of this rule.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 11:26:35 AM by FLAHL »
"Never argue with stupid people.  They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

Offline Stinterp

  • *
  • Posts: 79
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-5
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #62 on: February 16, 2015, 11:33:31 AM »
This is a targeting foul for initial hit above the shoulders. This is the kind of excessive hit the rules committee wants out of high school football. The same block could have been accomplished without "taking the players head off" and injuring him.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3271
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-472
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #63 on: February 16, 2015, 01:44:48 PM »
This is a targeting foul for initial hit above the shoulders. This is the kind of excessive hit the rules committee wants out of high school football. The same block could have been accomplished without "taking the players head off" and injuring him.

Our job is not to speculate on "coulda-been, shoulda-been" assumptions.  This was a bang-bang, totally unplanned reaction to a surprisingly "blocked-kick" situation that unfolded in a split second.  The block, which seems like pure reaction, was from the front side against a pursuing tackler.  I certainly couldn't differentiate whether the actualy point of initial contact was at, above or below the shoulders or was partially caused by the movement of the player being blocked.

It seems there is a required element of premeditation and/or specific intent to punish an opponent in the logic behind these recent rule revisions and adjustments, that unquestionably should be removed from the game.  As with MOST illegal personal contact situations we are challenged to rule on, we are required to "see" the entire action to be able to judge specific, and actual, illegality and/or prohibited intent.

Basing a judgment and forming a conclusion on the severity and result of a collision, alone, is a luxury afforded ONLY to spectators and bystanders, who usually have a vested interest in their conclusions and not available to game officials. 

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2203
  • FAN REACTION: +69/-24
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #64 on: February 16, 2015, 02:41:22 PM »
I think this is a perfect example of the type of play that the new rule is intended to eliminate.  To me, anything that would have qualified for ESPN's "He got JACKED UP" segment is a candidate.  Looking forward to hearing our state's official interpretation of this rule.

I disagree.  If the same block had been at the defender's mid-section (and remember, the OP explicitly stated "not targeting"), I wouldn't have a flag for UNR -- the defender is trying to make a play.

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 285
  • FAN REACTION: +57/-37
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #65 on: February 16, 2015, 09:13:25 PM »
Our job is not to speculate on "coulda-been, shoulda-been" assumptions. 
Basing a judgment and forming a conclusion on the severity and result of a collision, alone, is a luxury afforded ONLY to spectators and bystanders, who usually have a vested interest in their conclusions and not available to game officials.

Alf -

Review this play

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JGogFxATeuo

I believe this type of excessive contact (he launches) has no place in and should be eliminated from NFHS play.

Additionally, the NCAA agrees, (see the flag) as this action is illegal in NCAA play.

And of course you will disagree... hEaDbAnG
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 10:33:47 PM by KWH »

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3271
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-472
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #66 on: February 16, 2015, 10:45:50 PM »
Alf -

Review this play

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JGogFxATeuo

I believe this type of excessive contact (he launches) has no place in and should be eliminated from NFHS play.

Amazingly, the NCAA agrees with me as it is now (as it was then - see the flag) illegal in NCAA play.

And of course you will need to disagree... hEaDbAnG

Actually KWH, you're half right.  Considering your fixation with NCAA rules, which I no longer focus on, allow me to familiarize you with the current NFHS rule; 2-20-2 "Targeting is an act of taking aimand initiating contact to an opponent above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist elbow or shoulders."

In looking at the contact in real time, it is clear the contact was in fact aimed, and involved either/both the blockers forearm and/or shoulder as the initial point of contact.  However, it was NOT CLEAR , at least to me, if that initial point of contact was actually above the shoulders. 

Given that subsequent slow motion views from multiple angles seems to support my conclusion that the initial point of contact, either by forearm or shoulder appears to be initiated at the defender's upper chest area, as well as the proximity of the potential defender in pursuit to the runner, I would likely have refrained from considering this contact, although dramatic and severe, excessive or illegal.

To qualify as a genuine "Bang-Bang" type of call, which this play would certainly match, is that the action observed is extremely close to the dividing line separating legal from illegal, so I wouldn't quibble with a contrary conclusion.  Hopefully the covering official, who made this call, was in the proper position to view the contact in it's entirety, was thorougly versed in the requirements of the rule governing the game he was officiating and reacted to specifically what he observed, and how what he saw related to that rule.

There is no, "see, I told you so" value to analysis of this particular play, other than the importance of being in the proper position to completely observe a contact unfold, and be keenly aware of the exact requirements of the rule you are about to consider.   

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #67 on: February 17, 2015, 08:58:10 AM »
I am not an NCAA official. but I will assume the flag is correct based on their interpretations

It appears that the contact is at the shoulder.  Now to me, he obviously lines up the hit, and he also appears to give a little "umph" with the left arm.  While I would agree he took aim, the strike zone would appear to be legal.

Parsing the Fed rule, I'm not so sure.  I also do not see the launch that you describe.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2469
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #68 on: February 17, 2015, 09:36:42 AM »
Question of the year... ^talk....What's EXCESSIVE ??? ???

At a buffet : IMHO, 2nd trip should be for dessert only eAt&
                   sNiCkErSSome may disagree sNiCkErS eAt& eAt&

On the football field : IMHO, we all will develop our own barometer. A coach said to me : "It sounds as if it'll be like helmet contact...won't always be called, BUT it may be called ^flag at the worst time. Best way to keep from being  ^flag is to teach kids that tackling or blocking doesn't mean injuring. It'll become my job to teach that  and hope that my fellow coaches follow."/font]

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1162
  • FAN REACTION: +52/-21
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #69 on: February 17, 2015, 11:51:09 AM »
Alf -

Review this play

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JGogFxATeuo

I believe this type of excessive contact (he launches) has no place in and should be eliminated from NFHS play.

Additionally, the NCAA agrees, (see the flag) as this action is illegal in NCAA play.

And of course you will disagree... hEaDbAnG

This flag was thrown because the hit was deemed to be to the head.

HAD THIS NOT BEEN TO THE HEAD... would you still have a foul under the new NFHS rule?

Offline Stinterp

  • *
  • Posts: 79
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-5
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #70 on: February 17, 2015, 12:03:16 PM »
Yes I would. This is unnecessary roughness and if we call this type of hit every time, it will stop.
The players taking these types of hits are getting seriously injured and there is no place for this hit in high school ball.

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 661
  • FAN REACTION: +41/-7
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #71 on: February 17, 2015, 12:08:57 PM »
This flag was thrown because the hit was deemed to be to the head.

HAD THIS NOT BEEN TO THE HEAD... would you still have a foul under the new NFHS rule?

Bossman - Under the new rule, yes I would throw the flag.  For me, one key is whether or not the person about to be blocked can see the blocker.  In this case, the defender is concentrating on the ball carrier and the blocker knows he's getting a free shot.  The blocker can choose whether or not to JACK HIM UP.  If he does, I'm flagging him.  (I'm still very curious to see what our state rules interpreter has to say about this rule.)

I think the new rule clearly shifts the burden.  It used to be on the defender to "keep his head on a swivel".  Now it seems that the burden is on the blocker to not be excessive.

As the coach said in Ralph's post - the best way to avoid this flag is to teach the kids that blocking and tackling doesn't mean injuring.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2015, 12:14:54 PM by FLAHL »
"Never argue with stupid people.  They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2469
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #72 on: February 17, 2015, 12:33:46 PM »
Yes, IMHO, the violent hit wasn't necessary to block the opponent.

Will this be easy ??? ??? - NO, subjective calls rarely are :o.

Will calls be consistant ??? ??? - We all will develop different levels of what we consider "excessive" - sorta' like the 1-10 pain chart we all see at the doc's when something hurts; we'll mentally develop such a chart for excessiveness. yEs:

Will coaches be supportave ??? ??? - allowing their players to excessively hit opponents will sorta' become like Russian roulette - with a preventative rule, it may hurt them at the worst time of the game.

Is the change to our beloved game necessary ??? ??? - to paraphrase my esteemed colleague, KWH (from the Left Coast & a Seahawk fan) : Momma Bear decides if Baby Bear will play youth football or join the chess club. Momma bear reads,hears, & sees articles/reports/shows about the danger of football. Baby Bear learns how to checkmate in 5 moves.

The Poppa Bears (dads,coaches,officials,fans,media,rulesmakers and the like) are learning something needs to be done.

100 years ago, boxing was the most  popular sport for teenage boys.

Today it's football - we want to keep it like that :bOW.

How many high school boxing teams can you name ??? ??? -Probably not many/any :-X ::)

....,Sorry if this has been excessive... tiphat:
« Last Edit: February 17, 2015, 12:40:53 PM by Ralph Damren »

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3271
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-472
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #73 on: February 17, 2015, 12:40:40 PM »
Bossman - Under the new rule, yes I would throw the flag.  For me, one key is whether or not the person about to be blocked can see the blocker.  In this case, the defender is concentrating on the ball carrier and the blocker knows he's getting a free shot.  The blocker can choose whether or not to JACK HIM UP.  If he does, I'm flagging him.  (I'm still very curious to see what our state rules interpreter has to say about this rule.)

I think the new rule clearly shifts the burden.  It used to be on the defender to "keep his head on a swivel".  Now it seems that the burden is on the blocker to not be excessive.

Although I agree with the objective of penalizing ANY and ALL unnecessary hits, and accept that the burden of responsibility has shifted (SOMEWHAT) to the blocker, I don't think the responsibility to know what you're doing and where you're going has been (or should be) TOTALLY REMOVED from the defender pursuing the runner, allowing for an expectation of an uninterrupted path to the runner.

The problem with pendulums is that they often swing beyond the target of balancing a situation, to the extent they create an equal imbalance in the opposite direction.  All players are (and should be) responsible to be aware of their surroundings.  If the objective is to establish some magical, "one size fits all" answer, this type play seems like an extremely poor target. 
« Last Edit: February 17, 2015, 12:42:35 PM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline twref

  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #74 on: February 17, 2015, 02:25:26 PM »
If we want our game to be played 20 years from now, we had better foul these types of violent hits in which the player being blocked cannot see the block coming and the player delivering the block doesn't pick a target that is between the lower part of the chest area and the belt buckle.  No one said that's easy, but if the blocker isn't sure he can do that in real time, just screen the player vs d-cleating him. 

One guys opinion