Author Topic: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes  (Read 39937 times)

Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 530
  • FAN REACTION: +33/-35
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #75 on: February 17, 2015, 02:30:24 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

Make that two guys.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3835
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-238
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #76 on: February 17, 2015, 02:47:14 PM »
"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 AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3270
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-472
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #77 on: February 17, 2015, 04:18:46 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

Is the game you want to see in 20 years, anything like the game we see today?  "Throwing the baby out with the bath water", hasn't shown to be an effective solution to most problems, thus far.  Is a player, who is absolutely trying to gain advantage over his opponent, but chooses to be totally oblivious to standard and obvious consequences (ie; pursuing a runner but ignoring the existence of blockers trying to protect that runner) defenseless, or clueless?

It's one thing when a defender gives up the chase, and becomes far removed from the pursuit and something completely different than a player who is in hot pursuit with reasonable opportunity to catch a runner and terminate his progress. 

Football is a game of teams (and individuals) trying to out think and out position the opponent by creating (FAIR and REASONABLE) advantages over their opponent.  Eliminating a player who is NOT posing a threat, and therefore excessively vulnerable, is NOT gaining a FAIR advantage, but by the same token taking advantage of allowable practices to prevent an opponent from gaining a FAIR advantage over you, is not UNFAIR.

Trying to codify two distinctly different situations under the same verbiage is an exercise in futility that will inevitably prove more problematic.  Language used to respond to one situation cannot automatically be presumed to satisfy completely different situations.  The problem is in trying to correct, control and cover a very specific circumstance, with an overly broad blanket.

Viable judgment applied by trained professionals observing specific, and unique, happenings is the key to appropriate, consistent and "fair" decisions and enforcements.  Replacing specifically focused judgments with overly broad, generalized verbiage will only serve to exacerbate the problem.

Unfortunately, children of parents who make rash decisions based on incomplete and/or inaccurate presumptions, are going to deal with a lot more problems than football.

Offline twref

  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #78 on: February 17, 2015, 04:57:44 PM »
Is the game you want to see in 20 years, anything like the game we see today?  "Throwing the baby out with the bath water", hasn't shown to be an effective solution to most problems, thus far.  Is a player, who is absolutely trying to gain advantage over his opponent, but chooses to be totally oblivious to standard and obvious consequences (ie; pursuing a runner but ignoring the existence of blockers trying to protect that runner) defenseless, or clueless?



I reject the premise that a player can pursue a runner while also being able to see all other players running at them without significantly slowing down the speed of their pursuit.  Why did baseball make an adjustment to their game and tone down the bats in both NCAA and Federation?  Because technology had advanced to a point that humans could not keep up with the speed of the game-and someone was going to get killed.  40 years ago how big and fast were football players?  20 years ago?  20 years from now?  It's time to slow the game down-while there is still a game to be played.

P.S. I worry less about parents telling their kids that can't play football and more about insurance companies being unwilling to underwrite the coverage 

One guys opinion   

Offline Stinterp

  • *
  • Posts: 79
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-5
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #79 on: February 17, 2015, 05:03:38 PM »
FOUR!!!

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3270
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-472
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #80 on: February 17, 2015, 10:54:38 PM »
I reject the premise that a player can pursue a runner while also being able to see all other players running at them without significantly slowing down the speed of their pursuit.  Why did baseball make an adjustment to their game and tone down the bats in both NCAA and Federation?  Because technology had advanced to a point that humans could not keep up with the speed of the game-and someone was going to get killed.  40 years ago how big and fast were football players?  20 years ago?  20 years from now?  It's time to slow the game down-while there is still a game to be played.

P.S. I worry less about parents telling their kids that can't play football and more about insurance companies being unwilling to underwrite the coverage.

Am I understanding you correctly?  You want to offset the balance of the game, by allowing one side to fully pursue their objectives, by removing  the burden, and responsibility, of maintaining full awarness of their surroundings, while requiring the opponent to abandon their primary objectives of protecting their team mates and preventing their opponent from achieving its objective, by means that would otherwise be legal and permissable. 

You recommend "slow the game down-while there is still a game to be played", have you thought of a name for your game, because "Football" is taken.

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 661
  • FAN REACTION: +41/-7
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #81 on: February 18, 2015, 08:05:34 AM »
Am I understanding you correctly?  You want to offset the balance of the game, by allowing one side to fully pursue their objectives, by removing  the burden, and responsibility, of maintaining full awarness of their surroundings, while requiring the opponent to abandon their primary objectives of PROTECTING THEIR TEAM MATES (emphasis added) and preventing their opponent from achieving its objective, by means that would otherwise be legal and permissable. 

You recommend "slow the game down-while there is still a game to be played", have you thought of a name for your game, because "Football" is taken.


It was never necessary to de-cleat a kid who isn't looking in order to "protect your team mates."  However, it was legal last year.  This year, it isn't, if we judge the hit to be excessive.

We make these judgment calls all the time.  Was it roughing the passer?  Was the kid high-stepping into the EZ to showboat, or to avoid a tackler?  I suspect we'll all find our comfort zone with this one as well.
"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 #82 on: February 18, 2015, 08:09:33 AM »
IMHO, these fouls could occur on both sides of the ball...IE...a blindside, vicious block on A, a blindside vicious QB sack on B...I don't feel it upsets the balance between A & B. I do feel that something is necessary to keep the balance of the pecking order of popular fall sports...
                 (1) Football
                 (2) Soccer
                 (3) Golf
                 (4) Cross-Country
                 (5) Lobster Crating

Is this rule change the answer ??? ..time will tell...are we going in the right direction ??? ???...YES :thumbup



Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 661
  • FAN REACTION: +41/-7
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #83 on: February 18, 2015, 08:13:50 AM »
IMHO, these fouls could occur on both sides of the ball...IE...a blindside, vicious block on A, a blindside vicious QB sack on B...I don't feel it upsets the balance between A & B. I do feel that something is necessary to keep the balance of the pecking order of popular fall sports...
                 (1) Football
                 (2) Soccer
                 (3) Golf
                 (4) Cross-Country
                 (5) Lobster Crating

Is this rule change the answer ??? ..time will tell...are we going in the right direction ??? ???...YES :thumbup




+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: 3270
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-472
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #84 on: February 18, 2015, 09:01:34 AM »
Is this rule change the answer ??? ..time will tell...are we going in the right direction ??? ???...YES :thumbup

Eliminating UNNECESSARY, DANGEROUS and ILLEGAL hits from our game is, and always has been, a positive idea, worth pursuing.  Overreacting, and using a meat cleaver to slice off bad behavior is using the wrong tool to accomplish the goal. 

Emphasis has always been on the actual mechanics of the contact, was the contact itself somehow illegal, unnecessary or dangerous, rather than ignoring what actually happened and reacting to the sound, ferocity or result of the contact alone.  "De-cleating" is NOT the issue, what specific action was delivered to cause such severity is, and always has been, the problem worthy of correction.

Over reaction to generalized, and often  inaccurate and unsubstantiated exaggerations, by external critics serves primarily to add fuel to illconceived fires.  Extending clearly recognized descriptions to situations that have never previously qualified, doesn't necessarily help clarify ANYTHING.

A "defenseless" player has been clearly understood to be; a kicker, additionally vulnerable because of the actual action related to kicking, a passer, focused on the act of passing, a snapper, focusing on completing the long snap, and ANY other player who has ceased actively participating in the game, and not otherwise paying attention to the storm surrounding him. 

Any player, however, who has ended these special vulnerabilities and has CHOSEN to fully participate in the normal and general actions of the game, deserves ALL the protections afforded to any other player fully participating, as defined by rules. 

The passer, who has totally completed all of the actions associated with passing, is given special protections until (NF:2-32-11) "the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play", at which time he is no longer a "passer" and returns to being a "player".  When he CHOOSES to re-join and participate in the play, either as a blocker or a defender, whatever special protections he enjoyed as a "passer" have EXPIRED and no longer apply.

What determines if a contact is legal or illegal is, and should be, the manner and method of the contact and how the contact is delivered.  That is an observation made, and judgment rendered, BEST by an impartial, trained and experienced official assessing the mechanics of the specific contact being observed and how it complies, or violates, specific rules designed for that specific circumstance, rather than some emotional reaction from a bystander, too often responding to some external agenda or objective.

Searching for a "One size fits all" solution, to address an infinitely different set of circumstances is unlikely to produce a satisfactory answer.  Perhaps the understanding of a "cheap shot", much like the understanding of "beauty", is best determined, "In the eye of the beholder".

 

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #85 on: February 18, 2015, 10:29:34 AM »
Here's how we keep the pecking order - we make some of these spring sports!

                 (1) Football - Fall
                 (2) Soccer - Spring
                 (3) Golf - Spring
                 (4) Cross-Country - Fall
                 (5) Lobster Crating - Something we do at the grocery to get ready for dinner!


Offline ECILLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 367
  • FAN REACTION: +17/-2
  • Have fun & give 'em your best!
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #86 on: February 18, 2015, 10:59:34 AM »
[quote author=AlUpstateNY link=topic=11649.msg115598#msg115598 date=1424271694
Eliminating UNNECESSARY, DANGEROUS and ILLEGAL hits from our game is, and always has been, a positive idea, worth pursuing.  Overreacting, and using a meat cleaver to slice off bad behavior is using the wrong tool to accomplish the goal.............
Searching for a "One size fits all" solution, to address an infinitely different set of circumstances is unlikely to produce a satisfactory answer.  Perhaps the understanding of a "cheap shot", much like the understanding of "beauty", is best determined, "In the eye of the beholder".

 
[/quote]

Al, You seem well spoken but your long diatribes are contradictory. Choose a lane.

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 285
  • FAN REACTION: +57/-37
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #87 on: February 18, 2015, 12:43:16 PM »
Eliminating UNNECESSARY, DANGEROUS and ILLEGAL hits from our game is, and always has been, a positive idea, worth pursuing.  Overreacting, and using a meat cleaver to slice off bad behavior is using the wrong tool to accomplish the goal. 

Emphasis has always been on the actual mechanics of the contact, was the contact itself somehow illegal, unnecessary or dangerous, rather than ignoring what actually happened and reacting to the sound, ferocity or result of the contact alone.  "De-cleating" is NOT the issue, what specific action was delivered to cause such severity is, and always has been, the problem worthy of correction.

Over reaction to generalized, and often  inaccurate and unsubstantiated exaggerations, by external critics serves primarily to add fuel to illconceived fires.  Extending clearly recognized descriptions to situations that have never previously qualified, doesn't necessarily help clarify ANYTHING.

A "defenseless" player has been clearly understood to be; a kicker, additionally vulnerable because of the actual action related to kicking, a passer, focused on the act of passing, a snapper, focusing on completing the long snap, and ANY other player who has ceased actively participating in the game, and not otherwise paying attention to the storm surrounding him. 

Any player, however, who has ended these special vulnerabilities and has CHOSEN to fully participate in the normal and general actions of the game, deserves ALL the protections afforded to any other player fully participating, as defined by rules. 

The passer, who has totally completed all of the actions associated with passing, is given special protections until (NF:2-32-11) "the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play", at which time he is no longer a "passer" and returns to being a "player".  When he CHOOSES to re-join and participate in the play, either as a blocker or a defender, whatever special protections he enjoyed as a "passer" have EXPIRED and no longer apply.

What determines if a contact is legal or illegal is, and should be, the manner and method of the contact and how the contact is delivered.  That is an observation made, and judgment rendered, BEST by an impartial, trained and experienced official assessing the mechanics of the specific contact being observed and how it complies, or violates, specific rules designed for that specific circumstance, rather than some emotional reaction from a bystander, too often responding to some external agenda or objective.

Searching for a "One size fits all" solution, to address an infinitely different set of circumstances is unlikely to produce a satisfactory answer.  Perhaps the understanding of a "cheap shot", much like the understanding of "beauty", is best determined, "In the eye of the beholder".

I disagree   tiphat:

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3270
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-472
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #88 on: February 18, 2015, 02:58:06 PM »
Al, You seem well spoken but your long diatribes are contradictory. Choose a lane. [/quote]

My apologies for being confusing.  Allow me to try a different approach.  Although I would suggest EVERYONE (should) agree that "UNNECESSARY, DANGEROUS AND ILLEGAL HITS" should be eliminated from the game, for multiple reasons.  It seems some seem WAY TOO eager to apply their own interpretations of those descriptions to hits, that may be severe, hard, or dramatic but are otherwise perfectly legal.

In past years we've seen the creation of 3 separate and distinctly defined "illegal helmet contact fouls", that each apply to a different type of contact, we've seen additional rule adjustments to the majority of allowable contacts below the waist.  Unfortunately, there have also been occassions where efforts to clarify rules have created additional confusion, rather than clarifications.

A basic standard of football officiating, at any level, HAS ALWAYS BEEN, "to call a foul, an officials must be absolutely CERTAIN that the violation, has IN FACT, occurred".  Coaches, spectators, announcers enjoy the luxury (Only available to Officials regarding INTENT, and then in only limited circumstances) of speculating, presuming and assuming.  We are normally prohibited from assuming, speculating or presuming something Illegal occurred, unless we have directly observed the infraction.

The video causing this discussion shows an incredibly hard hit, arguably below the prohibited "head" area, by a teammate of the runner, against an opponent in hot pursuit, and reasonably close to the runner producing a devastating collision. Both the pursuer AND the blocker were doing their respective jobs, which in the game of football are in direct conflict with each other, and for which their allowable behavior is defined by rule.

In "real time" a penalty was called, that film review, in some assessments, raised questions about that decision.  At the HS level, where (thankfully) replay is not an option, the play would stand as called, but given doubt, expressed by some after reviewing the film evidence, others are quick to opine, "it should be a foul ANYWAY" despite evidence (or at least opinion) to the contrary.

The real question may be, are we starting down a road leading to changing the principle, "A foul is a foul ONLY when there is certainty it's a foul", to, "Close enough is enough"?

Offline bkdow

  • *
  • Posts: 239
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-3
  • Striving for the impossible level of perfection
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #89 on: February 18, 2015, 04:26:50 PM »
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
Then our game would be turning into Flag Football....which we always tell players, is not football.
"Don't let perfection get in the way of really good." John Lucivansky

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2203
  • FAN REACTION: +69/-24
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #90 on: February 19, 2015, 07:35:33 AM »
Here's how we keep the pecking order - we make some of these spring sports!

Like football, at least below the snow belt.  Move baseball to fall.  That protects players of both sports from temperature-related injuries and illnesses.   :sTiR:

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2469
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #91 on: February 19, 2015, 08:21:26 AM »
Like football, at least below the snow belt.  Move baseball to fall.  That protects players of both sports from temperature-related injuries and illnesses.   :sTiR:
:o :!# a delima would arise......

      Many star QBs are also star pitchers :-\
      Many star centers are also star catchers :-\
      Many star TEs are also star 1st basemen :-\
      Many star wideouts are also star centerfielders :-\

.....Many prom queens go to many more football than baseball games ;) :-* :bOW

      Delemia settled. yEs:

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2203
  • FAN REACTION: +69/-24
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #92 on: February 19, 2015, 12:21:11 PM »
:o :!# a delima would arise......

      Many star QBs are also star pitchers :-\
      Many star centers are also star catchers :-\
      Many star TEs are also star 1st basemen :-\
      Many star wideouts are also star centerfielders :-\

.....Many prom queens go to many more football than baseball games ;) :-* :bOW

      Delemia settled. yEs:
I think you misunderstood me, Ralph.  I'm advocating switching football and baseball seasons.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2469
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #93 on: February 19, 2015, 12:32:59 PM »
I think you misunderstood me, Ralph.  I'm advocating switching football and baseball seasons.
Ehhh, state championship football in mid-June ???....OK :thumbup....state championship baseball in November :!# :!#. Sorry, 'Bama, your suggestion would only work in Maine ,if in baseball, you played the championship games on Labor Day weekend and then worked the season backwards for the season opener to be the weekend before Thanksgiving....Might need to think that one thru a bit. :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8] ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( >:D

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1205
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-42
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #94 on: February 19, 2015, 12:40:26 PM »
Ralph,

Obviously there were no timing-related changes :-[

Was nothing discussed to (forgive me AB) reduce the length of games?  As discussed a lot on the forum, with teams throwing 40-50 passes/game, the games are taking much longer.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2469
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #95 on: February 19, 2015, 01:14:00 PM »
Ralph,

Obviously there were no timing-related changes :-[

Was nothing discussed to (forgive me AB) reduce the length of games?  As discussed a lot on the forum, with teams throwing 40-50 passes/game, the games are taking much longer.
I don't recall any discussions regarding length of games either during the formal meetings or at the informal "campfire" meetings. The 2 Rule 3 timing proposals (start on snap if team ahead fouls in last 2 minutes & adding a 40 sec. clock) really wouldn't help to shorten and neither made it out of committee. Promoting safety was the overriding issue this year.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3835
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-238
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #96 on: February 19, 2015, 01:32:47 PM »
Promoting safety was the overriding issue this year.
3+ hour games promotes safety? Really now!
"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: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #97 on: February 19, 2015, 03:19:29 PM »
Quote
3+ hour games promotes safety? Really now!

I don't think we've gotten to that point here, yet.  Varsity game start time here is 7:30 pm.  Ordinarily and recently I would say the average walk-off time is 9:45-9:50 with a game or two per season hitting 10:00 pm.

We finally codified the running clock rule in NC so we don''t have to do the "if the coaches agree" dance anymore so that has helped with the blowouts, which a lot of games seem to be.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3835
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-238
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #98 on: February 19, 2015, 03:36:21 PM »
We used to start at 7:30. Once the final scores started regularly missing the 10 o'clock sports report, and/or the print media deadlines, the complaints rolled in. Solution? Start at 7:00. Games are still 3 hours, but at least most are now meeting media deadlines.
"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 FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 661
  • FAN REACTION: +41/-7
Re: 2015 NFHS Rule Changes
« Reply #99 on: February 19, 2015, 04:16:39 PM »
Our public schools kick off at 7:30 and rarely end before 10:00.  Some private schools kick off at 7:00, and we all enjoy that.  The games take just as long, but it's 30 minutes earlier to our post game debrief over wings and beers.
"Never argue with stupid people.  They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain