Author Topic: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis  (Read 16133 times)

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2015, 10:57:52 AM »
I don't care about the source of the video, I care about the source of the interpretation.  I see video from an NCAA D3 game, and I really can't tell if it's college or big high school, there isn't that much difference.

If the NFHS wants to use NCAA plays with comments such as, "Under FED rules, this is excessive, this is not", fine.  But the potential for extreme differences in interpretation is going to make this rule a huge mistake.  This is ten times more vague than the definition for targeting, and that got butchered by many officials last year.

Online Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2466
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2015, 11:35:05 AM »
This will truly become a subjective call, but we have been dealing with many subjective calls . I work two sports and, IMHO, here is my perceived breakdown :

  BASEBALL                                                            FOOTBALL

Objective calls....                                                  Objective calls.....
 Ball/ strike ???                                                      Catch/ no catch ???
 Fair/foul ???                                                          In bounds/OOB ???
 Out/safe ???                                                          Down/ or not ???
                                                                             FG/PAT good or not ???
Subjective calls....                                                 Subjective calls......
 Balk :o ??? ::)                                                       Pass Interference :o ??? ::)
 Interference/obstruction :o ??? ::)                          Roughing passer/snapper/kicker/holder :o ??? ::)
                                                                             Holding/when to call :o ??? ::)
                                                                             EXCESSIVE CONTACT :o :o ??? ??? ::) ::)
                                                                             ....and the list goes on....

IMHO, 90% of baseball calls are objective.                IMHO, <50% of football calls are .

Like other subjective calls that we make, I feel we all will be able to subjectively rule on this. It's for the good of our sport.
                          .....on another football note, as a member of Patriot Nation, I can only say :

              WE WON THE SUPER BOWL aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd
                  ..they cheated   >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D: (deflated footballs)

Fickle fan's formula : "WE" = win; "they" = lost nAnA
« Last Edit: May 07, 2015, 11:56:04 AM by Ralph Damren »

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2015, 12:41:30 PM »
But this subjective call comes with 15 yards plus possible ejection.  Lot more to lose than catch/no catch, unless its the winning pass into the end zone with 0:00.

It is going to cause huge credibility problems with coaches IMO.  There will be officials that nail it and will persevere.  There will be some that will struggle, take heat, catch crap from the assignor or supervisor and then live in perpetual doubt as to whether or not they can or will make the right call.  This is not a fix that one season will solve.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3835
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-238
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2015, 01:03:07 PM »
Perfect explanation of which I wholeheartedly agree!  :thumbup
"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 Points of Emphasis
« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2015, 02:11:32 PM »
This will truly become a subjective call, but we have been dealing with many subjective calls . 
Like other subjective calls that we make, I feel we all will be able to subjectively rule on this. It's for the good of our sport.
                                        WE WON THE SUPER BOWL aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd
                  ..they cheated   >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D: (deflated footballs)

In reverse order; every ball used by either team in the Super Bowl passed through the hands of 2 game officials, the wing who tossed in, and the Umpire who subsequently placed it, both of whom ABSOLUTELY understand the "feel" of a defective ball.  So whatever "defects" discovered after the fact raised questions are insignificant and didn't make a material difference.

The Patriots won the game because they scored more points in the allotted time. On to the 2016 season.

Contact calls have always been subjective, are subjective and will always be subjective.  One size never has, never will fit all.  Coaches, Administrators, fans and pundits are entitled to their opinions, even to the point of expressing them, as long as doing so respectfully and civilly to avoid unnecessary and foolish consequences.

Perceived "credibility problems" with some Coaches is an occupational hazard, and unfortunate reality.  The best was to minimize, and hopefully avoid, such problems is know what you're looking for, be in the optimum position to fully observe what you're looking at and have the presence to render your decision clearly and emphatically.  When asked for explanation (respectfully and civilly) being able to succinctly and directly address the question is a big help in eliminating unnecessary discussion or problematic perceptions.

By far, the most important person to understand that you made the correct call, IS YOU.

Online Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2466
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #30 on: May 11, 2015, 11:11:18 AM »
I heard, unofficially, from one state that their rule of thumb :thumbup of excessive contact
will be blindside contact where the initial contact by the defender WASN'T with the hands. At first blush, it would appear to add some objectivity to a subjective call. Your opinions please.....

 :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2015, 11:21:31 AM »
I heard, unofficially, from one state that their rule of thumb :thumbup of excessive contact
will be blindside contact where the initial contact by the defender WASN'T with the hands. At first blush, it would appear to add some objectivity to a subjective call. Your opinions please.....

 :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:

Are you talking about the "Oregon Rule"?  That's supposed to be an true experimental RULE, not just an interpretation, correct?

Online Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2466
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #32 on: May 11, 2015, 12:18:46 PM »
Are you talking about the "Oregon Rule"?  That's supposed to be an true experimental RULE, not just an interpretation, correct?
Yes, it would be an experimental rule for Oregon, but could certainly be an interpretation for the frenzied masses in the other 47 states. An Oregonian buddy called me @ 8 PM PDT Friday night. It was 11 PM EDT deep into Friday night. I had retired my bifocals for the evening but was intrigued by their experimental rule. I felt my buddies on the forum might have opinions,too.

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 658
  • FAN REACTION: +41/-7
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #33 on: May 11, 2015, 12:27:33 PM »
That makes sense to me.  It would be easy to coach, easy to officiate, and would remove most of the subjectivity.
"Never argue with stupid people.  They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #34 on: May 11, 2015, 01:12:06 PM »
1.  What is "blindside"?
2.  Leading with the hands doesn't stop the hit from being excessive.  I can put my hands in front of me, balled up against my chest, and blast the H#$l out of someone, especially if I extend through the hit.
3.  What happens if I bump shoulders with someone with whom I'm running alongside, and it throws him off stride or runs him out of the play?  It's "blindside" (I guess), it's a block, and it's not leading with the hands.  But obviously, it's not excessive either.

This is a highly subjective issue that will not be made objective very easily.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3835
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-238
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #35 on: May 11, 2015, 03:01:14 PM »
This is a highly subjective issue that will not be made objective very easily.
Holy Cow, I agree with AB. What's the world coming to?  LOL
"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 bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2202
  • FAN REACTION: +69/-24
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #36 on: May 12, 2015, 07:35:57 AM »
I like the interpretation as one example of "excessive".  But (remembering that NFHS rules are also used by subvarsity and middle school teams) I can see 250-lb Bubba using his hands to decleat 160-lb Billy Bob 20 yards behind the ball as also being excessive.

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1205
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-42
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #37 on: May 12, 2015, 07:55:06 AM »
Hummmmm....I wonder how the lawyers will define "excessive"..... ???

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2015, 08:20:19 AM »
Hummmmm....I wonder how the lawyers will define "excessive"..... ???
Easy.  Look at their fees.

Offline bigjohn

  • *
  • Posts: 342
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-31
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2015, 08:23:23 AM »
When the ball is snapped to a back in shotgun formation, however, the ball leaves the zone, and the zone
disintegrates almost immediately. To be legal, a block below the waist must occur immediately after, and nearly
simultaneously with, the snap. Any delay would cause the block to occur after the ball has left the zone. It is
nearly impossible for a lineman in a two-point stance to legally block below the waist in this situation



Nearly impossible basically makes it illegal to ever BBW from a 2 point stance so why not just have the rules say that???? 

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #40 on: May 12, 2015, 08:41:57 AM »
Nearly impossible basically makes it illegal to ever BBW from a 2 point stance so why not just have the rules say that????
That's exactly what Georgia did years ago.  No low blocks from a 2 pt stance when the QB is not under center.  A few other states have followed (NC is one), but apparently they couldn't get a 2/3 majority to pass it at the rules conference.  So this is the next best way when the Committee won't pass the rule.

Offline bigjohn

  • *
  • Posts: 342
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-31
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #41 on: May 12, 2015, 08:48:40 AM »
Kinda like Slapping the ball is not encroachment!!!

 LOL

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2191
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-10
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #42 on: May 12, 2015, 09:08:45 AM »
On the other hand, Virginia has interpreted such that if the QB is not under center, the offensive line can legally block low if that's their first move.  If they retreat or stand up, THEN go low, we have a flag for an illegal low block.

Personally, I still think we should get rid of the FBZ entirely and not have to split these metaphorical hairs about how quickly the ball leaves the zone, but the committee doesn't seem to agree with me enough...

Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 529
  • FAN REACTION: +33/-35
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #43 on: May 12, 2015, 09:41:52 AM »
but the committee doesn't seem to agree with me enough...

I have this same problem with the United States Congress.  Go figure!

Online Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2466
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #44 on: May 12, 2015, 10:05:46 AM »
If the cobwebs of my murky memory are correct, two years ago eliminating the FBZ on anything other than hand to hand snaps failed by only a vote or two. I fully expected to see it on the docket again this year. It wasn't - only a proposal to remove the FBZ entirely. That proposal failed to make it out of committee. I felt deflated ;).

IMHO, the Oregon attempt to add some guidelines to what is probably the high profile rule change is welcomed. If we want to preserve our game, as we know it, we need to reduce the violence. Will future guidelines arise as this and future seasons approach ???- I'm sure yEs:

IMHO, this change has yet to receive much publicity outside of our inner circles, but once it does; it'll rival the two most influential changes in my z^ lifetime:
 (1) Restriction of FBZ in 1981;
 (2) Allowance of open-hand "retreat" blocking in 1988;

In your opinion, what were the rule changes in your career that had the biggest impact????                                                                   
« Last Edit: May 12, 2015, 10:13:30 AM by Ralph Damren »

Offline bigjohn

  • *
  • Posts: 342
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-31
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #45 on: May 12, 2015, 10:21:18 AM »
so now if I (MLB) blast a receiver who is not trying to block me just to reroute or take him out of the play could I be flagged for IUH and UNR and ejected if the official felt it was flagrant??

« Last Edit: May 12, 2015, 10:24:02 AM by bigjohn »

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3835
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-238
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #46 on: May 12, 2015, 10:45:52 AM »
so now if I (MLB) blast a receiver who is not trying to block me just to reroute or take him out of the play could I be flagged for IUH and UNR and ejected if the official felt it was flagrant??
Fouls deemed to be flagrant are already an ejectionable offense. Your example is nothing different than what's already on the books: Rules 2-16-2c and 9-4 PENALTY.
"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 Points of Emphasis
« Reply #47 on: May 12, 2015, 12:09:49 PM »

Nearly impossible basically makes it illegal to ever BBW from a 2 point stance so why not just have the rules say that????

Perhaps, because officials have enough common sense to realize that there are different ways to SAY THE SAME THING, so as long as the message is understood as intended, either phrasing is acceptable.

Shakespeare tried to advise us, suggesting, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", which also seems to apply to "Excessive", "Flagrant", "Unnecessary", "Cheap Shot" and other judgment affecting words included in the football game official's vocabulary.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #48 on: May 12, 2015, 01:11:00 PM »
Perhaps, because officials have enough common sense to realize that there are different ways to SAY THE SAME THING, so as long as the message is understood as intended, either phrasing is acceptable.
While that may be true for the upper levels of NCAA or the NFL, unfortunately, the vast majority of high school officials do not.  That's why the rules are written to the lowest common denominator.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2202
  • FAN REACTION: +69/-24
Re: 2015 NFHS Points of Emphasis
« Reply #49 on: May 12, 2015, 01:44:30 PM »
...basically makes it illegal to ever BBW from a 2 point stance...

No it doesn't.  Read your quote again: "To be legal, a block below the waist must occur immediately after, and nearly simultaneously with, the snap."

IOW, on the initial charge, with no delay.