Defenseless player?

[Atlanta Blue]

I work games in Oregon ("the experimental state") and this is NOT a non-federation rule being implemented. 

From the 2015 NFHS Football Rules Book under "Comments on the 2015 Rules Changes":

• EXCESSIVE CONTACT ADDED TO UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS (9-4-3G): With an emphasis on risk minimization, the unnecessary roughness provisions were expanded.  No player or nonplayer shall make any other contact with an opponent, including a defenseless player, which is deemed unnecessary or excessive and which incited roughness.

Brad Garrett's interpretations of what is unnecessary and excessive (which the originally posted video was part of) can be debated.  However, it is a rule in all states that use NFHS rules.

And by interpretation in my state, the rule changed nothing from last year.  If it was a foul last year, it's a foul this year.  If it wasn't a foul last year, then it's not one this year either.

Ralph can chime in, but the report I got from the January meeting was that there was great debate on how to proceed on the issue of safety, while retaining the "integrity" of the game.  The rule passed was intentionally vague, as to allow states to interpret the way they felt it should apply, and to find some wording that would get a rule passed.   That's vagueness is great for states that have a strong training program.  For those that don't, it moves the interpretation from the state level to that of each individual official, and that is NOT a good thing.

[bama_stripes]

Doesn't matter.  Except in the experimental states (where this video was produced), it's not currently illegal to hit the body of a receiver in order to keep him from securing possession (assuming you don't use your head, or violate DPI rules).

Calf rope.

[jlharris]

And by interpretation in my state, the rule changed nothing from last year.  If it was a foul last year, it's a foul this year.  If it wasn't a foul last year, then it's not one this year either.

I'm stirring the pot Atlanta Blue in hopes of keeping a conversation going.  I have no intent on coming across as attacking you...

If last years way of officiating was ok by the NFHS, then why a new rule?  Or, since there is a new rule with a specific emphasis - why not make adjustments to how the game is being called in your state?

[jlharris]

Oh, hey, a specific emoji that fits my last post 

[AlUpstateNY]

I'm stirring the pot Atlanta Blue in hopes of keeping a conversation going.  I have no intent on coming across as attacking you...

If last years way of officiating was ok by the NFHS, then why a new rule?  Or, since there is a new rule with a specific emphasis - why not make adjustments to how the game is being called in your state?

Emphasizing, or even expanding the narrative of a rule, does not mean there is/was anything wrong with the rule.  Clarifying and/or calling attention to a rule is a way of emphasizing it's importance and calling attention to it's significance. 

AB's assessment seems accurate, there is nothing new about this clarification, and the revised language simply clarifies what the rule has intended since it's inception.  The revision seems more a call to focus on the existing intent of the rule, than create anything new.

[ECILLJ]

From the 2015 NFHS Football Rules Book under "Comments on the 2015 Rules Changes":

• EXCESSIVE CONTACT ADDED TO UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS (9-4-3G): With an emphasis on risk minimization, the unnecessary roughness provisions were expanded.  No player or nonplayer shall make any other contact with an opponent, including a defenseless player, which is deemed unnecessary or excessive and which incited roughness.

I'm in agreement with Mr. Harris and I would have no problem flagging  this hit with support of the rules.

In case you aren't paying attention, the Cubs are now within two games of the Pirates for the NL Wild Card lead.