2016 Rule Changes

[TXMike]

Committee proposals attached

[attachment deleted by admin]

[#92]

I don't understand why tripping the ball carrier is now a foul... Why take away a way to get him down? Or is it considered to be unsafe if you trip him, but not unsafe if you grab his feet with your hands?

[Legacy Zebra]

I think part of it is that generally people have more dexterity with their hands and arms than they do with their feet and legs. Whereas somebody reaching out with a hand to grab the ball carrier's ankles would have pretty good control of their movement, somebody using a foot to try to trip a ball carrier would more than likely be swinging wildly in hopes of making contact.

But I think the bigger point is that they are trying to apply the rules to everybody rather than have exceptions for ball carriers. I wish they'd do the same thing with the hands to the face rule. I cringe every time I see a defender's head get bent backward by a ball carrier and it's not a foul as long they don't twist, turn, or pull.

Side note: As a TX HS official, I hope they approve the part about DQ'ing a coach for 2 UNS's, but the odds of UIL allowing that in high school have got to be about a billion to one.

[TXMike]

After sitting in the UIL rules committee meeting the past few years I do not share your cynicism.  They routinely say we should be less accepting of bad behavior.  That being said.....if a coach is ejected lots of things kick in so you better be sure it was justified.  And I don't think I have ever seen a coach get 2 UNS anyway

[Legacy Zebra]

I see why it may across as such, but my comment wasn't really about accepting bad behavior. It was more along the lines of losing an adult on the sidelines. In smaller schools or in subvarsity games, there are sometimes only 2-3 coaches on the sideline. I look at it the same way as the exception for dq'ing players. NCAA says they can't be in sight of the field, but UIL has an exception (presumably) so that you don't lose a coach to go supervise that player. That's why I don't think the UIL would pass it.

[TXMike]

Great point.  There may have to be an exception especially at subvarsity level

[bossman72]

I don't understand why tripping the ball carrier is now a foul... Why take away a way to get him down? Or is it considered to be unsafe if you trip him, but not unsafe if you grab his feet with your hands?

I think they want to get rid of players getting slide-tackled soccer style.  That's really the only time I can think of something like that.

[#92]

I think they want to get rid of players getting slide-tackled soccer style.  That's really the only time I can think of something like that.

Have you seen that happen? Not me, and here in Belgium the majority of the players played soccer before they discovered football, or still combine it.

Which of course makes it less of an issue, come to think of it. But still, imagine being blocked to the ground, and seeing the ball carrier in reach of your legs, and then you should just let him go...? It's legal to hold the ball carrier and not the other players, why not get rid of that exception? ;-)

[Osric Pureheart]

Several rugby players have had their legs or ankles broken by being tripped at speed, and the lower leg is one area of the body where football players wear the same amount of padding as they do. When I first encountered NCAA rules I was absolutely shocked that there was a specific exception to allow tripping the runner.

[#92]

And driving your shoulder pads into the ball carrier's knees from "3 or 9 o'clock" doesn't have the same effect?

[Osric Pureheart]

Shoulder pads have more give to them than a shin bone.

[bossman72]

Have you seen that happen? Not me, and here in Belgium the majority of the players played soccer before they discovered football, or still combine it.

Which of course makes it less of an issue, come to think of it. But still, imagine being blocked to the ground, and seeing the ball carrier in reach of your legs, and then you should just let him go...? It's legal to hold the ball carrier and not the other players, why not get rid of that exception? ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=puLhSu1YUnE

*Player did not make contact, but I think this is what they want to eliminate.

[Joe Stack]

I guarantee you there were 10 NCAA and Texas HS players total, if that, who knew they could trip the ball carrier legally. Everyone else thought that was illegal already. Some have even seen it called a foul.

[Legacy Zebra]

I've seen it happen twice. Once was in a peewee game and the wannabe Vince Lombardi who was coaching the 8 year olds at the time was irate that his QB was tripped. We eventually had a , but it wasn't for tripping. The only other time I've seen a ball carrier tripped was Geno Smith a few years ago in a bowl game.
 
https://youtu.be/N8bVzRMIQiw?t=7525

If it doesn't load at the right time, it's at 2:05:25.

[bkdow]

I just don't like it trying to be outlawed.

[Rulesman]

2016 FINAL version is attached. Enjoy!

[attachment deleted by admin]

[BrendanP]

With the new targeting IR rules, what percentage do you think will be overturned this year as compared to last year?

I read in some NCAA press release that there were 153 targeting calls across all of college football in 2015, 48 of them overturned by replay. This translates into 31.37% of the calls being reversed, and 68.63% were upheld. How many do you think will be created by IR now that they have the power to do so?

I honestly hope that now with the new IR rules, we'll be focusing on penalizing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3XbhBwxto and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B507BENYheQ  and overturning/not flagging ones like this: http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/10/michigan_lb_james_ross_ejected.html and this:

On a side note, I really think we should get rid of the "first half of next game" thing.

[TxSkyBolt]

"On a side note, I really think we should get rid of the "first half of next game" thing."

How did you come to that conclusion?  A person DQd in the first half cannot play in the "next" half, so it's equitable for a person DQd in the second half, to sit out the "next half" of a game.

[ncaaref1]

With the new targeting IR rules, what percentage do you think will be overturned this year as compared to last year?

I read in some NCAA press release that there were 153 targeting calls across all of college football in 2015, 48 of them overturned by replay. This translates into 31.37% of the calls being reversed, and 68.63% were upheld. How many do you think will be created by IR now that they have the power to do so?

I honestly hope that now with the new IR rules, we'll be focusing on penalizing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3XbhBwxto and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B507BENYheQ  and overturning/not flagging ones like this: http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/10/michigan_lb_james_ross_ejected.html and this:

On a side note, I really think we should get rid of the "first half of next game" thing.

I'll agree with all of them except for the Michigan one.  Other than the fact you are seeing that through Maize and Blue glasses, I'm not sure how that is not targeting.  It's a crown of the helmet hit to a defenseless player to the side of the head/under the chin.  That's the exact hit the rules makers are trying to get out of the game. 

[hefnerjm]

I've seen it happen twice. Once was in a peewee game and the wannabe Vince Lombardi who was coaching the 8 year olds at the time was irate that his QB was tripped. We eventually had a , but it wasn't for tripping. The only other time I've seen a ball carrier tripped was Geno Smith a few years ago in a bowl game.
 
https://youtu.be/N8bVzRMIQiw?t=7525

If it doesn't load at the right time, it's at 2:05:25.

So, under the new (Proposed?) rule, this would result in offsetting fouls for A-Grounding and B-Tripping?  Replay the down?

[BrendanP]

I'll agree with all of them except for the Michigan one.  Other than the fact you are seeing that through Maize and Blue glasses, I'm not sure how that is not targeting.  It's a crown of the helmet hit to a defenseless player to the side of the head/under the chin.  That's the exact hit the rules makers are trying to get out of the game.

Didn't you just get done saying that incidental helmet contact is no longer a foul, because that's what it looks like to me. Calls like that are why I can't figure out for the life of me why you'd want something like that out of the game. The first two I mentioned, absolutely good call. That's where you're looking at breaking your neck or even killing someone. But incidental contact/hit under the chin (which is what I and everybody else in my playing days, which weren't even that long ago were coached to do instead of going for the helmet) that's the gray area I've got a problem with.

Now admittedly it's worse at other levels. In the Arena Football League, jumping offsides twice in a game is a fifteen-yard penalty, and the third is an ejection. Did that reduce the number of offsides penalties? Sure. But can a reasonable person logically conclude that being drawn offsides warrants the walk of shame and sitting in the locker room the rest of the game? (Another reason I think a player DQd for targeting should at least be allowed to remain on the sideline).

I guess it reminds me of checking from behind in NCAA hockey (Sorry, I'm a Canadian, and primarily a hockey guy ) where the NCAA decided to instruct officials ten years ago that regardless of the written rule, any simple boarding/roughing/interference involving the boards is to be called CFB, five and game. The result: at least two game misconducts a night. Where instead of this (what CFB actually is): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GFm33gfacNk , a simple interference is now an ejection, as shown here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AfKTe2EhsQU

So where does it leave us? I honestly think it boils down to a debate of whether we're to be more of referees or babysitters. I tend to think/want my job to be more of judging complete vs incomplete, touchdown vs out of bounds, rather than whether or not a celebration was excessive or telling a kid to watch his language. I want to have as minimal an impact on the outcome as possible. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in his confirmation hearing, "My job is to call balls and strokes, not to pitch or bat. Nobody goes to a ballgame to see the umpire." Just as it should be in the legal world, it should be on the field. But I do feel that we're being asked to take more and more of a cause of the outcome of the game as time goes on.

[scrounge]

If you don't think that hit by Ross on Michigan is targeting, then it's only because you don't want it to be. There's nothing incidental or accidental about it. Now is it flagrant, with an ejection in HS? Maybe, maybe not. But it's so clearly targeting within the context of the college rule - both in letter AND spirit - that I am at a loss to understand what objection you could possibly have to that call. Other than fanboy, that is. These athletes, esp at the D1/Power 5 level, are much bigger and faster. This hit simply HAS to come out of the game. And in many ways it has. The kill shot - like the Roby one from earlier - is disappearing. And good riddance. It's changing behavior for the better.

This rule may be a blunt instrument - but it's one that must be employed. It certainly isn't going away.

[ncaaref1]

Didn't you just get done saying that incidental helmet contact is no longer a foul, because that's what it looks like to me. Calls like that are why I can't figure out for the life of me why you'd want something like that out of the game. The first two I mentioned, absolutely good call. That's where you're looking at breaking your neck or even killing someone. But incidental contact/hit under the chin (which is what I and everybody else in my playing days, which weren't even that long ago were coached to do instead of going for the helmet) that's the gray area I've got a problem with.

Yes, I said that and I see nothing incidental about this play.  The ball is well past the intended receiver, the intended receiver is still looking downfield to see where the ball is going, and the Michigan player uses the crown of his helmet to hit the intended receiver in the head/neck area.  The Michigan player could have easily let up and not hit the receiver at all, but he chose to take a free shot.  This is the type of hit the rules makers (I might remind you that coaches make the rules) want out of the game. 

[BrendanP]

If you don't think that hit by Ross on Michigan is targeting, then it's only because you don't want it to be. There's nothing incidental or accidental about it. Now is it flagrant, with an ejection in HS? Maybe, maybe not. But it's so clearly targeting within the context of the college rule - both in letter AND spirit - that I am at a loss to understand what objection you could possibly have to that call. Other than fanboy, that is. These athletes, esp at the D1/Power 5 level, are much bigger and faster. This hit simply HAS to come out of the game. And in many ways it has. The kill shot - like the Roby one from earlier - is disappearing. And good riddance. It's changing behavior for the better.

This rule may be a blunt instrument - but it's one that must be employed. It certainly isn't going away.

Because simply put, that is not a foul, nor a kill shot. A kill shot is the the examples I gave earlier, where there was clearly excessive intent in a dangerous manner. Anything outside of that should not ever be flagged. None of this "well he just caught the pass so he's defenseless and any contact is targeting" crap should ever be called IMO, and that is the problem I have with the disqualification. How the rules makers can't see that this is ruining the game escapes me. Unless they take some kind of strange pleasure from seeing players ejected over non-violent, non-dangerous tackles, I see no logic in its application or institution. It's gotten so bad that I almost can't watch anymore, especially now that replay can now stop a game and throw a player out when there was no call on the field. Sure they say that's only for egregious situations, but with every rule change like this in the past, you give them an inch and they take not just a mile, but a marathon.

I miss the days when referees weren't tasked with treating grown adults like schoolchildren, wiping touchdowns off the board for high-stepping into the end zone or throwing them out for hitting too hard. Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

[Etref]

Perhaps Brendan you may wish to find another hobby and leave football officiating to those who understand the game and can enforce the rules as provided!


Just my $.02