Author Topic: 2016 Rules Changes  (Read 17543 times)

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 659
  • FAN REACTION: +41/-7
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #50 on: February 29, 2016, 10:14:19 AM »
The rope is getting short.

Put us out of our misery Rulesman.  Rants are becoming both excessive and unnecessary.

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

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3835
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-238
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #51 on: February 29, 2016, 10:18:51 AM »
I'm in a good mood today. But like I said yesterday, the rope is getting short. I really don't want to lock a thread for a topic that essentially won't occur for roughly another 6 months.
"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: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #52 on: February 29, 2016, 10:43:29 AM »
When I first saw the 2016 rules changes, I predicted that this would be the shortest Rules Changes thread on record. Boy, was I wrong.

No, your prediction was solid.

Some seem to misunderstand that this is a "forum", where expressing different impressions and understanding is the objective, with the intent being we all might benefit from different perspectives.  There are some "absolutes" but we all operate in different environments and "one size ABSOLUTELY fits all" is by far the exception than the rule.

We can share our differences, assess them and decide for ourselves which, or not, may be an approach we'd like to consider and possibly try.  When a suggestion is challenged, hopefully the following dialogue to resolve differences will expose improvements everyone can benefit from.  If not, "no harm no foul", as sometimes even great ideas, in one circumstance, simply don't fit in others.

Of course, something you don't agree with and have no interest in discussing can always be simply ignored and passed by.  When a challenge is rejected, there is no good reason (or benefit) in acting like a spoiled child throwing an angry tantrum, because the point being made wasn't received as being as viable and worthwhile as assumed.

Only those few, if any, who have already achieved perfection have earned the right to lecture, the rest of us have to muddle along accepting what advice and help we can get from, and give to,  each other discussing ways we think can improve our efforts in chasing, the ever elusive perfection we understand we'll never catch.

When even the greatest idea, or suggestion, is not received as universally well as anticipated, it's usually a far better idea to review just how well (or not) it was delivered, rather than assume there was something lacking in EVERYONE who received it less enthusiastically than expected. Sharing ideas and advice is what a forum is all about, and challenges should be anticipated, which hopefully can be backed-up or explained.  Resorting to hiding behind childish insults and outbursts, rarely does anything to advance the suggestion, more often just making the author look foolish.


Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2466
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #53 on: February 29, 2016, 12:10:56 PM »
We have yet to banter around the allowance of SFIA to enter that hallowed circle where NOCSAE had been the lone occupier since last century. Will this unravel the very seam that enables our beloved football to accept and contain oxygen of our earth??? Opinions anyone.....

 :) P_S ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8] ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( >:D z^ ^flag ^good ^no ^talk ^TD :thumbup :bOW :!#

Offline LAZebra

  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-1
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #54 on: February 29, 2016, 12:25:00 PM »
We have yet to banter around the allowance of SFIA to enter that hallowed circle where NOCSAE had been the lone occupier since last century. Will this unravel the very seam that enables our beloved football to accept and contain oxygen of our earth??? Opinions anyone.....

 :) P_S ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8] ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( >:D z^ ^flag ^good ^no ^talk ^TD :thumbup :bOW :!#

I make the assumption that SFIA, by some means, was able to demonstrate/convince the NFHS that they have equal expertise and/or standing with NOCSAE to certify the equipment in question.

The means might be interesting to know! (legal action, bribery, threats and intimidation???) ;)
None of these fans paid to see us

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 285
  • FAN REACTION: +57/-37
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #55 on: February 29, 2016, 07:01:42 PM »
No, your prediction was solid.

Some seem to misunderstand that this is a "forum", where expressing different impressions and understanding is the objective, with the intent being we all might benefit from different perspectives.  There are some "absolutes" but we all operate in different environments and "one size ABSOLUTELY fits all" is by far the exception than the rule.

We can share our differences, assess them and decide for ourselves which, or not, may be an approach we'd like to consider and possibly try.  When a suggestion is challenged, hopefully the following dialogue to resolve differences will expose improvements everyone can benefit from.  If not, "no harm no foul", as sometimes even great ideas, in one circumstance, simply don't fit in others.

Of course, something you don't agree with and have no interest in discussing can always be simply ignored and passed by.  When a challenge is rejected, there is no good reason (or benefit) in acting like a spoiled child throwing an angry tantrum, because the point being made wasn't received as being as viable and worthwhile as assumed.

Only those few, if any, who have already achieved perfection have earned the right to lecture, the rest of us have to muddle along accepting what advice and help we can get from, and give to,  each other discussing ways we think can improve our efforts in chasing, the ever elusive perfection we understand we'll never catch.

When even the greatest idea, or suggestion, is not received as universally well as anticipated, it's usually a far better idea to review just how well (or not) it was delivered, rather than assume there was something lacking in EVERYONE who received it less enthusiastically than expected. Sharing ideas and advice is what a forum is all about, and challenges should be anticipated, which hopefully can be backed-up or explained.  Resorting to hiding behind childish insults and outbursts, rarely does anything to advance the suggestion, more often just making the author look foolish.

 ??? Huh??? ???
« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 10:38:34 PM by KWH »

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 285
  • FAN REACTION: +57/-37
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #56 on: February 29, 2016, 10:49:33 PM »
We have yet to banter around the allowance of SFIA to enter that hallowed circle where NOCSAE had been the lone occupier since last century. Will this unravel the very seam that enables our beloved football to accept and contain oxygen of our earth??? Opinions anyone.....

Ralph -
I'll give it a go! How about this for a 2016 test question?
Q -Who approves for play gloves that are made of unaltered plain cloth?  1-5-2b

a) NOCSAE
b) SFIA
c) Both NOCSAE and SFIA
d) Albert the nail guy down at the hardware store
e) Coach Joe (Atlanta Blue)
f) None of the above
g) All of the above

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2466
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #57 on: March 01, 2016, 07:45:41 AM »
I make the assumption that SFIA, by some means, was able to demonstrate/convince the NFHS that they have equal expertise and/or standing with NOCSAE to certify the equipment in question.

The means might be interesting to know! (legal action, bribery, threats and intimidation???) ;)
Simply the Great American FlAg1 Free Enterprize System. SFIA proved to be as good as NOCSAE, so they can play ,too. Looking for a convenient way of remembering, consider these :

   (1) See Football In August;
   (2) With #4 lead pencil, print SFIA to the under brim of your cap;
   (3) Have U add FIA to his  sNiCkErS;

Being the most creative mammals on the planet, others may have developed other means...... tiphat:
« Last Edit: March 01, 2016, 12:00:40 PM by Ralph Damren »

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2466
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #58 on: March 01, 2016, 08:35:54 AM »
Ralph -
I'll give it a go! How about this for a 2016 test question?
Q -Who approves for play gloves that are made of unaltered plain cloth?  1-5-2b

a) NOCSAE
b) SFIA
c) Both NOCSAE and SFIA
d) Albert the nail guy down at the hardware store
e) Coach Joe (Atlanta Blue)
f) None of the above
g) All of the above
a fine exam question, KWH. My concern is the current official NFHS exam format allows for up to 5 choices, so an exception would have to be provided. As we all know, NFHS doesn't like exceptions.

To add support to the unaltered plain cloth rule (1-5-2b), may I suggest the following case .....

1.5.2 SITUATION C: Bubba, a slightly confused :!# offensive tackle, has elected to wrap unused diapers - made of unaltered plain cloth - to both hands. The diapers are secured by : (A) paper clips; (B) staples; (C) thumb tacks; (D) an adhesive flap attached to the diaper. RULING : (A),(B), and (C) would be illegal as the concern of Bubba injuring himself, his teammates, the opponents, or punishing the football would be present. As long as adhesive portion is not positioned to contact the ball (D) would be legal.
COMMENT : While the wearing of diapers on ones hands could be could be considered out of fashion by many, it could be appealing to the fairer sect ..IE...prom queen..as an indication that he is ready to become a daddy. ;)

SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ONLY PASS THREE RULES!!

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1161
  • FAN REACTION: +52/-21
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #59 on: March 01, 2016, 08:58:06 AM »
Guys, don't feed the bears.  You know better...

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #60 on: March 01, 2016, 09:30:21 AM »
So what will we all do when the SFIA and NOCSAE disagree? :o

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #61 on: March 01, 2016, 09:57:09 AM »
SFIA used to be the SGMA (Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association).  When I worked for Russell (Russell Athletic, Spalding, Brooks Running, Bike, et al), I was our company's rep to the association.

We worked closely with the NFHS on uniform design, safety equipment, etc, in many sports.  SGMA approved gloves for years.  This is nothing but a name change.  The SGMA (now the SFIA) is a major supporter of NOCSAE.  The two SFIA reps to NOCSAE Board of Directors are the Board's VP and Secretary.

There is no "competition" between the two.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2016, 09:59:26 AM by Atlanta Blue »

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3270
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-472
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #62 on: March 01, 2016, 10:40:37 AM »
??? Huh??? ???

Only because you asked, I'll summarize; Unless the white hat, you may be wearing, is a miter, your observations and opinions do not qualify as dogma, get over yourself. 
« Last Edit: March 01, 2016, 10:43:05 AM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline LAZebra

  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-1
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #63 on: March 01, 2016, 11:46:45 AM »
Simply the Great American FlAg1 Free Enterprize System. SFIA proved to be as good as NOCSAE, so they can play ,too. Looking for a convenient way of remembering, consider these :

   (1) See Football In Fall;
   (2) With #4 lead pencil, print SFIA to the under brim of your cap;
   (3) Have U add FIA to his  sNiCkErS;

Being the most creative mammals on the planet, others may have developed other means...... tiphat:

Good ideas, Ralph!  But all I need to remember is, "Coach, are all of your players legally equipped and will they wear all of their equipment according to NFHS and AHSAA rules?"
None of these fans paid to see us

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 285
  • FAN REACTION: +57/-37
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #64 on: March 01, 2016, 02:31:46 PM »
So what will we all do when the SFIA and NOCSAE disagree? :o

I believe there is a case book play to cover that situation.
It requires the player to only wear 1 glove.

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 285
  • FAN REACTION: +57/-37
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #65 on: March 01, 2016, 02:37:28 PM »
Guys, don't feed the bears.  You know better...

Yep - Guilty again.  hEaDbAnG

Offline sir55

  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • FAN REACTION: +10/-3
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #66 on: March 03, 2016, 06:33:50 PM »

Ralph, I'm guessing that means you don't feel well, so you will sit on the porch with an adult beverage and just stare at nothing and wait to feel better. By the way, I finally made a trip to Maine, over in Rockport, had lobster 3 times a day. I was told that they could tell I was not from Maine because I was the only one eating the lobsters. I think the accent probably gave them a hint as well. Big change from Louisiana.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2466
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #67 on: March 04, 2016, 08:09:04 AM »
Ralph, I'm guessing that means you don't feel well, so you will sit on the porch with an adult beverage and just stare at nothing and wait to feel better. By the way, I finally made a trip to Maine, over in Rockport, had lobster 3 times a day. I was told that they could tell I was not from Maine because I was the only one eating the lobsters. I think the accent probably gave them a hint as well. Big change from Louisiana.
Very good, sir55, the statement was purely for illustrative purposes and not a suggestion as to my health/habits. In a previous life you may have been a Mainer ,too :). Rockport = Samoset Inn = beautiful spot. Lobster muffin > lobster roll > lobster plate....strictly for tourists ;). Diet of average Mainer = 'burgers &  blueberries. eAt&

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #68 on: March 04, 2016, 08:30:08 AM »
Quote
I was told that they could tell I was not from Maine because I was the only one eating the lobsters. I think the accent probably gave them a hint as well. Big change from Louisiana.

Just a bigger crawfish eAt&

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #69 on: March 04, 2016, 08:39:05 AM »
One of the best vacations my wife and I ever took was up to Bar Harbor/Mt Desert Island.  Went the week after Labor Day, and all the Boston summer vacationers had gone home for the fall.  Stayed at a B&B and had the place to ourselves.  Of course we had one lobster dinner, had to do it, but I'll bet I had blueberries in some way, shape or form about a dozen times that week.  Went sailing, climbed Cadillac Mountain (I was younger and had two working knees then).  Great country when you get rid of all of the tourists!

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2466
  • FAN REACTION: +294/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #70 on: March 04, 2016, 09:21:48 AM »
One of the best vacations my wife and I ever took was up to Bar Harbor/Mt Desert Island.  Went the week after Labor Day, and all the Boston summer vacationers had gone home for the fall.  Stayed at a B&B and had the place to ourselves.  Of course we had one lobster dinner, had to do it, but I'll bet I had blueberries in some way, shape or form about a dozen times that week.  Went sailing, climbed Cadillac Mountain (I was younger and had two working knees then).  Great country when you get rid of all of the tourists!
Glad to hear of your enjoyment on your journey to our proud state. If you came via Route One, you would have missed our summer cottage by 8 miles. If any of you plan a journey to Maine, PM me and we'll try to meet. Over the years I have learned........

  You have to fight a boiled lobster to eat one.....

  Lobster pie doesn't require a fight and is tastier .....

  Many tourists are from Massachusetts.......

  Many Mainers call them "Massholes.......

                       eAt& eAt& tiphat: eAt& eAt&

Offline Welpe

  • *
  • Posts: 1849
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-11
2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #71 on: March 05, 2016, 01:29:10 AM »

When I first saw the 2016 rules changes, I predicted that this would be the shortest Rules Changes thread on record.

Boy, was I wrong.

I thought that once in a discussion in another football forum about the meaning of "is touching". By the end, that thread needed a two drink minimum to be comprehensible.

Offline SouthGARef

  • *
  • Posts: 239
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-13
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #72 on: July 25, 2016, 09:35:19 AM »
Some proposals that came close and I'm sure that we'll see again :

(3) Removing face guarding from PI -- more than 1/3 felt our rule was fair; less than 2/3 felt it wasn't.

Just attended the GHSA Officiating camp this past weekend where we were notified that the GHSA is instructing officials that face guarding will no longer be considered a category of pass interference. All fouls must now involve contact.

They also asked that if any official has a play in which they feel like DPI for Face Guarding would have been called prior to this change they are to fill out a report and send it in to the state so they may review, preferably with film.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #73 on: July 25, 2016, 09:48:55 AM »
Just attended the GHSA Officiating camp this past weekend where we were notified that the GHSA is instructing officials that face guarding will no longer be considered a category of pass interference. All fouls must now involve contact.

They also asked that if any official has a play in which they feel like DPI for Face Guarding would have been called prior to this change they are to fill out a report and send it in to the state so they may review, preferably with film.
Correct, Georgia is an "experimental state" on eliminating face guarding as a foul.

But when was the last time you actually called it?  I don't expect many/any of those reports to be filed with the GHSA.

Offline SouthGARef

  • *
  • Posts: 239
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-13
Re: 2016 Rules Changes
« Reply #74 on: July 25, 2016, 10:10:04 AM »
Correct, Georgia is an "experimental state" on eliminating face guarding as a foul.

But when was the last time you actually called it?  I don't expect many/any of those reports to be filed with the GHSA.

Think that's sorta the point of why their wanting reports sent in - so that they can show that it never really happens. I think in my eight years as a deep official I've called it once.