The NFHS Football Questionnaire is available.....

[Ralph Damren]

IF WE ALL AGREED ON EVERYTHING, OUR FORUM WOULD BECOME QUITE BORING...
   

Two proposed rules that I strongly oppose are :
 
 (1) Allowing tackle box parameters for IG.  IMHO, the O/D balance is alive and well in NFHS and allowing the QB to "dump one" to prevent a sack would have an impact on that. At other levels more offense sells more tickets and the QB usually draws the biggest paycheck = team's biggest investment. I don't feel imaging the tackle box would be any more of a challenge than imaging the free blocking zone, as we do today, but do not feel that it is an offensive advantage that we need---oh, by the way, bigger scores = longer games!

 (2) Allowing a spike from the shotgun. When we voted to allow this back in 1995, there was two major concerns : (A) Would the QB spike as a last resort after being unable to spot an open receiver? (B) Would the QB spike after a muffed snap to prevent a sack? We felt we prevented both by requiring the QB to take a clean hand-to hand snap. IMHO, allowing the QB to spike from the shotgun would give him a panoramic view of potential receivers and a potential of a poor snap that could still be fielded cleanly by the QB (pop-up and caught ala Willie Mays) and spiked to prevent a sack.

PS : Tom Brady spikes from a direct snap .

IF TWO MEN AGREE ON EVERYTHING, THEN ONLY ONE IS NEEDED

[FLAHL]

Tom Brady spikes from a direct snap .

"If Tom Brady does it, that's good enough for me" said nobody, ever, outside of NE.   

[AlUpstateNY]

"If Tom Brady does it, that's good enough for me" said nobody, ever, outside of NE.   

The NEXT NE Patriot game I'm assigned to, I'm going to allow Tom Brady to comply, and/or use to his advantage, any and all NFL rules he's entitled to.

Until then, I'm going to focus on whatever the NFHS Rule makers decide is appropriate for Interscholastic (High School and below) football games they provide rule reference for.

Allowing a passer to "dump" a pass, to avoid the consequences of superior defensive play is ACKNOWLEDGED as an adjustment to allow the offense an advantage, that is both unnecessary, and (I would suggest) counterproductive to the balance of the game.

Extending the exception to allow "spiking the ball" to other than a direct snap is a potential cluster**** in that it offers endless variations to argue, down to the gnat's eyelash level, of interpretation differences of the word "immediately".

[scrounge]

Extending the exception to allow "spiking the ball" to other than a direct snap is a potential cluster**** in that it offers endless variations to argue, down to the gnat's eyelash level, of interpretation differences of the word "immediately".

I don't understand this objection in the slightest - we ALREADY have the requirement for immediately, in the current rule. If one were inclined to Zapruder the meaning of "immediately", one could do that right now.

[ALStripes17]

I don't understand this objection in the slightest - we ALREADY have the requirement for immediately, in the current rule. If one were inclined to Zapruder the meaning of "immediately", one could do that right now.

I agree with this. In fact, I've seen more issues arise with how the rule is now due to 16-18 year old QBs running a shotgun only offense. It's an unnecessary penalty IMO.

No way a 3 yard snap gives a 16-18 year old QB enough time to read a defense or anything when they are thinking 'stop the clock, stop the clock, stop the clock.'

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

I agree with this. In fact, I've seen more issues arise with how the rule is now due to 16-18 year old QBs running a shotgun only offense. It's an unnecessary penalty IMO.

No way a 3 yard snap gives a 16-18 year old QB enough time to read a defense or anything when they are thinking 'stop the clock, stop the clock, stop the clock.'

Maybe just me, but I've learned never to underestimate the creative ingenuity of 16-18 year old QBs, or to presume they are going to actually take the time to think about what they might decide to do.  The protocol currently in place, limited to hand to hand snaps, doesn't seem at all broken or in need of even the slightest repair or adjustment.

[jason]

I don't understand this objection in the slightest - we ALREADY have the requirement for immediately, in the current rule. If one were inclined to Zapruder the meaning of "immediately", one could do that right now.

 

[ALStripes17]

The protocol currently in place, limited to hand to hand snaps, doesn't seem at all broken or in need of even the slightest repair or adjustment.

If this was truly the case, then we wouldn't be discussing it. This topic isn't necessarily a 'one vs the world' issue.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[prab]

The protocol currently in place, limited to hand to hand snaps, doesn't seem at all broken or in need of even the slightest repair or adjustment.

+1

[AlUpstateNY]

If this was truly the case, then we wouldn't be discussing it. This topic isn't necessarily a 'one vs the world' issue.

Sometimes, it just might be that "the world" is actually right.

[ALStripes17]

Sometimes, it just might be that "the world" is actually right.

Absolutely. And an unnecessary phrase at this point as 'the world' has shown somewhat of a split here.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[bama_stripes]

Under the current rule exception, if the QB hesitates to see if his TE is open before "clocking" the ball, we flag it.
There's no reason we couldn't do the same thing from a shotgun snap.

Of course, there's also no reason a coach couldn't spend a few minutes of practice time each week to work on the hand-to-hand snap.

[VALJ]

Under the current rule exception, if the QB hesitates to see if his TE is open before "clocking" the ball, we flag it.
There's no reason we couldn't do the same thing from a shotgun snap.

+1. It seems to me that it's just as easy or difficult to determine whether the person receiving the ball "immediately" spikes it in a shotgun as it is hand to hand.  The only difference is how the ball gets back to the QB.