Author Topic: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION  (Read 1354 times)

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1217
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« on: March 10, 2018, 02:42:06 PM »
Musings about this rule change (the rationale for which I love):

1.  Has there been a change in the penalty for K being off-sides on the kick-off to a live ball foul (a la NCAA)?  The announcement doesn't specify only (currently classified) live ball fouls...

2.  If not, why not?  Even if the play is "killed" as a DBF, there still are occasions when significant contact could occur in the NZ.  Then, there is the whole line 'em up all over again thing

3.  Was the change to a live ball status for this particular foul even considered by the Committee (Ralph)?
     

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-487
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2018, 09:31:21 PM »
Ths stated "RATIONALE" for revising NFHS 6-1-9b is "an effort to reduce re-kicks", by allowing the team offended by Live-ball fouls to elect a distance penalty at the end of the down.   Currently, DBF in Free kicks, immediately kill the play and eliminate further action on FK plays, ELIMINATING there being any unnecessary FK action to begin with. 

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1217
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2018, 10:42:06 AM »
Thanks for stating the OBVIOUS Al. pi1eOn hEaDbAnG

As I said, there is still the chance of substantial contact inside the NZ even after the whistle blows - especially on on-side or "pooch" kicks.  So why not change it?  Changing it to a live ball foul gives R another, and perhaps more advantageous, option.

Change is not necessarily a "bad thing"...I'd like to know about the Committee's thought process involved in this one.   

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 313
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-39
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2018, 12:18:57 PM »
From the 2017 and 2018 NFHS Handbook...

1976 - NFHS Eliminated "Offside" during any scrimmage down.
1977 - NFHS Eliminated "Offside" during free kicks.

That's 40 years without the word "Offside" appearing in the NFHS Rules Book!
So if K or R steps into the neutral zone before the ball is kicked, its remains a dead ball Encroachment foul. So, Blow your whistle, throw your flag, and shut it down!  ^flag

The "Tack-on" option exists only for any live ball foul by K
« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 01:25:58 PM by KWH »

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-487
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2018, 12:51:44 PM »
Thanks for stating the OBVIOUS Al. pi1eOn hEaDbAnG

As I said, there is still the chance of substantial contact inside the NZ even after the whistle blows - especially on on-side or "pooch" kicks.  So why not change it? 

Didn't mean to sound OBVIOUS, , but if , "substantial contact inside the NZ (can happen) even after the whistle blows", the problem is much more likely either with how (and when) the whistle is being blown, or what's being allowed to happen after it's sounded.

Although, as KWH, reminds us it's, "40 years without the word "Offside" appearing in the NFHS Rules Book", you can still hear fading echoes of it on most sidelines through today.  Some things just take longer to sink in than expacted.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 12:57:03 PM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1217
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2018, 01:28:43 PM »
From the NFHS Handbook

1976 - NFHS Eliminated "Offside" during any scrimmage down.
1977 - NFHS Eliminated "Offside" during free kicks.

That's 40 years without the word "Offside" appearing in the NFHS Rules Book!
So if K or R steps into the neutral zone before the ball is kicked, its remains a dead ball Encroachment foul. So, Blow your whistle, throw your flag, and shut it down!  ^flag

The "Tack-on" option only exists for any live ball foul by K

Just because it's been there for 40 years, doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be changed.  Just like the game, many other "old" rules have been changed to better the game (which I believe this could do)...[/color

Didn't mean to sound OBVIOUS, , but if , "substantial contact inside the NZ (can happen) even after the whistle blows", the problem is much more likely either with how (and when) the whistle is being blown, or what's being allowed to happen after it's sounded.

Although, as KWH, reminds us it's, "40 years without the word "Offside" appearing in the NFHS Rules Book", you can still hear fading echoes of it on most sidelines through today.  Some things just take longer to sink in than expacted.

Agreed; but it doesn't mean we should remain "inflexible".

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 437
  • FAN REACTION: +11/-18
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2018, 01:50:28 PM »
Didn't mean to sound OBVIOUS, , but if , "substantial contact inside the NZ (can happen) even after the whistle blows", the problem is much more likely either with how (and when) the whistle is being blown, or what's being allowed to happen after it's sounded.

Although, as KWH, reminds us it's, "40 years without the word "Offside" appearing in the NFHS Rules Book", you can still hear fading echoes of it on most sidelines through today.  Some things just take longer to sink in than expacted.
I think some of that confusion is because the term is still active in college and pro.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1222
  • FAN REACTION: +62/-22
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2018, 04:24:47 PM »
Musings about this rule change (the rationale for which I love):

1.  Has there been a change in the penalty for K being off-sides on the kick-off to a live ball foul (a la NCAA)?  The announcement doesn't specify only (currently classified) live ball fouls...

2.  If not, why not?  Even if the play is "killed" as a DBF, there still are occasions when significant contact could occur in the NZ.  Then, there is the whole line 'em up all over again thing

3.  Was the change to a live ball status for this particular foul even considered by the Committee (Ralph)?
     

Encroachment is always shut down.  I think they have it that way for consistency.

The one they should change to live-ball is the 4 on each side of the kicker foul, because you could technically correct that before the kick (like an illegal formation on a scrimmage play).

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 437
  • FAN REACTION: +11/-18
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2018, 07:23:32 AM »
I agree. As it stands, it more closely resembles a foul simultaneous with the snap. With the new rule this year it could be added to the tack on penalties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-487
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2018, 08:07:49 AM »
I would suggest the clear and repeated objective is to AVOID unnecessary repeat Free Kicks, in any shape or form.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2561
  • FAN REACTION: +315/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2018, 08:26:33 AM »
In 1976, when encroachment came and offside went on scrimmage downs, I - being a wide-eved :o wingman - was happy. No more did we have to decide if Bubba's (B) tap-dance into the neutral zone caused Tugboat (A) to flinch :-\ .

In 1977, when encroachment came and offside went on free-kicks, I just nodded  ::) and moved on.

I like being happy, so I'd be opposed to a change on scrimmage downs.
I like doing away with re-kicks, which really occurs when the kick becomes a dead ball as contact may occur.

In 2019, I would nod and move on if offside came back on free kicks.

Offline TampaSteve

  • *
  • Posts: 1281
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-10
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2018, 01:27:06 PM »
another 'yes' vote to doing away with re-kicking a free kick.

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 313
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-39
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2018, 04:51:33 PM »
Just because it's been there for 40 years, doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be changed.  Just like the game, many other "old" rules have been changed to better the game (which I believe this could do)...

If you feel that way then I would encourage you to submit a NFHS rule change proposal thru your state office.
To be considered by the rules committee next January your proposal will need to be submitted on their NFHS form, written as a rule,  along with your rationale. 
It will need to be sent to your state office after April 1, 2018 and needs to be approved, and forwarded to the NFHS office prior to Nov 1, 2018.
You should be able to find the form on the NFHS site. But if you cant find it PM me and Ill send you one.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 06:01:46 PM by KWH »

Offline skip1

  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-1
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #13 on: March 22, 2018, 10:24:34 AM »
If K holds during a scrimmage kick at the line of scrimmage would one of R's choices be a tack on at the end of R's run?

Offline Sumstine

  • *
  • Posts: 384
  • FAN REACTION: +58/-9
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2018, 12:04:56 PM »
Hopefully this will open discussion for all fouls on free kicks to be live and enforcement options provided to the offended team. This would prevent having to reset for kicks and having to shut down for the 5 yard belt, 4x4, pop up and minor encroachment fouls.

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1222
  • FAN REACTION: +62/-22
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2018, 12:13:24 PM »
If K holds during a scrimmage kick at the line of scrimmage would one of R's choices be a tack on at the end of R's run?

Yes.  You get to:

1) Enforce it like it was 2017, or
2) Tack it on to the end of the run, as long as the ball belongs to R.

Offline skip1

  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-1
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2018, 01:31:49 PM »
Same foul by K and a PSK foul by R. Does R have to decline K's foul to keep the ball just like last year.

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1222
  • FAN REACTION: +62/-22
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2018, 03:37:03 PM »
Same foul by K and a PSK foul by R. Does R have to decline K's foul to keep the ball just like last year.

Yes.

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 313
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-39
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2018, 01:40:55 PM »
Yes.  You get to:

1) Enforce it like it was 2017, or
2) Tack it on to the end of the run succeeding spot, as long as the ball belongs to R is next to put the ball in play.

While some would argue Bossman and I are saying the same thing,
I believe the NFHS will be wording it this way to clarify the intent.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 02:42:44 PM by KWH »

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2561
  • FAN REACTION: +315/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2018 RULES CHANGE - TACK ON PENALTY OPTION
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2018, 09:09:20 AM »
While some would argue Bossman and I are saying the same thing,
I believe the NFHS will be wording it this way to clarify the intent.
I would agree with the author of outlawing the Oregonian flea-flicker on this. The words "..belongs to.." could be confusing to some that were English professors in previous lives. Assuming that K was kicking with their own ball would indicate that even if R gains possession of the ball, it still belongs to K's sideline and they can take it home after the game.