2019 Rule Changes

[BIG DON]

I will put it here so it not buried in another thread

BY STATE ASSOCIATION ADOPTION, USE OF VIDEO REVIEW ALLOWED FOR STATE POST-SEASON CONTESTS [1-3-7 NOTE (NEW), TABLE 1-7 – 1-3-7 NOTE (NEW)]
Rationale: By state association adoption, instant replay may only be used during state postseason contests to review decisions by the on-field game officials. This adoption would allow state associations to develop protocols for use of video replay.

IMPROVED VISIBILITY OF NUMBERS [1-5-1c, 1-5-1c(6) (NEW)]
Rationale: The purpose of numbers on jerseys is to provide clear identification of players. In order to enhance the ability to easily identify players, the committee has clarified the size requirements for jersey numbers through the 2023 season. The committee also added a new requirement that, effective in the 2024 season, jersey numbers must be a single solid color that clearly contrasts with the body color of the jersey.

REDEFINED REQUIREMENTS FOR A LEGAL SCRIMMAGE FORMATION [2-14-1, 7-2-5a]
Rationale: A legal scrimmage formation now requires at least five offensive players on their line of scrimmage with no more than four backs. This change will make it easier to identify legal and illegal offensive formations.

PROHIBITION ON TRIPPING THE RUNNER [2-45, 9-4-3o (NEW), 9-4-3o PENALTY (NEW)]
 Rationale: In an effort to decrease risk, tripping the runner is now prohibited. It is now a foul to intentionally use the lower leg or foot to obstruct a runner below the knees.

40-SECOND PLAY CLOCK [2-35-1, 3-6-1, 3-6-2a, 7-2-1]
Rationale: To have a more consistent time period between downs, the rules committee approved situations where 40 seconds will be placed on the play clock. The new rule defines when 40 seconds will be placed on the play clock and when 25 seconds will be placed on the play clock.

HORSE-COLLAR TACKLE ADDITION [9-4-3k]
Rationale: Grabbing the name plate area of the jersey of the runner, directly below the back collar, and pulling the runner to the ground is now an illegal personal contact foul.

ILLEGAL KICKING AND BATTING PENALTY REDUCED [9-7 PENALTY]
Rationale: The penalty for illegally kicking or batting the ball was reduced from 15 yards to 10 yards.

 

2019 EDITORIAL CHANGES
2-6-2d, 5-2-2, 5-2-4, 6-5-4, 7-2-5a, 8-5-2 EXCEPTION, 9-3-8 PENALTY, 10-4-2c EXCEPTION, 10-5-1j,

2019 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
1.Proper Procedures for Weather Delays
2.Expanded Neutral Zone as it Applies to Run or Pass Options
3.Free-Blocking Zone and Legal Blocking
 

[Kleiny]

Thank you for this!

Regarding the points of emphasis...specifically #2...I just posted a comment/ question that applies.  If you (or anyone) has time or interest to take a stab at it and give me your advice then it would be greatly appreciated!

Kleiny

[ucanfindmj]

It would be nice if the rules committee would apply the rule changes throughout the book in regards to all affected rules.  These past few years have been a nightmare studying as this was not done, nor caught up with in the post rule change years. 

Secondly, simply changing a rule to read that a team must have 5 on the LoS and no more than 4 in the backfield, also changes the number of participants a team may play with if fewer than 11 (which used to be 8, including a back to snap to, now this number is 6.)  Technically, rewriting this rule cleared nothing up and did not make anything easier in identifying legal or illegal formations.  The rules committee tried to fix what was not broken.  However, I would like an example of how it was broken, in their opinion.

Then we run into the situation of having "at least 4 on each side of the kicker for a free kick."  While I understand that this rule is intended to avoid an unbalanced side for an onside kick, it now means that a team cannot continue to participate with fewer than 9 players for its kickoff.  This rule should have been rewritten to say that "at the time of the kick, no more than 6 players may be on either side of the kicker."  Stating it this way, in no way changes how few players a team may participate with, if fewer than 11 as well as keeps one side from being overloaded.  It is obvious that if 6 on one side, there must be a kicker and 4 on the other side of the kicker making 11 and also allows for 5 and 5. 

So, as written, a team may play with 6 (new) until they have to kickoff.  At that point, the game is forfeited.

SMH at the rules committee for the past 3 years.  Seemingly, they have no concept of the game of football, much less how to properly implement rule changes and everything affected by them.  Rules should be black and white, like the shirts we wear.  However, it is easy to get 3 different interpretations out of veteran officials because of the way the rule book is now written.  I am also guessing these guys never had to study these rules for an exam or to go out and actually work a game.  If they had, they would/should know.

Mike

[Magician]

Secondly, simply changing a rule to read that a team must have 5 on the LoS and no more than 4 in the backfield, also changes the number of participants a team may play with if fewer than 11 (which used to be 8, including a back to snap to, now this number is 6.)  Technically, rewriting this rule cleared nothing up and did not make anything easier in identifying legal or illegal formations.  The rules committee tried to fix what was not broken.  However, I would like an example of how it was broken, in their opinion.

If they only have 6 or 8 players we have much bigger issues than formations. I don't think the minimum number of players is or should be a concern of the rules committee. What they fixed here was a situation where a team only sent out 10 players (usually on a scrimmage kick but occasionally on a regular scrimmage play) and the missing player was a lineman (could be a receiver who was supposed to be on the line). They are already playing at a disadvantage because they are short a player, but they also commit a foul for an illegal formation because they didn't have 7 on the line. Most crews counted backs anyway because it's much easier to see them and quicker to count so this rule change was perfectly logical. Trying to turn it into a minimum number of players before forfeiting is digging into weeds that don't need to be touched.

Then we run into the situation of having "at least 4 on each side of the kicker for a free kick."  While I understand that this rule is intended to avoid an unbalanced side for an onside kick, it now means that a team cannot continue to participate with fewer than 9 players for its kickoff.  This rule should have been rewritten to say that "at the time of the kick, no more than 6 players may be on either side of the kicker."  Stating it this way, in no way changes how few players a team may participate with, if fewer than 11 as well as keeps one side from being overloaded.  It is obvious that if 6 on one side, there must be a kicker and 4 on the other side of the kicker making 11 and also allows for 5 and 5. 

Every good crew I've ever talked with will not start a free kick if there aren't exactly 11 players on both sides. If they have fewer than 11 available to play I'm not likely allowing the game to continue unless everyone agrees to continue under somewhat modified rules (i.e. numbering could be an issue depending on what they have left). Again, the important criteria here isn't what is the minimum number of players you can get away playing with.

So, as written, a team may play with 6 (new) until they have to kickoff.  At that point, the game is forfeited.[/quote]

SMH at the rules committee for the past 3 years.  Seemingly, they have no concept of the game of football, much less how to properly implement rule changes and everything affected by them.  Rules should be black and white, like the shirts we wear.  However, it is easy to get 3 different interpretations out of veteran officials because of the way the rule book is now written.  I am also guessing these guys never had to study these rules for an exam or to go out and actually work a game.  If they had, they would/should know.

Mike

It's really easy to be critical of the rules committee, But like us officials on the field, they are human and it's not easy to be perfect. Adding the statement about the minimum of 5 on the line was unnecessary and has created a lot of confusion, but they didn't put it there because they are idiots or were trying to be difficult. They thought it would help clarify and support the rule. They strive to make the rules black and white but that is also impossible.

I hope your post was somewhat satirical and mocking some of the things people post on discussion forums. But if not I hope you take my words as common sense approaches to understanding the rules rather than just knowing the rules. That's what separates really good officials from excellent officials.

[TampaSteve]

in as far as kickoffs, why not let them play with less than 11? - clearly it's preventative have someone on K to verify they have 11, but how do we know a coach has a crazy scheme on a kick where he only wants 9 out there? now if we call attention to it, we and we alone medded up his scheme which is perfectly legal - albeit unusual.

[Magician]

in as far as kickoffs, why not let them play with less than 11? - clearly it's preventative have someone on K to verify they have 11, but how do we know a coach has a crazy scheme on a kick where he only wants 9 out there? now if we call attention to it, we and we alone medded up his scheme which is perfectly legal - albeit unusual.

Go ahead and do that in your games. I've worked a lot of games in my nearly 20 years and nobody has ever intentionally run a kickoff with less than 11 players. This has been pretty good advice given to me by NFL, NCAA and veteran HS officials since I started. I'm going to trust their guidance.

[ucanfindmj]

I appreciate your input, Magician.  Sometimes digging into the weeds of rules is what helps some of us understand them better and why they were written, as well as having a procedure when/if the last or worst case scenario happens that it is backed by the rules.  Those little details, ie, how many players before a game is forfeited, matter.  Absolutely you have other issues to address, but that's what we do.

I can understand that they did not want to continue to have a 5 yd penalty to an offense that is already playing at a disadvantage with 6 on the line and 10 total.  However, our mechanics never allowed for a crew to just count the backfield.  R and U count and confirm 11.  L and LJ count 7 on the line and confirm.  I can tell that you have some doubt yourself on the change and is open for discussion among your peers.  Again, there is a better way and I appreciate you trying to explain that one.  I agree with the rational of why penalize a team that is already at a disadvantage.  We are now discussing that there are 2 people unaccounted for, but must be on the LoS if the offense has 11 or 10 or 9, you know what, it doesn't matter apparently.

Where I come from, even bad crews do not let the Kickoff occur until both teams have 11, so I am glad we share that.

My post was not meant to be satirical, nor was it ever intended to mock anyone, except maybe the process, the details, and I guess myself.  You are correct, nobody's perfect.  I do feel that those in charge of the rules should be able to consider the outcome of even simple changes, that in some cases, affect more than just the simple change made.  I also think that rules CAN be written to be black and white, or at least on a level a 3rd grader could understand.  Sorry we don't share the same vision on that.  I may not be seasoned, or a vet, however, I am passionate about what I do on the field and I like stuff to make sense, and yes, common sense, or some kind of football sense anyway.  Its frustrating and I am venting and you are probably right, I'll never be an excellent official, like yourself.  I'm just happy giving back and that's good enough for me.  Those that know the rules and the meaning behind them have a much easier time using common sense when explaining them however, I'm going to throw a 40 sec play clock in with the 25 sec play clock and mix it up just "to keep a more consistent time period between downs."

[Ralph Damren]

A word about unable to field 11.....

I started doing this in 1969 and have never been involved in a game where a team ran out of players. Once in a sub-varsity game , after a couple of injuries to linesmen, a coach claimed he didn't have any more players that could play line and asked to end the game. The other coach agreed. I would feel that if a team was unable to field 11 in a contact sport like ours, that both the coaches and officials would want to end the game, too.

A word about the new rule......

We didn't invent the wheel on this one, as NCAA has had it for several years. It was reported that nearly 50% of the IF fouls were called on special teams, while less than 10% of the plays involved them. These were usually caused by K only having 10 men on the field - while OL big ole' Bubba was watching the cheerleaders and forgot that he should be out on the field. Playing with 10 certainly didn't give K any advantage. In honor of Teddy Roosevelt's dislike of the flying-wedge, we still shouldn't allow more than 4 players in the backfield - thus, the new rule. If a team was not in a scrimmage kick formation, 5 players on the line would still be needed with numbers between 50-79 - that part didn't change. From an officials perspective, it should be easier to count to 5 than 7, and backs are easier to count than linemen  .

Hope this helps to understand the logic in all of this.

[CalhounLJ]

I agree with the "no more than 4 in the backfield philosophy." We have been using it for years to quickly know if there weren't enough players on the line. Also, we made sure to count 11 before every snap. I have no problem either way. My question for the rulesmakers is this: What is the NCAA rule on this formation? Do they require 5 numbered 50-79? If it is clear, why not simply adopt it? It seems that we are getting closer to NCAA rules every year ( and I have no problem with that either.) My suggestion is that if we are adopting an NCAA rule (such as :40), then adopt it in its entirety. In other words, do it like the NCAA does it. Adopt their mechanics and everything. They have been doing it long enough to have worked the kinks out. When we try to tweak NCAA rules at the HS level, we invariably mess it up.

[bossman72]

However, our mechanics never allowed for a crew to just count the backfield.  R and U count and confirm 11.  L and LJ count 7 on the line and confirm. 

The new rule is easier to officiate.

It's easy to count 4 backs.  Counting linemen can get tricky since they could do the "russian dolls" where the giant tackle completely eclipses the shorter stocky guard and you can't see him.  You also don't have to look at your wing across the field giving 3rd base coach signals and you can concentrate on the LOS.

[Magician]

However, our mechanics never allowed for a crew to just count the backfield.  R and U count and confirm 11.  L and LJ count 7 on the line and confirm.  I can tell that you have some doubt yourself on the change and is open for discussion among your peers.  We are now discussing that there are 2 people unaccounted for, but must be on the LoS if the offense has 11 or 10 or 9, you know what, it doesn't matter apparently.

It was never formally updated in the mechanics manual but it has been the standard way taught around here and many other parts of the country. As others have stated, if you know you have 11 it's much easier to count the 4 backs than to try to determine if there are 7 on the line from the wing position.

Two people aren't unaccounted for. They have to be on the line if they have 10 or 11 players and there are 4 in the backfield. When this rule was changed in the NCAA there was none of this confusion because they didn't add the superfulous language of at least 5 on the line with this rule. It is already accounted for by the next rule stating at least 5 ineligible numbers need to be on the line.

I have no doubt in this rule at all. I just didn't like the confusion created by the extra statement about 5 on the line. But the intent of the rule has been needed for a long time.

My post was not meant to be satirical, nor was it ever intended to mock anyone, except maybe the process, the details, and I guess myself.  You are correct, nobody's perfect.  I do feel that those in charge of the rules should be able to consider the outcome of even simple changes, that in some cases, affect more than just the simple change made.  I also think that rules CAN be written to be black and white, or at least on a level a 3rd grader could understand.  Sorry we don't share the same vision on that.  I may not be seasoned, or a vet, however, I am passionate about what I do on the field and I like stuff to make sense, and yes, common sense, or some kind of football sense anyway.  Its frustrating and I am venting and you are probably right, I'll never be an excellent official, like yourself.  I'm just happy giving back and that's good enough for me.  Those that know the rules and the meaning behind them have a much easier time using common sense when explaining them however, I'm going to throw a 40 sec play clock in with the 25 sec play clock and mix it up just "to keep a more consistent time period between downs."

If you are fairly new I'll pass on advice given to me as I started to gain more experience. Officiate WITH the rule book and not BY the rule book. Officials who are strict rule book officials become someone coaches, players and officials don't want to be around. If you have any interest in advancing to college officiating you will want to adopt this philosophy as well. It's critical to know the rules and know when to apply them. Discussing the minimum number of players needed on each play is fun conversation to have in meeting, discussion forums, and at the bar after a game, but to use it to criticize the rules committee for not knowing how to do their job is taking it way too far IMO.

[ucanfindmj]

CalhounLJ 

The NCAA rule 7-4-3 2018: 

Offensive Team Requirements—At the Snap ARTICLE 4. Violation of each of the following (a-c) is a live-ball foul; the play is allowed to continue.

a. Formation. At the snap Team A must be in a formation that meets these requirements:
1. All players must be inbounds.
2. All players must be either linemen or backs (Rule 2-27-4, A.R. 7-14-VIII).
3. At least five linemen must wear jerseys numbered 50 through 79 (Exception: When the snap is from a scrimmage kick formation, par. 5 below.)
4. No more than four players may be backs.
5. In a scrimmage kick formation at the snap (Rule 2-16-10) Team A may have fewer than five linemen numbered 50-79, subject to the following conditions: (a) Any and all linemen not numbered 50-79 who are ineligible receiver(s) by position become exceptions to the numbering rule when the snapper is established. (b) Any and all such numbering-exception players must be on the line and may not be on the end of the line. Otherwise, Team A commits a foul for an illegal formation.  (c) Any and all such players are exceptions to the numbering rule throughout the down and remain ineligible receivers unless they become eligible under Rule 7-3-5 (forward pass touched by an official or a Team B player). The conditions in 5(a)–5(c) are no longer in effect if prior to the snap a  period ends or there is a timeout charged to the referee or one of the teams.

As the mechanics go now (NFHS of SC), only the U will count 5 lineman and properly numbered.  The L and LJ will count 4 in backfield.  The only indication that this rule is broken would be by flags by both L and LJ simultaneous with the snap.  I do not see a problem with these mechanics, but agree entirely with your statement about adopting NCAA rules and the issues with not doing it, as proven at that level.

[VALJ]

Secondly, simply changing a rule to read that a team must have 5 on the LoS and no more than 4 in the backfield, also changes the number of participants a team may play with if fewer than 11 (which used to be 8, including a back to snap to, now this number is 6.)  Technically, rewriting this rule cleared nothing up and did not make anything easier in identifying legal or illegal formations.  The rules committee tried to fix what was not broken.  However, I would like an example of how it was broken, in their opinion.

The offense has 10 players on the field.  Tubby, number 62, who lines up between the snapper and the tackle, is too bust staring at the homecoming queen, so there are 6 players on the line of scrimmage, and 4 backs.  Despite that, Lefty throws a touchdown to Stretch.

Last year, not only was team A at a disadvantage because of Tubby's hormones, but even though they were playing at a disadvantage to themselves, they lost the TD and suffered a 5 yard penalty from the previous spot on top of it.  This year, Tubby's forgetfulness isn't penalized, and team A gets to keep the results of their play.  Having 6 on the line and 4 backs doesn't benefit them in any way; why should they be penalized when they put themselves at a disadvantage and overcame it anyway?

[VALJ]

in as far as kickoffs, why not let them play with less than 11? - clearly it's preventative have someone on K to verify they have 11, but how do we know a coach has a crazy scheme on a kick where he only wants 9 out there? now if we call attention to it, we and we alone medded up his scheme which is perfectly legal - albeit unusual.

Go ahead and do that in your games. I've worked a lot of games in my nearly 20 years and nobody has ever intentionally run a kickoff with less than 11 players. This has been pretty good advice given to me by NFL, NCAA and veteran HS officials since I started. I'm going to trust their guidance.

"Coach, you've only got 9 out there."
"Mr. Official, we only want 9 out there."
"OK, Coach, you got it."
TWEET!

Problem solved.  Don't make this more complicated than it has to be.

[ucanfindmj]

Magician.  Thanks for calling me out.  Last time I checked, this was a discussion forum.  I appreciate the advice.  So where do I go to be critical of the rules committee?

The offense has 10 players on the field.  Tubby, number 62, who lines up between the snapper and the tackle, is too bust staring at the homecoming queen, so there are 6 players on the line of scrimmage, and 4 backs.  Despite that, Lefty throws a touchdown to Stretch.

Last year, not only was team A at a disadvantage because of Tubby's hormones, but even though they were playing at a disadvantage to themselves, they lost the TD and suffered a 5 yard penalty from the previous spot on top of it.  This year, Tubby's forgetfulness isn't penalized, and team A gets to keep the results of their play.  Having 6 on the line and 4 backs doesn't benefit them in any way; why should they be penalized when they put themselves at a disadvantage and overcame it anyway?

I addressed that in a post further down replying to Magician.  Love the nicknames...

I can understand that they did not want to continue to have a 5 yd penalty to an offense that is already playing at a disadvantage with 6 on the line and 10 total.  However, our mechanics never allowed for a crew to just count the backfield.  R and U count and confirm 11.  L and LJ count 7 on the line and confirm.  I can tell that you have some doubt yourself on the change and is open for discussion among your peers.  Again, there is a better way and I appreciate you trying to explain that one.  I agree with the rational of why penalize a team that is already at a disadvantage.  We are now discussing that there are 2 people unaccounted for, but must be on the LoS if the offense has 11 or 10 or 9, you know what, it doesn't matter apparently.

[Magician]

Magician.  Thanks for calling me out.  Last time I checked, this was a discussion forum.  I appreciate the advice.  So where do I go to be critical of the rules committee?

There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the rules committee and this is an appropriate place to do that. To be critical of them because they didn't consider a change in the minimum number of players required to participate in a play seems a little extreme. Be critical of them adding the superfluous language in the new formation rule. Be critical of them eliminating the auto first down on DPI as a compromise to get rid of the LOD of OPI. Those are things that actually impact the game. Nobody is going to play 11-man football with 6 or 8 players.

[Kalle]

Magician.  Thanks for calling me out.  Last time I checked, this was a discussion forum.  I appreciate the advice.  So where do I go to be critical of the rules committee?

There are also differences of criticality. Calling a respected official and a fellow member of this board as someone who "has no concept of the game of football" crosses the line of critique into personal abuse in my book.

[CalhounLJ]

The offense has 10 players on the field.  Tubby, number 62, who lines up between the snapper and the tackle, is too bust staring at the homecoming queen, so there are 6 players on the line of scrimmage, and 4 backs.  Despite that, Lefty throws a touchdown to Stretch.

Last year, not only was team A at a disadvantage because of Tubby's hormones, but even though they were playing at a disadvantage to themselves, they lost the TD and suffered a 5 yard penalty from the previous spot on top of it.  This year, Tubby's forgetfulness isn't penalized, and team A gets to keep the results of their play.  Having 6 on the line and 4 backs doesn't benefit them in any way; why should they be penalized when they put themselves at a disadvantage and overcame it anyway?

Well, technically this is still a foul under the new rule, assuming Tubby is one of the five players numbered 50-79. If he's off the line at the snap, Team A didn't have 5 on the line numbered correctly.

[ucanfindmj]

There are also differences of criticality. Calling a respected official and a fellow member of this board as someone who "has no concept of the game of football" crosses the line of critique into personal abuse in my book.

This board...  Does that mean you are on it?  And who is this respected official to which you refer?  If there is a respected official on the rules committee, I lost respect to him 3 years ago.  My quote was "seemingly has no concept of the game of football."  I'm going to stick behind it, and would like to add, concept of the English language.  Use it as constructive criticism and do better.  Personal abuse...laughable.  I hope you are not on the board.  If you feel personally abused, you do not belong there.

[ucanfindmj]

There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the rules committee and this is an appropriate place to do that. To be critical of them because they didn't consider a change in the minimum number of players required to participate in a play seems a little extreme. Be critical of them adding the superfluous language in the new formation rule. Be critical of them eliminating the auto first down on DPI as a compromise to get rid of the LOD of OPI. Those are things that actually impact the game. Nobody is going to play 11-man football with 6 or 8 players.

Welcome to the conversation.  I am critical of those things as well.  Don't get so hung up on the fact that no one can tell me when to forfeit a game based on the number of offensive players.  I only brought it up the once, yet you continue to harp on that I had that question.  Also, it is kind of hard to listen when you speak from so high up on the pedestal. 

[Kalle]

I'm going to stick behind it, and would like to add, concept of the English language.  Use it as constructive criticism and do better.

Sorry, English is my second language and I often do make mistakes. I do try to get better, though

FWIW, I'm not an NFHS official nor connected in any way with the NFHS (or NCAA) rules committee.

[ucanfindmj]

Sorry, English is my second language and I often do make mistakes. I do try to get better, though

FWIW, I'm not an NFHS official nor connected in any way with the NFHS (or NCAA) rules committee.

I apologize if you felt I was criticizing you personally on the use of the English language.  I was referring to the NFHS specifically in regards to Rule 9-4-3i NOTE:  Illegal helmet contact may be judged by the game official a flagrant act... 

When asked the question on the NFHS exam, "Illegal helmet contact may not be judged by the game official a flagrant act."  According to the powers that be, this is a false statement.  In actuality, both are true.  As in, if I may do something, it is also permitted that I may not do something.

"If the statement, 'An official may not judge illegal helmet contact to be flagrant,' and this is False, then all illegal helmet contact must always be ruled flagrant."  That is from a 3rd grade English teacher...

That is what I meant by concept of the English language and not directed toward you.

I have been accused of not using or needing to use common sense and would like to say that I am just subject to the rules as they are written and put in place by the powers that be.  I did not eject a single player for illegal helmet contact this past season as none were judged to be flagrant. 

[HLinNC]

Sustitute "can" for may in this instance.  It is best to read NFHS exam questions in the context of what is being asked at the moment, not in the realm of the possible.  And you may still be wrong.  They've been known to toss out questions after the exams are all in.

[blandis]

The way I see this rule is the old "no man's land" verbiage is done away with. If a player is clearly not a back then he must be on the LOS. It does away with the Illegal Formation calls for a "6-man line" because a goofy-minded Split End could not figure out how to stand on the LOS and would put himself in a position that was neither on the LOS or behind the waistline of the snapper. That is, of course, with 11-players on offense. Now, let's say there are less than 11-offensive players. If there are 10-players with 6 on the LOS and 4 in the back field this is now a legal formation. 9-players? 5 on the LOS and 4 in the backfield is now a legal formation. This goes against over 100-years of football rules and will take some getting used to.

[Magician]

The way I see this rule is the old "no man's land" verbiage is done away with. If a player is clearly not a back then he must be on the LOS. It does away with the Illegal Formation calls for a "6-man line" because a goofy-minded Split End could not figure out how to stand on the LOS and would put himself in a position that was neither on the LOS or behind the waistline of the snapper. That is, of course, with 11-players on offense. Now, let's say there are less than 11-offensive players. If there are 10-players with 6 on the LOS and 4 in the back field this is now a legal formation. 9-players? 5 on the LOS and 4 in the backfield is now a legal formation. This goes against over 100-years of football rules and will take some getting used to.

Incorrect. Being in no-man's land is still technically a foul for illegal formation. And it will be called just as often (almost never). Again, you are being confused by the language added unnecessarily to the new rule. The next bullet already requires at least 5 linemen because you need 5 ineligible numbers on the line. They were just reinforcing that, but it's created the confusion like you.

This actually matches up with how I've been taught and taught others the last 20 years. It just removes having to flag it if they only have 10 players and the missing player is a lineman. That is all this does. It's nothing more than that and not a major change to the game of football. It was a common sense update to match what most of the crews were already doing.