Radical Sensible Rule Change Proposals

[NVFOA_Ump]

Why not make a single "special enforcement" for B offside on a try down that allowed for enforcement on the K/O?  It could include adding penalty yardage enforcements together if the foul was repeated before a kick actually occurred.  At least B wouldn't be getting "a free one" as they are effectively getting now.  We've always been told that one of the NFHS key reasons for the DB team B offside foul was to minimize all replays of downs where possible and making this a live ball foul would change that.  Also, for a similar reason I would expect that the NFHS would not entertain changing the rule for offside on a free kick.

[bossman72]

Fed doesn't like exceptions to the all-but-one.  So you guys that want offensive fouls enforced from the previous spot, it's probably not going to happen.  To walk you through:

RULE - We have Current All but one
EXCEPTION 1 - Except fouls by the offense behind the LOS are enforced from the previous spot.
EXCEPTION 1.1 - ...except fouls that occur in the end zone.  Those are spot fouls and result in a safety.  [Note: exceptions to exceptions are the actual rule].
EXCEPTION 1.2 - But it's only fouls like OH and CHB.  Illegal batting and illegal kicking and illegal touching are still spot fouls.  You have to memorize all of these.

I actually proposed a change (that didn't get past my state office) where if the run ends behind the NZ, the basic spot is the previous spot.  This would fix defensive fouls when the run ends behind the NZ (DH on a QB sack), but it would not fix offensive fouls occurring behind the LOS.  Those would still be spot fouls.  All but one enforcement remains unchanged.  Ralph Damren seal of approval 


I actually like that the NFHS doesn't let the QB dump the ball OOB to avoid a loss.  Defense made a great play.  Find a receiver or take the sack.

Here are some of the other proposals I came up with (short short version):

1) Airborne players are in bounds or out of bounds depending on where they left the ground from.

2) 12 men participating at the snap changed to 5 yard illegal substitution (because the only difference between 5 and 15 is how fast the officials can count.  That's not right).

3) Editorial change to clarify that the clock goes on the snap... 3-4-3b... "When B or R is awarded a new series and will next snap the ball."  Eliminates confusion of when the ball gets snapped if the down is to be replayed.

4) Kick OOB foul - Editorial change to marry the rule with the case book play - "It is only a foul if the ball becomes out of bounds while on or above out of bounds territory."

5) Clarified for IDP that linemen are allowed 2 yards down field.

6) If you foul while legally spiking the football, the clock goes on the ready.  So if you spike it and have an illegal shift, next play goes on the ready.

7) Totally re-worked the IP rule.  Too much to type here

[bossman72]

Also, now that we have the tack-on rule for kickoffs, I would like to see encroachment, 4 on each side of the kicker, >5 yards deep on a kickoff, and pop up kicks be all live ball fouls.

[ilyazhito]

Why not make a single "special enforcement" for B offside on a try down that allowed for enforcement on the K/O?  It could include adding penalty yardage enforcements together if the foul was repeated before a kick actually occurred.  At least B wouldn't be getting "a free one" as they are effectively getting now.  We've always been told that one of the NFHS key reasons for the DB team B offside foul was to minimize all replays of downs where possible and making this a live ball foul would change that.  Also, for a similar reason I would expect that the NFHS would not entertain changing the rule for offside on a free kick.

How does dead ball offside minimize replays? AFAIK, live-ball offside is a free play for the offense, where they have the potential to either get the 5 yards for the penalty, or decline the penalty if they got more than 5 yards. You have to replay the down anyway if the ball was dead and the 5-yard penalty was enforced.

[PABJNR]

You can’t replay a down that never occurred.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GA Umpire]

You can’t replay a down that never occurred.

 
Seven man Crew.

[NVFOA_Ump]

How does dead ball offside minimize replays? AFAIK, live-ball offside is a free play for the offense, where they have the potential to either get the 5 yards for the penalty, or decline the penalty if they got more than 5 yards. You have to replay the down anyway if the ball was dead and the 5-yard penalty was enforced.

You're not replaying a down on a DB pre-snap/pre-kick foul, the play never ran. 

Part of this year's preseason seminars here in MA included presentations by NFHS "rules gurus" from CT and NY who were clear that one of the reason that NFHS has "so many" DB pre-snap/pre-kick fouls is to minimize replaying downs especially on kicking plays.

[CalhounLJ]

RE: the pop up kick, I’m certain I read this was dead ball to help prevent injury. In fact, it’s the reason the rule was Put in. We don’t allow the play to happen to keep K from clocking the receiver.

Could be the same reasoning behind the 4 on each side of kicker.

 The only other on I can think of is the player lined up too deep which is considered a safety factor as well, so we shut it down.

Encroachment has always been dead ball.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

Could be the same reasoning behind the 4 on each side of kicker.


Correct, which is why they went with that instead of Illegal Formation.

[ilyazhito]

You're not replaying a down on a DB pre-snap/pre-kick foul, the play never ran. 

Part of this year's preseason seminars here in MA included presentations by NFHS "rules gurus" from CT and NY who were clear that one of the reason that NFHS has "so many" DB pre-snap/pre-kick fouls is to minimize replaying downs especially on kicking plays.

You are, because the down number after the penalty is the same as the down number before the penalty (unless the yardage results in a first down), even though the play did not actually run.

[CalhounLJ]

It’s impossible to RE play something that’s never been played. It’s true that the down remains the same because nothing has happened to change the down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

It’s impossible to RE play something that’s never been played. It’s true that the down remains the same because nothing has happened to change the down.

For those times when the WH is micd, the announcement would be “Dead ball, [penalty], down remains [1st, 2nd, etc.].

As opposed to a fouls during a live ball play: “ holding against the offense. 10yd penalty, REPLAY 1st down.” 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brettjr2005]

Don't stop the clock for first downs. Removes the issue about when to start the clock and "slow" crews. I see no reason not to remove it with the new "drop the beanbag" philosophy. You remove any coach complaints about pace and slow crews and you remove the argument about when to start the clock.

[AlUpstateNY]

Don't stop the clock for first downs. Removes the issue about when to start the clock and "slow" crews. I see no reason not to remove it with the new "drop the beanbag" philosophy. You remove any coach complaints about pace and slow crews and you remove the argument about when to start the clock.

Making reasonable, appropriate adjustments in Rules and/or mechanics to help produce more consistent application and reduced "wasted" time is a rational effort, as long as it doesn't produce a negative, or counterproductive, effect on the proper management of the game or create unnecessary confusion or haste.

Reducing playing time, for the pure and sole sake of reducing playing time, without any clear or relevant purpose or objective that offers a specific benefit, seems totally unnecessary and foolish.

[CalhounLJ]

More time = more plays
More plays = increased potential for injury.
Less time = fewer plays
Fewer plays = less potential for injury.
^ = logical and sensible reasoning for shorter game.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ilyazhito]

Don't stop the clock for first downs. Removes the issue about when to start the clock and "slow" crews. I see no reason not to remove it with the new "drop the beanbag" philosophy. You remove any coach complaints about pace and slow crews and you remove the argument about when to start the clock.

Makes total sense to me.

[NVFOA_Ump]

More time = more plays
More plays = increased potential for injury.
Less time = fewer plays
Fewer plays = less potential for injury.
^ = logical and sensible reasoning for shorter game.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Except the correct way to shorten the game is for NFHS to shorten the length of periods.  Not change a mechanic that they have been justifying for years.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Don't stop the clock for first downs. Removes the issue about when to start the clock and "slow" crews. I see no reason not to remove it with the new "drop the beanbag" philosophy. You remove any coach complaints about pace and slow crews and you remove the argument about when to start the clock.

Except by rule there is no "issue" as to when to start the clock following a first down, that's very clear.

[AlUpstateNY]

More time = more plays
More plays = increased potential for injury.
Less time = fewer plays
Fewer plays = less potential for injury.
^ = logical and sensible reasoning for shorter game.

Oh, my bad I didn't realize there was some compelling objective to "shorten the game".  If so, why putz around with nibbles?  Why not simply reduce the game to 3 quarters (or less), or stay at 4 quarters of 6 or 8 minutes.  Considering all the time, effort and probably a lot of serious research effort currently applied to maximizing player safety in the current environment, why not just change the environment, remove all the potentially threatening direct contact and all that laborious effort to teach players how to deal with the challenges they can expect to face.

Maybe we could someday even avoid actually "playing" the game (live) , and convert it to online fantasy.  That would eliminate most (if not all) potential physical threats, and the overall "length of the game" would be a variable option players and spectators (if there might actually be some) could choose for themselves.

Probably wouldn't need to bother with Game Officials as rules and mechanics would likely become optional, or adjustable by the participants, who wouldn't have to be bothered by those pesky maturity, physical condition, experience, different level objectives unique to the level structure (NFHS, NCAA, NFL) currently in place to address the obvious, but annoying, reality that actual physical participation is simply NOT a practical "One size fits all" application.

While we still need actual human game officials at least for the time being, adopting one, universal, absolute Rule code (despite obvious participant talent and experience level requirements) would eliminate the burden, of learning, practicing and executing different "level" accommodations and adjustments developed and applied over the past 100 (or so) years by those game officials who CHOOSE to work at multiple levels, or aspire to advance through the existing multiple, different levels and are willing to put in the time and effort to be competent is adjusting to the different requirements each level feels appropriate for their specific needs.

 

[CalhounLJ]

Lol this is the song that never ends. I give up.

I appreciate all I’ve learned on this site throughout the years, but it has degenerated into an incessant squabble over different opinions about nonessential stuff.

Therefore, I’m out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[prab]

I would like to see 2 rule changes for 2020.  I concede without need for further discussion that one is sensible but not radical and the other one is radical but not sensible.

1.  The in bounds or out of bounds status of an airborne player should be determined by where the player last touched the ground, pylon or goal post.  This could possibly get tied up in semantics since the rule book does not define "in bounds" in the first place.  So right now a player is "out of bounds" or "not out of bounds".  The advantage of this rule change would be to eliminate some IP fouls which would be replaced by a call of incomplete pass.  Disadvantages?  (Bossman has suggested a similar change.)

2.  Return to the 2010 rule that provided for the hash marks to bisect the yard lines.  Advantage would be to have all plays start from the middle of the field.  Disadvantage would require every field in the country (possible exception Texas) to be re marked, including artificial turf fields which have the current markings painted on. 

[VALJ]

Here's a thought: if the FED is so interested in reducing injuries during kick-offs, why not "incentivize" R to signal a fair catch (I know it's already an option) if the kick is caught inside the 25 and snap from the 25  - as is available to collegiate and NFL teams (I think).

I would love to see this rule change. Does anyone think this could "fly"? 

Fair catch goes to the 25 or the spot of the fair catch plus 5?  We already do a "most advantageous spot" decision on a kick OOB, so the same amount of judgement would apply here...

[Ia-Ref]

Why does the clock not start until the snap after an incomplete pass?
After all, it does not stop at all on a running play or completed pass in many instances.
Starting on the ready-to-play seems resonable after an incompleted pass.

[AlUpstateNY]

Why does the clock not start until the snap after an incomplete pass?
After all, it does not stop at all on a running play or completed pass in many instances.
Starting on the ready-to-play seems resonable after an incompleted pass.

I believe the logic involves the potential delay for receives to get back to the next huddle, additional time to get the ball retrieved/replaced and ready for play.

[refjeff]

2.  Return to the 2010 rule that provided for the hash marks to bisect the yard lines.  Advantage would be to have all plays start from the middle of the field. 

  To whom would that give an advantage?