Author Topic: NFHS Football Survey  (Read 953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GA Umpire

  • *
  • Posts: 209
  • FAN REACTION: +15/-0
NFHS Football Survey
« on: November 26, 2019, 09:47:37 PM »
Has the link to the NFHS Football Survey been published?    ???

If so, can someone post it here.


Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2499
  • FAN REACTION: +75/-13
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2019, 08:22:54 AM »
not yet

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 3185
  • FAN REACTION: +386/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2019, 09:08:27 AM »
I've asked...they haven't answered.

Offline ilyazhito

  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-7
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2019, 09:39:17 AM »
According to the website, it should be open now. http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/nfhs-sport-questionnaires/

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 3185
  • FAN REACTION: +386/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2019, 11:03:27 AM »
According to the website, it should be open now. http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/nfhs-sport-questionnaires/
Just tried....push "football" .....got questionnaire ....answered questions GO FOR IT, GANG, MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT.  tiphat:

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 765
  • FAN REACTION: +39/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2019, 12:54:24 PM »
Just tried....push "football" .....got questionnaire ....answered questions GO FOR IT, GANG, MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT.  tiphat:

I voted!

Although, there needs to be a "Heck no!" option because it doesn't record exactly how hard I clicked "No" for some of those options.

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2338
  • FAN REACTION: +84/-12
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2019, 10:28:29 AM »
I voted!

Although, there needs to be a "Heck no!" option because it doesn't record exactly how hard I clicked "No" for some of those options.

Or, the converse, "God, yes, PLEASE do that already!"

Offline SCHSref

  • *
  • Posts: 318
  • FAN REACTION: +10/-9
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2019, 03:36:42 PM »
Isn't the free blocking zone eliminated when the ball is snapped in the shotgun formation?
If you didn't see it, you can't call it

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2437
  • FAN REACTION: +78/-25
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2019, 04:03:21 PM »
Isn't the free blocking zone eliminated when the ball is snapped in the shotgun formation?

I’m guessing they’re considering prohibiting any BBW if there’s no QB under center.  As it is now, we allow BBW if it’s done immediately after the snap, regardless of the actual position of the ball.

FWIW, I voted “No”.

Offline d0d0joe

  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2019, 06:34:21 AM »
Isn't the free blocking zone eliminated when the ball is snapped in the shotgun formation?
I believe that is the issue that the survey is getting at. Different states are enforcing it differently. Florida (at least my area in Florida) considers the Free Blocking Zone to be in tact at the snap in a shotgun formation. So, any block that would be legal in the FBZ is legal if done immediately at the snap. First move only. So an O-Lineman can at the snap block a D-Lineman low, but he can't come up out of his stance and then block low. The hesitation will make it illegal...

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3274
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-109
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2019, 07:55:41 AM »
I’m guessing they’re considering prohibiting any BBW if there’s no QB under center.  As it is now, we allow BBW if it’s done immediately after the snap, regardless of the actual position of the ball.

FWIW, I voted “No”.

I believe that is the issue.  We have noticed during video reviews this season where we have stop action capability on high resolution video that when the QB is in shotgun formation the ball is clearly out of the zone in almost all cases before the linemen even move.  Technically, that would make the low block illegal.  That being said, we have also been given written guidance that when the lineman is in a 3 or 4-point stance (at least 1 hand must be on the ground), and his 1st move is to immediately go low, that the block shall be considered legal.  That seems clear except that most defenses are lined up in some version of a gap alignment which means that typically the team A lineman takes a quick slide step left or right then goes low. Is that "immediate"?  Not sure.

It would be nice if NFHS could clarify this directly in the rule book or the case book to eliminate the need for an "off the books" interpretation on how to officiate this.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline riffraft

  • *
  • Posts: 213
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-13
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2019, 08:22:35 AM »
I believe that is the issue that the survey is getting at. Different states are enforcing it differently. Florida (at least my area in Florida) considers the Free Blocking Zone to be in tact at the snap in a shotgun formation. So, any block that would be legal in the FBZ is legal if done immediately at the snap. First move only. So an O-Lineman can at the snap block a D-Lineman low, but he can't come up out of his stance and then block low. The hesitation will make it illegal...

In Arizona, we use to have Florida's interpretation, but this year (could have been last year) the FBZ disappears immediately in the shotgun formation and you cannot block low at all.

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2338
  • FAN REACTION: +84/-12
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2019, 08:59:20 AM »
I believe that is the issue that the survey is getting at. Different states are enforcing it differently. Florida (at least my area in Florida) considers the Free Blocking Zone to be in tact at the snap in a shotgun formation. So, any block that would be legal in the FBZ is legal if done immediately at the snap. First move only. So an O-Lineman can at the snap block a D-Lineman low, but he can't come up out of his stance and then block low. The hesitation will make it illegal...

I believe that is the issue.  We have noticed during video reviews this season where we have stop action capability on high resolution video that when the QB is in shotgun formation the ball is clearly out of the zone in almost all cases before the linemen even move.  Technically, that would make the low block illegal.  That being said, we have also been given written guidance that when the lineman is in a 3 or 4-point stance (at least 1 hand must be on the ground), and his 1st move is to immediately go low, that the block shall be considered legal.  That seems clear except that most defenses are lined up in some version of a gap alignment which means that typically the team A lineman takes a quick slide step left or right then goes low. Is that "immediate"?  Not sure.

It would be nice if NFHS could clarify this directly in the rule book or the case book to eliminate the need for an "off the books" interpretation on how to officiate this.

Per casebook play 2.17.2.E, that's exactly correct:

*2.17.2 SITUATION E:

A1 is in shotgun formation, lined up seven yards behind the line of scrimmage ready to receive the snap. Immediately after the snap to A1, (a) A2 initiates his block simultaneously with the snap and blocks B1 below the waist or (b) A2 rises, and slightly retreats as if to go in traditional pass blocking protection, but then dives and blocks B1 below the waist. Both A2 and B1 were in the zone and on the line of scrimmage at the snap. The contact between A2 and B1 takes place in the free-blocking zone.

RULING: It is a legal block in (a) and an illegal block below the waist in (b). It is legal for A2 to block B1 below the waist while the free-blocking zone exists and this likely can only occur in (a) if the block is initiated simultaneously with the snap. Any later, and the ball will likely have left the free-blocking zone and the block is illegal.


Offline Morningrise

  • *
  • Posts: 570
  • FAN REACTION: +24/-5
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2019, 09:08:48 AM »
This casebook fiction of "BBW from a 2-point stance takes longer, allowing the ball to leave the FBZ" is not only questionable, it's also unproductive. The safety of a BBW immediately at the snap has virtually nothing to do with whether the blocker's hands were at his knees or on the ground - and even LESS to do with where the quarterback was standing.

Plus, it's difficult to officiate. Here's what goes on in my head each time:

Me: Whoa, a low block. Was that immediate enough?
Me: Yes
Me: Okay, but what stance was the guy in?
Me: Um... I forget

Immediate BBWs should either be blanket legal or blanket illegal. (Scrimmage kicks excepted.) That would be WAY simpler - and isn't Fed all about simplicity when possible?

How about simply changing the BBW requirement from "the ball has to be in the FBZ" to "the ball has to be in the FBZ OR the player must have initiated the block immediately at the snap"?

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3274
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-109
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2019, 09:12:50 AM »
Per casebook play 2.17.2.E, that's exactly correct:

*2.17.2 SITUATION E:

A1 is in shotgun formation, lined up seven yards behind the line of scrimmage ready to receive the snap. Immediately after the snap to A1, (a) A2 initiates his block simultaneously with the snap and blocks B1 below the waist or (b) A2 rises, and slightly retreats as if to go in traditional pass blocking protection, but then dives and blocks B1 below the waist. Both A2 and B1 were in the zone and on the line of scrimmage at the snap. The contact between A2 and B1 takes place in the free-blocking zone.

RULING: It is a legal block in (a) and an illegal block below the waist in (b). It is legal for A2 to block B1 below the waist while the free-blocking zone exists and this likely can only occur in (a) if the block is initiated simultaneously with the snap. Any later, and the ball will likely have left the free-blocking zone and the block is illegal.

Problem here is that our guidance clearly says that when the ball is no longer in the FBZ the FBZ ceases to exist, so A2 and B1 can't be in the FBZ in both scenarios in the referenced case play, and additionally video clearly shows even an "immediate" low block happens after the ball is out of the zone.  And, as noted earlier virtually no defensive linemen are "head-up" on an offensive lineman these days requiring the team A player to move at least a bit left or right before going low and that's coached to be done with a quick "slide step".  That's clearly visible on video replays.

But, maybe we're searching for a solution that's not really needed since most teams have entirely eliminated the low block from their play book when the QB is in shotgun based on this year's games that I have been in.  The only illegal low block flags we've had when QB is in shotgun is from RB's and those are without question fouls.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3274
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-109
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2019, 09:20:06 AM »
Immediate BBWs should either be blanket legal or blanket illegal. (Scrimmage kicks excepted.) That would be WAY simpler - and isn't Fed all about simplicity when possible?

How about simply changing the BBW requirement from "the ball has to be in the FBZ" to "the ball has to be in the FBZ OR the player must have initiated the block immediately at the snap"?

 :thumbup  This would be one way to better address the issue.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 12:53:49 PM by NVFOA_Ump »
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2499
  • FAN REACTION: +75/-13
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2019, 03:00:48 PM »
Fed all about simplicity when possible?

Used to be and that is what is claimed but the longer I stay in this, the less I am believing it.  Everytime I read proposed rule changes, I know too many coaches have been watching ball on Saturdays and are proposing rule changes based on what the see and hear rather than read.

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 1005
  • FAN REACTION: +158/-5
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2019, 05:51:40 PM »
I believe that is the issue.  We have noticed during video reviews this season where we have stop action capability on high resolution video that when the QB is in shotgun formation the ball is clearly out of the zone in almost all cases before the linemen even move.  Technically, that would make the low block illegal.  That being said, we have also been given written guidance that when the lineman is in a 3 or 4-point stance (at least 1 hand must be on the ground), and his 1st move is to immediately go low, that the block shall be considered legal.  That seems clear except that most defenses are lined up in some version of a gap alignment which means that typically the team A lineman takes a quick slide step left or right then goes low. Is that "immediate"?  Not sure.

It would be nice if NFHS could clarify this directly in the rule book or the case book to eliminate the need for an "off the books" interpretation on how to officiate this.

I think this is the real reason to change the rule. Many officials seem to have different definitions of immediate. The gap block often requires a step in that direction before initiating contact. I've also seen a lineman cut the guy head up on the lineman next to him. Even though his initial act is to cut the guy does it meet the definition of immediate. That's why I like your other point of eliminating low blocks entirely if the QB is in shot gun. Or require the defender to be head up on the blocker. For simple sake though I think the best solution is to eliminate low blocks if in shot gun.

Offline brettjr2005

  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-2
  • CIF
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2019, 09:02:48 PM »
All film review I've seen that reviews the plays in slow motion points out that the blocks consistently occur after the ball has left the free blocking zone. Unfortunately many states have chosen to ignore the rule and put in their own "interpretation" that allows the blocks after the ball has left the FBZ as long as they're "immediate." This puts NFHS in a situation where they're forced to add a clarification even though the rule was fine as is if it wasn't for interpreters deciding to make up their own rules.

Offline refjeff

  • *
  • Posts: 212
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-19
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2019, 06:10:42 AM »
When was the rule changed adding the concept of the ball leaving the free blocking zone?  At the time that made sense.  The QB took the snap from under center and had to turn to hand or pitch the ball to a back who had to take a few steps to leave the zone.  That took time.  It was judged that BBW was safe during that brief amount of time.

Now that many/most teams are in shotgun the snap immediately leaves the FBZ.  Is BBW now unsafe?  Nonsense.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2019, 05:42:21 PM by refjeff »

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2499
  • FAN REACTION: +75/-13
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2019, 09:29:03 AM »
Quote
When was the rule changed adding the concept of the ball leaving the free blocking zone?

The parent site of The Official Forum keeps a pretty good registry of rule changes here.  I tried to pull up the NFHS Handbook online but I keep getting a server error message.    Looks like 1995.


https://football.refs.org/rules/index.html
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 09:32:33 AM by HLinNC »

Offline TampaSteve

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-13
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #21 on: December 09, 2019, 06:09:48 PM »
I believe that is the issue.  We have noticed during video reviews this season where we have stop action capability on high resolution video that when the QB is in shotgun formation the ball is clearly out of the zone in almost all cases before the linemen even move.  Technically, that would make the low block illegal.  That being said, we have also been given written guidance that when the lineman is in a 3 or 4-point stance (at least 1 hand must be on the ground), and his 1st move is to immediately go low, that the block shall be considered legal.  That seems clear except that most defenses are lined up in some version of a gap alignment which means that typically the team A lineman takes a quick slide step left or right then goes low. Is that "immediate"?  Not sure.

It would be nice if NFHS could clarify this directly in the rule book or the case book to eliminate the need for an "off the books" interpretation on how to officiate this.
what he said, ditto in the 4-6 County "Tampa Bay area".
If in shotgun, if it's linemen's first move with no hesitation there's really no difference if QB under center or shotgun if it's first move, no hesitation.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2019, 06:11:54 PM by TampaSteve »

Offline TampaSteve

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-13
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #22 on: December 09, 2019, 06:17:53 PM »
with the premise of NFHS simplicity - which was mentioned, and NFHS is all about safety - which is what NFHS rules are all about....
is it too radical to completely eliminate BBW? (simple, safety's sake)

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2338
  • FAN REACTION: +84/-12
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2019, 10:02:32 AM »
with the premise of NFHS simplicity - which was mentioned, and NFHS is all about safety - which is what NFHS rules are all about....
is it too radical to completely eliminate BBW? (simple, safety's sake)

I've been hoping for that - and voting for it every time it shows up on the survey - for years now.

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1546
  • FAN REACTION: +87/-23
Re: NFHS Football Survey
« Reply #24 on: December 10, 2019, 09:56:25 PM »
I've been hoping for that - and voting for it every time it shows up on the survey - for years now.


IMO,  Legal BBW's are perfectly safe and helps smaller linemen take on bigger linemen.  What do you think a goal line stand will look like if you eliminate BBW where everyone wants to submarine. The rule is great the way it is.  Yes, maybe a little ambiguity with shotgun teams, but that's not enough to get rid of the whole rule.