HEAR YE, HEAR YE: Speak now...or forever hold your peace..

[Ralph Damren]

The NFHS Football Questionnaire is now available.

I'm a notary in Maine,
  In Maine notaries can perform marriages,
    I've done 16 & am 15-1 (one divorce)
      If you want to get married, come to Maine.

If you had rather voice your opinion as to what needs fixin' in high school football, go to :

nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/nfhs-sport-questionnaires > football

Your vote will be counted and your voice will be heard  !

PS : I don't use the "Speak now..." phrase anymore as I fear someone will have something to say !   

[Ralph Damren]

If you've already answered the questionnaire, thanks, we do see the national results and your opinions may sway some that are "straddling the lobster crate" (some non-Mainers may say: "Sitting on the fence ").

I have strong opinions on three of the proposed changes:

Remove intentional grounding outside of FBZ & pass goes over LOS - NO! This aides the offense, this is tackle football, "be like the other guys.." is not a good reason.

O-holding behind LOS is previous spot foul - NO! A hold in the backfield often prevents a sack - a great defensive play. If anything needs to be tweaked , a foul by B if run ends behind the LOS, should be a previous spot foul - I'd support that.

DPI = auto 1st down - YES! This would prevent the potential foul from preventing a TD or a new series in some situations. DPI penalty often creates a new series with yardage (80+% of the time), while OPI ALWAYS costs A a loss of down. OPI should not be changed.

Those are my opinions, but I respect yours...please let me know... 

[CalhounLJ]

Thanks Ralph, just took the survey. I share your opinion on the three you mentioned.

[hef333]

Ralph,
     I am also a Notary, in PA....we cannot perform weddings..👰🤵...I think there are only 3 states that can...congrats! 15-16 is pretty good!  I just took the questionnaire, I agree with you on the Int Grounding....opening up a can of worms there....where was the QB, did the ball reach the line etc.😱  I always thought holding was a really bad foul in HS, but you had a great point...many times it saves a sack, so yes, I again agree with you. 

Looks like my season is over, and if it is, it ended with a great game.  We had the A Quarterfinal between Canton and Old Forge in PA, and it was a really well, played, hard hitting game that ended going to OT!  Only have had 3 Varsity games in 26 years go OT, and this being a playoff games made it extra special.  We got to do the 4A final last season that ended 21-14....so I don't think we'll get one this year, but a couple of fun close games there.  Of course they were sprinkled with the 62-0, 55-14. 3500 playoff games also....

Also a HUGE Red Sox fan, so once again we are in agreement there! 😀

[refbuz]

I haven’t worked a HS game in many years, as my focus has been working NCAA but I still complete the survey when it comes out. That said, I am a resounding YES all 3 changes

For the ING change, if A is willing to give up the down, isn’t that enough of a penalty?  Why does there need to be yardage foul assessed as well? Everyone already thinks you can do it, just make it legal and move on. 

For Enforcing OH as a previous spot foul, most holding fouls occur at the LOS, so we are really only talking about of handful of penalty enforcements that would be affected by the change. Nobody wants to see 1st & 30 for a hold that occurred 10 yards in the backfield. 1st & 20 is a sufficient penalty.

That’s my $0.02

[CalhounLJ]

I haven’t worked a HS game in many years, as my focus has been working NCAA but I still complete the survey when it comes out. That said, I am a resounding YES all 3 changes

For the ING change, if A is willing to give up the down, isn’t that enough of a penalty?  Why does there need to be yardage foul assessed as well? Everyone already thinks you can do it, just make it legal and move on.  No. The defense earned the opportunity for the sack and loss of yardage. The QB gets to bail out and save the lost yardage with this rule change.

For Enforcing OH as a previous spot foul, most holding fouls occur at the LOS, so we are really only talking about of handful of penalty enforcements that would be affected by the change. Nobody wants to see 1st & 30 for a hold that occurred 10 yards in the backfield. 1st & 20 is a sufficient penalty. Some of us do want to see 1st and 30, especially if the hold prevented a possible sack that would have made 2 and 20.

That’s my $0.02

No harm, not looking for an argument, just a different perspective..

[refbuz]

No harm, not looking for an argument, just a different perspective..

None taken. I understand there are many different philosophies that are incorporated into the rules changes.   As I said many of the current NCAA philosophies influence my rationale on both changes.  That don't make me right and you wrong or vice versa.

[Ralph Damren]

"IF TWO MEN AGREED ON EVERYTHING, ONLY ONE WOULD BE NEEDED"
                                                     Charles O. Finley - prior owner of Oakland A's

"IF YA' DEBATING (arguing) WITH SOMEONE, LOOK FOR IT'S WEAKEST LINK -PRETEND IT'S A LOBSTER TAIL - AND GNAW HARD  YA' BREAK THRU IT'S WEAKEST LINK, 'SPECT YA' WILL WIN THE DEBATE (argument). AYUH"
                                   Anonymous seafaring ref on coastal Maine

" FOR THEM THAT IS STRADDLI'NG THE LOBSTER CRATE (Mainer saying) ,MAKE IT AS DANG CUNFUSING AS YA' CAN. THEM AIN'T GOING TO SAY 'AYUH' AND 'SPECT WILL SAY 'SPECT NOT'"
                                  Same anonymous guy 

  (7-man crew)

[HLinNC]

I disagree with the whole tackle box/IG/LOS thing. I don't think the rule would work well with 5 man mechanics.  Too many moving parts.

I can live with a change on previous spot for OH but I understand the argument against changing it.  I guess I've worked with enough NCAA officials that I've had to correct on enforcement in a HS game that it doesn't faze me.

I am for putting the AFD back with DPI. 

However, I am beginning to dis-favor allowing penalties on scoring plays to carry over, i.e. DPI but the receiver catches the pass anyway and scores.   We aren't supposed to call PI on a pass away from the foul so it seems a bit too extreme to give the score AND 15 yards later for a PI that apparently wasn't that good.  Maybe shave it down to only live ball personal fouls.
 I realize that isn't a question on this one but I extrapolated out a bit.

[bossman72]

I disagree with the whole tackle box/IG/LOS thing. I don't think the rule would work well with 5 man mechanics.  Too many moving parts.

Texas never seemed to have a problem with this in 5 man...

[bossman72]

Using "free blocking zone" in the ING proposal is just another way of the NFHS being NFHS and re-inventing the wheel instead of using "tackle box". This happens every single time they adopt a rule from NCAA and they screw it up without fail. Every. Single. Time.

[KWH]

Using "free blocking zone" in the ING proposal is just another way of the NFHS being NFHS and re-inventing the wheel instead of using "tackle box". This happens every single time they adopt a rule from NCAA and they screw it up without fail. Every. Single. Time.

With all due respect Bossman I don't believe we screwed it up this time.

Out here in the center of the left coast and on the islands of Hawai'i we "Experimented" with allowing ING with two requirements:
  1- The passer must be, or, have been outside the lateral confines of the Free Blocking Zone as established at the snap
  2- The pass must be thrown beyond the LOS including the LOS extended OOB.

Yes - In NCAA, the "tackle box" is defined in the NCAA as 5 yards each side of the snapper. NCAA does not have an FBZ.
Yes - In NFHS, the "Free Blocking Zone" is 4 yards each side of the spot of the snap. NFHS does not have a Tackle Box.

FYI - Both the FBZ and the TB extend to the end line behind you.
FYI - Both NCAA and NFHS agree on the LOS extended
FYI - In NCAA The Tackle Box disintegrates when the ball leaves it
FYI - In NFHS The Free Blocking Zone disintegrates when the ball leaves it

Based on these facts and that the NFHS already has an established term that defined the width of 4 yards rather than 5 1/2 we simply used an already established NFHS term quite simply so lunch box Joe could find in his NFHS Rules Book.
This was done to allow for our experiment to be approved by the NFHS without adding a new definition.
We got the experiment approved for three years and this was our first year.
One other state, Iowa is using virtually the same experiment but they just complete their 2nd year.

Again, these are simply experiments and as such I guess we could have called it the Intentional Grounding Zone or the ZULU Zone? Adding the term Tackle Box which would be a different width in NFHS than it is in NCAA is why, right, wrong or indifferent,  we chose not to go down that path.

Please don't shoot the messenger!

[dammitbobby]

Texas never seemed to have a problem with this in 5 man...

I'd say it's one of the most challenging things to call, because often the wing is drifting downfield into coverage and may not have eyes on where the ball landed in relation to LOS.  Happened to me once this year. The ideal positioning for this, is not the ideal positioning for almost anything else.

[bossman72]

With all due respect Bossman I don't believe we screwed it up this time.

Out here in the center of the left coast and on the islands of Hawai'i we "Experimented" with allowing ING with two requirements:
  1- The passer must be, or, have been outside the lateral confines of the Free Blocking Zone as established at the snap
  2- The pass must be thrown beyond the LOS including the LOS extended OOB.

Yes - In NCAA, the "tackle box" is defined in the NCAA as 5 yards each side of the snapper. NCAA does not have an FBZ.
Yes - In NFHS, the "Free Blocking Zone" is 4 yards each side of the spot of the snap. NFHS does not have a Tackle Box.

FYI - Both the FBZ and the TB extend to the end line behind you.
FYI - Both NCAA and NFHS agree on the LOS extended
FYI - In NCAA The Tackle Box disintegrates when the ball leaves it
FYI - In NFHS The Free Blocking Zone disintegrates when the ball leaves it

Based on these facts and that the NFHS already has an established term that defined the width of 4 yards rather than 5 1/2 we simply used an already established NFHS term quite simply so lunch box Joe could find in his NFHS Rules Book.
This was done to allow for our experiment to be approved by the NFHS without adding a new definition.
We got the experiment approved for three years and this was our first year.
One other state, Iowa is using virtually the same experiment but they just complete their 2nd year.

Again, these are simply experiments and as such I guess we could have called it the Intentional Grounding Zone or the ZULU Zone? Adding the term Tackle Box which would be a different width in NFHS than it is in NCAA is why, right, wrong or indifferent,  we chose not to go down that path.

Please don't shoot the messenger!

Gotcha.  I thought it meant the literal free blocking zone, which has a depth of 3 yards and would disintegrate on any shotgun snap.  I feel better now.

[bossman72]

I'd say it's one of the most challenging things to call, because often the wing is drifting downfield into coverage and may not have eyes on where the ball landed in relation to LOS.  Happened to me once this year. The ideal positioning for this, is not the ideal positioning for almost anything else.

Even if you are drifted down field, this is an easy call.  There's really no judgment to it.  You can see where the ball hits whether it's a person, an object, the ground, etc.  All you have to do is run up to that location where it hit, stand on/near it, and look at the down box.  You can easily judge behind/beyond that way.  No need to have any perspective.

[CalhounLJ]

I disagree with the whole tackle box/IG/LOS thing. I don't think the rule would work well with 5 man mechanics.  Too many moving parts.

I can live with a change on previous spot for OH but I understand the argument against changing it.  I guess I've worked with enough NCAA officials that I've had to correct on enforcement in a HS game that it doesn't faze me.

I am for putting the AFD back with DPI. 

However, I am beginning to dis-favor allowing penalties on scoring plays to carry over, i.e. DPI but the receiver catches the pass anyway and scores.   We aren't supposed to call PI on a pass away from the foul so it seems a bit too extreme to give the score AND 15 yards later for a PI that apparently wasn't that good.  Maybe shave it down to only live ball personal fouls.
 I realize that isn't a question on this one but I extrapolated out a bit.

Yes. I hate the scoring plays carry overs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

Gotcha.  I thought it meant the literal free blocking zone, which has a depth of 3 yards and would disintegrate on any shotgun snap.  I feel better now.

Annnnnd, here’s the problem. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

FYI - Both the FBZ and the TB extend to the end line behind you.

This was done to allow for our experiment to be approved by the NFHS without adding a new definition.

Adding the term Tackle Box which would be a different width in NFHS than it is in NCAA is why, right, wrong or indifferent,  we chose not to go down that path.

1. I’m assuming you mean the FBZ extends to the end line ONLY in regard to determining ING?

2. If my assumption in 1 is true, then that requires a change in the current definition of the FBZ.

3. Why would adding the term tackle box require a different width in NFHS? Why not just adopt the NCAA language making both identical?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bama_stripes]

My vote was:

NO on “tackle box” exemption
YES on holding enforcement
YES on AFD for DPI

I also agree that carryover penalties on scoring plays should be limited to safety-related fouls.

[Tom.OH]

What would coaches complain about if they don't have to yell "he was out of the tackle box".
Never mind, they will still have plenty to yell about...

[Ia-Ref]

In Iowa we had the ING as an experiment.  I think it went off without many problems with 5-man crews. Many passers who could have grounded the pass did not, yet.
I am still not in favor of making it permanent though.  It takes away from a good defensive play and tips the balance of fair play to the offense.
#1 - NO.
#2 - YES.
#3 - YES.

[ncwingman]

I'm of two minds on several of these, but any idea I have to find a middle ground would probably be less popular than either YES or NO.

1) I can make the argument that allowing the QB to throw the ball away prevents an unnecessary hit. I do agree that it will be difficult mechanically in a five man crew. QB rolls to my sideline looking for a pass, I'm releasing a bit downfield to cover receivers... which means, who has the LOS to see if the ball crosses it? U?

However, I also agree that it bails out the offense after a good defensive play. Maybe take away the extra 5 yards on the penalty? QB can "ground" the ball while under duress to "take the sack" without taking the hit. (Offer not valid for an illegal pass while beyond the LOS)

In either case, I would strongly argue for an editorial change -- Eligible receivers cannot occupy an area that is out of bounds. Intentionally throwing the ball into the third row of the stands is ING. Right now, we tend to have this rule by default because we claim a receiver is "in the area" as long as the geostationary orbital flight plan of the ball passes within 2 miles of the location of a receiver and so the QB can chuck the ball away in a manner not intended to be caught, but it was vaguely in the direction of eligible receivers, so it's all good.

2) I don't want to make an exception for offensive holding. Either make the enforcement spot the LOS for all fouls by A behind the LOS or don't. Or, as a terrible compromise, make it even worse -- fouls by A in the FBZ are enforced from the previous spot. This eliminates the 12 yard penalty, but still allows for big losses to stand.

3)  If it's 3rd and 2, DPI will be a first down... unless you're at the 3, and that seems wrong. I think I got the worst idea of all for this one -- it's an AFD if the foul occurs beyond the line to gain!

Current situations would still apply, it's 3rd and 10 at the A20, and DPI at the A25 - yardage enforcement moves the ball beyond the LTG, so it's a 1st down on that anyway. However, if it's 3rd and 20 for the same play, then you replay 3rd down at the A35. If the foul was at the 45, then it's a first down at the A35.

Notably, if it's 3rd and 2 at the 3 and the foul occurs in the end zone, the LTG is the goal line, so it would be an AFD even with half the distance enforcement.

Anyway, grab your pitchforks and tell me how wrong I am. These are half baked ideas, so I don't think I've solved all the world's ills.

[Ralph Damren]

Thanks, guys, for your opinions and keep 'em coming.

A word about fouls on scoring plays..

Prior to 2003, the only fouls carried over during a TD were the dead ball (or live ball treated as dead ball) ones. The rationale of including live ball fouls was the cheap-shot by the defense -knowing the runner was heading to paydirt - going unpunished. Enforce on the PAT.

2004 - WHOOPS, illegal formation on A, B intercepts and scores  . Let's enforce fouls that occurred after COP on the PAT.

2007 - WHOOPS, a 1 1/2 yard penalty on the PAT isn't much, especially if they are kicking. Lets let 'em to choose to enforce it on the kickoff, too 

2010 - WHOOPS, what is to happen if there is a dead ball foul on A and a live or dead ball on B on a TD or PAT ...well...which came first the chicken or the egg...let the chick....

I agree, the enforcement possibilities have became very complex  and easy  to blow. Any suggestions...

  (7-man crew + 2 clock operators and chain crew)

[CalhounLJ]

Thanks, guys, for your opinions and keep 'em coming.

A word about fouls on scoring plays..

Prior to 2003, the only fouls carried over during a TD were the dead ball (or live ball treated as dead ball) ones. The rationale of including live ball fouls was the cheap-shot by the defense -knowing the runner was heading to paydirt - going unpunished. Enforce on the PAT.

2004 - WHOOPS, illegal formation on A, B intercepts and scores  . Let's enforce fouls that occurred after COP on the PAT.

2007 - WHOOPS, a 1 1/2 yard penalty on the PAT isn't much, especially if they are kicking. Lets let 'em to choose to enforce it on the kickoff, too 

2010 - WHOOPS, what is to happen if there is a dead ball foul on A and a live or dead ball on B on a TD or PAT ...well...which came first the chicken or the egg...let the chick....

I agree, the enforcement possibilities have became very complex  and easy  to blow. Any suggestions...

  (7-man crew + 2 clock operators and chain crew)

I appreciate the insight to the decision-making process. It helps to understand the "why." However, I'm wondering if this was not overkill? How many times have we ever seen B take a cheap shot on A because the player had enough sense to know the penalty was going to be enforced on the try and it wouldn't cost him much? I've seen cheap shots during scores, but question the ability of players to think that fast on their feet. But, if that's the rationale, fine. Make the carryover enforcements only those types of fouls. Leave the "routine" stuff alone. There's no way DPI should carryover if A scores anyway. 7 points + 15 yards is way overboard.... Anything dead ball, or USC, Taunting, etc... Yeah, i'm ok with those.

[dammitbobby]

Even if you are drifted down field, this is an easy call.  There's really no judgment to it.  You can see where the ball hits whether it's a person, an object, the ground, etc.  All you have to do is run up to that location where it hit, stand on/near it, and look at the down box.  You can easily judge behind/beyond that way.  No need to have any perspective.

The problem that I had, is that once my spidey senses/eyeballs detected the ball was in the air, I switched to the receiver and was only looking at him, not the path/position of the ball.  I didn't realize he was throwing it away, and when R asked me if it crossed LOS, I wasn't sure, because I wasn't watching where the ball went. 

I can see where you're coming from though, and will work on this.  You're right, the more I think about it, I should be able to discern where the ball is going a little better, and just need to be more mindful in situations like that.