NFHS 2022 FOOTBALL RULES CHANGES PRESS RELEASE

[AlUpstateNY]

But then the issue becomes, did the QB ditch the ball due to being threatened, or just no play was there?  You can't march off yardage against A just because they essentially had an incomplete pass.
There's way to much subjectivity in deciding if a receiver was in the area, if he was being threatened, just throwing it away, just a terrible passer...

Bobby. NFHS: 7-5-2-d & e provides necessary assistance in determining whether. or not, a violation has occurred by including the necessity of the covering official's (exclusive) JUDGMENT that the pass was INTENTIONALLY thrown either (d) "INTENTIONALLY thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive receiver." or (e) "INTENTIONALLY thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage or to conserve time."

Either violation is determined by the EXCLUSIVE JUDGMENT of the covering official, based, specifically, on what has been directly observed and determined as being INTENTIONAL and providing an UNEARNED ADVANTAGE.

[CalhounLJ]

But then the issue becomes, did the QB ditch the ball due to being threatened, or just no play was there?  You can't march off yardage against A just because they essentially had an incomplete pass.
There's way to much subjectivity in deciding if a receiver was in the area, if he was being threatened, just throwing it away, just a terrible passer...

I think the new rule takes the subjectivity out of the picture. According to the experts here, all we have to determine is if the passer has been outside the fbz, and did the pass cross the nz or nz extended.

[fudilligas]

I have one major question on this rule
....if the QB hands the ball off on a halfback option....is the halfback allowed to use the exception and dump the ball as long as he meets all the requirements....OR is this rule only in effect for the person who receives the snap

[ElvisLives]

I have one major question on this rule
....if the QB hands the ball off on a halfback option....is the halfback allowed to use the exception and dump the ball as long as he meets all the requirements....OR is this rule only in effect for the person who receives the snap

If they follow NCAA, it will only be for the player that first controls the snap.

[CalhounLJ]

I have one major question on this rule
....if the QB hands the ball off on a halfback option....is the halfback allowed to use the exception and dump the ball as long as he meets all the requirements....OR is this rule only in effect for the person who receives the snap

I’m pretty sure one of the guys stated it was the passer. Which, in your case the answer would be yes. The halfback would be considered the passer if/when he passed the ball.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

I’m pretty sure one of the guys stated it was the passer. Which, in your case the answer would be yes. The halfback would be considered the passer if/when he passed the ball.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Calhoun is correct, anyone can be a passer -even a big ole' Bubba. If the designed play was a halfback option, I can see that occurring BUT if it was intended to be a running play and the runner didn't like how things were looking and dumped a pass you probably could have an illegible receiver or offensive pass interference.

[bama_stripes]

PLAY:  Player A12 is in the shotgun, but the snap goes well over his head.  In an attempt to recover the snap, A12 muffs the ball outside the lateral limit of the FBZ.  Player A76 recovers the muff, and throws an incomplete forward pass which crosses the LOS.  There is no eligible receiver in the area.

Legal?

[Ralph Damren]

PLAY:  Player A12 is in the shotgun, but the snap goes well over his head.  In an attempt to recover the snap, A12 muffs the ball outside the lateral limit of the FBZ.  Player A76 recovers the muff, and throws an incomplete forward pass which crosses the LOS.  There is no eligible receiver in the area.

Legal?

Legal, A76 has a 0-1 passing record  . While the pass is legal, that doesn't mean that there's not a foul if his lineman buddies had strolled downfield thinking that this was supposed to be a running play.

[NVFOA_Ump]

PLAY:  Player A12 is in the shotgun, but the snap goes well over his head.  In an attempt to recover the snap, A12 muffs the ball outside the lateral limit of the FBZ.  Player A76 recovers the muff, and throws an incomplete forward pass which crosses the LOS.  There is no eligible receiver in the area.
Legal?

Doesn't it make sense to simply wait until the official rules and case plays are published instead of speculating?  Right now we simply seem to know that any "passer" can throw the ball away if:
1 - the ball has been outside the FBZ (using it's new definition)
AND
2. the legal forward pass crosses the NZ.

I can wait to read the "official text" before then speculating further on the what ifs.

[CalhounLJ]

Doesn't it make sense to simply wait until the official rules and case plays are published instead of speculating?  Right now we simply seem to know that any "passer" can throw the ball away if:
1 - the ball has been outside the FBZ (using it's new definition)
AND
2. the legal forward pass crosses the NZ.

I can wait to read the "official text" before then speculating further on the what ifs.

May make sense, but you know by now that’s not our nature. Plus, there is really no harm in speculating, is it? That’s kinda what message boards and forums are for…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bama_stripes]

Legal, A76 has a 0-1 passing record  . While the pass is legal, that doesn't mean that there's not a foul if his lineman buddies had strolled downfield thinking that this was supposed to be a running play.

Then I like this rule even less than I originally thought.  I would (begrudgingly) be OK with it if the exception was limited to a back positioned within the lateral limits of the FBZ at the snap.

And of course, this could also happen on a planned pass play. 

[Ralph Damren]

I spoke at the Maine Coaches Clinic this past Friday and this was a hot topic from their point of view. While many of you , myself included, were not for this change; they felt that the safety factor alone made it a good move. They seemed to grasp the parameters of the FBZ and the OOB extension of the LOS for this. Their only question was : "Does this also apply to a halfback option  ?" I said yes, as long as he is/has been outside of the FBZ after the snap.

While I'm not excited about this new rule, it is one of our new rules and I feel confident that we'll be able to handle it correctly.The three states that ran this as an experimental rule were Oregon, Iowa and Hawaii. If any of you are from any of those, we would appreciate your opinions. On the NFHS Football Rules Questionnaire, which many of us responded to, the in favor of this rule was:
                    COACHES   69%          OFFICIALS           56%             STATE ASSOCIATIONS            57%

OH, BY THE WAY---STATES WITH MOST OFFICIALS' VOTES:

GOLD : Ohio  1062       SILVER :  Pennsylvania   866    BRONZE :   Michigan   691...……………………….Texas & DC :    0
 

PS TO OUR FRIENDS FROM THE LONE STAR STATE : Texas was included on the list as 9 coaches voted on the NFHS website. They may not be sure which state they're in !

[AlUpstateNY]

Then I like this rule even less than I originally thought.  I would (begrudgingly) be OK with it if the exception was limited to a back positioned within the lateral limits of the FBZ at the snap.

And of course, this could also happen on a planned pass play. 

The basic principle remains UNCHANGED, "Officials enforce the rules created by the Rules Committee, whether they like them, or not". However, as previously suggested, including the actual wording of a rule change, when it is announced, might very well minimize confusion about enforcement details.

When a "Cure" causes more problems than a sickness, its often more rational to deal with the sickness, than force the cure.  The Offense   chooses whatever play they want (to which the defense has to respond) when the offense chooses BADLY allowing them to "Dump" their choice without consequence provides an UNEARNED ADVANTAGE. 
 
Currently, "Dumping" a forward pass causes loss of the down + the succeeding spot being the spot of the pass, which have both served for decades to minimize the frequency of penalizing IFP.  DUMPING is DUMPING regardless of where (behind the line) it happens. This adjustment seems far more like a means to appease those wanting to mimic higher rule levels, and offers little positive to the NFHS level game.

[ElvisLives]

PS TO OUR FRIENDS FROM THE LONE STAR STATE : Texas was included on the list as 9 coaches voted on the NFHS website. They may not be sure which state they're in !

I think I know all 9…. Not surprised they have no idea where they are. 

But seriously, folks. Ralph, are y’all consciously and deliberately straying from the NCAA rule, which requires the passer to be the player that first controls the snap. So, in NCAA, a player that takes a handoff or backward pass from the player that first controls the snap is NOT able to legally throw the ball away by being the BC outside the tackle box before the throws a pass that crosses the NZ (extended). (He could still ground it by throwing it to an area occupied by an eligible A player.) No skin off my nose, but it seems like the NFHS is considering this rule, because it is being used in the NCAA (in its specific form). If that is the case, why not adopt the tried and true NCAA rule, in its entirety?

[CalhounLJ]

I think I know all 9…. Not surprised they have no idea where they are. 

But seriously, folks. Ralph, are y’all consciously and deliberately straying from the NCAA rule, which requires the passer to be the player that first controls the snap. So, in NCAA, a player that takes a handoff or backward pass from the player that first controls the snap is NOT able to legally throw the ball away by being the BC outside the tackle box before the throws a pass that crosses the NZ (extended). (He could still ground it by throwing it to an area occupied by an eligible A player.) No skin off my nose, but it seems like the NFHS is considering this rule, because it is being used in the NCAA (in its specific form). If that is the case, why not adopt the tried and true NCAA rule, in its entirety?

This seems to be the eternal unanswered question.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bossman72]

Good video by Matt Sumstine on the topic:

https://youtu.be/E5ObYpXCmsQ

[Ralph Damren]

Adding the term 'tackle box' would have required us to add said term to Rule 2 - Definitions. Where there ain't no tackle positions in 6,8 or 9-man football, using the FBZ as parameters seemed to make more sense. Attempting to make the rule as simple as possible, the only two requirements were : (1) Passer had to have been outside the FBZ - couldn't dump it from the pocket; (2) Pass had to go beyond LOS - couldn't spike it.

Any rule change can always be tweaked as the years go by if unintended consequences arise. I believe this occurred a couple of times after we passed PSK. Bossman mentioned Matt Sumstine, Matt is Hawaii's rep on the Football Rules Committee and was instrumental in writing this rule.

  (5-man crew)

[CalhounLJ]

Watched the video. Very well done. My question about the additional wristband is whether it’s necessary? My thinking is that I’m going to be back there when the ball is snapped any way, and it seems like a no brainer to determine if he’s been outside the FBZ or not. In fact, I really don’t anticipate any confusion about this rule at all. I’m not fond of giving A an easy way out, but if that’s what they want, we can officiate it. 

I’m also fine with the language. Everyone who does NFHS is familiar with the term “free blocking zone,” so no need to add or change language there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

consciously and deliberately straying from the NCAA rule, which requires the passer to be the player that first controls the snap.

Because then we're having to go to Rule 2 and change the definition of passer.  The ingredients to baking this case increase.

[ElvisLives]

Adding the term 'tackle box' would have required us to add said term to Rule 2 - Definitions. Where there ain't no tackle positions in 6,8 or 9-man football, using the FBZ as parameters seemed to make more sense. Attempting to make the rule as simple as possible, the only two requirements were : (1) Passer had to have been outside the FBZ - couldn't dump it from the pocket; (2) Pass had to go beyond LOS - couldn't spike it.

Any rule change can always be tweaked as the years go by if unintended consequences arise. I believe this occurred a couple of times after we passed PSK. Bossman mentioned Matt Sumstine, Matt is Hawaii's rep on the Football Rules Committee and was instrumental in writing this rule.

  (5-man crew)

Well, OK, then. Conscious and deliberate. Go forth and prosper. (We need a Vulcan "v" emoji.  )
For those of you that work NFHS and NCAA, here is yet another difference - a very big difference - that you will have to toggle back and forth.

PS Matt and I were on the WAC staff together back in the 2000s. Good guy. Always envious of my brethren from Paradise. A lot more travel than the rest of us, but look what they got to go home to.

[bossman72]

Watched the video. Very well done. My question about the additional wristband is whether it’s necessary? My thinking is that I’m going to be back there when the ball is snapped any way, and it seems like a no brainer to determine if he’s been outside the FBZ or not. In fact, I really don’t anticipate any confusion about this rule at all. I’m not fond of giving A an easy way out, but if that’s what they want, we can officiate it. 

I’m also fine with the language. Everyone who does NFHS is familiar with the term “free blocking zone,” so no need to add or change language there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The extra down indicator helps if you get lost or have a brain fart and forget to observe the tackle box.  It's there as a back up.  This only works if your U puts the ball in spots 1-5.

[ElvisLives]

Because then we're having to go to Rule 2 and change the definition of passer.  The ingredients to baking this case increase.

FYI, the definition of a passer didn't change (in NCAA, when this rule arrived). The ING rule was provided with an exception that allowed the player that first controlled the snap to legally ground the ball under those conditions. Someone other than the player that first controls the snap may certainly pass the ball, and have all the protections afforded a passer. He just doesn't have the legal ability to ground the ball in this manner. From an officiating perspective, when the ball is handed or passed backward to another A player, the R has to mentally note that Team A may no longer legally ground the ball in this manner. That has become second nature to me, now, after years of reminding myself about this before every game.

But, it seems NFHS folks won't have to worry about that. The BC/passer, whomever he might be, just needs to get outside the "FBZ" and throw it across the NZ. The biggest mechanics changes will be that, as noted, the R will need to have a good idea of the limits of the 'zone,' and the wings will have to help the R with whether or not the ball does, in fact, cross the NZ (extended). No different from NCAA, other than the technical size of the respective 'zones.' It will take a little practice, but it, too, will become second nature.

An easy cake to bake. 

[CalhounLJ]

The extra down indicator helps if you get lost or have a brain fart and forget to observe the tackle box.  It's there as a back up.  This only works if your U puts the ball in spots 1-5.

I get that, and agree. I just can't envision a scenario where I'm not concentrating and following the QB (oops, passer)  closely enough to know if/when he wanders outside of the FREE BLOCKING ZONE.. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is the positional awareness in real time during the down will be sufficient to determine the parameters closely enough. Trying to remember all the intricacies of the 5-finger plan seems more complicated than just paying attention to what you're doing on the field. but that's JMO.

[JasonTX]

PS TO OUR FRIENDS FROM THE LONE STAR STATE : Texas was included on the list as 9 coaches voted on the NFHS website. They may not be sure which state they're in !

  I think they just don't know what rules we use. 

[Covid 22]

Probably an AD that is the head basketball coach.  He would be a member of NFHS and probably thought he was doing his football coach a favor.   

About 15 years ago in our walk through of the field (grass), the two yard line had been marked as the point after spot.  I went and asked the coach why.  He said that the rule had changed and it was now the two instead of the three.  He almost had me convinced because of his rock hard belief that he knew what he was doing.  I told him that it was only a NFL placement and we would be using the three yard line. 

I think everybody should be able to use the rule they like best.  Before the game you ask the coach about any special plays they might be running and what rule book will you be using.  Your choices are:
1) Intramural Flag
2) Canadian Rule
3) Australian Rule
4) NFL
5) Arena
6) NFHS
7) NCAA
And you can pick any two rules from any other of the six you did not pick.

This would make for a very interesting game.