ING and 3-4-6

[Fatso]

He isn't gaining anything but saving yardage if he's facing down a long sack.

He's not saving yardage if it's ING. He's going to be 5 yards further back from where the sack would've been, but he gets the clock to stop.

[Ralph Damren]

I’m guessing his argument is that even if the clock is to start on the ready, A can still be lined up in formation ready to snap the ball immediately upon the whistle. But there is a much higher risk of a pre-snap or procedural foul in a hurry-up situation like that with high school players, so I would argue that it’s still a significant unfair advantage to have the clock start on the snap.

The most fair thing would be to have a 10-second runoff since A still avoids the clock continuing to run on a sack. But, since most HS stadiums don’t have microphones for the referee, that’s pretty much a non-starter for the rules committee.

A proposal for the 10 sec. runoff was made several years ago. The discussion lasted maybe 11 seconds. Our concern was the communication between the  ref and the    clock operator would be challenging at the most challenging time of the game.

[zebrastripes]

A proposal for the 10 sec. runoff was made several years ago. The discussion lasted maybe 11 seconds. Our concern was the communication between the  ref and the    clock operator would be challenging at the most challenging time of the game.

Totally understandable at the high school level. Hence my alternative proposal that we universally start the game clock on the ready for play following an illegal forward pass, to mitigate unfair timing advantages for A as much as is feasible.

[lawdog]

A proposal for the 10 sec. runoff was made several years ago. The discussion lasted maybe 11 seconds. Our concern was the communication between the  ref and the    clock operator would be challenging at the most challenging time of the game.

WE NEED TO QUIT COPYING NCAA RULES ANYWAY!!!!!!!

[zebrastripes]

WE NEED TO QUIT COPYING NCAA RULES ANYWAY!!!!!!!

Serious question – why?

[GoodScout]

Serious question – why?

Because high school athletes are not as skilled and developed as college athletes.
Because high school facilities (clocks, video cameras, administration, staffing) are not as extensive and developed as colleges.
Because high school resources vary wildly between programs, states, and regions.
Because many college rules are developed to please coaches and TV networks, not to teach and improve the sport itself.
Because the editorial resources to write and develop rule changes have proven not up to the task when the NFHS Rules Committee decides it wants to parrot an NCAA rule.

Is that enough or should I go on?

[NVFOA_Ump]

Because high school athletes are not as skilled and developed as college athletes.
Because high school facilities (clocks, video cameras, administration, staffing) are not as extensive and developed as colleges.
Because high school resources vary wildly between programs, states, and regions.
Because many college rules are developed to please coaches and TV networks, not to teach and improve the sport itself.
Because the editorial resources to write and develop rule changes have proven not up to the task when the NFHS Rules Committee decides it wants to parrot an NCAA rule.

Is that enough or should I go on?

[zebrastripes]

Because high school athletes are not as skilled and developed as college athletes.
Because high school facilities (clocks, video cameras, administration, staffing) are not as extensive and developed as colleges.
Because high school resources vary wildly between programs, states, and regions.
Because many college rules are developed to please coaches and TV networks, not to teach and improve the sport itself.
Because the editorial resources to write and develop rule changes have proven not up to the task when the NFHS Rules Committee decides it wants to parrot an NCAA rule.

Is that enough or should I go on?

So if an NCAA rule is objectively a better rule than NFHS that has proven to make the game better at the higher levels, is it your position that it should not be adopted simply because it’s an NCAA rule?

Because that’s the position of many HS officials on this forum – we shouldn’t adopt NCAA rules simply because they are NCAA rules. That is completely asinine.

I would contend that almost every rule change that trickles down from the higher levels is a good one.

- 40 second play clock
- Intentional grounding exception
- Enforcement of offensive penalties behind the line of scrimmage

All of those changes have been positive for the game. None of them have anything to do with money, or the skill level of the athletes at the HS level, or any of the other arguments you made.

I’m genuinely curious what rule changes that NFHS has “stolen” from NCAA have made the HS game worse. I can’t think of any.

I will 100% agree that the NFHS writers are horrendous at writing trickle-down rules into the book, but that doesn’t mean the changes shouldn’t be adopted.

And I have also supported NFHS NOT adopting rule changes that cost schools significant money – like the 10-second runoff which would require a referee microphone. But almost none of the rules that actually get passed at the HS level cost money, so that’s a really irrelevant point.

[NVFOA_Ump]

- 40 second play clock
- Intentional grounding exception
- Enforcement of offensive penalties behind the line of scrimmage

1. 40 second play clock - unlike 100% of college game we do not have a visible play clock, strike 1
2. IG exception -  that's OK with me
3. Enforcement of Offensive penalties behind LOS - So if a defensive lineman is about to sack the QB 14 yds behind the LOS and gets taken down the neforcement is from the previous spot?  Sorry but that's BS in high school, strike 2.


We're on the edge here and the absurd version of change wording that NFHS comes up with is probably strike 3.

[zebrastripes]

1. 40 second play clock - unlike 100% of college game we do not have a visible play clock, strike 1
2. IG exception -  that's OK with me
3. Enforcement of Offensive penalties behind LOS - So if a defensive lineman is about to sack the QB 14 yds behind the LOS and gets taken down the neforcement is from the previous spot?  Sorry nut that's BS in high school, strike 2.


We're on the edge here and the absurd version of change wording that NFHS comes up with is probably strike 3.

1. So the 40-second clock is a bad rule change because most schools don't have visible play clocks? That doesn't make any sense. The NFHS has never suggested that schools go out and buy play clocks. If the back judge can time 25 seconds starting on the ready, he/she is perfectly capable of timing 40 seconds starting at the end of the previous play.

3. Almost all holding fouls by linemen start near the LOS. Prior to the rule change we were throwing the flag at spot of the takedown resulting in penalties that were far too punitive. In your example if it's a 1/10 play, it is plenty enough punishment - and easier to enforce consistently - for the next play to be 1/20 rather than 1/34. You don't have one crew marching the penalty off from where the hold started and another from where the takedown happened.

I am happy to concede that the NFHS time and time again tries to get too cute with the way they word rule changes that come from the higher levels, instead of just freaking copying and pasting from the NCAA rule book (although NCAA wording has plenty of issues, too). While that certainly is fair to criticize, it doesn't mean that the rule changes in general are bad just because they come from a higher level.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I am happy to concede that the NFHS time and time again tries to get too cute with the way they word rule changes that come from the higher levels, instead of just freaking copying and pasting from the NCAA rule book (although NCAA wording has plenty of issues, too). While that certainly is fair to criticize, it doesn't mean that the rule changes in general are bad just because they come from a higher level.

That's exactly my point.  We at the NFHS level are not the minor league to the NFL.  Holding behind the LOS IMHO should reflect the ACTUAL benefit gained by the hold + the 10 yard penalty.  The NCAA is IMHO just that, the "minor leagues" for the NFL.  Why even have an NFHS rule book if it's just a cut and paste, albeit with garbled language from the NCAA?  No need for that and it does our high school athletes a disservice in my opinion.  The NFL and the NCAA are driven by the 100's of millions of $ coming from TV rights and must fit their games into a pre-defined box.  I've got no need for that at the high school level.

[zebrastripes]

That's exactly my point.  We at the NFHS level are not the minor league to the NFL.  Holding behind the LOS IMHO should reflect the ACTUAL benefit gained by the hold + the 10 yard penalty.  The NCAA is IMHO just that, the "minor leagues" for the NFL.  Why even have an NFHS rule book if it's just a cut and paste, albeit with garbled language from the NCAA?  No need for that and it does our high school athletes a disservice in my opinion.  The NFL and the NCAA are driven by the 100's of millions of $ coming from TV rights and must fit their games into a pre-defined box.  I've got no need for that at the high school level.

How on God's green earth is adoping a rule from a higher level a "disservice" to HS athletes?

Most of them probably thought the adopted rule, was already the rule anyway, since the majoirty of HS coaches and players are completely clueless about NFHS rules and are basing their knowledge on NCAA/NFL. I can totally understand avoiding rules like the 10-second runoff and C2P communication out of cost concerns at the HS level, and I can understand certain rules (like the clock staying stopped on all OOB plays until the snap) being the way they are because the game is shorter and to avoid confusion/exceptions for a lower average skill level of game officials.

[dammitbobby]

Texas has adopted a signal for 10-second runoff.... as long as the clock operator understands the signal, it should be no problem (or cost) in implementing the rule... now whether or not NFHS wants the rule is a different story; I'm just saying there's established ways for it to be done without a field mic.

'...The R extends both arms forward and slightly above shoulders with palms facing out and will flash all fingers on both hands towards the press box to signal a 10-second runoff is needed. This should be used when no microphone or other communication is available with the clock operator.'

[GoodScout]

1. 40 second play clock - unlike 100% of college game we do not have a visible play clock, strike 1
2. IG exception -  that's OK with me
3. Enforcement of Offensive penalties behind LOS - So if a defensive lineman is about to sack the QB 14 yds behind the LOS and gets taken down the neforcement is from the previous spot?  Sorry nut that's BS in high school, strike 2.


We're on the edge here and the absurd version of change wording that NFHS comes up with is probably strike 3.

I'll agree with your refutations of points 1 and 3 and challenge that #2 was a benefit- It takes a reward away from a defense that worked hard to cover all the receivers and beat out the blockers to reach the quarterback.

[GoodScout]

I'll agree with your refutations of points 1 and 3 and challenge that #2 was a benefit- It takes a reward away from a defense that worked hard to cover all the receivers and beat out the blockers to reach the quarterback.

I'm not making the ridiculous case that the NCAA doesn't have good rules, or that a few of them could be of benefit at the high school level. But few of them are, and the NFHS Rules Committee's lapdog love for them has done nothing but make it more difficult to officiate the game. If you look at how complicated the NFL and NCAA rulebooks are, you can only imagine how screwed up newer high school officials can be when they start their careers.

[bama_stripes]

Random thoughts:

I like the previous spot enforcement change — it removed what was a big inequity between running play/ loose ball play enforcement behind the LOS.

Despite the mantra of “balance between offense and defense”,  the NFHS pendulum has swung toward offense.  It’s what the players and coaches want. The highest paid NFL/NCAA players are on offense.

Selfishly, as a WH I like the :40 clock.  My ears appreciate not having to blow a RFP 100+ times per game.

Don’t forget that NCAA has recently adopted (in part) some NFHS safety-related rules.

NFHS would save themselves a lot of trouble if they would allow this forum to vet proposed rules changes and language.

[ncwingman]

NFHS would save themselves a lot of trouble if they would allow this forum to vet proposed rules changes and language.

While I agree, and clearly us random internet folks know best, I doubt that particular change is going to happen.

However, from the Rule 10 fiasco the last couple of years, it became evident that the process for approving rule changes is flawed and leads to these issues. From what I've pieced together from Ralph, it sounds like somebody proposes the concept of a rule change which then gets voted on. If approved, the concept of a rule change gets sent to the editorial committee to make the change in the rule book. This is the crux of the problem - the people voting on the rule changes are not voting on the ACTUAL new rule changes.

I think any proposed rule change should involve proposing the specific edits to the rule book being made, and hopefully that will prevent a popular rule change from being implemented poorly. The editorial committee can still be involved to clean up some language, but their final edits should still be voted on an approved. I would go out on a limb and say if they returned their Rule 10 edits to the full meeting for a final vote, it would have failed.

[Ted T]

I think it's only if he is trying to conserve time illegally you can go on the ready.  If he's avoiding a loss of yardage like in your play, then it should go on the snap.  I'd ask your interpreter if you should use 3-4-6 in this instance to go on the ready so everyone is consistent.  Here's a case play that talks about grounding when trying to spike it, which is obviously trying to conserve time.

3.4.7 SITUATION A: With time expiring inside the last two minutes in the second
or fourth period and A behind in the score, Al intentionally throws the ball
forward to the ground in order to stop the game clock. Al's action took place: (a)
immediately after receiving the snap while Al was lined up 3 yards deep; or (b)
immediately after receiving the snap; or (c) after Al delayed and throws an illegal
forward pass. RULING: In (a) and (b), the grounding is legal and the game clock
remains stopped until the subsequent snap. Illegal forward pass in (c), and the
game clock shall be started on the ready-for-play signal unless Team B chooses
to start the game clock on the snap. (7-5-2d EXCEPTION)

You've got this.  As noted in the case play, if "A1 intentionally throws the ball forward to the ground in order to stop the game clock" then we wind it.  Like most things in the game, it comes down to our judgment.