Author Topic: NFHS Questionnaire (Read 4068 times)

bossman72 · « **on:** November 25, 2025, 09:59:25 AM »

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LPNVKGF

zebrastripes · « **Reply #1 on:** November 25, 2025, 12:32:51 PM »

Are the five questions on Part III the only changes up for consideration by the committee?

I’m in favor of all those items other than allowing B to score on a try. The 5-yard facemask foul should have been eliminated 20 years ago.

I want to see all the NCAA leaping rules on punts and field goals come to NFHS. Currently we can only penalize the action if it qualifies as hurdling.

We also need to get rid of enforcing B fouls on scoring plays other than personal fouls. And need to bring back the automatic first down on DPI.

ElvisLives · « **Reply #2 on:** November 25, 2025, 01:12:29 PM »

Ralph,
On the issue of an ‘exchange’ in 6-player football, if you haven’t already, define the Team A player that first possesses the ball after it leaves the snapper’s hand(s) as the “receiver of the snap.” That could be the player intended to receive the snap, or any other Team A player who is the first Team A layer to gain possession of the ball after it leaves the snapper’s hand(s). After that, the receiver of the snap must pass the ball (forward or backward), hand the ball, fumble the ball, or kick the ball before it may be advanced beyond the neutral zone by Team A.
In your game, what happens if the ball does get advanced without an exchange? Does the ball remain alive? Foul? Enforcement spot?
The issue that you also need to address (which Texas has not yet formally addressed) is what happens if the loose ball should happen to travel beyond the neutral zone before the exchange has been completed? Does that count as an ‘advance’? And, if it then returns behind the NZ (still before an exchange has been completed)? If A Team A player recovers the ball in/behind the NZ, does that count as an exchange?
You should clarify those things.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #3 on:** November 25, 2025, 01:19:07 PM »

The 5 questions under Part III will be the proposed changes along with 20-30 others. I'll get the entire list in a couple of weeks and post them here to get your opinions. The results of the questionnaire that Bossman provided the link to will be available to us at the NFHS meeting. The response can sway some members that are on the fence, so be sure to get your vote counted.

$:-\$

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #4 on:** November 25, 2025, 01:29:01 PM »

Elvis-

We don't have 6-man football in Maine. I do attend the 6,8,9-man meeting, but sleep with my eyes open during 6-man discussions. At our final floor vote, I sit next to a six-man guy and vote as he does on 6-man stuff. Sorry I can't help.

ElvisLives · « **Reply #5 on:** November 25, 2025, 01:49:31 PM »

Quote from: Ralph Damren on November 25, 2025, 01:29:01 PM

Elvis-

We don't have 6-man football in Maine. I do attend the 6,8,9-man meeting, but sleep with my eyes open during 6-man discussions. At our final floor vote, I sit next to a six-man guy and vote as he does on 6-man stuff. Sorry I can't help.

No skin off my nose. I was offering suggestions on issues where I have found Texas rules to be lacking. I have reported my ‘opinions’ to the big boys. The current 6-player rules interpreter is leaving that position at the end of this season, so, there isn’t much dialogue happening right now.
Feel free to ignore me, or pass along my observations to someone that might benefit from it.
Get some rest.

Fatso · « **Reply #6 on:** November 25, 2025, 02:09:26 PM »

Quote

I want to see all the NCAA leaping rules on punts and field goals come to NFHS. Currently we can only penalize the action if it qualifies as hurdling.

9-4-3e No player or nonplayer shall: position himself on the shoulders or body of a teammate or opponent to gain an advantage. (15 yd personal foul). If anyone tries to leap the punt blocker wall or the o line and makes contact, you can call a personal foul, doesn't necessarily need to be hurdling.

zebrastripes · « **Reply #7 on:** November 25, 2025, 02:15:54 PM »

Quote from: Fatso on November 25, 2025, 02:09:26 PM

9-4-3e No player or nonplayer shall: position himself on the shoulders or body of a teammate or opponent to gain an advantage. (15 yd personal foul). If anyone tries to leap the punt blocker wall or the o line and makes contact, you can call a personal foul, doesn't necessarily need to be hurdling.

True, but it would be easier to support if we had a specific rule for leaping, a la NCAA 9-1-11. I think you're better off having explicit definitions/categories for certain actions that need to be penalized.

zebrastripes · « **Reply #8 on:** November 25, 2025, 02:17:35 PM »

How about extending the maximum length of halftime to 23 minutes and getting rid of the mandatory 3-minute warmup with its own required "countdown"?

ncwingman · « **Reply #9 on:** November 25, 2025, 02:25:12 PM »

Quote

Creating a penalty for a defensive player who leaps directly above the frame of a player(s) providing protection for the punter.

This is worded weird, and I'm very hesitant on how it will be implemented incorrectly.

Is this just for the backs that are standing in front of the punter? If there are no backs, does the line count? If there are backs, does the line not count? Only on a punt, but not a field goal?

I'd support making it a foul to attempt to jump over an opponent in an attempt to block a kick, globally, with no odd restrictions. I'd also support the same foul for jumping over the A-gap, even if it's not technically within the frame of a player's body.

Fatso · « **Reply #10 on:** November 25, 2025, 02:35:42 PM »

Quote from: zebrastripes on November 25, 2025, 02:15:54 PM

True, but it would be easier to support if we had a specific rule for leaping, a la NCAA 9-1-11. I think you're better off having explicit definitions/categories for certain actions that need to be penalized.

Agreed, for sure.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #11 on:** November 26, 2025, 06:41:22 AM »

INHO, "leaping"

sounds quite vague and is currently coached to block kicks and passes. I don't see the need and would also be an opponent of removing the 5-yard fasemask. IMHO, it teaches kids to stay away from the runner's helmet when tackling. IMHO, some/many of you may not agree. IMHO, if we all agreed on everything, this would be more of a sewing circle and less of a forum !

bossman72 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 26, 2025, 07:25:47 AM »

I voted No for allowing a try returned for 2 points. NCAA has a ton of complicated penalty enforcement exceptions just for the try. That doesn't need to go to NFHS. There's really no way to simplify it.

bama_stripes · « **Reply #13 on:** November 26, 2025, 07:38:14 AM »

Quote from: bossman72 on November 26, 2025, 07:25:47 AM

I voted No for allowing a try returned for 2 points. NCAA has a ton of complicated penalty enforcement exceptions just for the try. That doesn't need to go to NFHS. There's really no way to simplify it.

Plus, this is rare in NCAA games, and would be even more so in NFHS. It’s almost in the “unicorn” category.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #14 on:** November 26, 2025, 08:20:44 AM »

I,too, am aginst the potential score by B/R on a PAT. It came within one vote of passing several years ago. An experimental rule had ran in Oregon and a video was shown of a state championship game where B was trailing 27-0 when a PAT kick was blocked and returned +90 yards to make it 27-2. Some were moved by the excitement by B players;however, I was more moved by watching the poor ref running +90 plus yards to keep up with the play

knowing that he would have to retrace his steps for the following kickoff.

I voted NO

MONDAY MORN TRIVIA : What NCAA team holds the record for the MOST defensive PAT's in the same game ?

zebrastripes · « **Reply #15 on:** November 26, 2025, 08:44:50 AM »

Quote from: Ralph Damren on November 26, 2025, 06:41:22 AM

INHO, "leaping" sounds quite vague and is currently coached to block kicks and passes. I don't see the need and would also be an opponent of removing the 5-yard fasemask. IMHO, it teaches kids to stay away from the runner's helmet when tackling. IMHO, some/many of you may not agree. IMHO, if we all agreed on everything, this would be more of a sewing circle and less of a forum !

The NCAA rule on leverage and leaping is not vague at all. NFHS could literally just copy and paste (which for some reason they never do when they adopt changes from NCAA).

The problem I have with the 5-yard FMM is that almost all the ones I see called really should be 15-yard personal fouls, but because we have the 5-yard foul we use it as a crutch to avoid enforcing the bigger penalty.

zebrastripes · « **Reply #16 on:** November 26, 2025, 08:56:18 AM »

The penalty for all personal fouls needs to be the same. There’s no reason why we should carve out an automatic first down just for the “roughing” fouls – why should roughing the passer have a more severe penalty than targeting or spearing?

Either include an automatic first down for all personal fouls (my strong preference) or eliminate the AFD for the roughing fouls and make all PFs just a 15-yard penalty.

The other change I would like to see is allowing dead ball contact well after the play to be UNS rather than a PF so that we can put a counter on players who commit these actions. It’s stupid that pulling an opponent off a pile, or shoving an opponent five seconds after the play is over, can’t be unsportsmanlike conduct because it involves contact.

fudilligas · « **Reply #17 on:** November 26, 2025, 04:37:06 PM »

would like to see a spot foul for taunting, showboating in the field of play for scoring plays...the NFHS is so concerned about sportsmanship but refuses to do anything to stop this...to me, enforcing this on the PAT or kickoff is ridiculous

zebrastripes · « **Reply #18 on:** November 26, 2025, 04:53:19 PM »

Quote from: fudilligas on November 26, 2025, 04:37:06 PM

would like to see a spot foul for taunting, showboating in the field of play for scoring plays...the NFHS is so concerned about sportsmanship but refuses to do anything to stop this...to me, enforcing this on the PAT or kickoff is ridiculous

I gotta strongly disagree with this one. It’s very rare in my experience that HS players taunt or alter their stride going into the endzone. And given the questionable judgment I see from many HS officials when it comes to unsportsmanlike conduct, I like treating all UNS fouls as dead ball fouls.

bossman72 · « **Reply #19 on:** November 27, 2025, 09:12:49 PM »

Quote from: zebrastripes on November 26, 2025, 04:53:19 PM

I gotta strongly disagree with this one. It’s very rare in my experience that HS players taunt or alter their stride going into the endzone. And given the questionable judgment I see from many HS officials when it comes to unsportsmanlike conduct, I like treating all UNS fouls as dead ball fouls.

One of the handful of NFHS rules that I like better than NCAA (which was the old NCAA rule too).

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #20 on:** November 28, 2025, 08:04:33 AM »

Quote from: zebrastripes on November 25, 2025, 02:17:35 PM

How about extending the maximum length of halftime to 23 minutes and getting rid of the mandatory 3-minute warmup with its own required "countdown"?

With the exception of Homecoming, we set all our halftimes at 15 minutes. If both teams are out and walming up prior to the end of 15, we assume that is complied consent of the coaches to shorten the half and reset the clock to the required three. A coach can ask for the full 15 minutes plus 3 and that will be granted. We started this around 2000 bt announcing this at our coaches clinic. It's never been a problem.

bama_stripes · « **Reply #21 on:** November 28, 2025, 08:11:58 AM »

Quote from: zebrastripes on November 25, 2025, 02:17:35 PM

How about extending the maximum length of halftime to 23 minutes and getting rid of the mandatory 3-minute warmup with its own required "countdown"?

I believe this was put in place primarily to get the bands off the field. Give ‘em an inch....

ncwingman · « **Reply #22 on:** November 28, 2025, 10:07:06 AM »

Quote from: bama_stripes on November 28, 2025, 08:11:58 AM

I believe this was put in place primarily to get the bands off the field. Give ‘em an inch....

When I was in high school, at least in my area, every halftime was 20+3. Each band, home and away, had a 10 minute show, including getting on/off the field. Things were dialed in with military precision. It was a little weird when I started officiating and learned that 15 minute halftimes were "normal".

Where I work now, you rarely see two bands at a game, and the away band almost never performs on the field. If the home band performs (which again, is an "if"!), they'll spend 8 minutes setting up and then play for 5. It's kind of sad, honestly.

GoodScout · « **Reply #23 on:** November 28, 2025, 04:08:41 PM »

Quote from: zebrastripes on November 26, 2025, 08:56:18 AM

The penalty for all personal fouls needs to be the same. There’s no reason why we should carve out an automatic first down just for the “roughing” fouls – why should roughing the passer have a more severe penalty than targeting or spearing?

Either include an automatic first down for all personal fouls (my strong preference) or eliminate the AFD for the roughing fouls and make all PFs just a 15-yard penalty.

The other change I would like to see is allowing dead ball contact well after the play to be UNS rather than a PF so that we can put a counter on players who commit these actions. It’s stupid that pulling an opponent off a pile, or shoving an opponent five seconds after the play is over, can’t be unsportsmanlike conduct because it involves contact.

I don't agree with giving out automatic first downs for every Personal Foul. It's excessive and not necessary.
And giving them out for roughing fouls is easy to explain. In every case - RTP, RTK, RTS, RTH - the player fouled in a personal foul is extremely vulnerable because of their position and/or the action they're taking when they're fouled. An additional penalty beyond 15 yards is justified.

ncwingman · « **Reply #24 on:** November 28, 2025, 04:33:14 PM »

Here's a half baked idea - what if there was an option for some penalties on B where you could get either the 15 yards as currently implemented, OR an awarded first down at the basic spot (i.e., no additional yards).

I wouldn't do this for every 15 yard penalty, but maybe just any sort of unnecessary roughness (targeting, roughing, etc.), a dead ball PF, any unsportsmanlike and DPI? I haven't really hashed that fully out, so I'm sure that list has issues.

In this case, if there's DPI on 3rd and 20 from the 50, the offense can choose 3rd and 5 at the 35 or 1st and 10 at the 50. This would probably come into play more in goal to go scenarios where half the distance is unlikely to result in a first down by yardage.

Edit - and even reading that last line shows how half baked this is. You can't get a first down by yardage if it's goal to go, so replace that with "red zone".