SANTA'S WISH LIST....2026 version

[Ralph Damren]

How long ago did the AFD go away on DPI? What's it been, 7-8 years now? Week one this season A had a fourth and goal at B's 8. Pass to the end zone with DPI. Now it's fourth and goal at the 4 and I see A's coach giving it to my L pretty good and I had a pretty good idea what it was about. Then he called timeout and wanted an explanation from me why he wasn't playing first and goal. So I explained to him that it's no longer and AFD. "He pointed at my L and said, "That's what he said, when the hell did they change that?" "

"I don't know, at least five years ago."

"First I'm hearing of it, you sure that's right?"

"Ummm, yes."

In 2013 the NFHS removed AFD and LOD from PI plays.  While I didn't have a problem with removing LOD from OPI, I was a strong opponent of removing AFD from DPI. While #13 would help alliviate this concern,IMHO, it would be considered a major change. While some may consider this to be an added advantage to the offense, it also works the other way. Consider an O-holding call at A's 10, moving the ball back to A's 1 may hamper their play choices.
    (5-man crew) 

[Ralph Damren]

I’m opposed to #s 3, 6, 10 & 12.  I’d be OK with #13 for DPI only, although I’d rather reinstate AFD.
Like others, my wish list includes another rewrite of 10-4.

And while we’re at it, how about letting a few of the members of RefStripes vet the language of all rules and editorial changes?

I'm leaning with you on those four, 'Bama.
#3 - IMHO, the PAT is a reward for scoring a TD...sorta' like a penalty shot in ice hockey...the opponents shouldn't be allowed to score.
#6 - Wearing helmets while doing jumping-jacks seems unnessary.
#10
- If a #12 is trying to get off the field when the ball is snapped =5; if #12 playes = 15. I'm fine with that.
#12 - Added duty to us as to record. If the act is flagrant, we can toss..that's enough.

[ElvisLives]

Hey, Ralph. Here’s an idea. In this day of ‘working remotely,’ why not require ALL coaches to be in the pressbox? Have a set of lights on the sideline - one green and one red - for them to accept or decline penalties.
Think about it. No more sideline interference. No more whining and complaining (that we can hear).
It could work. 😂

[Fatso]

(1) R protected on juggled fair catch until he secures. No
(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch.  No.  We have a couple teams known for intentionally making invalid fc signals to stop/slow down K's gunners.  Leave rule as-is. There needs to be some consequence
(3) B or R can score on a PAT. No
(4) Leaping to block kick =    No
(5) No 5-yard facemask foul.  No. I like the 5 yarder when a defender accidentally grabs a facemask while runner is on the way down and clearly in the grasp of the tackler(s).  It is a safety issue so it needs to be called, but it shouldn't have 15 yard impact.
(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups.  No
(7) Remove knee pad requirements.  No
(8) head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.)  No
(9) can wear sweatbands anywhere.  Yes
(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards   No - leave as-is. A player running off the field who doesn't quite make it shouldn't be a 15 yarder.
(11) Feet-first slide kills play ??  This already kills the play
(12) 2 DB/PFs =  .  No
(13) Full yardage on  all the way down to 1.  No

[bossman72]

(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards   No - leave as-is. A player running off the field who doesn't quite make it shouldn't be a 15 yarder.
(11) Feet-first slide kills play ??  This already kills the play

10 - I don't think that's what the rule change is proposing.  It's saying if you participate with 12 at the snap, it should only be 5 yards.  The only reason that happens is because we didn't shut it down pre snap for Illegal Substitution.  This takes the weight off of our shoulders and doesn't screw a team because we can't get our count fast enough.  Everything else stays the same.

11 - This is trying to say that as soon as the player starts his slide, the ball is dead.  This is because a sliding QB is listed as defenseless.  If the defenders are expected to not hit a QB that's sliding, why should the QB be able to get an extra 2 yards on the slide when the defenders can't prevent that?  Making it dead when he starts his slide corrects that inequity.

[Snapper]

(1) R protected on juggled fair catch untile he secures.  OK.  But I don't have strong feelings on this. Works ok in NCAA, but I don't know that its really required in NFHS.

(2) Invalid fair catch = no penalty, but no fair catch.  YES.  Absolutely.  Invalid fair catch signal = no penalty, but should still kill the play.

(3) B or R can score on a PAT  No, it's not needed

(4) Leaping to block kick =    Yes

(5) No 5-yard facemask foul  Yes, absolutely.  Its either a foul or its not.  And if it is, its a safety foul and we shouldn't give people a chance to wuss out with a 5 yarder.

(6) Must wear proper equipment during warm-ups  No

(7) Remove knee pad requirements  I'm neutral on this.  No strong opinion on it.

(8) head items extending below helmet illegal (ski masks etc.)  I'm neutral on this.  No strong opinion on it.

(9) can wear sweatbands anywhere  Ok, but I don't really care either way.

(10) IP with 12 = IS, 5 yards   Yes

(11) Feet-first slide kills play  Yes, absolutely

(12) 2 DB/PFs =    No, I don't think its needed.  (Although I do like the NCAA rule of making certain DBPF's a UNS instead.)

(13) Full yardage on  all the way down to 1  No. No. NO. If people don't like the DPI penalty, then change the DPI penalty instead of this.

[GoodScout]

Please don't even bring up AFD on DPI at the meeting.

[bama_stripes]

10 - I don't think that's what the rule change is proposing.  It's saying if you participate with 12 at the snap, it should only be 5 yards.  The only reason that happens is because we didn't shut it down pre snap for Illegal Substitution.  This takes the weight off of our shoulders and doesn't screw a team because we can't get our count fast enough.  Everything else stays the same.

I don’t get this philosophy.  The team gets penalized because they screwed up, not us.  There’s a huge difference between a player who doesn’t get off in time and a player who actually participates in the play.

I can envision scenarios where a coach intentionally plays with 12 knowing that if he gets caught it will only cost him 5 yards.

[Fatso]

10 - I don't think that's what the rule change is proposing.  It's saying if you participate with 12 at the snap, it should only be 5 yards.  The only reason that happens is because we didn't shut it down pre snap for Illegal Substitution.  This takes the weight off of our shoulders and doesn't screw a team because we can't get our count fast enough.  Everything else stays the same.

What screws the team is them having 12 participating. We can bail them out with our count and killing the play pre-snap for only 5 yds, but the ultimate fault is on the team not us.  I realize we absolutely want to catch the IS for 5 yds instead of allowing the play to proceed with 12, but I think it would be a mistake to only penalize 5 yds for 12 participating.

11 - This is trying to say that as soon as the player starts his slide, the ball is dead.  This is because a sliding QB is listed as defenseless.  If the defenders are expected to not hit a QB that's sliding, why should the QB be able to get an extra 2 yards on the slide when the defenders can't prevent that?  Making it dead when he starts his slide corrects that inequity.

The QB shouldn't be given an extra 2 yards on a slide.  The play is dead and ball should be spotted at the point where he starts his slide.  I don't understand what's different?

[zebrastripes]

I don’t get this philosophy.  The team gets penalized because they screwed up, not us.  There’s a huge difference between a player who doesn’t get off in time and a player who actually participates in the play.

I can envision scenarios where a coach intentionally plays with 12 knowing that if he gets caught it will only cost him 5 yards.

That’s basically what happened in the Ohio State-Oregon regular season game last year that spurred the in-season rule change about resetting the game clock to the time of the previous play. The difference is that in NCAA 12 players on B is always a live-ball foul.

FED would need to adopt the same clock rule to make it most equitable, but that won’t happen since most stadiums don’t have a microphone.

[zebrastripes]

The QB shouldn't be given an extra 2 yards on a slide.  The play is dead and ball should be spotted at the point where he starts his slide.  I don't understand what's different?

A feet-first slide does not immediately kill the play under NFHS currently like it does in NCAA. It makes the QB defenseless but the ball is not dead until a body part other than hand or foot touches the ground. That’s the clear inequity that this proposal is trying to fix and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t pass other than purists whining about how we don’t need to do anything NCAA does.

[GoodScout]

A feet-first slide does not immediately kill the play under NFHS currently like it does in NCAA. It makes the QB defenseless but the ball is not dead until a body part other than hand or foot touches the ground. That’s the clear inequity that this proposal is trying to fix and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t pass other than purists whining about how we don’t need to do anything NCAA does.

I don't know how you're built, but my BUTT isn't a hand or foot.

[zebrastripes]

I don't know how you're built, but my BUTT isn't a hand or foot.

I don’t know if you’re being obtuse or if you don’t know how a feet first slide looks, but the runner slides for 2-3 yards before his BUTT actually touches the ground and thus makes the ball dead under current NFHS rules, despite still being considered a defenseless player.

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, once a QB starts his slide - like taking a knee - the ball should become dead. This proposal would give rule support to that.

IMHO, if in counting players you've got 12 before the snap = DBIS = 5 yds. If you are still counting and 12th player is on his way off the field when the ball is snapped = live ball IS = 5 yards. If the 12th player is involved in the play = IP = 15 yards.

IMHO, the inequity in our IP rule is the 15 cost of A or K accidently stepping OOB, but this dosen't deal with that.

IMHO, We'll have Patriot/Seahawk Super Bowl.....WHAT SAY YOU.....

[AlUpstateNY]

Referencing an even older axiom, "Beauty is in the eye of the "BEHOLDER", which suggests the location where the runner chooses to surrender his ability to continue his advance, should determine where his advance ends.  As a designated  observer of "beauty", that seems to be the SOLE judgment of the covering Official, rather than the "hope" of the runner/coach.  The spot where the runner/coach DECIDES to surrender seems far more accurate, fair and consistent than any additional yardage gained where the "slide/surrender" actually ends.

Stopping play, at the commencement of the slide, also provides protection to the runner for any loss of control/possession during the slide. Bear in mind, it is the Runner's SOLE decision as to where and when to "slide".

[bossman72]

I don’t get this philosophy.  The team gets penalized because they screwed up, not us.  There’s a huge difference between a player who doesn’t get off in time and a player who actually participates in the play.

I can envision scenarios where a coach intentionally plays with 12 knowing that if he gets caught it will only cost him 5 yards.

If a coach intentionally plays with 12, it's the exact same with the new rule as it is today.
Let's say coach intentionally puts 12 players out for the play today.  What's your call?  Dead ball illegal substitution.  5 yards
What's your call with the new rule change?  Dead ball illegal substitution.  5 yards.

The new rule only affects live ball fouls.  The only way we get 15 for particpating with more than 11 is because we didn't get the count done in time.  Quite literally WE scrwed up.  Our competence is the ONLY difference between 5 and 15.

I knew a guy that worked youth football that would intentionally wait until after the snap to call IP on a team that had 12 in formation if the coach was being a jerk.  That's case in point that it's 100% on us whether it's 5 vs 15.

If a player runs on the field after the snap and participates, that is IP 15 yards as always.

[zebrastripes]

The only time it’s not our fault if a team participates with 12 is if the 12th player is literally running on the field at the snap and we don’t have time to kill the play. Other than that there is no difference between 5 and 15 except our competence. The idea that it’s not our fault just doesn’t hold water. It’s like six players on the court in basketball – there’s almost no reason it should ever happen if we are doing our job.

All of the IP rules can easily moved to ILS, UNS, or ILT easily and then there’s no reason to have IP as a foul at all. If FED wants things to be simple I’m not sure why we need IP at all.

[Ralph Damren]

Please don't even bring up AFD on DPI at the meeting.

Don't worry, GoodScout, I've brought it up (via proposal) twice and had it shot down twice  . Needing 2/3 to pass the floor vote, there was always enough voters that felt the AFD should be only for 'roughing fouls'. While penalizing the full distance would help to alleviate the potental inequity of DPI fouls inside the 30, it would be a major change and may not have support.

[Ralph Damren]

Hey, Ralph. Here’s an idea. In this day of ‘working remotely,’ why not require ALL coaches to be in the pressbox? Have a set of lights on the sideline - one green and one red - for them to accept or decline penalties.
Think about it. No more sideline interference. No more whining and complaining (that we can hear).
It could work. 😂

While yours is a novel idea  , we would still need someone/something to keep players from wandering out on the field  . Another thought is to have the restricted area that needs to be clear during a play wired with players, coaches and the like wearing 'dog collers' that would zap anyone in said area during the play.  A sensor could be added to the ball that would activate the zapper once the ball is snapped.

YOUR AND MY IDEAS ARE PROBABLY AT LEAST A FEW YEARS AWAY 

[ElvisLives]

While yours is a novel idea  , we would still need someone/something to keep players from wandering out on the field  . Another thought is to have the restricted area that needs to be clear during a play wired with players, coaches and the like wearing 'dog collers' that would zap anyone in said area during the play.  A sensor could be added to the ball that would activate the zapper once the ball is snapped.

YOUR AND MY IDEAS ARE PROBABLY AT LEAST A FEW YEARS AWAY 

Back in the 70’s, working intramural softball at college, we worked on fields that had a backstop, but no other form of boundary marking. No fences. No bleachers. Nothing. Regular season wasn’t much of a problem. The few spectators that attended were easy to control. But, come playoff time, the frats would require all of their members to attend, with girlfriends, roommates, homeless vagrants - anybody they could find. Those unruly mobs were impossible to keep behind either an imaginary line, or a chalk line, on the ground extending from the corner posts of the backstop outward some 150’ or so. The unruly mobs would eventually migrate out to dang near the foul lines.
Then, one day, I noticed that we had several “tug of war” ropes in the equipment shed, and thought they might be easier to place along the boundary than marking with chalk (a task that was left to the highly paid student umpiring staff). So, we simply laid them from the corner posts of the backstop, outward, along the imaginary field boundary line. I suppose because these ropes were some 2” in diameter, the 3-dimensionality of the ropes seemed to emit a ‘force field’ of some kind, and they, magically, restrained the unruly mob quite nicely. It was quite easy for both umpires and mobsters to know that someone was over the boundary, and quite easy for the mobsters to know, and keep, their places behind the rope.
So, maybe require a similar soft, but fixed, three-dimensional boundary marker along the players’ lines (with the coaches in the pressbox). 😳. (We can dream, can’t we?)

[GoodScout]

If a coach intentionally plays with 12, it's the exact same with the new rule as it is today.
Let's say coach intentionally puts 12 players out for the play today.  What's your call?  Dead ball illegal substitution.  5 yards
What's your call with the new rule change?  Dead ball illegal substitution.  5 yards.

The new rule only affects live ball fouls.  The only way we get 15 for particpating with more than 11 is because we didn't get the count done in time.  Quite literally WE scrwed up.  Our competence is the ONLY difference between 5 and 15.

Wrong. You have it backwards.

If a coach sends out 12 to participate in a play, it's a 15-yard penalty. We're bailing him out by catching this before the snap and letting him just get away with 5. We're doing him a favor, not the other way around.

[ncwingman]

Wrong. You have it backwards.

If a coach sends out 12 to participate in a play, it's a 15-yard penalty. We're bailing him out by catching this before the snap and letting him just get away with 5. We're doing him a favor, not the other way around.

I think we're also getting lost in the specifics of an edge case, which seems to happen a lot here - we seem to like arguing fine details of rules to prevent very specific situations from happening, despite those situations never really happening.

How many times have you dealt with a coach *intentionally* sending out 12 players to gain an advantage? Really. Has that ever happened to you? Where I am, there are a lot more plays run with 10 because somebody forgets they're supposed to be on the field, and coaches would be ecstatic if they could always play with 11, let alone 12.

I get coaches designing plays that skirt the rules, hoping they won't get caught, but too many men is not exactly a grey area that you can push the limits on.

However, are you also arguing that this shouldn't be a dead ball foul? If there's 12 in formation, we should be killing it now - mark off five yards, don't let a play run, don't let time come off the clock, don't risk injury on a "free" play, etc.

[bossman72]

Wrong. You have it backwards.

If a coach sends out 12 to participate in a play, it's a 15-yard penalty. We're bailing him out by catching this before the snap and letting him just get away with 5. We're doing him a favor, not the other way around.

Huh?  So in today's world, you're not calling illegal substitution before the snap if they have 12 in formation?  I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

How many times have you dealt with a coach *intentionally* sending out 12 players to gain an advantage?

Forgive me for speaking for everyone else here, but the answer is never.  We would shut it down for illegal substitution, so there's no advantage. We would still do this with the new rule change too.

Literally the only difference between 5 and 15 today is how quickly we count.

[bama_stripes]

How many times have you dealt with a coach *intentionally* sending out 12 players to gain an advantage? Really. Has that ever happened to you?

I get coaches designing plays that skirt the rules, hoping they won't get caught, but too many men is not exactly a grey area that you can push the limits on.

They don’t do it because they’re risking a major penalty.  Changing to a 5-yard penalty removes that deterrent.

[NVFOA_Ump]

They don’t do it because they’re risking a major penalty.  Changing to a 5-yard penalty removes that deterrent.

I believe that the suggested change would be applicable in those few situations where the replaced player is attempting to leave the field but does not make it in time.  We would have a live ball flag down but penalize as a 5 yard Illegal Substitution since the departing player did not actually participate in the play.  I still prefer sticking with what we have now.