Author Topic: 2011 Federation Rule Changes  (Read 9931 times)

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +323/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
2011 Federation Rule Changes
« on: January 20, 2011, 08:39:46 PM »
The NFHS Football Rules Committee meets in Indianapolis tomorrow (Jan 21). Any thoughts on what we might see in rule changes?
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

younggun

  • Guest
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2011, 10:29:43 AM »
I really cant think of any rule changes 'for sure' but I will take a guess they will do away with the 5 yard face mask and a PoE for next year will be contact to the helmet or helmet to helmet contact.

Offline jg-me

  • *
  • Posts: 415
  • FAN REACTION: +22/-4
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2011, 01:54:21 PM »
Prediction 1 - more than four players in A's backfield becomes the criteria for illegal formation
Prediction 2 - LOD for OPI is finally eliminated
Prediction 3 - Chop block definition is changed to match NCAA (except below the knee remains the target point rather than the thigh as in college)

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2011, 07:39:20 PM »
USC applied from the spot of the foul on live ball.
5 in the backfield = IF
Foul by B on a run ending behind the LOS assessed from previous spot.

POE- Sportsmanship (again), IHC, Properly wearing equipment

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1217
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2011, 12:03:57 PM »
Here's a list someone posted some time ago.

The Fed posted their annual survey. Here are the rules they are thinking about changing:
1. Making illegal helmet-to-helmet contact a disqualifying foul.
2. Requiring rugby-style punter protection to end outside of the tackle.
3. Restricting advancement of a fourth-down fumble.
4. Removing a player for one down when the helmet comes off of any player.
5. Revising the penalty for defensive pass interference to stipulate that a foul is not called on a ball that is obviously uncatchable.
6. Removing the equipment specifications on thigh guards.
7. Requiring at least four team K players to be on each side of the kicker when the ball is kicked on a free kick.
8. Stipulating that if eye shade (grease, no-glare strips or stickers) is worn, it must be a solid stroke with no words, numbers, logos or other symbols within the eye shade.
9. Revising Rule 2-6 to stipulate that an authorized conference can only be held with one or more team members directly in front of the team box within 9 yards of the sideline (eliminated the on-field conference between the hash marks).
10. Revising Rule 1-6 to remove restrictions on communication equipment being utilized except for the restrictions on players using LAN phones and/or headsets during authorized sideline conferences.
11. Revising Rule 2-4-1 to eliminate from the catch definition the Team A player being prohibited from returning inbounds by an opponent (therefore requiring Team A to come down inbounds for a catch to be completed).
12. Specifying for the purpose of penalty enforcement and the awarding of a new series, that the horse-collar foul occurs when the collar is grabbed, but only enforced if the player is subsequently brought to the ground. This would result in this horse-collar foul being treated as a live-ball foul in all situations, including the awarding of a new series.

It'll be interesting to see how many actually get implemented.

footballref

  • Guest
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2011, 09:51:23 AM »
Here's a list someone posted some time ago.

The Fed posted their annual survey. Here are the rules they are thinking about changing:
1. Making illegal helmet-to-helmet contact a disqualifying foul.
2. Requiring rugby-style punter protection to end outside of the tackle.
3. Restricting advancement of a fourth-down fumble.
4. Removing a player for one down when the helmet comes off of any player.
5. Revising the penalty for defensive pass interference to stipulate that a foul is not called on a ball that is obviously uncatchable.
6. Removing the equipment specifications on thigh guards.
7. Requiring at least four team K players to be on each side of the kicker when the ball is kicked on a free kick.
8. Stipulating that if eye shade (grease, no-glare strips or stickers) is worn, it must be a solid stroke with no words, numbers, logos or other symbols within the eye shade.
9. Revising Rule 2-6 to stipulate that an authorized conference can only be held with one or more team members directly in front of the team box within 9 yards of the sideline (eliminated the on-field conference between the hash marks).
10. Revising Rule 1-6 to remove restrictions on communication equipment being utilized except for the restrictions on players using LAN phones and/or headsets during authorized sideline conferences.
11. Revising Rule 2-4-1 to eliminate from the catch definition the Team A player being prohibited from returning inbounds by an opponent (therefore requiring Team A to come down inbounds for a catch to be completed).
12. Specifying for the purpose of penalty enforcement and the awarding of a new series, that the horse-collar foul occurs when the collar is grabbed, but only enforced if the player is subsequently brought to the ground. This would result in this horse-collar foul being treated as a live-ball foul in all situations, including the awarding of a new series.

It'll be interesting to see how many actually get implemented.


All of that won't get changed. That is too much for our feeble minds to comprehend for one season.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2011, 01:59:14 PM »
Oooh thanks for the list!

8 and 12 are definites.

11 would pass if there were a majority of defensive minded staff on the committee.

I think 5 gets proposed every year.

No way on #6.  Hard to say you're all for safety and then pass that one.

7 is a rule change in search of a problem.

10, maybe.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2011, 03:31:21 PM »
There were FAR more suggested changes than this brought up to the committee this weekend (I thought the number was 47, and I could be wrong about the exact number, but it's in that range).  All changes are sent to various sub-committees, and must be approved there before reaching the full membership.  They then need two-thirds majority to pass the committee and be sent to the NFHS Executive Board, who has final approval.

The process (sub-committee approval, 2/3 majority of full committee, Executive Board approval) is why so few changes actually get made.

neil99

  • Guest
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2011, 10:42:37 PM »
I would really like to see the LOD on OPI

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2239
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-25
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2011, 07:25:51 AM »
I'd be interested to know what the rationale is for eliminating the on-field conference.  Is there a big problem in some areas with the HC using that as excuse to berate the officials?

Offline GAHSUMPIRE

  • *
  • Posts: 564
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-3
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2011, 10:39:46 AM »
Bama, my assumption is that this as more a time management thing than a berating officials thing. It seems like a way to keep conferences within the allotted time. Many times even if you provide the warning that RFP is imminent, the coaches linger on the field, delaying the restart of the game- you can't blow the RFP with them on the field or making their way off the field.

With the coach on the sideline, he can't delay the restart any longer than it should be. If he holds his team there longer, you can blow the RFP and have him face the possible delay of game penalty.

I don't know that I have ever seen, (nor would I call) a delay of game while a coach is still on the field after a time out. It needlessly creates antagonism between the coaches and officials.

This takes removes that possibility while helping to move the game along.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2011, 12:59:28 PM »
With the coach on the sideline, he can't delay the restart any longer than it should be. If he holds his team there longer, you can blow the RFP and have him face the possible delay of game penalty.

Defensive coach is the one slow to get his team back on the field.  Are you going to blow the RFP with the offense standing over the ball and the defense huddling up on the sideline?

Better not, that one will cost you your future as an official.  Having one team ready to play and allowing them to play against one who is not is a plethora of injuries waiting to happen.  It's analogous to allowing a pitcher to pitch just because the batter is in the box, even though he isn't ready to hit.

If you want to flag the slow coach, great, flag him.  Flag him for delay, flag him for USC, but don't let one team play when the other isn't prepared for it.

Grant - AR

  • Guest
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2011, 01:56:28 PM »
Defensive coach is the one slow to get his team back on the field.  Are you going to blow the RFP with the offense standing over the ball and the defense huddling up on the sideline?

Better not, that one will cost you your future as an official.  Having one team ready to play and allowing them to play against one who is not is a plethora of injuries waiting to happen.  It's analogous to allowing a pitcher to pitch just because the batter is in the box, even though he isn't ready to hit.

If you want to flag the slow coach, great, flag him.  Flag him for delay, flag him for USC, but don't let one team play when the other isn't prepared for it.

I'm a proponent of blowing the ready in this situation with the umpire standing over the ball.  If the defensive team doesn't get on the field and set with enough time for the offense to go through it's normal snap count, etc., then flag the defense for delay of game.  Blowing the ready will typically get the coach to get his team out quicker and keep the game moving.

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 519
  • FAN REACTION: +106/-4
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2011, 04:46:20 PM »
Oooh thanks for the list!

8 and 12 are definites.

11 would pass if there were a majority of defensive minded staff on the committee.

I think 5 gets proposed every year.

No way on #6.  Hard to say you're all for safety and then pass that one.

7 is a rule change in search of a problem.

10, maybe.

The reason for #7 is safety.  When you have 10 guys on the same side about to collide with 11 guys from the other team you open yourself to a huge injury potential. That's why this rule has been implemented at the NFL and NCAA level.  I don't see the injury concern as great at the HS level since they are not as big and fast.

Offline GAHSUMPIRE

  • *
  • Posts: 564
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-3
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2011, 06:25:39 AM »
Defensive coach is the one slow to get his team back on the field.  Are you going to blow the RFP with the offense standing over the ball and the defense huddling up on the sideline?

Better not, that one will cost you your future as an official.  Having one team ready to play and allowing them to play against one who is not is a plethora of injuries waiting to happen.  It's analogous to allowing a pitcher to pitch just because the batter is in the box, even though he isn't ready to hit.

If you want to flag the slow coach, great, flag him.  Flag him for delay, flag him for USC, but don't let one team play when the other isn't prepared for it.

Should have been more precise in my earlier post.

No, I am not in favor of allowing the play to get off in that situation. I said that they should face the possibility of a delay of game penalty. I did not mean to imply (nor do I think I did) that the offense would be able to snap the ball in this case. Left unsaid in my post is what Grant mentioned about the Umpire standing over the ball.


Offline fbljuj

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-4
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2011, 05:59:46 PM »
When will they ever change the enforcement spots for B fouls on running plays that end behind the LOS? What a dumb  z^ rule! A 3/5 at the A30, B sacks the QB at the A 5 grabbing him buy the face mask and pulling him to the ground (ouch). 15 yard penalty from the A5 "allowing" A to replay the down and it's now A 3/10 from the A20?? WT? Don't see that change on the horizon or having all personal fouls on B be an automatic first down ala NCAA but the NFHS is concerned about safety? Please, need to get it more in line with the college game and stop being so stubborn.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-487
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2011, 10:22:04 AM »
Please, need to get it more in line with the college game and stop being so stubborn.

Thanks, but I'd just as soon keep the NFHS rules, and effort at their consistency rather than endless exceptions, in place.  As for the sack and facemask being enforced from the spot;  the defense earned the yardage gained by sacking the QB, but fouled in doing so AT THAT SPOT, so they have to pay the penalty for their violation FROM the spot where thay committed the violation.

Why do you want to make that facemask foul enforced differently from a facemask foul beyond the LOS?  It's a spot foul, either way, and the penalty paid is 15 yards from where you did the deed.  "A" is rewarded with the opportunity to repeat the down, and is given back, 15 yards, of the ground they legitimately lost, due to the successfuil and superior play of "B" in getting to the QB. 

In your scenario, (enforcement from the previous spot) 15 yards from the PS gives A an unearned 1st down and totally negates their failure of stopping "B" who sacked the QB resulting in a 1st and 10 for A, from their 45 (as opposed to 3/10 at the A-20), a significant difference. 

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2011, 10:59:42 AM »
Thanks, but I'd just as soon keep the NFHS rules, and effort at their consistency rather than endless exceptions, in place. 

OK, but look at this one.  QB back to pass, looking for his receiver, who is pulled down by the DB.  Flag thrown for Defensive Holding.  QB, now forced to scramble, is tackled 10 yards behind the line.  Since it was a "running play", foul marked from the end of the run, when the defensive holding is the REASON the sack occured.  In this case, there is no "penalty" to the defense, it becomes simply a "do over", just as if the offense had committed a foul as well.

In this case, the QB would have better off if he fumbled the ball when being tackled.  At that point, it becomes a loose ball play, and enforcement is from the previous spot.  No one should ever have to fumble the ball to get an advantageous penalty markoff, it defies common sense.

"Consistent" doesn't necessarily mean "right" or just.  Something can be consistently wrong or unjust as well.

Offline Sumstine

  • *
  • Posts: 384
  • FAN REACTION: +58/-9
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2011, 11:44:56 AM »
Thanks, but I'd just as soon keep the NFHS rules, and effort at their consistency rather than endless exceptions, in place.

The "All but One" is an exception. Remove it and you have one less. It is a drive killer and turns OH into 15+ yard penalties. The harshest in the book. It needs to go.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +323/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2011, 11:56:14 AM »
The "All but One" is an exception. Remove it and you have one less. It is a drive killer and turns OH into 15+ yard penalties. The harshest in the book. It needs to go.
It won't, and neither will 15+LOD for OPI.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-487
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2011, 04:20:58 PM »
"Consistent" doesn't necessarily mean "right" or just.  Something can be consistently wrong or unjust as well.

You can always find "exceptions" that make any situation look bad.  Yes there are times when the "consistency" of enforcement spots seems to contradict the intent of the rules, but they are the exceptions.  NFHS seems to want to keep enforcement consistent for any number of reasons and it seems to make life a lot simpler than a code of never ending exceptions.

Offline Sumstine

  • *
  • Posts: 384
  • FAN REACTION: +58/-9
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2011, 07:25:04 PM »
You can always find "exceptions" that make any situation look bad.  Yes there are times when the "consistency" of enforcement spots seems to contradict the intent of the rules, but they are the exceptions.  NFHS seems to want to keep enforcement consistent for any number of reasons and it seems to make life a lot simpler than a code of never ending exceptions.

In this case the exception is the inconsistent. All-but-one exception is just that. Eliminate it and all loose ball fouls will be enforced at the previous spot except for PSK and roughing the passer. Why do you defend an enforcement that creates an injustice?

GoGoGo

  • Guest
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2011, 08:41:07 AM »
Anyone hear anything on the upcoming rules changes?

LarryW60

  • Guest
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2011, 08:54:37 AM »
In this case the exception is the inconsistent. All-but-one exception is just that. Eliminate it and all loose ball fouls will be enforced at the previous spot except for PSK and roughing the passer. Why do you defend an enforcement that creates an injustice?
"Boo Hoo!  That poor team that intentionally broke the rules and held the defenders to keep from taking a loss now has to deal with a bigger loss!  OH!  THE INJUSTICE!"

Injustice? Spare me the drama, please.

Offline Sumstine

  • *
  • Posts: 384
  • FAN REACTION: +58/-9
Re: 2011 Federation Rule Changes
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2011, 05:40:59 PM »
"Boo Hoo!  That poor team that intentionally broke the rules and held the defenders to keep from taking a loss now has to deal with a bigger loss!  OH!  THE INJUSTICE!"

Injustice? Spare me the drama, please.

Interesting response with the "boo hoo" and "spare me" I was just providing an opinion based on my observation of the rules and their enforcement. I, like you, do not feel it is okay to take advantage of the game by creating an illegal impact on the play. My comment was based on the amount of yards penalized as a result of the infraction. We don't seem to agree on the enforcement but the response seems to indicate that I am crying or somehow desire to support an infraction of the rules. I agree that a foul that has an impact on the play does deserve a penalty.