Author Topic: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced  (Read 25772 times)

GoGoGo

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2011, 12:49:26 PM »

The rules committee also defined two types of authorized team conferences – the “Outside Nine-yard Mark Conference” and the “Between Nine-yard Mark Conference.” When an injury occurs and the referee grants an authorized conference, it must be an “Outside Nine-yard Mark Conference.” Colgate said this will provide medical personnel time and space to address the injured player.


When we stop play for an injury is that an authorized time-out? Do you allow the coaches to talk to their playes during this period?


LarryW60

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2011, 02:35:38 PM »
When we stop play for an injury is that an authorized time-out? Do you allow the coaches to talk to their playes during this period?

A time-out for an injury is an official's time-out.  ALL official's time-outs are "authorized."  nAnA

During injury timeouts, we have allowed players to walk to NEAR the sideline and have the coaches talk to them from out of bounds.  Any player that steps off the field cannot play the next down (like usual).  This wasn't a time-out that allowed an authorized conference, so the coach(es) could not go onto the field to talk to their players.  I guess we can allow them to come on now that the referee can grant an authorized conference for an injury timeout - but only between their sideline and the 9-yard marks.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 02:53:36 PM by Fadamor »

LarryW60

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2011, 02:44:08 PM »
I don't think so.  Illegal participation doesn't cause the ball to become dead.  The editorial change will simply add a provision to the IP rule that previously lacked clear coverage.
Of course it will depend on the final wording, but one of the Rules Committee members indicated that this change to the illegal participation rule would be accompanied by a change to the Rule 2 definition for out-of-bounds.  If they changed the definition of out-of-bounds to include the phrase "...HAS touched...", then someone who stepped on the sideline then later touched the ball would render the ball dead (and the player still guilty of illegal participation).  It wouldn't change the game much, because the IP foul would bring the ball back whether the ball was dead or still live when touched.  The only change will be the receiver who illegally participates won't be able to catch the ball and run into the endzone, then claim the official's robbed him of a TD.  Well, I guess he's STILL going to do that but he'll be running while a whistle is blowing.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 02:49:28 PM by Fadamor »

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2011, 03:46:12 PM »
Of course it will depend on the final wording, but one of the Rules Committee members indicated that this change to the illegal participation rule would be accompanied by a change to the Rule 2 definition for out-of-bounds.

Another committee member has said that Rule 2 was NOT changed.  Depending on the actual wording, they may or may not have taken care of the problem.  Perhaps a case play will make it clear.

Offline Welpe

  • *
  • Posts: 1857
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-11
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2011, 05:06:42 PM »
Another committee member has said that Rule 2 was NOT changed.  Depending on the actual wording, they may or may not have taken care of the problem.  Perhaps a case play will make it clear.

Maybe they'll add the caseplay back in that clearly defined this a few years ago.

Offline Bob M.

  • *
  • Posts: 1052
  • FAN REACTION: +97/-20
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2011, 09:21:23 PM »
REPLY: How about this one...
"Roughing-the-passer penalties being enforced from the dead-ball spot when there is no change of team possession and the dead-ball spot is beyond the line of scrimmage."

This was intended to answer once and for all the question about what happens when the team A receiver fumbles--let's say at midfield--and the fumble is recovered by a prone A10 at B's 45. Does enforcement take place at midfield or at B's 45? There's no definition of 'run' in the Fed rule book, so the old wording "enforced from the end of the last run..." raised the question of whether or not the prone recovery by A10 constituted a new run that begins and ends simultaneously. Without a definition of 'run,' a reasonable argument could be made each way. And there's no case play to guide us. So they're changing the rule to fix that. Now they're saying "from the dead ball spot." Fine...but what about when the A receiver fumbles at B's 5 and the ball rolls into and out of B's endzone. Now what??? You can't enforce a penalty against B from his goal line. And don't say go back to the previous spot since there was no change of possession and the dead ball spot is beyond the line of scrimmage. What they've created is a large hole that they need to plug.
Bob M.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2287
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-25
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #31 on: February 22, 2011, 07:32:34 AM »
The only change will be the receiver who illegally participates won't be able to catch the ball and run into the endzone, then claim the official's robbed him of a TD.

I was looking at it from a defensive viewpoint.  If A88 steps on the sideline, comes back in (flag) & touches the pass, but B15 intercepts, aren't we taking away a turnover if we kill the play after A88's touch?

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #32 on: February 22, 2011, 09:07:20 AM »
REPLY: How about this one...
Fine...but what about when the A receiver fumbles at B's 5 and the ball rolls into and out of B's endzone. Now what??? You can't enforce a penalty against B from his goal line. And don't say go back to the previous spot since there was no change of possession and the dead ball spot is beyond the line of scrimmage. What they've created is a large hole that they need to plug.

Since (absent the penalty), the next down would start with a new team in possession, I would argue team possession DID change, and therefore the previous spot is the only spot available for enforcement.  That or we have to go back to "end of the run", and that's been eliminated with the "dead ball spot" change.  But the dead ball spot is ONLY available when there is no change of team possession, and fumbling the ball out of B's end zone is forfeiting possession.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2245
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-13
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #33 on: February 22, 2011, 09:33:36 AM »
Quote
I was looking at it from a defensive viewpoint.  If A88 steps on the sideline, comes back in (flag) & touches the pass, but B15 intercepts, aren't we taking away a turnover if we kill the play after A88's touch?

Fundamental III-2.  No live-ball foul causes the ball to become dead.

They'll have to change the fundamentals to do it.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 09:36:45 AM by HLinNC »

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 525
  • FAN REACTION: +108/-4
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #34 on: February 22, 2011, 05:40:20 PM »
Fundamental III-2.  No live-ball foul causes the ball to become dead.

They'll have to change the fundamentals to do it.
He wasn't saying the ball would become dead because of the foul.  It would become dead because it was touched by someone who WAS out of bounds.  That's why I don't believe the rule 2 definition was changed.  The thought with the definition change was to consider that guy who steps out of bounds and leaps to still be considered out of bounds.  This scenario hadn't been thought out entirely.  A better approach would be to define in bounds and out of bounds and then say something like "a player is out of bounds if he is touching or has touched something out of bounds and has not re-established himself in bounds."  Or something along those lines.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2245
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-13
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #35 on: February 23, 2011, 09:45:50 AM »
I must be getting confused then. :-\

Bama stripes question was aren't we taking away a turnover if we kill the play after A88's touch?  His play scenario is no different than the ruling already is- A88 goes out, comes back in, touches pass, flag at the spot of reentry for IP, if B intercepts , B is going to decline the foul and take the ball.  My response to him about changing the fundamentals was regarding the portion where he asks if we kill the play after A88's touch.  We aren't going to do that.

The fundamentals aren't being changed as I understand it. If A goes out and touches the pass while not yet being "back in" under the rule change/clarification, isn't it merely an incomplete pass at the moment he has touched it?  That is how I understood it to be.

Since we don't yet have ther full wording and rules changes, the Fed may do that or they may just leave this as a case play example to guide us without going and changing the definition of IB or OOB.  They've been known to do that occasionally.

Offline jg-me

  • *
  • Posts: 415
  • FAN REACTION: +22/-4
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #36 on: February 23, 2011, 11:22:28 AM »
I beleive there is no change ot the definition of being OOB. The rule change only affects rule 9 (IP). If a player goes OOB and is touching OOB at the same time he touches a loose ball, the ball will become dead as always. If a player goes OOB and touches a loose ball while that player is airborne (i.e. is not OOB but has not yet returned to the field of play), the ball remains live but the player has committed a foul for IP. Previously the ball would have remained live and there would be no foul at that point in time.
Two scenarios -1) A88 goes out for a pass, goes OOB, leaps from OOB and touches the legal forward pass prior to the player landing either inbounds or OOB. There is an IP foul at the spot of contact with the ball and the ball remains live.
                      2) A88 goes out for a pass, goes OOB, returns inbounds and then touches a legal forward pass. There is an IP foul at the spot where A88 returned inbounds and the ball is still live.
  In either case if A88 was OOB due to an opponent's block he has committed no foul presuming any return inbounds is made promptly.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #37 on: February 23, 2011, 12:24:44 PM »
1) A88 goes out for a pass, goes OOB, leaps from OOB and touches the legal forward pass prior to the player landing either inbounds or OOB. There is an IP foul at the spot of contact with the ball and the ball remains live.
                      2) A88 goes out for a pass, goes OOB, returns inbounds and then touches a legal forward pass. There is an IP foul at the spot where A88 returned inbounds and the ball is still live.

A88 running near the sideline, sees the pass is going to be high, leaps for the ball, but steps on the sideline as part of his leap.  While airborne, he touches but does not catch the high pass.

By your explanation, he is guilty of IP (he stepped OOB, leapt in the air, and touched a pass).  But PLEASE tell me you don't call anything but an incomplete pass in this situation.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3438
  • FAN REACTION: +260/-501
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2011, 03:40:30 PM »
Ah, those pesky details.  Hopefully, the final wording will help us all understand what has changed about someone being OOB.  Trying to fit an action into a pre-described penalty seems to cause as many problems as it's intended to fix.  Currently we have a fairly simply, reasonably clear understanding that when a player becomes OOB, he's OOB.  An exception was made for when a player is forced, or caused to be OOB, by someone else, we ignore his being OOB.

Thay makes sense and follows the logic that we ignore someone be forced into touching a ball, or forced into contacting someone.  The game seems a lot simpler and straightforward when you insist that it's played by people within the boundry lines.  If you go OOB (by yourself) you take yourself out of play and you can no longer participate. 

There was no confusion when everyone accepted that once you went OOB you were OOB, then this assinine notion developed that beause of the wording, a person who took himself out of play by stepping OOB could somehow miraculously eliminate his being OOB by jumping up into the air (and no longer "touching" OOB) which created a slew of really ridiculous scenarios (that by the way, proponents of have NEVER been able to explain rationally) caused by ignoring common sense and insisting on semantic purity.

Hopefully this revision is intended to, and the final language will accomplish reenforcing and simplifying the understanding that when a player goes OOB, on his own, he is simply OOB from that point on until the play is over. All else then falls neatly into place.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2287
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-25
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #39 on: February 24, 2011, 07:24:55 AM »
There was no confusion when everyone accepted that once you went OOB you were OOB, then this assinine notion developed that beause of the wording, a person who took himself out of play by stepping OOB could somehow miraculously eliminate his being OOB by jumping up into the air (and no longer "touching" OOB) which created a slew of really ridiculous scenarios (that by the way, proponents of have NEVER been able to explain rationally) caused by ignoring common sense and insisting on semantic purity.
The problem arose because of the "back of the end zone" play that some teams were using.  A receiver went beyond the end line, jumped, and batted a pass back to a teammate.  Although common sense tells us that's not right, no one could find a rule that prohibited it.

LarryW60

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #40 on: February 24, 2011, 08:32:06 AM »
Yeah, we all know it's not in the spirit of the rules to allow that play, but the way the rules were written we couldn't really prevent it unless we trotted out the "God" rule.  Once a loophole in the rules is uncovered, it needs to be plugged quickly so the "God" rule remains a very rare event.  Even if they make the OOB phrase "has touched" only in the case of illegal participation due to intentionally going OOB, it will make it easier to shut down this kind of play. :thumbup

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2245
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-13
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #41 on: February 24, 2011, 12:13:15 PM »
Courtesy of Ralph from Bangor:   http://www.nfhs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=005563

Quote
After even further discussion with the author: This rule change would not kill the pass that was batted by an airborne player who was OOB, it would make it a foul for IP. The pass would remain alive until it fell incomplete or the play ended. This would allow B to intercept or recover a fumble after a completed pass and decline the foul.

So my assumption is wrong.   :-\

Next they'll have me flinging my hat to the OOB spot. >:(

Maybe us wings will need to be preventative like the WH's letting rushers know the pass or kick is away .   DON'T TOUCH IT 88!!!!!

GoGoGo

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #42 on: February 24, 2011, 02:42:02 PM »
HL - That is just too darn funny because that is what I say all the time.
Why do us WH's do that?


LarryW60

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #43 on: February 25, 2011, 07:52:28 AM »
A88 running near the sideline, sees the pass is going to be high, leaps for the ball, but steps on the sideline as part of his leap.  While airborne, he touches but does not catch the high pass.

By your explanation, he is guilty of IP (he stepped OOB, leapt in the air, and touched a pass).  But PLEASE tell me you don't call anything but an incomplete pass in this situation.
I'm still not comfortable with calling someone who leaps into the air as being "in-bounds" so I would probably just signal incomplete in this specific situation UNLESS by "touching" the pass he attempts to tip it back into play.  Otherwise it's no different than a pass that goes wide and the player takes a few steps OOB before catching it. 

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3438
  • FAN REACTION: +260/-501
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #44 on: February 25, 2011, 09:12:32 AM »
I'm afraid there will always be those who insist on the need to separate intertwined gnats eyelashes and will find some way to fit an Illegal Participation call into an otherwise simply incomplete pass scenario.  This whole issue has been created by an inability, or reluctance, on the part of some to apply basic common sense and an understanding of the objective of the game, instead choosing to adhere to an arbitrary gramatical interpretation (nobody has been able to demonstrate) makes any sense or contributes positively to the game. 

Of course the final wording will "tell the tale", but simply changing "is touching" to "has touched" in 2-29 should satisfy all but the most stubborn that 99+% of these scenarios will be best handled as an OOB incomplete pass.   

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #45 on: February 25, 2011, 11:20:12 AM »
Of course the final wording will "tell the tale", but simply changing "is touching" to "has touched" in 2-29 should satisfy all but the most stubborn that 99+% of these scenarios will be best handled as an OOB incomplete pass.   

Except that 2-29 has not been changed as part of this.  Probably should have been, but according the person that wrote the rule change, it wasn't.

LarryW60

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #46 on: February 25, 2011, 12:19:33 PM »
Yeah, Ralph corrected himself and retracted the part about Rule 2 getting modified.  The definition for "out of bounds" will remain unchanged.  So we're going to have to pay attention to the final wording of the rule change in Rule 9 to see if it really will handle these types of plays.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3438
  • FAN REACTION: +260/-501
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #47 on: February 25, 2011, 06:34:22 PM »
Except that 2-29 has not been changed as part of this.  Probably should have been, but according the person that wrote the rule change, it wasn't.

That's too bad, it seemed like such a simple fix to such a silly problem.  Hopefully the language they do use will be as corrective.

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 525
  • FAN REACTION: +108/-4
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2011, 04:52:53 PM »
Of course the final wording will "tell the tale", but simply changing "is touching" to "has touched" in 2-29 should satisfy all but the most stubborn that 99+% of these scenarios will be best handled as an OOB incomplete pass.   
The main problem with doing that (and I believe why it was not approved as submitted) is his scenario.  A88 runs a route and accidentally steps out of bounds.  He cuts to toward the middle of the field where A10 throws a pass toward him.  He leaps and tips the ball and it is ultimately caught by B22 and returned for a TD.

Updating 2-29 to say a player is out of bounds if he "has touched" anything out of bounds would do what to this play?  It would make the ball dead as soon as A88 touches it and the pass is incomplete.  Does that make sense?

I think a better approach would be to say a player is out of bounds if he "has touched" anything out of bounds and has not re-established himself "in-bounds".  Of course that would also require a definition for in-bounds.  He would still be guilty of illegal participation but at least the ball isn't dead when he touches it.  I agree the leap and bat after touching out of bounds should not be allowed by it very clearly is by the current rules.  We don't need to have that debate again because nobody's mind is going to be changed.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3438
  • FAN REACTION: +260/-501
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #49 on: March 03, 2011, 09:45:26 AM »
I would most certainly agree that the"final wording" of any change usually proves to be significant, and the clearer the better, when clarity and specificity is the objective.  Sometimes however, deliberate ambiguity is intended to provide flexibilityas  useful tool to support the good judgment of field officials. 

I would differ, however, with your analysis that the current wording ( related to the leap and bat after touching out of bounds) is "very clearly (allowed) by the current rules".    That I submit, is determined by interpretation of the "inartful" language of the current rule.