Author Topic: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced  (Read 25907 times)

LarryW60

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #50 on: March 03, 2011, 01:39:42 PM »
Al, I agree with you, but I can't tell if Magician agrees with you or not.  The sentence you parsed from him is severely fragmented, so I don't know WHAT he meant to say. ^flag

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 525
  • FAN REACTION: +109/-4
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #51 on: March 14, 2011, 04:33:37 PM »
Al, I agree with you, but I can't tell if Magician agrees with you or not.  The sentence you parsed from him is severely fragmented, so I don't know WHAT he meant to say. ^flag
I agree the rule should be the way Al interprets the current rule.  I completely disagree with him on the current interpretation however.  A player should not be able to step out of bounds, leap and while still airborn be able to bat or catch and throw the ball.  The current wording of the rule however only makes that a dead ball if he's touching something out of bounds while touching the ball.  There is no point is arguing that again as we will not agree.

Online AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3449
  • FAN REACTION: +261/-503
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #52 on: March 17, 2011, 09:49:54 AM »
I agree the rule should be the way Al interprets the current rule.  I completely disagree with him on the current interpretation however.  A player should not be able to step out of bounds, leap and while still airborn be able to bat or catch and throw the ball.  The current wording of the rule however only makes that a dead ball if he's touching something out of bounds while touching the ball.  There is no point is arguing that again as we will not agree.

Perhaps, one definition of bureauocracy is, "when rule (or in this case, only, one relatively new interpretation of a rule) creates a conflict with common sense, deciding to blindly follow that interpretation, rather than reason the objective." The ultimate decision is made by the individual and reflects which path he chooses to follow, and all that goes with that decision.

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2232
  • FAN REACTION: +81/-12
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #53 on: March 18, 2011, 04:21:08 PM »
 deadhorse:

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 525
  • FAN REACTION: +109/-4
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #54 on: March 21, 2011, 04:35:49 PM »
Perhaps, one definition of bureauocracy is, "when rule (or in this case, only, one relatively new interpretation of a rule) creates a conflict with common sense, deciding to blindly follow that interpretation, rather than reason the objective." The ultimate decision is made by the individual and reflects which path he chooses to follow, and all that goes with that decision.
I refuse to get into a debate about this with a clock operator.  Come back when you are on the field and actually have to make a call.

Crash11

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #55 on: March 21, 2011, 07:41:05 PM »
I refuse to get into a debate about this with a clock operator.  Come back when you are on the field and actually have to make a call.

Uff-da

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 525
  • FAN REACTION: +109/-4
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #56 on: March 21, 2011, 08:39:11 PM »
Uff-da
A fellow Norwegian!!  I bet very few people have any idea what you are saying!

Offline gsrc

  • *
  • Posts: 1447
  • FAN REACTION: +85/-16
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #57 on: March 22, 2011, 06:21:32 AM »
A fellow Norwegian!!  I bet very few people have any idea what you are saying!
Growing up in MN that's a phrase I heard often.
Check out my football officials resource page at http://resources.refstripes.com

hoochycoochy

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #58 on: March 22, 2011, 07:26:50 AM »
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.
The definition of change of possession (2-34-3) requires possession by an opposing player, ie, an opposing player has to catch or recover the ball.  Therefore there is no change of possession in this case.  So we still have to dispose of the RTP foul and there's no spot to use.  The logical thing to do is to use the end of the run like it's been.  
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 07:37:49 AM by hoochycoochy »

hoochycoochy

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #59 on: March 22, 2011, 07:34:02 AM »
I refuse to get into a debate about this with a clock operator.  Come back when you are on the field and actually have to make a call.
LOL 


Online AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3449
  • FAN REACTION: +261/-503
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #60 on: March 22, 2011, 08:58:30 AM »
I refuse to get into a debate about this with a clock operator.  Come back when you are on the field and actually have to make a call.

Your refusal to debate is a surprisingly wise call, Magician. The only thing you could do in such a discussion would be embarrass yourself.  You "come back" if you stay on the field long enough to learn something worth sharing, or might  matter.

footballref

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #61 on: March 22, 2011, 06:10:17 PM »
I refuse to get into a debate about this with a clock operator.  Come back when you are on the field and actually have to make a call.
Clock operator? There is no way that someone that gives us as much insight as Al is an ECO only, is there?

jjseikel

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #62 on: March 22, 2011, 10:52:41 PM »
Clock operator? There is no way that someone that gives us as much insight as Al is an ECO only, is there?

You're right. That's giving him way too much credit.

hoochycoochy

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #63 on: March 23, 2011, 10:51:37 AM »
Clock operator? There is no way that someone that gives us as much insight as Al is an ECO only, is there?
Well, he makes up for that in his day job as a technical writer and editor. 

Online AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3449
  • FAN REACTION: +261/-503
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #64 on: March 23, 2011, 04:19:43 PM »
Well, he makes up for that in his day job as a technical writer and editor. 

Excuse me "hoochy", does your mother know you're playing on the computer again?  She's going to be really upset with you.

hoochycoochy

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #65 on: March 23, 2011, 04:40:12 PM »
Excuse me "hoochy", does your mother know you're playing on the computer again?  She's going to be really upset with you.
You having an off day?  That's lame. 

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1238
  • FAN REACTION: +29/-44
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #66 on: April 03, 2011, 10:03:48 AM »
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.

'Bama, you're right; IP doesn't, by itself, cause the ball to become dead.  But 2-29-3 is pretty clear that "a loose ball (the pass) is o/o/b when it touches anything, INCLUDING a player or game official that is o/o/b".

LarryW60

  • Guest
Re: 2011 NFHS Rules Changes Announced
« Reply #67 on: April 04, 2011, 08:10:32 AM »
Curious, we've already been down that road.  IP was never the issue by itself.  It was a rumored change to the definition for OOB that would only be in effect when IP is being considered.  Ralph subsequently corrected himself by saying that the OOB definition would not be changed.  The reason is probably because of the scenario we discussed: Player steps out, then back in and leaps to try and catch the ball but instead tips it to a defender.  If he became, AND REMAINED, an OOB player after stepping back in because of a new definition change, the turnover would be nullified because the ball would be dead as soon as the OOB player touched it.  Now we have to go with assurances that the change to the IP rule in Rule 9 will suffice WITHOUT any changes to the definition of who is OOB in Rule 2.