2011 NCAA Rule Changes Explained

[TXMike]

See the attached document. 

[attachment deleted by admin]

[JasonTX]

The addition of the new rule regarding the 10 second runoff doesn't help any with the play that happened in the Music City Bowl.  I was hoping for something to take us out of the line of fire if situations like that come up again.

The 10-second rule does not apply if the game clock is not running when the foul occurs or if the foul does not cause the game clock to stop (e.g., illegal formation).

[TXMike]

It might have helped.  (Assuming the crew had shut it down before the snap and penalized Team A for having too many on the field)  Since IR apparently ruled that is what should have been called, I thnk they would have been right (under new rule) to take the 10 off.

[Welpe]

Blocking below the waist will be fun this year, especially with those three man JV games.

[blokenone]

So with blocking below the waist wording "Exceptions: Before a change of possession on scrimmage downs that do not include kicks....." how would the following example be enforced:

2&10 - Ball on A40. Team A in standard formation (i.e. not an obvious kicking formation) Ball is snapped to A23.  Player B76 (who fulfilled exception c) blocks a player below the waist. A23 then punts the ball.

I assume the BBW was legal at the time and it was not obvious a kick would be made then we would not have a foul - however the language used is slightly blurred in this example as it was a scrimmage down in which a kick was made thus making all BBW illegal.

Am I missing something?

[El Macman]

So with blocking below the waist wording "Exceptions: Before a change of possession on scrimmage downs that do not include kicks....." how would the following example be enforced:

2&10 - Ball on A40. Team A in standard formation (i.e. not an obvious kicking formation) Ball is snapped to A23.  Player B76 (who fulfilled exception c) blocks a player below the waist. A23 then punts the ball.

I assume the BBW was legal at the time and it was not obvious a kick would be made then we would not have a foul - however the language used is slightly blurred in this example as it was a scrimmage down in which a kick was made thus making all BBW illegal.

Am I missing something?

Keep in mind that we don't have the final language, so I wouldn't get to o caught up in trying to out-guess the final rule. But, the previous rule allowed BBW until the physical change of possession when a legal kick was made NOT from a scrimmage kick formation. I wouldn't imagine that concept would change.

[JasonTX]

Blocking below the waist will be fun this year, especially with those three man JV games.

Now that the 10 yard "zone" has been removed we our going to be challenged with knowing where the blocker was originally positioned at the snap.  A player who may be your key and in a position to where he can block below the waist legally may get flagged by another official who doesn't know where he came from.    

[SJ2000]

Every official should know their original key or keys at the snap. You should also know you are flagging someone else's key. In this case you need to communicate.

[Diablo]

Blocking below the waist (other than against the ball carrier) is illegal.
Exceptions:
(c) Players of the defensive team who at the snap are inside the blocking zone extended to the sideline may block below the waist inside that area until the blocking zone disintegrates (Rule 2-3-6-b).

Play:  After the snap, QB runs an option play.  Back A44 is trailing the QB.  Defensive tackle B88, who was inside the blocking zone at the snap, comes across the NZ and blocks A44 below the waist within the blocking zone extended.  A44 was in position to receive a backward pass from the QB.
Foul?

[SJ2000]

Team A player behind the NZ in position to receive a backwards pass can not be blocked below the waist.

[LJ Silver]

That is part of the current 9-1-2-e verbiage that is being replaced.

If you read the new language literally, the ONLY time a defensive player can block below the waist is if they are in the blocking zone at the snap, and block low within that zone before it disentigrates.

(c) Players of the defensive team who at the snap are inside the blocking zone extended to the sideline may block below the waist inside that area until the blocking zone disintegrates (Rule 2-3-6-b).

So, on a sweep option,  not only can the defense not cut the pitch man, they can't cut anyone except the runner unless they do it before the ball gets out of the blocking zone.

[Diablo]

That is part of the current 9-1-2-e verbiage that is being replaced.

If you read the new language literally, the ONLY time a defensive player can block below the waist is if they are in the blocking zone at the snap, and block low within that zone before it disentigrates.

(c) Players of the defensive team who at the snap are inside the blocking zone extended to the sideline may block below the waist inside that area until the blocking zone disintegrates (Rule 2-3-6-b).

So, on a sweep option,  not only can the defense not cut the pitch man, they can't cut anyone except the runner unless they do it before the ball gets out of the blocking zone.

That's how I see it as well.
By erasing the former 9-1-2-e, the author/s of the new rule removed the prohibition for BBW on the pitch man (9-1-2-e-6).  I don't see how the new wording restores the illegality.  If anything, the new wording legalizes BBW on the pitch man inside the blocking zone.

Similarly, the new wording indicates it is legal to block an eligible pass receiver below the waist inside the blocking zone, i.e. 3 yds beyond the neutral zone.  In previous years, it was legal to BBW against an eligible receiver only at the NZ.

As El Macman noted earlier, there may be modifications on the proposed changes. 

[ajv]

I haven't really kept track of the current status of the runner/ball carrier editorial change from the previous rule book. Is the distinction still in the rule book + latest patches?

The new 9-1-2-e proposition says "Blocking below the waist (other than against the ball carrier) is illegal". Presumably this means that the defense can't take out a player who is faking a run below the waist. e.g. a deep play-action pass fake so the blocking zone has already disintegrated.

[NVFOA_Ump]

How do we muddle out of the seemingly conflicting wording that defines the "blocking zone" and the "blocking zone extended to the sideline"?  Which definition are we using to determine when the blocking zone disintegrates?  And I tend to agree that the current wording seems to leave the potential "pitch receiver" fair game for a low block by the defense.

[DD]

Defensive backs on the wide out can block below the waist before the blocking zone disintegrates. when the blocking zone disintegrates there is no blocking below the waist by any defensive player except against the runner. The blocking zone disintegrates when the ball leaves the zone. The pitch man is still protected.

[NVFOA_Ump]

So what does this language say???  (c) Players of the defensive team who at the snap are inside the blocking zone extended to the sideline may block below the waist inside that area until the blocking zone disintegrates (Rule 2-3-6-b).

Doesn't that say that while the ball is in the blocking zone (rectangle centered on the snapper and extending five yards laterally and three yards longitudinally in each direction) they can cut the WR directly in front of them in the "blocking zone extended"?

[MJT]

The addition of the new rule regarding the 10 second runoff doesn't help any with the play that happened in the Music City Bowl.  I was hoping for something to take us out of the line of fire if situations like that come up again.

The 10-second rule does not apply if the game clock is not running when the foul occurs or if the foul does not cause the game clock to stop (e.g., illegal formation).

I disagree Jason. I feel it would fall under the category of "E", and that is exactly why they put it in.
(e) Any other foul committed with the intent of stopping the clock.
This was a foul committed for the sole purpose of stopping the clock, and thus the 10 second run off would apply, I believe.

[Atlanta Blue]

I disagree Jason. I feel it would fall under the category of "E", and that is exactly why they put it in.
(e) Any other foul committed with the intent of stopping the clock.
This was a foul committed for the sole purpose of stopping the clock, and thus the 10 second run off would apply, I believe.

Doesn't come close.  There was no foul with the INTENT or PURPOSE of stopping the clock.  UNC started to run players on the field, they realized they weren't going to have time, so they went ahead and snapped the ball and spiked it despite there being too many players on the field.  That isn't fouling for the purpose or intent of stopping the clock.  The spike would have stopped the clock anyway.  The foul wasn't to stop the clock, the foul came while the were otherwise trying to stop the clock.

Fouling to stop the clock would be something like a linemen purposely jumping offside on 4th down when the team had no timeouts remaining.

[TXMike]

The rule change might have helped.  (Assuming the crew had shut it down before the snap and penalized Team A for having too many on the field)  Since IR apparently ruled that is what should have been called, I thnk they would have also been right (under new rule) to take the 10 off.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Doesn't come close.  There was no foul with the INTENT or PURPOSE of stopping the clock.
 

I would disagree with that opinion.  QB looked directly at the multiple departing players, knew the clock was going to expire, knew that he had way more than 11 on the field, and intentionally called for the snap anyway.  IMO that qualifies as intentionally creating a foul (by knowingly snapping the ball with more than 11), and could be judged to qualify for the 10 second runoff based on clause (e) Any other foul committed with the intent of stopping the clock.  In this case he had to intentionally commit a foul (knowingly snapping with more than 11), before he could stop the clock by spiking the ball.

I would also think that the wording of the new rule should probably be more like "With the game clock running and less than one minute in either half, if a player of either team commits a foul to conserve time, ....".

[Atlanta Blue]

(e) Any other foul committed with the intent of stopping the clock. 

There's the problem, he didn't FOUL for the purpose of stopping the clock.  He was spiking the ball, so he was stopping the clock anyway.  That fact that there happened to be a foul is immaterial under the proposed wording.

Snapping the ball with 12 (or 15) on the field is no more fouling to stop the clock than if the guard was called for holding on the play.

I would also think that the wording of the new rule should probably be more like "With the game clock running and less than one minute in either half, if a player of either team commits a foul to conserve time, ....".

This is much more like the NFL rule, and takes the ambiguous wording out of the proposed rule.  Doesn't matter what the intent or purpose was; if you fouled and it stopped the clock, and you didn't have any time outs left, it's a ten second run off.

[Osric Pureheart]

I would also think that the wording of the new rule should probably be more like "With the game clock running and less than one minute in either half, if a player of either team commits a foul to conserve time, ....".

Nearly there; but for these kinds of things I'd rather see "a foul that conserves time" and take the cock-up/conspiracy judgement out of the equation.  Put the emphasis on the team not to make a balls of it.

[Morningrise]

I hope the full list of fouls that carry a 10-second runoff will be spelled out explicitly. Relying on the guideline of "fouls that cause the clock to stop" is confusing.

As a prime example, am I the only one who feels like an illegal forward pass (that isn't intentional grounding) isn't really a "foul that causes the clock to stop"? To me, the act of illegally passing the ball is a distinct event from the ball a) touching the ground, b) touching something OOB, c) being caught by a downed player, d) being caught by a player in his opponent's EZ, e) remaining in flight while an IW occurs; which are what ACTUALLY cause the clock to stop.

Put another way, if the QB crosses the NZ and throws a Hail Mary with a four second hang time, and then it's muffed around for a good second or two, it's no longer an intuitive thought to me that "Aha, the illegal pass stopped the clock." I wouldn't even agree that conserving time was the passer's intention in the first place.

Also, I can think of other fouls, not mentioned in these announcements, which actually would cause the clock to stop at that precise moment. Any illegal bat by a player who is OOB, for instance - a player who may or may not have the intention to conserve time.

So which fouls *always* carry a 10-second runoff, which fouls never do, and which fouls depend on the player's intent? I hope that information is conveyed as concretely as possible.

[TXMike]

that is why I posted the play above with the illegal fwd pass that was completed in the end zone.  Without the runoff, Team A gets to take advantage of the foul and get time for another play.  If the illegal fwd pass is simply incomplete,  it seems fair to do the runoff under the "intent" of the rule change. 

[Morningrise]

Two other wrinkles.

Suppose the quarterback throws his illegal pass with 1:01 remaining, but it doesn't fall incomplete until 0:59. Does the 10-second runoff apply? If not, whose call is that? Current mechanics - I dryly note - do not specify which official should be watching the game clock while the ball is live. Would this be reviewable?

What if a foul causes the clock to stop in conjunction with another foul? 3rd and 1 at the A-30. QB A11 runs back and forth looking for receivers. He gives up and spikes the ball (forward) at the A-28. 0:55 remains in the 4th quarter. During the down, receiver A88 illegally blocked below the waist at the A-34. Can Team B have both the 15 yards and the 10-second runoff? Or must they accept the IG if they want the runoff?