Author Topic: "Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules  (Read 37706 times)

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8424
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
"Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules
« on: May 26, 2011, 07:30:11 AM »
Maybe we should have a thread dedicated to things we find in the new book that are "hidden" changes as they are not listed in either the rule change section or editorial change section?

Example:

9-1-16-a-5   Now, even if a player is LEGALLY blocked into the kicker, roughing or running into CANNOT be called.

(EDITED TO CORRECT A DYSLEXIC MOMENT)

If we deem the block caused the defender to to hit the kicker, it does not matter if it was legal or illegal, no foul for running into or roughing.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 02:16:17 PM by Grant - AR »

Offline Hawkeye

  • *
  • Posts: 446
  • FAN REACTION: +17/-2
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2011, 07:41:16 AM »
9-1-16-a-5   Now, even if a player is LEGALLY blocked into the kicker, roughing or running into CAN be called.

How is this new?  This was 9-1-4-a-6 in the old book.

Something I thought was interesting was redefining the passer to include someone who throws an illegal forward pass (2-27-5 removes the requirement that the pass is legal).  This means that now you can have intentional grounding and roughing the passer on the same play.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8424
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2011, 07:44:04 AM »
I think 9 1 4 a only excused the defender who was ILLEGALLY blocked into kicker

Offline Hawkeye

  • *
  • Posts: 446
  • FAN REACTION: +17/-2
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2011, 07:47:23 AM »
Maybe we should have a thread dedicated to things we find in the new book that are "hidden" changes as they are not listed in either the rule change section or editorial change section?

Example:

9-1-16-a-5   Now, even if a player is LEGALLY blocked into the kicker, roughing or running into CAN be called.

You should change CAN to CANNOT.  I didn't read the new section until after I made the previous post.  Now I agree that this is a hidden change.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 07:51:41 AM by Hawkeye »

Offline fencewire

  • *
  • Posts: 439
  • FAN REACTION: +20/-74
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2011, 08:00:14 AM »
New 9.1.16.a.5
Quote
When a defensive player’s contact against the kicker or holder is caused by an opponent’s block (legal or illegal), there is no foul for running into or roughing.

Old 9.1.4.a.6
Quote
A defensive player legally blocked into the kicker or holder by a member of the kicking team is not exempt from fouls for running into or roughing the kicker or holder. A defensive player illegally blocked into the kicker or holder by a member of the kicking team is exempt from fouls for running into or roughing the kicker or holder.

Offline With_Two_Flakes

  • *
  • Posts: 439
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-2
  • British American Football Referees Association
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2011, 03:47:00 PM »
I like that change. I always hated that I had to remember the difference between RTP and RTK.
Sorry Death, you lose! It was Professor Plum....

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2011, 04:01:49 PM »
This is a HUGE change in philosophy of how the game is to be played - not just an 'editorial' change. Not exonerating a B rusher even when blocked by Team A was a VERY conscious decision by the rulesmakers several decades ago. For it to be changed 'editorially' seems a bit trivializing, when, if fact, this is a HUGE change. 

Hursk

  • Guest
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2011, 07:02:51 PM »
[Exception: If the passer is or has been outside the tackle box he may throw the ball so that it crosses or lands beyond the neutral zone or neutral zone extended
(Rule 2-19-3) (A.R. 7-3-2-VIII). This applies only to the player who receives the snap  

Is this a new one too?

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8424
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2011, 07:30:49 PM »
Yep.  Another snuck in there.  Although I don't think I have ever seen a player who did not get the original snap throw a pass that might or might not have been grounding.  Seems like a very, very rare possibility but at least now it is covered. 

Offline Hondo

  • *
  • Posts: 65
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-1
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2011, 07:51:25 PM »
Definition for back changed to "break waistline of nearest lineman" as opposed to "rearmost part
other than legs" 2-27-4-d

Definition of goal line now includes pylon (2-12-2) and goal line not extended for airborne player. 4-2-4



Offline Diablo

  • *
  • Posts: 1774
  • FAN REACTION: +64/-20
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2011, 07:57:27 PM »
Take a look at the new organization of 7-1-3.  To me, the new aspect is that Team A players not conforming to the 9-yard requirements is a dead-ball foul - blow and throw at the snap.  Just like the former illegal participation.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8424
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2011, 08:14:18 PM »
That is what it looks like. This is starting to get a bit much.  By allowing the ball to be snapped but then shutting it down, we are in effect possibly preventing the defense from making a big play which they would accept over the relatively minor penalty for  the minor infraction. Why stop with just the ones we have so far?  Why not shut it down at the snap when Team A has a player illegally in motion?  Or Team A has a formation problem? 

Offline Diablo

  • *
  • Posts: 1774
  • FAN REACTION: +64/-20
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2011, 08:40:38 PM »
Probably more clarification of a known given, rather then meaningful change:
It is now legal to clip and block below the waist against a runner - see 9-1-5-Exception 5 and 9-1-6-Exception 1, respectively.  In previous years, it was the "ball carrier".

Offline Andrew McCarthy

  • *
  • Posts: 987
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-5
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2011, 02:55:17 PM »
Rule 9

Contacting an Official

ARTICLE 4. Persons subject to the rules shall not intentionally contact a game official forcibly during the game


It used to read...

ARTICLE 4. Intentionally contacting a game official physically during the game by persons subject to the rules is a foul.

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2011, 03:01:51 PM »

What is forcibly? Anything I want it to be. But, haven't had to use that rule in 38 years. Here's to hoping I never have to use it.


Rule 9

Contacting an Official

ARTICLE 4. Persons subject to the rules shall not intentionally contact a game official forcibly during the game


It used to read...

ARTICLE 4. Intentionally contacting a game official physically during the game by persons subject to the rules is a foul.

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2011, 04:05:31 PM »
Use of Hands or Arms by Defense
ARTICLE 4. a. Defensive players may use hands and arms to push, pull, ward
off or lift offensive players when attempting to reach the runner.
b. Defensive players may not use hands and arms to tackle, hold or otherwise
illegally obstruct an opponent other than a runner.

Oh yeah. He finally fixed this one. Used to say "ball carrier." One of those that got inadvertently changed in 2009 by the global "find & replace" command, when he introduced the term "ball carrier."

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2011, 04:31:19 PM »
Unintended hidden change, I suspect.

2009-10 9-1-2-e-3:
3. During a scrimmage down, defensive players are prohibited from
blocking an eligible Team A receiver below the waist beyond the
neutral zone unless attempting to get at the ball or ball carrier. A
Team A receiver remains eligible until a legal forward pass is no
longer possible by rule.

2011 9-1-6-c:
(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) except against a
Team A player in position to receive a backward pass.

No mention of a prohibition of BBW against eligible receivers in the blocking zone extended to the sideline. Granted, the blocking zone is going to disintegrate fairly quickly, in most cases. And BBW is prohibited beyond the blocking zone. But, I can easily see a QB taking a hand-to-hand snap, raising to throw to a wing back just beyond the NZ, but the wingback has been cut to the ground by a LB. This has been illegal for probably 30 years. (32, to be exact - introduced in 1979) By the wording here, now legal. I don't think this is intended. The idea of returning to a time (like when I was in HS) when a DB could cut the receiver at the line, and take him out of the pass pattern is a step back to the stone ages, relatively speaking.

First one to get an audience with RR, please see what he says about this.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2011, 07:21:14 AM by El Macman »

Offline fencewire

  • *
  • Posts: 439
  • FAN REACTION: +20/-74
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2011, 04:22:59 PM »
4.1.3.b

Quote
b. When any part of the ball carrier’s body, except his hand or foot, touches the ground or when the ball carrier is tackled or otherwise falls and loses possession of the ball as he contacts the ground with any part of his body, except his hand or foot [Exception: The ball remains alive when an offensive player has simulated a kick or at the snap is in position to kick the ball held for a place kick by a teammate. The ball may be kicked, passed or advanced by rule] (A.R. 4-1-3-I)

This would seem to verify that the LSU type fake field goal would now be legal and would negate the idea that the holder would have to keep his knee off the ground or something else that had been dreamed up because at the time of the pass, the K was no longer in a position to kick the ball.

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #18 on: May 29, 2011, 07:26:32 AM »
4.1.3.b

This would seem to verify that the LSU type fake field goal would now be legal and would negate the idea that the holder would have to keep his knee off the ground or something else that had been dreamed up because at the time of the pass, the K was no longer in a position to kick the ball.

And, by this 'editorial' change (but actually a rule change), it doesn't matter what the potential kicker does after the snap, i.e., runs away from the apparent holder; toward, the apparent holder; backward; or forward. A much simpler rule to officiate.

Offline Joe Stack

  • *
  • Posts: 563
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-43
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2011, 10:08:04 PM »
Quote
By the wording here, now legal.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding either you or the situation, but how could it be legal when BBW is now illegal except where it is expressly allowed?

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2011, 10:27:11 PM »
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding either you or the situation, but how could it be legal when BBW is now illegal except where it is expressly allowed?

You must be misunderstanding the 2011 rule. B players in the blocking zone (extended to the sideline) at the snap are permitted to BBW in the blocking zone (except against a player in position to receive a backward pass). Picture this: CB B22 is in a 'press' position on split end A88 at the snap. A88 attempts to escape around B22 to run downfield, but B22 blocks him at the shins while both are still in the blocking zone (extended to the sideline), causing A88 to fall to the ground. QB A11 took the hand-to-hand snap, raised up looking for A88, but is unable to attempt a pass to A88, because A88 has been blocked to the ground.

Illegal in 2010, for certain. By current 2011 language, not prohibited (perhaps by inadvertent omission, but that's how it reads today).

Offline VA-Ump

  • <><
  • *
  • Posts: 309
  • FAN REACTION: +25/-10
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #21 on: May 31, 2011, 06:59:29 AM »
2011 - 1.4.9  (used to be 1.4.7)

Coaches' Certification
The head coach or his designated representative shall certify IN WRITING to the umpire before the game that all players:....

Probably a small one in what seems to be a growing "grand scheme" of hidden changes, but how exactly will this legal transaction take place?  Will we need to provide a "receipt"?  How about being notarized?   Kidding aside, while I understand the goal here, I wonder if they have any guidance on this.  Do we provide something for them to sign during our pregame meeting, do they give us a signed document...  ??? 
Goodness is the enemy of Greatness

If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?... John Wooden

Offline Aussie-Zebra

  • *
  • Posts: 523
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-3
  • Australian Gridiron Officials Association
    • Gridironwest
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #22 on: May 31, 2011, 07:17:26 AM »
must be covered although they recommend they should be covered by pants ?

Quote
Mandatory Equipment

d. Knee Pads. Knee pads must be at least 1/2-inch thick and must be covered
by pants. It is strongly recommended that they cover the knees. No pads or
protective equipment may be worn outside the pants.
For every coach that thinks we got it wrong there's another that thinks we got it right.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8424
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #23 on: May 31, 2011, 07:22:55 AM »
Just saying knee pads must be worn and must be covered by pants and recommending the knee pads cover the knees.

Offline Diablo

  • *
  • Posts: 1774
  • FAN REACTION: +64/-20
Re: "Hidden" Changes
« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2011, 08:11:06 AM »
In the Points of Emphasis:
"HELMETS—The helmet is intended to protect the player from head injuries. It must therefore be fitted properly so that it does not come off through play.  Coaches and trainers must be diligent in seeing that players wear the helmets properly, and officials must firmly enforce the rules requiring chin straps to be tightly secured. The rules committee gave serious consideration to creating a rule requiring a player whose helmet comes off during play to leave the game for one down."

I suspect we are being encouraged to enforce 2011-12, passage 1-4-4-a-1, "The helmet must be fitted with a facemask and a secured four- or six-point chin strap, all points of which must be secured whenever the ball is in play."

Which is different from the analogous passage 1-4-4-b in the 2009-10 rule book, "Helmet. A helmet with a face mask and a secured four- or six-point chin strap. If a chin strap is not secured, it is a violation. Officials should inform players when all snaps are not secured without charging a timeout unless the player ignores the warning."

Note, "Officials should inform players when all snaps are not secured without charging a timeout unless the player ignores the warning." has been removed from the rule this year.  Does that mean, we are to charge a team a TO (violation of mandatory equipment) if one of its players does not comply with 1-4-4-a-1?  Alternatively, are we going down Mouthpiece Lane?