Author Topic: "Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules  (Read 38041 times)

Offline Osric Pureheart

  • *
  • Posts: 592
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-7
  • 1373937 or 308?
Re: "Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules
« Reply #75 on: June 26, 2011, 05:38:36 PM »
If they do, does that mean reverting to dropping a bean bag for eligible recievers out of bounds?

El Macman

  • Guest
How about this one...
« Reply #76 on: June 27, 2011, 08:32:33 AM »
B33 is returning a kick/interception/fumble, and attempts a backward pass to B10, but the pass goes forward and B10 advances for a TD. A77 takes two steps after B33 releases the pass and blocks B33 to the ground with an otherwise legal block.

Ruling:




El Macman

  • Guest
And another...
« Reply #77 on: June 27, 2011, 09:51:53 AM »
Try from the 3. A11 scores a TD. During the down, B33 is flagged by the U for cursing him, with profanity.

Ruling:


Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • FAN REACTION: +98/-33
Re: How about this one...
« Reply #78 on: June 27, 2011, 10:44:44 AM »
B33 is returning a kick/interception/fumble, and attempts a backward pass to B10, but the pass goes forward and B10 advances for a TD. A77 takes two steps after B33 releases the pass and blocks B33 to the ground with an otherwise legal block.

Ruling:

Sounds like it is obvious that the pass has been thrown, so we have a foul by both teams. Team B may elect to take the ball after the enforcement of their penalty or to take offsetting fouls. My guess is that team B will decline team A's foul for roughing the passer, 1st and 10 for team B after five yards from the spot of the illegal forward pass.

This is a trivial play situation, change it a bit to have a livid team A coach:

Instead of B10 catching the illegal forward pass, have A99 intercept it and return it for a TD.

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • FAN REACTION: +98/-33
Re: And another...
« Reply #79 on: June 27, 2011, 10:48:18 AM »
Try from the 3. A11 scores a TD. During the down, B33 is flagged by the U for cursing him, with profanity.

Ruling:

Penalty is declined by rule, as only personal fouls can be enforced from the succeeding spot. Team A scores two points. If B33 commits a second USC later, he will be ejected.

Offline fbljuj

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-4
Re: "Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules
« Reply #80 on: June 27, 2011, 11:48:00 AM »
As I do every year (or every other now) I take the notes from the older rule book and put them in the new one. I'm on rule 1.4.2.b from the old book "on a scrimmage down, at least five offensive players on the scrimmage line shall be numbered 50 - 79." That statement is not in the new book, is this a change?? Seems pretty major and with all the other notices, nothing on this?

Offline Diablo

  • *
  • Posts: 1774
  • FAN REACTION: +64/-20
Re: "Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules
« Reply #81 on: June 27, 2011, 12:26:22 PM »
I'm on rule 1.4.2.b from the old book "on a scrimmage down, at least five offensive players on the scrimmage line shall be numbered 50 - 79." That statement is not in the new book, is this a change?? Seems pretty major and with all the other notices, nothing on this?

Take a look at 7-1-4-a-3. 
It's a better fit in the discussion of Team A requirements at the snap.

Offline fbljuj

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-4
Re: "Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules
« Reply #82 on: June 27, 2011, 12:35:41 PM »
Take a look at 7-1-4-a-3. 
It's a better fit in the discussion of Team A requirements at the snap.
Thanks Diablo, slow going (already up to rule 2!) but that does make sense.

Offline Hawkeye

  • *
  • Posts: 446
  • FAN REACTION: +17/-2
Re: How about this one...
« Reply #83 on: June 27, 2011, 02:17:59 PM »
B33 is returning a kick/interception/fumble, and attempts a backward pass to B10, but the pass goes forward and B10 advances for a TD. A77 takes two steps after B33 releases the pass and blocks B33 to the ground with an otherwise legal block.

Ruling:

I believe RR missed an editorial change for 9-1-9.  If you look at the verbiage, it uses both defensive player and Team A player in that section.  In your situation, the team A player is indeed a defensive player under the definition, but I believe that the intent of this rule is only for Team B players against Team A passers.

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: And another...
« Reply #84 on: June 27, 2011, 06:39:42 PM »
Penalty is declined by rule, as only personal fouls can be enforced from the succeeding spot. Team A scores two points. If B33 commits a second USC later, he will be ejected.

We would have carried it over last year, as a live-ball-foul-penalized-as-a-dead-ball-foul (8-3-3-d-2, same for 2011). Why not for 2011? Considering RR edited 8-3-4-a and 10-2-5-a-1 to include Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls, I have a feeling 8-3-3-b-1 simply got overlooked. Why would we NOT carry over a UNS during a Try, but we would on a regular play.?

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • FAN REACTION: +98/-33
Re: And another...
« Reply #85 on: June 28, 2011, 02:00:11 AM »
Why would we NOT carry over a UNS during a Try, but we would on a regular play.?

That's a good question, and my guess is that it is a mistake, but until RR speaks out, that's what the rules tell us to do...

Offline mccormicw

  • *
  • Posts: 258
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-3
Re: "Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules
« Reply #86 on: June 28, 2011, 03:37:48 PM »
I may have missed the discussion on this but has anyone noticed that the phrase "Inbounds Line" has been replaced with "hash marks"?  I believe this was an NFHS change in 2010.  How often does the NCAA rule book follow the lead of the NFHS rule book?

Offline Welpe

  • *
  • Posts: 1853
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-11
Re: "Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules
« Reply #87 on: June 28, 2011, 05:15:51 PM »
How often does the NCAA rule book follow the lead of the NFHS rule book?

Too bad they didn't with blocking below the waist.

Offline fencewire

  • *
  • Posts: 439
  • FAN REACTION: +20/-74
Re: "Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules
« Reply #88 on: June 28, 2011, 06:51:51 PM »
Agreed, should have changed it to blocks below the waist are only legal both for offense and defense in the blocking zone extended until the ball has left the zone and left it at that.  Now we have something that will be almost impossible to officiate, and even more difficult to explain, maybe that was the intent.

Offline zebra99

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-3
Re: And another...
« Reply #89 on: June 30, 2011, 10:33:55 AM »
We would have carried it over last year, as a live-ball-foul-penalized-as-a-dead-ball-foul (8-3-3-d-2, same for 2011). Why not for 2011? Considering RR edited 8-3-4-a and 10-2-5-a-1 to include Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls, I have a feeling 8-3-3-b-1 simply got overlooked. Why would we NOT carry over a UNS during a Try, but we would on a regular play.?

Now I'm really confused.  RR's note on UNS states:

5. If the defense commits a live-ball unsportsmanlike conduct foul during a down that ends in a touchdown, the penalty carries over to the try or the kickoff— just like a personal foul. 

I couldn't find the 2011 rule authority for this, it must be there, can someone?  But since it came from RR, I'm going with it.

So, even though this is a try, why wouldn't it be enforced on the KO?  Hard to believe that the same bad act by B goes unpenalized just because it happened on a try!

What we have done last year?

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: And another...
« Reply #90 on: June 30, 2011, 11:52:52 AM »
Now I'm really confused.  RR's note on UNS states:

5. If the defense commits a live-ball unsportsmanlike conduct foul during a down that ends in a touchdown, the penalty carries over to the try or the kickoff— just like a personal foul. 

I couldn't find the 2011 rule authority for this, it must be there, can someone?  But since it came from RR, I'm going with it.

So, even though this is a try, why wouldn't it be enforced on the KO?  Hard to believe that the same bad act by B goes unpenalized just because it happened on a try!

What we have done last year?

Z99, you've hit the nail on the head. The 2011 book doesn't specifically have that provision, for Tries. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but, until somebody puts it in front of RR, it remains ambiguous. Just as 8-3-4 was edited to specifically  include UNS fouls, 8-3-3-b-1 should also have been edited similarly, but it wasn't. Deliberate? Or oversight? I'm betting on oversight.
Carry 'em over.


Offline Hawkeye

  • *
  • Posts: 446
  • FAN REACTION: +17/-2
Re: And another...
« Reply #91 on: June 30, 2011, 01:25:31 PM »
Now I'm really confused.  RR's note on UNS states:

5. If the defense commits a live-ball unsportsmanlike conduct foul during a down that ends in a touchdown, the penalty carries over to the try or the kickoff— just like a personal foul. 

I couldn't find the 2011 rule authority for this, it must be there, can someone?  But since it came from RR, I'm going with it.

So, even though this is a try, why wouldn't it be enforced on the KO?  Hard to believe that the same bad act by B goes unpenalized just because it happened on a try!

What we have done last year?

10-2-5-a-1 takes care of the case when it is a down that ends in a touchdown.

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: And another...
« Reply #92 on: June 30, 2011, 02:10:32 PM »
10-2-5-a-1 takes care of the case when it is a down that ends in a touchdown.

Except 9-2-5-e tells us to go to rule 8 for administering penalties during or after a Try, i.e., 10-2-5-a-1 only applies to regular scrimmage plays and free kicks.
Previously, 8-3-3-d-2 allowed us to 'carry-over' UNS live-ball fouls (as LBFPADBFs). But UNS fouls during the down are now true live-ball fouls, so that rule no longer governs those fouls. 8-3-3-b-1 should cover them, if it had been edited similarly to 8-3-4 to include UNS fouls; however, it doesn't show the same editorial change. Is that deliberate? Is it an oversight? Personally, I think it is an oversight. But RR needs to address this issue and tell us.
If I hear nothing more on this, and it happens on the second play of my opening game, I'm carrying the penalty over (if that's what A elects), and hoping for the best.

Offline Hawkeye

  • *
  • Posts: 446
  • FAN REACTION: +17/-2
Re: And another...
« Reply #93 on: June 30, 2011, 03:20:57 PM »
Except 9-2-5-e tells us to go to rule 8 for administering penalties during or after a Try, i.e., 10-2-5-a-1 only applies to regular scrimmage plays and free kicks.
Previously, 8-3-3-d-2 allowed us to 'carry-over' UNS live-ball fouls (as LBFPADBFs). But UNS fouls during the down are now true live-ball fouls, so that rule no longer governs those fouls. 8-3-3-b-1 should cover them, if it had been edited similarly to 8-3-4 to include UNS fouls; however, it doesn't show the same editorial change. Is that deliberate? Is it an oversight? Personally, I think it is an oversight. But RR needs to address this issue and tell us.
If I hear nothing more on this, and it happens on the second play of my opening game, I'm carrying the penalty over (if that's what A elects), and hoping for the best.

I was simply addressing Z99's initial question of where that was addressed for touchdowns.

I understand your issue with the absence of the needed language in 8-3-3-b-1 and I believe that you are correct in assuming that it was an oversight by RR, much as I stated above that I believe he missed an editorial change in 9-1-9 as a result of the change in the definition of a passer.  Your other thread regarding the enormity of the editorial changes in this book is very apt.  I know there are those on this board who may have RR's ear, hopefully we do hear further on these issues.

Offline zebra99

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-3
Re: And another...
« Reply #94 on: July 01, 2011, 01:31:39 AM »
Except 9-2-5-e tells us to go to rule 8 for administering penalties during or after a Try, i.e., 10-2-5-a-1 only applies to regular scrimmage plays and free kicks.
Previously, 8-3-3-d-2 allowed us to 'carry-over' UNS live-ball fouls (as LBFPADBFs). But UNS fouls during the down are now true live-ball fouls, so that rule no longer governs those fouls. 8-3-3-b-1 should cover them, if it had been edited similarly to 8-3-4 to include UNS fouls; however, it doesn't show the same editorial change. Is that deliberate? Is it an oversight? Personally, I think it is an oversight. But RR needs to address this issue and tell us.
If I hear nothing more on this, and it happens on the second play of my opening game, I'm carrying the penalty over (if that's what A elects), and hoping for the best.

Agree, always better to ask for forgiveness than permission! :)

El Macman

  • Guest
Response from RR to two questions
« Reply #95 on: July 10, 2011, 10:08:17 AM »
Immediately below are responses from RR to the two questions that are below his responses
---------------------------------------------------------------------



From: Rogers Redding
Date: July 6, 2011 9:33:57 AM CDT

Subject: Re: Rules Question


Thanks for these questions. 

In the case of UNS fouls on the try:  the questioner is correct that 8-3-3-b-1 covers only personal fouls, and it is probably an oversight that UNS fouls were not included here.  Note that in 10-2-5-a-1 (FR-98) unsportsmanlike conduct fouls are included.  Thus the spirit of the rule would dictate that UNS fouls should also be included along with personal fouls in 8-3-3-b-1. 

Therefore, by interpretation, penalties for live-ball unsportsmanlike conduct fouls by players are to be treated like personal fouls in 8-3-3-b-1.  I will include such a play in the first play situations bulletin of the season.

In the case of roughing the passer, as the questioner says, the intent of the change is to give roughing protection to the QB who grounds the ball or is beyond the neutral zone when he throws a forward pass.  This is a player-safety issue and such a player should not be susceptible to a "free shot" by an opponent.  If it happens after a change of possession or during a kickoff the same logic applies.  It would look odd, no doubt, but such plays happen so seldom that it is not worth making an exception.

Hope this helps!

Take care,
Rog



------------------------------------------------------------
The questions:

Previously, unsportsmanlike conduct fouls that occurred during a down were classified as "live-ball fouls treated as dead-ball fouls," and, when they occurred during a Try,  they could be 'carried over' to the kickoff or succeeding spot with rule 8-3-3-d-2. For 2011, unsportsmanlike conduct fouls that occur during a down are live-ball fouls, so 8-3-3-d-2 no longer covers those fouls during a Try. Currently, 8-3-3-b-1 covers only personal fouls, and not unsportsmanlike conduct fouls. If interpreted strictly, for team A to accept any points on a Try, penalties for live-ball unsportsmanlike conduct fouls would have to be declined.

I'm sure we are still to 'carry-over' penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct fouls during a successful Try to the kickoff or succeeding spot, but the current rule language doesn't seem to cover this. Can you clarify?


The editorial change to 2-27-5 removed the requirement for a pass to be legal for a player to be considered a passer. While this gives roughing-the-passer protection to a QB that intentionally grounds a pass, or throws a pass from beyond the neutral zone, it also would also seem to give protection to a player that throws a forward pass when it is not permitted, such as during a kickoff, or after a change of possession. For example, B33 is returning a kickoff or interception when he tries to pass the ball backward to a teammate, but the pass goes forward, and, after releasing the pass, A77 takes two steps and knocks B33 to the ground. Roughing the passer? Can you clarify?

El Macman

  • Guest
Another hidden change - and very mysterious
« Reply #96 on: July 24, 2011, 03:26:59 PM »
Y'all take a look at 8-4-2-b (2011), and someone tell me why RR changed it to read like it was before 2003, when John Adams changed it to be completely unambiguous.


Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • FAN REACTION: +98/-33
Re: "Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules
« Reply #97 on: July 24, 2011, 03:38:32 PM »
Actually, I think the new (old?) 8-4-2-b is better. It includes the possible case where a short kick crosses the neutral zone, bounces back behind the NZ, is touched by team B behind the NZ, and subsequently goes out of bounds beyond the NZ. The 2009 rules don't directly address this issue (and thus it would mean that team B gets the ball at the OOB spot), but the 2011 wording clearly says that the touching by team B is effectively disregarded and the ball belongs to team B at the previous spot (or the B-20).

What's the ambiguity (re)introduced by this change?

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: "Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules
« Reply #98 on: July 24, 2011, 05:43:45 PM »
Actually, I think the new (old?) 8-4-2-b is better. It includes the possible case where a short kick crosses the neutral zone, bounces back behind the NZ, is touched by team B behind the NZ, and subsequently goes out of bounds beyond the NZ. The 2009 rules don't directly address this issue (and thus it would mean that team B gets the ball at the OOB spot), but the 2011 wording clearly says that the touching by team B is effectively disregarded and the ball belongs to team B at the previous spot (or the B-20).

What's the ambiguity (re)introduced by this change?

The ambiguity is in the fact that B could, indeed, get the ball at the previous spot or the B-20, versus the spot where it went OB. If B touches a scrimmage kick after the ball has crossed the NZ, then they should no longer have the ability to get the ball at the PS or the B-20. If they touch it beyond the NZ, clearly they don't (by old or new rules). But the ambiguity is in why should they be able to get the ball at the PS or B-20 just because the ball happened to rebound behind the former NZ (where they touch it)? Effectively, the NZ no longer exists after a scrimmage kick has crossed the NZ. John Adams affirmed that when he changed the wording in 2003.