Let's Fix Things

[AlUpstateNY]

Encroachment is fine as it is.

Wear any colored freakin towel you want.  If it is nicely screen printed with your school logo, that's OK too.
If it says "You suck #42" or "Your momma", eject the towel and give the kid 15 yards.Wear shooting sleeves, wear Livestrong bands, wear bicep bands around your calves, paint your face like a rodeo clown, hang your play card band from you belt- I don't care.

I think the current rule is perfect.  There should be no arguing about what is, or isn't allowed, either it's a wristband worn properly or a white towel - that's it - everything else is prohibited.  There is no whining about, "but they're wearing that" or " this is really the equal of that", or "He/they shouldn't be offended by that", or "That's a gang challenge", or any of the other bazillion excuses that the creative American teenager can generate. 

We're not the fashion police, it's just that there's no allowance for creative fashion statements from anybody.  A team member can wear whatever he wants, HE JUST CAN'T PLAY WEARING IT. The choice to be made is his - not ours, and we already know that choices sometimes bring consequences.

Under the current arrangement there is no room (or need) for argument, UNLESS YOU ARE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO MAKE ROOM FOR ARGUMENT.  Unless it's a properly worn wristband or a white towel, it's an illegal uniform adornment.  Anyone with a problem understanding that should be directed to the NFHS, and we can continue focusing on the game at hand.

This could, and should, be relegated to the scrap heap of irrelevant with a little more help from coaches.
 

[110]

Well.... as regular readers here know, I've got a blend of a couple rule sets.

My main beef with NHFS rules is that offsetting fouls result in a down repeated at LOS, automagically. That could be tweaked.

A PF by the defence ought to be applied at Point Ball Held, Point Ball Dead or PLS at offensive team's option (whichever hurts 'em most), auto first down. My foggy memory of NFHS says that ain't always the case.

My other main beef (oft cited here, I fear) is not with the rules, but the mechnics dictates for the U. The reason umpires suffer injuries is because they are too close to the mayhem zone of the FBZ, due to the requirement they be at or near the LOS on forward pass plays. Let one of the wings do this job, drop the U further back. And fer crying out loud, let the U rule signal majors - he/she is often the best equipped to rule on plunge plays, short goal-scramble situations, etc.

[NorCalMike]

I would like to see something similar to the NFL hands to the face thing on the d lineman. Starting to see a lot this from d lineman. Usually I will say something but if it is really bad I flag it as a PF.

[RickKY]

I think the current rule is perfect.  There should be no arguing about what is, or isn't allowed, either it's a wristband worn properly or a white towel - that's it - everything else is prohibited.  There is no whining about, "but they're wearing that" or " this is really the equal of that", or "He/they shouldn't be offended by that", or "That's a gang challenge", or any of the other bazillion excuses that the creative American teenager can generate. 

We're not the fashion police, it's just that there's no allowance for creative fashion statements from anybody.  A team member can wear whatever he wants, HE JUST CAN'T PLAY WEARING IT. The choice to be made is his - not ours, and we already know that choices sometimes bring consequences.

Under the current arrangement there is no room (or need) for argument, UNLESS YOU ARE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO MAKE ROOM FOR ARGUMENT.  Unless it's a properly worn wristband or a white towel, it's an illegal uniform adornment.  Anyone with a problem understanding that should be directed to the NFHS, and we can continue focusing on the game at hand.

This could, and should, be relegated to the scrap heap of irrelevant with a little more help from coaches.

I agree that towel color is insignificant.  Any inciteful language or symbols on the towels should be removed.  But if the towel matches the uniform, or is pink, or any color, even with an appropriate school  or manufacturer logo, why should I care?  More than that, what harm is caused by that?

Anecdote:  I showed up at the first home game for a team early this season.  Every player on the home team had a blue towel with each players jersey number embroidered on it in red, tucked into his belt.  When I told the players to remove the blue towels, they all complained.  One player told me the mothers ordered them for the boys.   How unsportsmanlike!   We allow pink socks in October.  We allow any color wrist bands, arm pads, gloves, shoes, shoe laces, chin straps, mouth pieces, but only white towels. 

Logical?  It's as if they're trying to take judgement away from thsoe who are paid to judge.

[Welpe]

Slight clarification: any bat, legal or illegal, of a grounded loose ball imparts new impetus in NCAA.

Oops...you are correct, good catch!

[Bob M.]

REPLY:
1. For judging a false start, get rid of 7-1-7b. Reason: 7-1-7a and 7-1-7c are sufficient for ruling whether or not a false start has occurred.
2. Illegal formation for more than 4 in backfield, rather than for less than seven on the line. Reason: If A has less than seven on the line but no more than four in the backfield, they're already at a disadvantage.
3. Eliminate DPI for uncatchable. Reason: If B holds, pushes, etc. A receiver who has no possibility of catching the pass, how has he interfered with his attempt? Must be accompanied with a very clear statement that when in question, the pass IS catchable.

[TampaSteve]

REPLY:
1. For judging a false start, get rid of 7-1-7b. Reason: 7-1-7a and 7-1-7c are sufficient for ruling whether or not a false start has occurred.
2. Illegal formation for more than 4 in backfield, rather than for less than seven on the line. Reason: If A has less than seven on the line but no more than four in the backfield, they're already at a disadvantage.
3. Eliminate DPI for uncatchable. Reason: If B holds, pushes, etc. A receiver who has no possibility of catching the pass, how has he interfered with his attempt? Must be accompanied with a very clear statement that when in question, the pass IS catchable.

Agreed #2 big time.
If they have 10 on the field w/ only 6 on the line, no advantage whatsoever - hurting themselves.
Love to see that NCAA rule trickle down.

[AlUpstateNY]

I agree that towel color is insignificant.  Logical?  It's as if they're trying to take judgement away from thsoe who are paid to judge.

Perhaps you're right about "color", it's really not a big deal, but the rest of it simply takes the field officials totally out of the discussion.  No arguing, no pleading, no discussion about what words, symbols, whatever might be insulting, offensive, derogatory. 

After you've done this "thing we do" long enough, you'll note that "one-ups-manship" is an ever present cloud on this game, and most other games young men play.  Not always a bad thing, but one that can get out of control (and has in the past) real quick and get real ugly. The current rule eliminates a ton of endless BS and provides a solid brick wall to reference. 

It's not our choice, opinion, fashion statement or anything else, it's a simple, unambiguous, non discussable rule.  A young man can wear all the dodads his heart desires, or he can play the game, he just can't do both.  Ultimately, the player is the one making the choice. 

Learning that some choices come with consequences is a valuable life lesson.

[VALJ]

(1)  Illegal formation if more than 4 backs, regardless of number of linemen.
(3)  Basic spot for fouls by Team A behind the LOS previous spot.
(4)  OPI penalty 15 yards, no LOD.

I don't care much one way or the other on Bama's other two suggestions, but I can definitely support these.  Especially the loss of down on a 'routine' OPI - we're already penalizing the team 15 yards, and taking away a down on top of it.  I see the logic that DPI results ibn an auto first down, so OPI has a down issue as well, but that seems like too harsh of a penalty for a garden-variety OPI.  Now, for an "intentional" a a"flagrant" OPI, 15  and LOD should still apply, but I suspect we'd see that called about as often as we do the 30-yard "intentional" DPI.

And as others have said, if A has 10 players in the game and 4 backs, they're at enough of a disadvantage with the 6-man line that throwing a penalty on top of that always feels like insult to injury to me.

[Bob M.]

(3)  Basic spot for fouls by Team A behind the LOS previous spot.

REPLY: I would go along with this one also provided it was paired with the other piece: Fouls by B during a running play that ends behind the neutral zone are also enforced from the previous spot.

[skip1]

I believe that a foul by the defense in or behind the LOS should be a previous spot foul. At this time you can bring down a runner or QB twenty yards behind the LOS, team A gets the down over and still loses 5 yards. I have never understood this rule.

[bama_stripes]

I believe that a foul by the defense in or behind the LOS should be a previous spot foul. At this time you can bring down a runner or QB twenty yards behind the LOS, team A gets the down over and still loses 5 yards. I have never understood this rule.

They don't lose twenty yards and a down.

[busman]

Re: White Towels

If you are old enough to remember the discussion regarding this rule, gang members were wearing towels, including bandanas, hanging from their belts in their gang colors.

[AlUpstateNY]

I believe that a foul by the defense in or behind the LOS should be a previous spot foul. At this time you can bring down a runner or QB twenty yards behind the LOS, team A gets the down over and still loses 5 yards. I have never understood this rule.

You might look at this situation from a defensive perspective.  The defense has clearly outplayed the offense in these situations.  In addition to being outplayed, the offense commits a foul against the defense, for which there is a proscribed penalty.

Arbitrarily enforcing the foul from the previous spot totally eliminates the honestly earned advantage the defense had gained by it's superior play. Also, it would be reasonable to expect that an offense, who is in the process of suffering a significant loss, because of superior defensive play, may very well be encouraged to foul if the risk of fouling was limited to (in part or entirely) yardage already lost due to the defensive play.

[Kalle]

Arbitrarily enforcing the foul from the previous spot totally eliminates the honestly earned advantage the defense had gained by it's superior play. Also, it would be reasonable to expect that an offense, who is in the process of suffering a significant loss, because of superior defensive play, may very well be encouraged to foul if the risk of fouling was limited to (in part or entirely) yardage already lost due to the defensive play.

I think skip meant that team B fouls behind the neutral zone, thus causing team A to lose yardage on the down. In that case you cannot really argue that team B should be rewarded for "good" effort, because that effort might have been caused by the foul.

[busman]

After last night, the second half in 40 degree weather and raining -

Overtime in junior high games.  Seriously?

[AlUpstateNY]

I think skip meant that team B fouls behind the neutral zone, thus causing team A to lose yardage on the down. In that case you cannot really argue that team B should be rewarded for "good" effort, because that effort might have been caused by the foul.

Thank you for clarifying that the reference was to a defensive foul, I read right through that.  For NFHS, the foul in that case would be from the spot of the foul, the presumption being the defense got that far on it's own without fouling.

[losthog]

Eliminate all blocking below the waist.

Allow the QB to throw the ball away without a IG call.

Any hit above the shoulders or grabbing of a players head is a penalty.

[neil99]

I know they have been hit but the big two IMO is

1.) 5 in the backfield and not 6 on the line

2.) LOD for OPI and make it 10yards

[James]

Consider nothing sacred.

I'm going way outside the box here.

Get rid of the forward pass. Why do we call it FOOTBALL anyways when so little of it is played with the foot?

[Curious]

I'm going way outside the box here.

Get rid of the forward pass. Why do we call it FOOTBALL anyways when so little of it is played with the foot?

Interesting....but isn't this already called Rugby?

[Welpe]

Get rid of the forward pass. Why do we call it FOOTBALL anyways when so little of it is played with the foot?

With apologies in advance but you touched upon three topics I find fascinating...sports, history and etymology.

Well let's see...in 1814 we took a little trip...no wait, wrong story.

I'm sure you know this but I found it quite interesting when I first learned it so I'm going to share. Soccer is also known as association football.  (Soccer is a shortening of association by the way and was a term coined by the British)  Association football got it's name not because the game was played with the feet but because it was played ON feet.  This distinguished it from a game played on horseback, hence making it a game for the commoners.

American football also known as gridiron football is a derivative of the other types of football such rugby, soccer, etc.  Here in America and in pockets of other countries, we drop the gridiron from the name.  Same as most of the rest of the world drops the word "association" from the name. 

Here's an article in Der Spiegel with more detail:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,420024,00.html

Sorry for the threadjack, Curious. 

[Curious]

Sorry for the threadjack, Curious. 

No problem...I find all these thoughts fascinating!!!!

[wingnut]

Make "holding" by the offense legal and change the name of the foul to "restraining".

Change 9-2-1c to:  An offensive player shall not restrain an opponent who is in the vicinity of the runner by tackling, jerking the opponent and pulling him back, hook and restrict with an extended arm, or grab and twist the opponent.  Grasping an opponent's uniform is legal unless it significantly restrains the opponent in the vicinity of the runner.

[Curious]

Make "holding" by the offense legal and change the name of the foul to "restraining".

Change 9-2-1c to:  An offensive player shall not restrain an opponent who is in the vicinity of the runner by tackling, jerking the opponent and pulling him back, hook and restrict with an extended arm, or grab and twist the opponent.  Grasping an opponent's uniform is legal unless it significantly restrains the opponent in the vicinity of the runner.

I really like this idea.  You've expressed it effectively and it captures the spirit and intent behind the penalty for holding/"restraining" (which is followed by MOST officials anyway).