Rule Changes Tied to Actual Rulebook

[TXMike]

Document indicating where in the rulebook all of this year's changes should be made is attached

[attachment deleted by admin]

[clearwall]

Where in this document does it mention stopping the clock for the player's helmet coming off? Is it handled like an injured player where we let the play continue and enforce the PF or sit-out-one-play condition when everything is handled? If so, it seems to me that if an OL or DL helmet comes off, you're ALWAYS going to get the PF for continuing to play without a helmet. I dont see how a guy in the middle of that would be able to just stop playing.

Edit
Nevermind, I see the clock part in the second sentence "The clock will stop at the end of the down." However, my second comment remains.

[Andrew McCarthy]

it seems to me that if an OL or DL helmet comes off, you're ALWAYS going to get the PF for continuing to play without a helmet. I dont see how a guy in the middle of that would be able to just stop playing.

See 9-1-17

Only illegal "beyond the immediate action in which he is engaged."

[clearwall]

Thanks for pointing that out. Kind of hard going back and forth with these not actually in the book

[Rulesman]

Personally, I believe this every-other-year stuff when it comes to rule changes is a farce. We have not missed a year of changes since the every-other-year book was implemented. Let's call it what it is and go back to "revising" the official rule book every year, or quit tweaking the book on odd years

[JasonTX]

Personally, I believe this every-other-year stuff when it comes to rule changes is a farce. We have not missed a year of changes since the every-other-year book was implemented. Let's call it what it is and go back to "revising" the official rule book every year, or quit tweaking the book on odd years

I agree.  Now we have to take these print outs and shrink them down and insert them in our current rule book. 

[clearwall]

I just noticed something new after reading this again....when it's talking about leaping over the punt blockers, it says "no one in the tackle box may..." So we can allow players to leap over the blocking unit if they are further than 5 yards from the snapper?

[TXMike]

The tackle box extends to the goal line so it does not matter if the defender is more than 5 yards back from the snapper.  If you are referring to more than 5 yards laterally from the snapper when he leaps, the way the rule is written, there would be no foul.  I don't think I have ever seen a "leaper" outside the tackle box though

[Rulesman]

...I don't think I have ever seen a "leaper" outside the tackle box though

You've never seen an outside rush?

[El Macman]

You've never seen an outside rush?

Sure, but what TxMike is saying is that outside rushers like that tend to stay on the ground, relying on speed to get around the blocker(s) - they are not known to leap over blockers. The leapers this rule is targeting are those breaking through the middle and charging directly ahead, encountering the three 'up' blockers, and attempting to leap over them.

[ckref]

I understand the "inside the tackle box" part to mean where the leap occurs, not where the rusher originated.

[TXMike]

You've never seen an outside rush?

Of course, but I have never seen them leap WHILE they are outside.  They don't leap until they get in close and by then they are in the tackle box which is where they must be for there to be a foul under this rule