Latest from Ohio

[maven]

The Ohio rules gurus e-mailed NFHS 5 plays concerning sideline receptions and forward progress. The purpose was to request clarification regarding the new rule.

See whether you think the answers clarify anything ... anything at all.

http://ohsaafb.com/questions/

[Rulesman]

Some similar plays with conflicting rulings...

[Reff54]

We had a similar play on Saturday but it wasn't involving the player who scored.  I think the reasoning behind this rule would be say while the player scoring is running down the field and 30 yards behind him a beaten defensive player takes a shot at an offensive player watching the score take place.  If you allowed the offense to decline the penalty to keep the score....then technically  defensive players could blast someone out of the play without penalty.  It basically eliminates the cheap shot without consequences.

[ECILLJ]

This is consistent with Illinois and how we were told to enforce the rule at our summer clinic.

[maven]

Some similar plays with conflicting rulings...

Exactly. Poorly written plays, too.

[AFSST]

Catch/no catch is fairly clear. 

If an airborne receiver catches the pass and is hit by the defender causing him to land OOB (regardless of direction), the pass is incomplete.

If an airborne receiver catches the pass and is carried OOB sideways or backwards, the catch is good, keep the clock running and award the forward progress spot.

The difference is hit OOB vs carried OOB.

[Rulesman]

Catch/no catch is fairly clear. 
...
The difference is hit OOB vs carried OOB.

Clear as mud, and no, the rule is not written to cover hit OOB vs. carried OOB. The rule says first contact must be INBOUNDS.

[AFSST]

Clear as mud, and no, the rule is not written to cover hit OOB vs. carried OOB. The rule says first contact must be INBOUNDS.

Yes, you are correct, I meant to type hit inbounds and forced OOB (while still airborne) vs caught inbounds and carried OOB.  If the receiver's first contact with the ground is out of bounds, then "hit" vs "carried" is significant.

[Atlanta Blue]

If the receiver's first contact with the ground is out of bounds, then "hit" vs "carried" is significant.

And that's the problem: by RULE, no it's not.  Pushed vs carried OOB makes NO difference in the new rule, and it was never supposed to make a difference.

But somehow, somewhere, the rule that was writen and agreed to by the committee has been bastardized by those that want to make it like the NCAA rule.  It's NOT the same rule.  By RULE, if the receiver doesn't come down inbounds for ANY reason, it's not a catch.

[maven]

But somehow, somewhere, the rule that was written and agreed to by the committee has been bastardized by those that want to make it like the NCAA rule.  It's NOT the same rule.

I agree. The rule and case plays (e.g., 4.3.3B) don't square, and nobody going up my chain of command -- local interpreter, state interpreter, NFHS interpreter -- can provide a straight answer regarding how to rule on these plays.

I worry before each game that we might see one, and breathe a sigh of relief that so far we haven't.

[Rulesman]

And that's the problem: by RULE, no it's not.  Pushed vs carried OOB makes NO difference in the new rule, and it was never supposed to make a difference.

But somehow, somewhere, the rule that was writen and agreed to by the committee has been bastardized by those that want to make it like the NCAA rule.  It's NOT the same rule.  By RULE, if the receiver doesn't come down inbounds for ANY reason, it's not a catch.

+1

[HLinNC]

But somehow, somewhere, the rule that was writen and agreed to by the committee has been bastardized by those that want to make it like the NCAA rule.  It's NOT the same rule.  By RULE, if the receiver doesn't come down inbounds for ANY reason, it's not a catch.

And therein lies the unspoken truth that simmers beneath the surface in my group and maybe others.  There is a small number of NCAA officials in our group that has taken on more and more of  control in the way we operate- mechanics, equipment, etc.
It has caused some angst, i.e.- requiring purchase of black pants early on upon their introduction, switch to blue bean bags when there wasn't a thing wrong with the white ones we all had, introduction of college mechanics with only 5 officials.
I don't have a problem with most of it though I do tire of having to correct NCAA rule applications on the field in HS games when we start getting mish-mashed out there on Friday nights.

I worry before each game that we might see one, and breathe a sigh of relief that so far we haven't.

+1

[Atlanta Blue]

In your entire officiating career, have you EVER seen an airborne receiver grabbed while in the air, and carried to the sideline to be dropped?  I'm not talking about pushed so he landed OOB, I'm taking about CARRIED OOB?

I'm betting this is a play that's getting a lot more conversation than it deserves.

[ECILLJ]

In your entire officiating career, have you EVER seen an airborne receiver grabbed while in the air, and carried to the sideline to be dropped?  I'm not talking about pushed so he landed OOB, I'm taking about CARRIED OOB?

I'm betting this is a play that's getting a lot more conversation than it deserves.

18 years working the sideline and I have never seen a receiver carried off. I can count on one hand, the number of times I have had to make a decision on whether or not the receiver would have come down in bounds or not.

[TampaSteve]

Butt blocking?   

 

[Eastshire]

Clear as mud, and no, the rule is not written to cover hit OOB vs. carried OOB. The rule says first contact must be INBOUNDS.

The cases are pretty clear and the distinction is between carried and hit/pushed. No, it's not what the rule says, but that doesn't make the cases unclear, perhaps wrong, but not unclear.

[Rulesman]

How can an interpretation be CLEAR when the rule book says one thing and the case book another?

[maven]

In your entire officiating career, have you EVER seen an airborne receiver grabbed while in the air, and carried to the sideline to be dropped?  I'm not talking about pushed so he landed OOB, I'm taking about CARRIED OOB?

I'm betting this is a play that's getting a lot more conversation than it deserves.

That is not the play that concerns me, and I agree that people are making heavy weather of the play where the defender carries a runner OOB. This is what concerns me, and I don't think it's rare:

SITUATION: A88 is running toward the sideline at the A35YL, leaps in the air, and controls a pass. Before he returns to the ground, B54 contacts him so that he first touches the ground out of bounds at the (a) A34YL (forward progress stopped), or (b) A36YL (forward progress not stopped).

By rule, neither (a) nor (b) is a catch, since the receiver got nothing down inbounds after gaining possession. By the ruling in 4.3.3B, (a) is a catch and (b) is not because in (a) but not (b) the receiver's forward progress was stopped over the field of play. By the OHSAA football web site, I have no idea.

[Rulesman]

That is not the play that concerns me, and I agree that people are making heavy weather of the play where the defender carries a runner OOB. This is what concerns me, and I don't think it's rare:

SITUATION: A88 is running toward the sideline at the A35YL, leaps in the air, and controls a pass. Before he returns to the ground, B54 contacts him so that he first touches the ground out of bounds at the (a) A34YL (forward progress stopped), or (b) A36YL (forward progress not stopped).

By rule, neither (a) nor (b) is a catch, since the receiver got nothing down inbounds after gaining possession. By the ruling in 4.3.3B, (a) is a catch and (b) is not because in (a) but not (b) the receiver's forward progress was stopped over the field of play. By the OHSAA football web site, I have no idea.

NO CATCH in any of these situations unless he first touches INBOUNDS.

[maven]

NO CATCH in any of these situations unless he first touches INBOUNDS.

Right, well not according to 4.3.3B:

*4.3.3 SITUATION B: A has third down and seven yards to gain at B's 30. A1 leaps near the sideline to attempt to catch a pass near B's 30-yard line. A1 is: (a) airborne trying to make the catch and is knocked backwards by B2 attempting to make the tackle and A1 lands outside the sideline at B's 32 or (b) airborne when he controls the ball attempting to complete the catch and is carried off the field by B2 landing out of bounds.

RULING: In (a), the pass is incomplete and the clock should start on the snap. In (b), the covering official must determine if forward progress was stopped in the field of play. If the covering official determines that progress was stopped in the field of play, it is a catch and the clock should not stop. If stopped inadvertently by the covering official, the clock should be restarted on the ready for play. If progress was not determined to be stopped in the field of play, the pass is incomplete and the clock shall be stopped, to be restarted on the snap.  (2-15-1, 2; 4-3-2)

I realize that (b) employs the dreaded word "carried," but the basis for the ruling seems to be the idea that progress was stopped, not that the player was carried off. And in general, the rule (no catch without something down inbounds) and the case (official's judgment whether progress was stopped) still conflict.

[Rulesman]

The play in the case book is wrong. That's been established previously.

[maven]

The play in the case book is wrong. That's been established previously.

Are you thinking of 3.4.3C, which NFHS corrected in the 2012 Interpretations? AFAIK there is no "official" correction of 4.3.3B.

[Atlanta Blue]

I realize that (b) employs the dreaded word "carried," but the basis for the ruling seems to be the idea that progress was stopped, not that the player was carried off. And in general, the rule (no catch without something down inbounds) and the case (official's judgment whether progress was stopped) still conflict.

And that dreaded word is the difference.  They are claiming that a player's forward progress can be stopped by being carried, but not by being pushed.  The point of the case is to make the FED rule the same as the NCAA rule.

Problem is, the rules makers didn't write or mean for it to be the same.  I have two people on the FED rules committee that have confirmed the case play was written and published without their agreement.  but the rules committee only writes the rule book, not the case book.  Whoever wrote the case misinterpreted the rule and the intent of the committee.

[Rulesman]

...I have two people on the FED rules committee that have confirmed the case play was written and published without their agreement.  but the rules committee only writes the rule book, not the case book.  Whoever wrote the case misinterpreted the rule and the intent of the committee.

I'm with you on this one Blue (imagine that!), but the disclosure at the bottom of page 2 of the Case Book indicate the Rules Committee has approved the interpretations contained therein. With that in print, I can understand the skepticism on the part of some to accept what we are saying.

I don't believe this is as much of a problem that the Case Book plays were rule misinterpretations as they are outdated rulings that haven't been removed/updated following the rule changes. Further disclosure at the top of the same page indicates this can happen, and should be reported to the NFHS.

The root of the problem is a slowness on the part of the Federation to react and issue a formal, updated opinion that is consistent with the rule as written.

[Rulesman]

AFAIK there is no "official" correction of 4.3.3B.

Therein lies the problem. The Case Book should mirror the rule book. Sometimes, it doesn't. (See the disclosures on page 2 of the Case Book).