Author Topic: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes  (Read 17160 times)

Offline TampaSteve

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-10
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #50 on: February 08, 2013, 10:28:18 AM »
With NF becoming the only code in the history of pass interference to drop the automatic first down for DPI, I'm seriously thinking of sitting next year out.

In my 19 years of doing this, there have been a lot of rule changes, some of them as big, and some of them as stupid, but none of them simultaneously as big, as stupid, and as detrimental to the quality of our work environment.
On 1 hand, yes it is a bit odd that NF dropped auto 1/10 for DPI.
On the other hand, how often do we hear screaming that particular fouls are auto 1/10 when the foul in question IS an auto 1/10 - but only on Sunday and this aint Sunday..
No 'auto 1/10' for DPI will only be an issue if A has >15 to gain - which is more infrequent than not.

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2191
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-10
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #51 on: February 08, 2013, 12:49:12 PM »
The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to agree with Steve.  Most of the time, the 15 yards will result in a first down anyway.  And the coach will certainly know that they're not getting a FD any more, so most of the griping about no first down is going to come from outside the fences.

I'm starting to think that the "stop participating in the play when your helmet comes off" and "leave the other guy alone when his helmet comes off" are going to be the ones that can be more problematic.  I get the idea behind them, and I know those rules are just trickling down from NCAA, but I don't think it's realistic to tell Bubba the left tackle that if his helmet comes off, he has to stop and stand there instead of picking up the delayed blitzer.

(I'd still like to see DPI become the spot of the foul or 15 yards, whichever is less, plus AFD, but what I want is neither here nor there.)

Offline TampaSteve

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-10
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #52 on: February 08, 2013, 01:30:18 PM »
I'm starting to think that the "stop participating in the play when your helmet comes off" and "leave the other guy alone when his helmet comes off" are going to be the ones that can be more problematic.  I get the idea behind them, and I know those rules are just trickling down from NCAA, but I don't think it's realistic to tell Bubba the left tackle that if his helmet comes off, he has to stop and stand there instead of picking up the delayed blitzer.
Sounds to me like a coaching issue.
...AND if it comes off, while still engaged, we aint got nothing.

Offline TampaSteve

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-10
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #53 on: February 08, 2013, 01:33:40 PM »
In as far as DPI & OPI now coming with the same penalty, I have a feeling we'll see OPI getting called a bit stiffer.

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 471
  • FAN REACTION: +91/-4
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #54 on: February 08, 2013, 06:54:40 PM »
On 1 hand, yes it is a bit odd that NF dropped auto 1/10 for DPI.
On the other hand, how often do we hear screaming that particular fouls are auto 1/10 when the foul in question IS an auto 1/10 - but only on Sunday and this aint Sunday..
No 'auto 1/10' for DPI will only be an issue if A has >15 to gain - which is more infrequent than not.
The bigger issue with be inside the 30.  Half the distance may not reach the LTG or goal-to-go situations would replay the down.  It doesn't happen often but we'll get the same complaints we get in those situations when there is a personal foul facemask.

Offline FBUmp

  • *
  • Posts: 546
  • FAN REACTION: +77/-38
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #55 on: February 09, 2013, 11:11:47 AM »
I can just imagine all the guff from parents and coachs now that NFHS football is the only rule book in North America that does not give the AFD, that thinking we screwed something up. Some have been coaching/parents of the game for a awhile and still do not know the Dead Ball on an encrochment foul...............................

Who cares what parents and coaches think?  Most don't know the rule anyway plus they already think we're trying to screw their team.

In my 19 years of doing this, there have been a lot of rule changes, some of them as big, and some of them as stupid, but none of them simultaneously as big, as stupid, and as detrimental to the quality of our work environment.

You're kidding, right.

Offline inthepit

  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #56 on: February 10, 2013, 12:49:07 PM »
Some of you veterans out there can correct me if I am wrong.  Many years ago --- I am thinking at least 15 --- we had three options for the offended team on kick-catching interference: 

1) 15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down 
2) awarded fair catch at the spot of the foul 
3) awarded fair catch plus 15 yards from the spot of the foul

I have yet to receive a 2013 NFHS rule book so I cannot read the rule verbatim, but from what I am gathering, the "old rule" is now the "new rule".

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #57 on: February 10, 2013, 01:02:20 PM »
I've been calling since '94, don't recall Option C ever being present.  I worked a little BJ in those early days and recall having a KCI where the receiver actually ended up catching the kick afterward.  R kept the ball at the spot, declined the foul I think or we awarded the fair catch.  I know we didn't let them have 15 more yards on top of it.

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1161
  • FAN REACTION: +52/-21
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #58 on: February 10, 2013, 01:06:27 PM »
Some of you veterans out there can correct me if I am wrong.  Many years ago --- I am thinking at least 15 --- we had three options for the offended team on kick-catching interference: 

1) 15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down 
2) awarded fair catch at the spot of the foul 
3) awarded fair catch plus 15 yards from the spot of the foul

I have yet to receive a 2013 NFHS rule book so I cannot read the rule verbatim, but from what I am gathering, the "old rule" is now the "new rule".

Not sure why they would even include #2...  Who would choose that when you could have #3?

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3835
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-238
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #59 on: February 10, 2013, 01:09:38 PM »
Some of you veterans out there can correct me if I am wrong.  Many years ago --- I am thinking at least 15 --- we had three options for the offended team on kick-catching interference: 

1) 15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down 
2) awarded fair catch at the spot of the foul 
3) awarded fair catch plus 15 yards from the spot of the foul

I have yet to receive a 2013 NFHS rule book so I cannot read the rule verbatim, but from what I am gathering, the "old rule" is now the "new rule".
At one time #3 was an option. Not sure of the year it was removed, but you are correct in your assessment.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline SWilliams

  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
    • www.penaltycard.com
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #60 on: February 10, 2013, 10:22:58 PM »
We had a game this year where option #2 was welcomed by the receiving team.  K kicks to R and commits a KCI, and the ball deflects off the R player and is landed on by K.  R gladly accepted the fair catch where they were interferred with.  I'm sure they would have loved option #3 but they were glad to get the ball back.
Scott Williams
Little Rock, Arkansas

www.penaltycard.com

Offline Ump33

  • *
  • Posts: 201
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #61 on: February 11, 2013, 05:52:57 AM »
Some of you veterans out there can correct me if I am wrong.  Many years ago --- I am thinking at least 15 --- we had three options for the offended team on kick-catching interference: 

1) 15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down 
2) awarded fair catch at the spot of the foul 
3) awarded fair catch plus 15 yards from the spot of the foul

I have yet to receive a 2013 NFHS rule book so I cannot read the rule verbatim, but from what I am gathering, the "old rule" is now the "new rule".
At one time #3 was an option. Not sure of the year it was removed, but you are correct in your assessment.

According to http://football.refs.org/rules/NFrules4.html ... Option #3 was added in 1983 and removed in 1990

Offline maven

  • *
  • Posts: 620
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #62 on: February 11, 2013, 09:37:00 AM »
With NF becoming the only code in the history of pass interference to drop the automatic first down for DPI, I'm seriously thinking of sitting next year out.

In my 19 years of doing this, there have been a lot of rule changes, some of them as big, and some of them as stupid, but none of them simultaneously as big, as stupid, and as detrimental to the quality of our work environment.

You have a couple options other than sitting out, such as:

1. "Forget" the new DPI rule and award an AFD when it happens.

2. Call an intentional DPI and get the defense for 30 yards.

3. Petition your state interpreter to issue an "interpretation" according to which the new DPI rule really does involve an AFD, except perhaps when you flag intentional DPI.

4. Just call the game by the new rules, let the coaches tear out their hair, and have a card in your pocket with the e-mail addresses and phone numbers of the NFHS rules committee that you can hand them at the end of the game.

5. E-mail huge video files of game film to state interpreters and rules committee members, effectively filling up their inboxes, a couple times per week.

Just a few of the tamer ideas I've come up with to date. :)
Quality is not an act, it is a habit.
Aristotle

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 406
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-27
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #63 on: February 11, 2013, 03:17:34 PM »
4th and goal from the 10 yard line. Passing play.

2012 - Defense needs to be careful, they don't want a 1st and goal at the 5. It's better to hope the offense drops the ball or hit them just as they catch the ball and hope for a drop.

2013 - Defense should mug the offense on any close passing plays. If it's not called, awesome. If it is called, 4th and goal from the 5 yard line is not so bad.

THIS is the main problem we have with the rule.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3835
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-238
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #64 on: February 11, 2013, 08:05:32 PM »
4th and goal from the 10 yard line. Passing play.

2012 - Defense needs to be careful, they don't want a 1st and goal at the 5. It's better to hope the offense drops the ball or hit them just as they catch the ball and hope for a drop.

2013 - Defense should mug the offense on any close passing plays. If it's not called, awesome. If it is called, 4th and goal from the 5 yard line is not so bad.

THIS is the main problem we have with the rule.
BINGO.... and especially in overtime.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 406
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-27
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #65 on: February 12, 2013, 12:35:19 PM »
"Forget" the new DPI rule and award an AFD when it happens.

If we're doing that, I guess I could also call a 5-yard holding penalty with an automatic first down, a la NFL.
 tiphat:

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2202
  • FAN REACTION: +69/-24
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #66 on: February 13, 2013, 06:53:38 AM »
I'm more interested to see the exact language of the "carry-out" rule.  I figured they would have to reinstate it eventually, but I thought it would take a couple of years.

Offline inthepit

  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #67 on: February 17, 2013, 08:22:13 AM »
According to http://football.refs.org/rules/NFrules4.html ... Option #3 was added in 1983 and removed in 1990

Thank you. 

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2191
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-10
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #68 on: February 18, 2013, 10:23:31 AM »
2013 - Defense should mug the offense on any close passing plays. If it's not called, awesome. If it is called, 4th and goal from the 5 yard line is not so bad.

THIS is the main problem we have with the rule.

Just for the sake of argument - the DB does something so blatant that we decide for the first time in our careers to call an "intentional" DPI.  Say, both guys in double coverage combine to tackle the receiver.  4th and goal from the 2 1/2, or - since it's still one penalty - still 4th/G from the 5?

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #69 on: February 18, 2013, 02:00:55 PM »
2 1/2-- its an additional penalty for the intentional act.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3835
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-238
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #70 on: February 18, 2013, 04:52:10 PM »
2 1/2-- its an additional penalty for the intentional act.
I realize this is taking things to an extreme, but could the intentional act be considered "flagrant" at some point, thus being an ejectionable offense? Short of this change merely being a concession to removing LOD from OPI, I really wonder if the rules makers thought this one out.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2013, 07:36:50 PM »
Who, pray tell, would you eject?  The HC or the DB?

I sure hope somebody re-thinks this come interpretation time.

In lieu of that, all we can do is say "Coach, the Federation rulesmakers came up with this, you'll need to contact them.  They'll be in the state office."

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3835
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-238
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #72 on: February 19, 2013, 08:25:22 PM »
Who, pray tell, would you eject?  The HC or the DB?

I sure hope somebody re-thinks this come interpretation time.
I was thinking more in terms of the player(s), rather than the coach, but it makes you think hard about the intent of the change vs. what could happen in a screwy situation, doesn't it?
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #73 on: February 20, 2013, 10:54:17 AM »
I still think the worries are much ado about nothing.  DBs are already taught when all else fails and you are beat deep, break it up however you can, even if that means a foul.  The automatic first down isn't an issue when the alternative is a TD.

So now, is there more incentive to foul in the specific situation of 3rd down, goal line is the LTG, and there is a pass in the end zone where the DB is clearly beat?  Yes.

But how often across a season are you going to run into that specific situation?  I'll bet you can count them on your ring finger.

There are other specific situations that create bizarre situations in FED.  One that comes to mind is a defensive FM in the backfield.  The QB is better off intentionally throwing an interception or fumbling the ball rather than going down.  How does that make sense?  But then again, how often does it happen?

This is just this side of a non-issue.

Offline Jackhammer

  • *
  • Posts: 237
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-5
Re: 2013 NFHS Footbll Rules Changes
« Reply #74 on: March 13, 2013, 08:42:00 PM »
This discussion leads me to a question, "why do we care what the rule is?"

It's not our game, we are the keepers of maintaining fairness in the game, but it's not our job to determine the rules....it's their game, players and coaches....it is our task to administer the game they want to play.

Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a input in rules involving safety or the practicality of administering the game.  We definitely have a role to play.  If they wanna remove the afd/lod provisions in PI why the HECK would I, or any other official, care?  It doesn't make my job any harder.
"The only whistle that kills a play is an inadvertent one"

"The only thing black and white in officiating is the uniform"