Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10]
91
National Federation Discussion / Re: Crazy play...what ya got?
« Last post by Ralph Damren on June 08, 2021, 11:43:54 AM »
Is anyone for 9-9-1  ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? (5-man crew) ? "....A player shall not hinder play by an unfair act which has no specific rule coverage."

IMHO,This would certainly fall under the trick play situation and coach should have clarified it with you in pre-game.
IF HE DID, MY RESPONSE WOULD BE : "COACH, that would be a foul under 9-9-1. I would then COULD award a score if I felt the kick was going to be good and tack the penalty onto the ensuing kickoff."

IF HE DIDN'T, MY RESPONSE WOULD BE :  ^flag "This unfair act has prevented a score. I'm applying rule 9-9-1 and scoring the field goal  ^good "

TO THE "EXCITED" COACH "COACH, if you had explained that to me in pre-game, I would have explained it to you THEN and prevented this foul.
92
National Federation Discussion / Re: 3-4-6 ?
« Last post by CalhounLJ on June 08, 2021, 11:20:06 AM »
IMHO, the "catcher's crouch" positioning of the holder is usually part of a trick play. :-\
IMHO, trick plays need to adhere to the letter of the law.  P_S
IMHO, an accepted response could be : "Coach, your holder will not be meeting the requirement for the numbering exception and MAY NOT get protection for holder roughing. Remember, safety is the most important part of our game. "

I agree. We have a team who runs a trick play out of this formation. The end peels back and the player pitches it to him. Which is legal. To keep the other team from knowing when they will do it, the player always holds in the catcher's position. and we give him protection.

The biggest thing I watch for when I have this team is the player catching it in the squat and then putting the knee on the ground while putting the ball on the ground. Because then he's down at the spot...
93
National Federation Discussion / Re: 3-4-6 ?
« Last post by Ralph Damren on June 08, 2021, 11:16:51 AM »
IMHO, the "catcher's crouch" positioning of the holder is usually part of a trick play. :-\
IMHO, trick plays need to adhere to the letter of the law.  P_S
IMHO, an accepted response could be : "Coach, your holder will not be meeting the requirement for the numbering exception and MAY NOT get protection for holder roughing. Remember, safety is the most important part of our game. "
94
National Federation Discussion / Re: Crazy play...what ya got?
« Last post by CalhounLJ on June 08, 2021, 10:53:05 AM »


Same scenario, R74 slings K67 down to the ground by the facemask during the kick, and the kick misses.  Same result - turnover on downs?  I am wondering why teams, on long FGs, don't foul on purpose similar to the original scenario during the kick - there's no downside for R (they either get the ball if the kick is missed or blocked, with a small yardage penalty, and K has no recourse to rekick, or the penalty is declined if it is made).

While the language makes this sound egregious, it's really no different than a hold, clip, or any other foul. If R fouls during the kick beyond the NZ, then yes, PSK applies. Same thing if it happens on a punt..
95
National Federation Discussion / Re: 3-4-6 ?
« Last post by AlUpstateNY on June 08, 2021, 10:48:04 AM »
I guess that's a default response with you...

Perhaps, once worth considering and inherent to the job description.
96
National Federation Discussion / Re: Crazy play...what ya got?
« Last post by AlUpstateNY on June 08, 2021, 10:45:18 AM »
I find this super interesting, and am only commenting on the NFHS section because I believe it parallels the NCAA PSK rules (as far as I can tell, at least)

Same scenario, R74 slings K67 down to the ground by the facemask during the kick, and the kick misses.  Same result - turnover on downs?  I am wondering why teams, on long FGs, don't foul on purpose similar to the original scenario during the kick - there's no downside for R (they either get the ball if the kick is missed or blocked, with a small yardage penalty, and K has no recourse to rekick, or the penalty is declined if it is made).

As described, your scenario could well be considered a Flagrant violation of any one of several scenarios described in 9-4-3 resulting in disqualification of the offending player, and any additional consequences that may be subsequently applied to the player, coach or school.
97
National Federation Discussion / Re: 3-4-6 ?
« Last post by CalhounLJ on June 08, 2021, 10:33:52 AM »
I guess that's a default response with you...
98
National Federation Discussion / Re: 3-4-6 ?
« Last post by AlUpstateNY on June 08, 2021, 10:32:25 AM »
We always have a choice.  We can/should look at every situation for a specific violation of a specific rule, as well as render a judgment as to whether, what we are actually observing, does or does not, actually rise to the level of violating any specific rules that monitor the general behavior and tenor of the rules, such as 2-16-b or c, 9-4-3b, c or g.

In the absence of exactly specific rule coverage and specification to address, detail and enumerate every potential violation, enforcement is often dependent on the specific action being observed and the judgment of the covering official and their  understanding of the protective intent of multiple rules, while evaluating whether the action being observed threatens any of the protective restrictions of the rules, to the extent that a formal consequence is justified and appropriate.

Limiting the appropriate response, of observed actions, to the presence, or absence, of exact and specific inclusion and specification in the actual text of a/any rule is impossible and conflicts with the NFHS "Game Officials Manual"  instruction, "Game officials must have a football sense which supersedes the technical application of the rules so that the game goes smoothly. Game officials are expected to exercise good judgment in applying the rules.", which will NEVER be able to specify and/or enumerate EVERY possible violation.         








99
National Federation Discussion / Re: Crazy play...what ya got?
« Last post by CalhounLJ on June 08, 2021, 10:20:42 AM »
The way I understand the "K will not be the next to put the ball in play" application is that we consider that BEFORE the penalty enforcement. At the end of the first play, the end result is a touchback and A will be next to put the ball in play. The fact that the penalty changes that is of no consequence in determining PSK. To do that would be redundant. We are using a PSK enforcement to determine if we can use a PSK enforcement...

Plus, I'm almost positive the intent of the K phrase is to describe the team that originally kicked the ball, instead of who will eventually kick the ball. Example: K punts, R fouls beyond the zone during the kick. R muffs, and K recovers. Is this PSK? No. Why? Because the team who kicked the ball
 ended up with it. But, when they next put the ball in play, they will not be K, they will be A.....
100
National Federation Discussion / Re: Crazy play...what ya got?
« Last post by dammitbobby on June 08, 2021, 10:05:32 AM »
I find this super interesting, and am only commenting on the NFHS section because I believe it parallels the NCAA PSK rules (as far as I can tell, at least).

Where I'm getting hung up, is HLinNC's point about K putting the ball next into play.  They're only next to put the ball in play, as a direct result of a foul, and I agree with bama_stripes in that they are directly profiting from an illegal act.  So from an enforcement perspective, are they really next to put the ball into play?  That would not have been a given, because if they did this, and the kick still went through, they still wouldn't be next to put the ball into play (ensuing KO) and the foul would be declined.

Is this just a hole in the rule, where you can foul to stop a kicking score on 4th down and still obtain possession on downs, with only a marginal yardage penalty?

Same scenario, R74 slings K67 down to the ground by the facemask during the kick, and the kick misses.  Same result - turnover on downs?  I am wondering why teams, on long FGs, don't foul on purpose similar to the original scenario during the kick - there's no downside for R (they either get the ball if the kick is missed or blocked, with a small yardage penalty, and K has no recourse to rekick, or the penalty is declined if it is made).



 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10]