Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
NCAA Discussion / Re: RTP and fumble
« Last post by Kalle on Today at 06:12:09 AM »
The order to resolve this is first deal with the 4th down fumble rule and then with the penalty.

1. Return the ball to B45. The apparent run by A-70 disappears. The end of the last run (by A-80) is beyond the neutral zone, so enforce from there. Team A 1/10@B30.

2. The ball stays at A48, and the last run is by A-70. This is not beyond the neutral zone, so enforce from the previous spot. Team A 1/10@B37.
2
NCAA Discussion / RTP and fumble
« Last post by alter mann on Today at 05:54:05 AM »
1. 4/4 @ A48. A-9 throws a forward pass, that is caught by A-80 at the B45. A-80 fumbles and A-70 recovers at the B43. A-9 was roughed by B-12.

2. 4/4 @ A48. A-9 throws a forward pass, that is caught by A-80 at the B45. A-80 fumbles and A-70 recovers at the A48. A-9 was roughed by B-12.

What's your call?
3
It is my understanding that a state can strengthen a rule without any NFHS approval. A classic example is 2-32-6 : "A disqualified player  is a player barred from further participation in a game." Many states tack on a suspension to said player or coach.

Oregon -
Many years ago, because of our high rainfall and sloppy fields, chose to strengthen the cleat rule.
Players were participating wearing 3/4, 7/8 & 1 Inch cleats.
Under todays NFHS rule this is a UNS (9-8-1h) charged to the Head Coach for and violation of 1-5-1f(1).
Nowadays, in the greater Portland area, a large majority of our playing surfaces are artificial turf, so the problem rarely occurs.
I only remember enforcing it once and that was when a defensive player showed me his totally ripped apart hand and ask me (not so politely) if I would check #71's cleats?  (Exact quote was, "Jesus H Christ will you look at #71's cleats?" I responded with, "Well, since he not here, I will!")
Sure enough, Number 71 was wearing long baseball cleats and was he was promptly awarded his walking papers.
The defensive player also left the game but that's only because he had to go get stitches.
4
It is my understanding that a state can strengthen a rule without any NFHS approval. A classic example is 2-32-6 : "A disqualified player  is a player barred from further participation in a game." Many states tack on a suspension to said player or coach.
5
National Federation Discussion / Re: Punt play...what ya got?
« Last post by CalhounLJ on June 14, 2021, 06:54:06 PM »
Thanks, Calhoun, for the kind words  ;D !



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
6
National Federation Discussion / Re: Punt play...what ya got?
« Last post by Ralph Damren on June 14, 2021, 06:53:23 PM »
Nope. End of play was at the 8. Penalty happened in K end zone. Result of play is Rs ball at the 8. If R accepts the penalty the result is safety. If R DECLINES the penalty we not marking off anything. Its R ball at 8. At the time of Ralphs game. Remember, hes old as Moses. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Thanks, Calhoun, for the kind words  ;D !
7
National Federation Discussion / Re: Punt play...what ya got?
« Last post by Ralph Damren on June 14, 2021, 06:50:23 PM »
In response to Ralphs illegally kicked kick; R would have the ball 1st and goal from the 4 after a half the distance penalty.
Excellent point with the tack-on rule. Tack-on didn't get passed until a couple of years after my screw-up. Good catch, BetweenTheLines  aWaRd.
8
National Federation Discussion / Re: Punt play...what ya got?
« Last post by Ralph Damren on June 14, 2021, 03:50:33 PM »
Why?
Because the Rules Committees goal was to remove the Pop-Up Kick and have it exit the game in the same manner as the Return Kick!
I believe they achieved their goal.
Another NFHS goal is not to make an exception with an exception. Allowing FC on a pop-up would be an exception. Making the "pop-up" illegal isn't an exception, just a new illegal act.

I hope no one takes exception to the fact that it is probably easier to learn a new rule than to learn an exception to an ole' one.
9
Apparently, in the NFHS world, individual States are authorized, subject to NFHS consideration and approval to authorize specific interpretation clarifications for games played within their jurisdiction.  Such authorization for these conclusions and/or allowances are limited to the authority reach of these State organizations authorized to implement specified modifications.

Whether, or not, other States choose to accept modifications, applicable to those States approved for modification, seems to be up to the individual State seeking the appropriate compliance approval from NFHS. Should their be either confusion, or guidance, the safest path to approved compliance would be specific clarification and/or approval from YOUR State association.
This is true.  Specifically found in the disclaimer:

NFHS rules are used by education-based and non-education-based organizations serving children of varying skill levels who are of high school age and younger. In order to make NFHS rules skill-level and age-level appropriate, the rules may be modified by any organization that chooses to use them. Except as may be specifically noted in this rules book, the NFHS makes no recommendation about the nature or extent of the modifications that may be appropriate for children who are younger or less skilled than high school varsity athletes.


Each state high school association adopting these rules is the sole and exclusive source of binding rules interpretations for contests involving its member schools. Any person having questions about the interpretation of NFHS rules should contact the rules interpreter designated by his or her state high school association.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10
Thanks.

I'll be curious to see if given the rule change this year, if those states will change their interpretation or stick with it.  From what I've read, the committee was trying to get everyone on the same page, but of course, states can still interpret as they see best.

Apparently, in the NFHS world, individual States are authorized, subject to NFHS consideration and approval to authorize specific interpretation clarifications for games played within their jurisdiction.  Such authorization for these conclusions and/or allowances are limited to the authority reach of these State organizations authorized to implement specified modifications.

Whether, or not, other States choose to accept modifications, applicable to those States approved for modification, seems to be up to the individual State seeking the appropriate compliance approval from NFHS. Should their be either confusion, or guidance, the safest path to approved compliance would be specific clarification and/or approval from YOUR State association.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10