NFHS Football Rules Committee Meetings

[Ralph Damren]

While some may feel that  new rules proposals are scribbled on a cocktail napkin just prior to last call, there's much more that goes into it. I've been a rules committee member since 1993, and will try to share with you the usual framework....

 I : From mid-May thru the end of October, proposed rule changes are recieved at NFHS. They can either be submitted by rules committee members or approved and submitted by state assocations.

II : During November, NFHS attempts to consolidate change requests and an ad hoc committee will meet with a simular committee from NCAA to discuss potential changes.

III : In mid-December, the proposed changes will be sent to all committee members. They may be discussed between each, or to get outside opinions, a "Santa's List" may appear.

IV : In early January, the NFHS Football Rules Committee meeting is held. From memory, here's the usual famework :
   A- First day, proposals are divided  equally into 4 sub-committees. Sub-committee chairs meet and discuss. Orientation is held for new members. Other members arrive,check in, and swarp 'war stories' with each.
   B- Second day is full of meetings.
     !.  8:00 to 10:00 General meeting, report of ad hoc committee, results of experimental rules, safety of game
     2.  !0:15 to 12;00 Sub-committee meetings, deep discussions on assigned  proposals, "Straw poll" taken, 51% needed to advance.
     3. 12:15 to 2:00 All gnawing on the carcus of a dead mammal, while committee-chairs announce results of straw poll and discuss.
     4. 2:15 to 4:00 Sub-committees reconvenes and takes final vote on their proposals that go to the floor.
     5. 4:15 to 5:00 6,.8, 9-man football state reps meet and discuss issues.
     6. 7:00 to whenever... affectionately refered by some as "the campfire meeting"  chance for members to discuss those proposals that made it to final vote.
  C- Third and final day
     1. 8:00 to 10:30 Roll-call taken, proposals need 2/3 to pass,reminded not to discuss any passed proposals until fully passed by NFHS, state of game discussed.
      2. 11:00 to whenever Editorial and Manual Committees meet until their business is completed. In some situations, the editorial has met into the evening and not concluded until the following morning.

V. You guys wait to see what's new and what's not. There has been much chatter over the massive rewrite of parts of Rule 10. During the open period of new rule proposals ,is also the time to propose editorial changes. I expect to see several of them 'er coming.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, in hopes it may give you a better understanding of our rules process.

                                                                                                            Ralph

[CalhounLJ]

While some may feel that some new rules proposals are scribbled on a cocktail napkin just prior to last call, there's much more that goes into it. I've been a rules committee mamber since 1993, and will try to share with you the usual framework....

 I : From mid-May thru the end of october, proposed rule changes are recieved at NFHS. They can either be submitted by rules committee members or approved and submitted by state assocations.

II : During November, NFHS attempts to consolidate change requests and an ad hoc committee will meet with a simular committee from NCAA to discuss potential changes.

III : In mid-December, the proposed changes will be sent to all committee members. They may be discussed between each, or to get outside opinions, a "Santa's List" may appear.

IV : In early January, the NFHS Football Rules Committee meeting is held. From memory, here's the usual famework :
   A- First day, proposals are divided  equally into 4 sub-committees. Sub-committee chairs meet and discuss. Orientation is held for new members. Other members arrive,check in, and swarp 'war stories' with each.
   B- Second day is full of meetings.
     !.  8:00 to 10:00 General meeting, report of ad hoc committee, results of experimental rules, safety of game
     2.  !0:15 to 12;00 Sub-committee meetings, deep discussions on assigned  proposals, "Straw poll" taken, 51% needed to advance.
     3. 12:15 to 2:00 All gnawing on the carcus of dead mannal, while committee-chairs announce results of straw poll and discuss.
     4. 2:15 to 4:00 Sub-committees reconvenes and takes final vote on their proposals that go to the floor.
     5. 4:15 to 5:00 6,.8, 9-man football state reps meet and discuss issues.
     6. 7:00 to whenever... affectionately refered by some as "the campfire meeting"  chance for members to discuss those proposals that made it to final vote.
  C- Third and final day
     1. 8:00 to 10:30 Roll-call taken, proposals need 2/3 to pass,reminded not to discuss any passed proposals until fully passed by NFHS, state of game discussed.
      2. 11:00 o whenever Editorial and Manual Committees meet until their business is completed. In some situations, the editorial has met into the evening and concluded until the following morning.

V. You guys wait to see what's new and what's not. There has been much chatter over the massive rewrite of parts of Rule 10. During the open period of new rule proposals ,is also the time to propose editorial changes. I expect to see several of them 'er coming.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, in hopes it may give you a better understanding of our rules process.

                                                                                                            Ralph

Thanks Ralph, that very revealing. Basically, there’s one or two days of full group discussion, with basically no input from the guys who are called to enforce the rules. Is there not some way to incorporate the opinions and advice from the seasoned officials who actually study and attempt to enforce the rules?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[lukez]

I've been a rules committee mamber since 1993,

Hey Ralph, do you know how the NFHS selects rule committee members?  Or are they actually selected by each state separately (I see the list of members is one per state)?  Do you get to keep going until you get sick of it?

[Ralph Damren]

Thanks Ralph, that very revealing. Basically, there’s one or two days of full group discussion, with basically no input from the guys who are called to enforce the rules. Is there not some way to incorporate the opinions and advice from the seasoned officials who actually study and attempt to enforce the rules?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

On challenging rules proposals , such as 'lighting up' the reciever' rule, often a state or states will run it as an experimental rule. Their reports often consist of opinions from both officials and coaches. This gives us a taste of how it works on the field, not how it looks on paper. I can't speak for all, but I try to get opinions that I value from some veteran officials, coaches and you guys.

[Ralph Damren]

Hey Ralph, do you know how the NFHS selects rule committee members?  Or are they actually selected by each state separately (I see the list of members is one per state)?  Do you get to keep going until you get sick of it?

Each state can send a committee member. How they are chosen is up to each state. In Maine, we send the state rules interpreter. There are 52  members that includes DC, Coaches Association and Officials' Association; excludimng Texas that plays by NCAA rules. I believe, at last count, the makeup was:
                                        35 from their state's association
                                        14 from active officials
                                         3 from active coaches
   

[CalhounLJ]

On challenging rules proposals , such as 'lighting up' the reciever' rule, often a state or states will run it as an experimental rule. Their reports often consist of opinions from both officials and coaches. This gives us a taste of how it works on the field, not how it looks on paper. I can't speak for all, but I try to get opinions that I value from some veteran officials, coaches and you guys.

This is a great idea. I wish they had run the penalty enforcement as an experiment instead of dumping it into the rule book untested. That would have given them time to discover the errors.  Because it’s certainly a challenging rule change.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

NC was a part of the "helmet coming off" rule experiment.  We had to record the number and time of incidents and turn them in after the game.  I understand the experimental rules and am glad that the NFHS does that.  It makes sense.

This enforcement change would have been pretty laborious to record the data had it been used experimentally.  Perhaps if they had simplified it down to this -"Fouls by the offensive team Team A behind the neutral zone.  For the following fouls committed by the offensive team Team A behind the neutral zone, the penalty is enforced at the previous spot: illegal use of hands, holding, illegal block(s), and personal fouls (Exception: If the foul occurs in Team A’s end zone the penalty is a safety.)"

At what point will the penalty for fouls by Team A in their end zone seem too onerous in enforcement?

[Ralph Damren]

I've ran a couple of experiments over the years and they can become labor intensive.  In 2014 , I proposed altering the 'dueling dead ball foul' rule from in order of occurance to cancel the fouls. I toyed with the thought of running as an experiment, but felt the occurance wasn't often and wouldn't provide much of a sample...."Well, we didn't have any this year BUT it would have worked IF we did.. ".

I was lazy and submitted the NCAA rule that canceled ALL dead ball fouls IF there was an unequal number on both teams... My proposal died quickly on the floor with the NFHS principle: NO FOUL SHALL GO UNPUNISHED.    In 2015, I revised my proposal to enforce  any unequal number of fouls in such situation. It passed overwhelmingly. LESSON LEARNED:
NCAA WORDAGE MAY NOT ALWAYS FIT INTO NFHS BOOK  .

[bossman72]

Nice break down, Ralph.

When is the actual wording of the rule created and/or voted on?  Do you guys just vote on "concepts" and the editorial committee takes it from there? (Section C2 in your original post).
I think mostly everyone is hung up on the wording of the rule and how that gets created.

[ncwingman]

Nice break down, Ralph.

When is the actual wording of the rule created and/or voted on?  Do you guys just vote on "concepts" and the editorial committee takes it from there? (Section C2 in your original post).
I think mostly everyone is hung up on the wording of the rule and how that gets created.

This is my major concern with the process as well. I think my comment in the other thread glibly glossed over all the prevote committees and debate and I don't mean to imply there's nothing done prior to a vote on a whim, but when push comes to shove, you should be voting on *the actual rule change*. I'd find it hard to believe that after several days of debate and discussion, all 52 of you decided to eliminate the ABO principle and replace it by using the term "succeeding spot" incorrectly in multiple places -- somebody should have caught that during the multiple committees and debate sessions.

[Ralph Damren]

After the vote that accepts the proposal ,it goes to the Editoral Committee to review. The editorial Committee can tweak the proposal without changing the intent of the rule change and publish case plays.  Eliminating ABO or refering to 'succeeding spot' over 'end of run or related run' was never part of our discussions. I do understand that previous spot enforcement on fouls behind the LOS isn't applicable under ABO, but the confusion caused by this even surpasses the passage of PSK. Hopefully clarity will be provided to give us all a better handle on this.

[CalhounLJ]

After the vote that accepts the proposal ,it goes to the Editoral Committee to review. The editorial Committee can tweak the proposal without changing the intent of the rule change and publish case plays.  Eliminating ABO or refering to 'succeeding spot' over 'end of run or related run' was never part of our discussions. I do understand that previous spot enforcement on fouls behind the LOS isn't applicable under ABO, but the confusion caused by this even surpasses the passage of PSK. Hopefully clarity will be provided to give us all a better handle on this.

Thanks for sharing all this Ralph. I too agree that ABO and the previous spot issue conflict. But I also think it could have resolved without throwing the baby out with the bath water. I mean, even with the change to this “basic spot” system, the underlying philosophy of ABO is still alive once we get beyond the LOS. In fact, it probably could have been handled easily just by changing the language of the “but one” part of ABO, and adding the additional basic spot is previous spot for all fouls by A behind the LOS, and fouls by B behind the Los when the run ends behind the line.

For example, we could go with an “All but Four” philosophy.
All fouls are enforced from the basic spot except for four: (1) a foul by the team in possession behind the basic spot when both the foul and the run or related run ends beyond the line of scrimmage. This foul is enforced from the spot of the foul. (2) a foul by A behind the line of scrimmage regardless of where the run ends or the ball becomes dead. This foul is enforced from the Previous Spot. (3) a foul by B behind the line of scrimmage when the run or related run ends behind the line of scrimmage. (4) Fouls that carry special enforcements.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ncwingman]

Eliminating ABO or refering to 'succeeding spot' over 'end of run or related run' was never part of our discussions.

This, right here, is my whole complaint about the process.

You researched, debated and voted on the intent of the rule from mid-May to January, but writing the rule itself was left to a subcommittee only after the vote was taken.

If the rule, as it ended up being written, had been presented to you prior to the vote, would you have voted for that verbiage? Do you think it would have passed in its current state?

[bossman72]

After the vote that accepts the proposal ,it goes to the Editoral Committee to review. The editorial Committee can tweak the proposal without changing the intent of the rule change and publish case plays.  Eliminating ABO or refering to 'succeeding spot' over 'end of run or related run' was never part of our discussions. I do understand that previous spot enforcement on fouls behind the LOS isn't applicable under ABO, but the confusion caused by this even surpasses the passage of PSK. Hopefully clarity will be provided to give us all a better handle on this.

I agree with ncwingman.

How many times has the editorial committee taken a rule change and completely screwed up the rule?

I think they should give the editorial committee a week to hammer it out and email the final wording to you guys for discussion and vote to put your final stamp on the approval.  You guys would have never voted on this language had it been brought to your attention.  I think you guys need that extra step/check before it becomes gospel.  (Well, that and maybe new members on the editorial committee.  I think some have proved they are not qualified to be on the committee).

[bama_stripes]

(Well, that and maybe new members on the editorial committee.  I think some have proved they are not qualified to be on the committee).

There are several members of this group that would make excellent additions.

[Ralph Damren]

I agree with ncwingman.

How many times has the editorial committee taken a rule change and completely screwed up the rule?

I think they should give the editorial committee a week to hammer it out and email the final wording to you guys for discussion and vote to put your final stamp on the approval.  You guys would have never voted on this language had it been brought to your attention.  I think you guys need that extra step/check before it becomes gospel.  (Well, that and maybe new members on the editorial committee.  I think some have proved they are not qualified to be on the committee).

Once a new rule passes thru the Editorial Committee, it needs to pass thru two other committees prior to a press release. There are four rotating members to the Editorial Committee, with each serving a four year term. Being humans, we'll like some passes and some we won't. Today's format of Rule 10 seems much more complex than yesterday's. Hope for clairity.

[CalhounLJ]

There are several members of this group that would make excellent additions.

I’d settle for just an unofficial panel to test read and offer suggestions before it becomes law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

While some may feel that  new rules proposals are scribbled on a cocktail napkin just prior to last call, there's much more that goes into it. I've been a rules committee member since 1993, and will try to share with you the usual framework....

 I : From mid-May thru the end of October, proposed rule changes are recieved at NFHS. They can either be submitted by rules committee members or approved and submitted by state assocations.

II : During November, NFHS attempts to consolidate change requests and an ad hoc committee will meet with a simular committee from NCAA to discuss potential changes.

III : In mid-December, the proposed changes will be sent to all committee members. They may be discussed between each, or to get outside opinions, a "Santa's List" may appear.

IV : In early January, the NFHS Football Rules Committee meeting is held. From memory, here's the usual famework :
   A- First day, proposals are divided  equally into 4 sub-committees. Sub-committee chairs meet and discuss. Orientation is held for new members. Other members arrive,check in, and swarp 'war stories' with each.
   B- Second day is full of meetings.
     !.  8:00 to 10:00 General meeting, report of ad hoc committee, results of experimental rules, safety of game
     2.  !0:15 to 12;00 Sub-committee meetings, deep discussions on assigned  proposals, "Straw poll" taken, 51% needed to advance.
     3. 12:15 to 2:00 All gnawing on the carcus of a dead mammal, while committee-chairs announce results of straw poll and discuss.
     4. 2:15 to 4:00 Sub-committees reconvenes and takes final vote on their proposals that go to the floor.
     5. 4:15 to 5:00 6,.8, 9-man football state reps meet and discuss issues.
     6. 7:00 to whenever... affectionately refered by some as "the campfire meeting"  chance for members to discuss those proposals that made it to final vote.
  C- Third and final day
     1. 8:00 to 10:30 Roll-call taken, proposals need 2/3 to pass,reminded not to discuss any passed proposals until fully passed by NFHS, state of game discussed.
      2. 11:00 to whenever Editorial and Manual Committees meet until their business is completed. In some situations, the editorial has met into the evening and not concluded until the following morning.

V. You guys wait to see what's new and what's not. There has been much chatter over the massive rewrite of parts of Rule 10. During the open period of new rule proposals ,is also the time to propose editorial changes. I expect to see several of them 'er coming.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, in hopes it may give you a better understanding of our rules process.

                                                                                                            Ralph

IMHO, the process is certainly flawed, mainly due to the time restraints. It looks like the Rules committee is trying to do too much too fast. I'm a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, and while we certainly do not do everything right, we have developed a process of changing bylaws that works. Any time a bylaw needs to be changed, it goes through the Executive committee first. They address it, debate it, come up with a rough draft they think conveys the change. Then, at the annual meeting, they present that to the messengers, but without a vote. It's presented as a motion, with a second, and discussion. then the matter is tabled until the next year. That gives everyone time to mull over it, read, reread, network and discuss it before the vote. Then the next year, it's brought to the floor, allowed to be amended per the year's worth of discussion, and then voted in by the membership.

Taking a year to implement a new rule, or a comprehensive rule such as this, is not too long to get it right. The Rules committee could send out a proposal to all the member states, and those states could share it with the membership, discuss it, and offer suggestions as to wording and/or implementation. Then, at the next year's meeting, the rules committee and the editorial committee could collaborate, right and rewrite the rule, get it right, and then implement it.

[lawdog]

So there is the process laid out for how NOT to do rule changes!  We've seen time and time again the editorial committee can't get it right.

Crack open the black box of NFHS super secret committee BS and open the proposals up to outside review.  The FINISHED proposal is the only one that should get final approval.   Put out the draft rule in year 1.  Allow all registered officials (and coaches if you want) to review, question and comment on the rule language.  Bring those comments back in year 2 and fix what has been missed or screwed up or the unintended consequences from the drafting and then approve it as a rule with final good working language.  Adopt rules every other year, propose them in the off year.

There is zero reason we need to change rules every single year.  There is zero reason the NFHS committee should be thought to be so infallible as to allow no one outside the process to know what's going on, let alone provide help or oversight.  There are dozens of better rule making processes out there in all fields that could be adopted.  This doesn't work.  And the arrogant and obnoxious refusal of the NFHS to admit their mistake only compounds the problem.  Everyone sees the table is wrong.  Thousands of officials all over are asking them to fix this mess and straighten it out because it is so obviously wrong and the official response is.  Nope all of you are wrong, we are right, you peasants just aren't smart enough to understand the rules.  No wonder we are losing officials like crazy.  Not only are the parents/coaches obnoxious, but the "bosses" at the NFHS are just as bad.

 

[Ralph Damren]

In a way, he NFHS does ask for all of our opinions. They post a questionnaire shortly after Thanksgiving with three sections : (1) Opinions on last yar's changes, (2) Problems in your area,
(3) Opinions on proposed rules. We do look at the poll results as we discuss and vote.

[CalhounLJ]

In a way, he NFHS does ask for all of our opinions. They post a questionnaire shortly after Thanksgiving with three sections : (1) Opinions on last yar's changes, (2) Problems in your area,
(3) Opinions on proposed rules. We do look at the poll results as we discuss and vote.

We are grateful for that opportunity.  I think the issue is there is very little input from experienced officials when it comes to crafting the language of the specific rule change. I noticed George Demetriou is on the rules committee this year. He and you are certainly well-versed in this area. How much input did you guys have in crafting the language in this comprehensive rule change?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[lawdog]

In a way, he NFHS does ask for all of our opinions. They post a questionnaire shortly after Thanksgiving with three sections : (1) Opinions on last yar's changes, (2) Problems in your area,
(3) Opinions on proposed rules. We do look at the poll results as we discuss and vote.

I appreciate that those are reviewed and considered, that's good, however the questions are very generic.  I am sure for instance I have repeatedly voted that I agreed with getting rid of enforcing an A foul from behind the line of scrimmage.  I sure as hell wouldn't have voted for the disaster they created in doing so though.  Can't imagine anyone would.  That's what's missing.  A vague concept is one thing, the rule change is another altogether.  There are other examples, back in the day for instance I voted to get rid of the loss of down on OPI, that question said nothing about the supposed need to change DPI at the same time. It was a false connection that I would have opposed.

I also always wonder about those questions on last year's changes.  Are your satisfied with the change? Is that asking do you like the concept of it even though we may have written it really poorly and need to make 2 more years of changes to get it right?  Because when I'm not satisfied with the language even though I like the idea how do I respond?

I think maybe its the Editorial Committee that screws all this up.  But that's the problem, once the Rules committee says yes, the Editorial Committee just seems to go off the rails and pull something ridiculous out of the butts.  And no vote or consideration after that, it just goes out...

[Ralph Damren]

The following are the changes we voted for.......

10-4-2d. : For a foul by B when the run or related run ends behind the line of scrimmage before change of possession.
10-4-2e. : For a foul by A that occurs behind the line of scrimmage when the run or related run ends beyond the line of scrimmage.

10-4-4 (NEW) : THE BASIC SPOT IS THE SPOT OF THE FOUL FOR:
10-4-4a : Illegal batting or illegal kicking when the foul occurs behind the end of the run or related run.
19-4-4b. : Illegal participation as in 9-6-4a and 9-6-4g
10-4-4c. : An illegal forward pass as in 7-5-2c and 7-5-2d.
10-4-4d. : For a foul that occurs beyond the line of scrimmage during a running play as defined in 10-3-2 when the run or related run ends beyond the LOS.
10-4-4e. : For a foul that occurs behind the end of the run or related run following a change of possession.

10-4-5e. : For a foul that occurs beyond theend of the run or related run following a change of possession.

10-4-8  :Unlessotherwise listed in Section 4 and 5 apply, the basic spot is the previous spot for a foul which occurs during a running play as defined in 10-3-2 when the run or related run ends behind the LOS.

10-4-6  :ENFORCEMENT SPOTS, ALL-BUT-ONE PRINCIPLE
Unless otherwise listed in Section 4 & 5, a penalty for a foul occurring during a play is enforced  from the basic spot with the exception of the foul(s)  by the offense which occurs behind the basic spot when the run or related run ends behind the LOS. These fouls are enforced from the previous spot.

THERE YOU HAVE IT..WHAT i & 49 OTHERS VOTED FOR 

[lawdog]

The following are the changes we voted for.......

10-4-6  :ENFORCEMENT SPOTS, ALL-BUT-ONE PRINCIPLE
Unless otherwise listed in Section 4 & 5, a penalty for a foul occurring during a play is enforced  from the basic spot with the exception of the foul(s)  by the offense which occurs behind the basic spot when the run or related run ends behind the LOS. These fouls are enforced from the previous spot.

THERE YOU HAVE IT..WHAT i & 49 OTHERS VOTED FOR 

So by a 50-0 vote the committee voted to keep All But One and the editorial committee just eliminated it anyway?  Holy cow!!!  I see we have 100% confirmed the problem is the editorial committee, whoever those morons are.

[KWH]

While Ralph normally sits in the front of the room, I have on pretty good authority those in the back of the room continue to grumble about getting the committee to at least consider,
When a rule passes the committee, it becomes a "Probationary rule" for the first season;
If it passes muster, it becomes a rule the next season, If it fails to pass muster, we simply resort to last seasons version.

This is merely a concept, but I believe yawl are smart enough to understand the rationale.