HEAR YE, HEAR YE: Speak now...or forever hold your peace..

[SCline]

Wouldn’t the U likely be best positioned to rule on beyond LOS of a pass, they’re already ruling on ineligible a downfield on the pass. As an L you really do need to be looking at the receivers and action around them on a pass.


Note 1: we don’t use NFHS mechanics in my state.
Note 2: I am adamentaly against allowing for ING out of a tackle box

[Ralph Damren]

I'm of two minds on several of these, but any idea I have to find a middle ground would probably be less popular than either YES or NO.

1) I can make the argument that allowing the QB to throw the ball away prevents an unnecessary hit. I do agree that it will be difficult mechanically in a five man crew. QB rolls to my sideline looking for a pass, I'm releasing a bit downfield to cover receivers... which means, who has the LOS to see if the ball crosses it? U?

However, I also agree that it bails out the offense after a good defensive play. Maybe take away the extra 5 yards on the penalty? QB can "ground" the ball while under duress to "take the sack" without taking the hit. (Offer not valid for an illegal pass while beyond the LOS)

In either case, I would strongly argue for an editorial change -- Eligible receivers cannot occupy an area that is out of bounds. Intentionally throwing the ball into the third row of the stands is ING. Right now, we tend to have this rule by default because we claim a receiver is "in the area" as long as the geostationary orbital flight plan of the ball passes within 2 miles of the location of a receiver and so the QB can chuck the ball away in a manner not intended to be caught, but it was vaguely in the direction of eligible receivers, so it's all good.

2) I don't want to make an exception for offensive holding. Either make the enforcement spot the LOS for all fouls by A behind the LOS or don't. Or, as a terrible compromise, make it even worse -- fouls by A in the FBZ are enforced from the previous spot. This eliminates the 12 yard penalty, but still allows for big losses to stand.

3)  If it's 3rd and 2, DPI will be a first down... unless you're at the 3, and that seems wrong. I think I got the worst idea of all for this one -- it's an AFD if the foul occurs beyond the line to gain!

Current situations would still apply, it's 3rd and 10 at the A20, and DPI at the A25 - yardage enforcement moves the ball beyond the LTG, so it's a 1st down on that anyway. However, if it's 3rd and 20 for the same play, then you replay 3rd down at the A35. If the foul was at the 45, then it's a first down at the A35.

Notably, if it's 3rd and 2 at the 3 and the foul occurs in the end zone, the LTG is the goal line, so it would be an AFD even with half the distance enforcement.

Anyway, grab your pitchforks and tell me how wrong I am. These are half baked ideas, so I don't think I've solved all the world's ills.

You're not really wrong, ncwingman. IMHO, a little complex on the DPI = AFD suggestion. Exceptions are as popular to NFHS rules as a Yankee fan at a Red Sox home game. IMHO, most of the time AFD is not needed as the 15 yards takes care of that. Thanks for your post.

[dch]

After more than 50 years of studying High School Football Rules I am strong in my opposition to exceptions.  The more of them we have the messier the Rules Book wording gets and the harder it is for the Rules to be logical.   Therefore, they become more difficult to learn and correctly apply. 

I understand that there are valid and fair reasons for some exceptions.  PSK,   Carry-over enforcement on Scoring Plays, and Tack-on for Roughing the Passer are a few that come to mind.  However, too many exceptions will really muddy the water for anyone trying to see clearly and to understand the NFHS rules.
 
We certainly don’t want to get like the NCAA where Coaches knee jerk reactions to one play that bit them last year gets written in as an exception or change (usually poorly worded and in need of clarification).   Exceptions are often not even referenced in the section of the book that states the rule.
Or worse yet – like the NFL where some interpretations and end of game timing exceptions are only disseminated to the White Hats and not written for all to digest.

Please advocate for definitions and rules to be clearly written and consistent -- and to not govern by exception.

Regarding potential changes:
I do not like “just throw it away outside of the “tackle box”.  I feel strongly that this negates good play by the defense.
I would like to see defensive pass interference be a spot foul if it occurs less than 15 yards from the line of scrimmage.

[Ralph Damren]

I appreciate the insight to the decision-making process. It helps to understand the "why." However, I'm wondering if this was not overkill? How many times have we ever seen B take a cheap shot on A because the player had enough sense to know the penalty was going to be enforced on the try and it wouldn't cost him much? I've seen cheap shots during scores, but question the ability of players to think that fast on their feet. But, if that's the rationale, fine. Make the carryover enforcements only those types of fouls. Leave the "routine" stuff alone. There's no way DPI should carryover if A scores anyway. 7 points + 15 yards is way overboard.... Anything dead ball, or USC, Taunting, etc... Yeah, i'm ok with those.

I agree, Calhoun, while I've seen fortune tellers at the Bangor Fair I've not seen any on a high school football field. While I can understand the  cheap shot 15-yard  fouls being penalized, in IP (12 B men in) -certainly the 12th man didn't help or DPI (B didn't interfere very well) shouldn't be treated the same and certainly NOT the 10 or 5 yard variety. The problem being, you would need exceptions....and you know the rest!

[Ralph Damren]

After more than 50 years of studying High School Football Rules I am strong in my opposition to exceptions.  The more of them we have the messier the Rules Book wording gets and the harder it is for the Rules to be logical.   Therefore, they become more difficult to learn and correctly apply. 

I understand that there are valid and fair reasons for some exceptions.  PSK,   Carry-over enforcement on Scoring Plays, and Tack-on for Roughing the Passer are a few that come to mind.  However, too many exceptions will really muddy the water for anyone trying to see clearly and to understand the NFHS rules.
 
We certainly don’t want to get like the NCAA where Coaches knee jerk reactions to one play that bit them last year gets written in as an exception or change (usually poorly worded and in need of clarification).   Exceptions are often not even referenced in the section of the book that states the rule.
Or worse yet – like the NFL where some interpretations and end of game timing exceptions are only disseminated to the White Hats and not written for all to digest.

Please advocate for definitions and rules to be clearly written and consistent -- and to not govern by exception.

Regarding potential changes:
I do not like “just throw it away outside of the “tackle box”.  I feel strongly that this negates good play by the defense.
I would like to see defensive pass interference be a spot foul if it occurs less than 15 yards from the line of scrimmage.

Thanks, DCH, for your opinion, I strongly agree with much. I believe DPI being a spot foul has been on the docket before, but will little support. The reason : another EXCEPTION  .

[KWH]

FYI - Both the FBZ and the TB extend to the end line behind you.

This was done to allow for our experiment to be approved by the NFHS without adding a new definition.

Adding the term Tackle Box which would be a different width in NFHS than it is in NCAA is why, right, wrong or indifferent,  we chose not to go down that path.

1. I’m assuming you mean the FBZ extends to the end line ONLY in regard to determining ING?  Yes of course - Previously ask and answered above.
2. If my assumption in 1 is true, then that requires a change in the current definition of the FBZ. No, not really!  We are only dealing with the width as determined at the snap!

3. Why would adding the term tackle box require a different width in NFHS? Why not just adopt the NCAA language making both identical? One reason would be, unlike NCAA, NFHS has 6, 8, 9, and 11-man football, and because it does, the width of the FBZ, as like many other dimensions, will vary.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[KWH]

Even if you are drifted down field, this is an easy call.  There's really no judgment to it.  You can see where the ball hits whether it's a person, an object, the ground, etc.  All you have to do is run up to that location where it hit, stand on/near it, and look at the down box.  You can easily judge behind/beyond that way.  No need to have any perspective.

Yes - Bossman is right on the money! AND, any one of the officials can accomplish this task!

[ncwingman]

You're not really wrong, ncwingman. IMHO, a little complex on the DPI = AFD suggestion. Exceptions are as popular to NFHS rules as a Yankee fan at a Red Sox home game. IMHO, most of the time AFD is not needed as the 15 yards takes care of that. Thanks for your post.

Yeah, part of my point is trying to find a compromise means carving an exception, in pretty much any case -- neither side (yes or no) is perfect, but a compromise is somehow worse?

I wonder if you could address it slightly more generally, as the issue comes up a lot more close to the goal line where penalty yardage should have resulted in a first down, except that it was reduced to half the distance. Therefore, the defense can "get away" with more of a foul because the penalty is lessened. I don't know how to fix that without making Rule 10 resemble the NCAA or NFL rule books in ridiculous complexity. Even if you just address that situation, you'd address most of the complaining, even if you still have to explain the 3rd and 20 ruling a bunch more times.

Another spitballed bad idea -- any 15 yard penalty on the defense that is enforced as half the distance becomes an AFD? I like that idea when it's goal to go from the 3, but less so when it's 3rd and 20 from the 29.... and now we're creating more problems than we're solving.

[Derek Teigen]

Yes - Bossman is right on the money! AND, any one of the officials can accomplish this task!

the only potential issue I see is what if the ball lands out of bounds.   we would have to 'guess' where it left the field of play.  Like a punt very tough.

[Derek Teigen]

If you've already answered the questionnaire, thanks, we do see the national results and your opinions may sway some that are "straddling the lobster crate" (some non-Mainers may say: "Sitting on the fence ").


DPI = auto 1st down - YES! This would prevent the potential foul from preventing a TD or a new series in some situations. DPI penalty often creates a new series with yardage (80+% of the time), while OPI ALWAYS costs B a loss of down. OPI should not be changed.

Ralph, I respectfully am disagreeing with you on this.  I think automatic first downs should be reserved for the more flagrant roughing the passer type fouls.  It would be tough on the defense in long yardage situations to get called for a dinky dpi that is not even close to the line to gain.  The automatic first down even when the LTG has not been acheived is too big a penalty in my opinion.

2.  can you clarify what you mean by saying "OPI always costs B a loss of down"?

[HLinNC]

ncwingman- My understanding of the IG POE was to remind us that it IS Intentional Grounding if the QB chucks into the stands but yet in the general direction of his WR's general location near the sideline.

Ralph- I remember the term "cheap shot" being thrown around as the reason when the rule was changed to allow the scoring team to keep the TD and assess the yardage but as time has gone by, do any of us consider a really crappy DPI attempt, a defensive hold, or an illegal sub on the defense a "cheap shot"?  I just think a score AND subsequent yardage for that type of foul is a bit harsh.  PF's heck yeah, lay it to them.

[CalhounLJ]

All that makes sense. Thanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ncwingman]

ncwingman- My understanding of the IG POE was to remind us that it IS Intentional Grounding if the QB chucks into the stands but yet in the general direction of his WR's general location near the sideline.

Yes, but in my (probably more limited) experience, a POE doesn't actually change anything regarding how fouls are called. If you want, especially old-guard, officials to call something a certain way, you need to emphasize a change in the rule itself... and even then...

As an extreme example, we could have a POE about proper field markings next year. What happens the first week when you go to the field with the logo covering up the 50 yard line? Nothing is going to happen and you're going to play football even though it's technically against the rules. If you want it to really change, you need to change the rule to explicitly state "Action X is a foul with penalty Y".

[Ralph Damren]

Ralph, I respectfully am disagreeing with you on this.  I think automatic first downs should be reserved for the more flagrant roughing the passer type fouls.  It would be tough on the defense in long yardage situations to get called for a dinky dpi that is not even close to the line to gain.  The automatic first down even when the LTG has not been acheived is too big a penalty in my opinion.

2.  can you clarify what you mean by saying "OPI always costs B a loss of down"?

I agree, Derek, that AFD should apply to the most dangerous fouls on defenseless players and have used that argument several times in aid to defeat proposals that would make all PFs on B/K an AFD. I still believe that DPI should also carry an AFD to prevent an intentional act by B ,if beaten on a pass play. IMHO, this could raise its ugly head on goal-to-go or half-the distance situations.

Stats show that 80+% of DPI enforcements create a new series without applying AFD. I'm arguing for the 20-% that don't. Under the old "one size fits all rule" all OPI penalties carried LOD . 100% of those costs A a loss of down. Good catch  my bad...I thought I knew my A,B,Cs  !

[KWH]

the only potential issue I see is what if the ball lands out of bounds.   we would have to 'guess' where it left the field of play.  Like a punt very tough.

Not true Derick...
For the purpose of this rule, where it crosses the sideline is not considered, rather did it cross the LOS in flight is all that matters.
Again, for the purpose of this rule, the LOS extends OOB to infinity, and all the legal forward pass need do, is cross the LOS in flight.
While they likely don't word it the same way i am, the requirement's are the same for NCAA and NFL. This is why when the result is the pass is it lands in the stands and it is ruled legal.
(Ralph has addressed some concern that passers may be intentionally aiming for the Prom Queens Mom)
Also, just a legal is when the pass, inflight, crosses the down box, in front of it or behind it.
I hope what I just described makes sense?   

[Derek Teigen]

Not true Derick...
For the purpose of this rule, where it crosses the sideline is not considered, rather did it cross the LOS in flight is all that matters.
Again, for the purpose of this rule, the LOS extends OOB to infinity, and all the legal forward pass need do, is cross the LOS in flight.
While they likely don't word it the same way i am, the requirement's are the same for NCAA and NFL. This is why when the result is the pass is it lands in the stands and it is ruled legal.
(Ralph has addressed some concern that passers may be intentionally aiming for the Prom Queens Mom)
Also, just a legal is when the pass, inflight, crosses the down box, in front of it or behind it.
I hope what I just described makes sense?

yes, ok that answers it.  I think all high school coaches would support this rule change and I think we should too because it helps protect the quarterback. 

[bama_stripes]

I would much prefer to change the penalty for IG to LOD at the spot of the pass.  This maintains the balance between offense & defense.

[NVFOA_Ump]

........  I still believe that DPI should also carry an AFD to prevent an intentional act by B ,if beaten on a pass play. IMHO, this could raise its ugly head on goal-to-go or half-the distance situations.

Why not consider doing away with the inane "double enforcement" for intentional DPI which it seems has never been called and change DPI enforcement to always be a fixed 15 yards or spot the ball at the 1 yard line if previous spot is the B-16 or inside.  Wouldn't that pretty much address the " ... goal-to-go or half-the distance situations."? 

[AlUpstateNY]

You're not really wrong, ncwingman. IMHO, a little complex on the DPI = AFD suggestion. Exceptions are as popular to NFHS rules as a Yankee fan at a Red Sox home game. IMHO, most of the time AFD is not needed as the 15 yards takes care of that. Thanks for your post.

Actually Ralph, having been to several Yankee games at Fenway Park, I found Red Sox fans, generally quite hospitable. (although having to wear a "Grocho Marx glasses with mustache disguise") was a little annoying.

[bossman72]

Wouldn’t the U likely be best positioned to rule on beyond LOS of a pass, they’re already ruling on ineligible a downfield on the pass.

No.  The U is watching interior linemen.  He's not going to turn with a pass headed toward the sideline, typically, especially if he has some commotion in the interior.

[CalhounLJ]

No.  The U is watching interior linemen.  He's not going to turn with a pass headed toward the sideline, typically, especially if he has some commotion in the interior.

Agree. This is a wing call. Also, it might not be as big a problem as we suspect. I think in the vast majority of cases, the wings are going to be close enough to the line to be able to rule in the LOS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KWH]

I would much prefer to change the penalty for IG to LOD at the spot of the pass.  This maintains the balance between offense & defense.

Bama-
I have no issue dumping the 5 yards. But think about this idea:
How about we let him legally throw the ball away, but, when he does, we drop a bean bag at that spot as that is now the succeeding spot.
I believe that more equitably maintains the balance between offense and defense?

And while I realize this is NOT how the NFL and NCAA do it, Frankly Scarlet I don't give a damn!

[bossman72]

Bama-
I have no issue dumping the 5 yards. But think about this idea:
How about we let him legally throw the ball away, but, when he does, we drop a bean bag at that spot as that is now the succeeding spot.
I believe that more equitably maintains the balance between offense and defense?

And while I realize this is NOT how the NFL and NCAA do it, Frankly Scarlet I don't give a damn!

I really don't see the issue with keeping the 5 yard penalty.  Every foul in NFHS is 5, 10, or 15 yards.  Not worth changing, IMO.

[KWH]

I really don't see the issue with keeping the 5 yard penalty.  Every foul in NFHS is 5, 10, or 15 yards.  Not worth changing, IMO.

So...Bossman, are you agreeing that when the ball is snapped at the B-30 and A1 rolls outside the FBZ and then legally grounds the football from the B-40,
 we drop a bean bag and the the new spot is the B-40?

[Ralph Damren]

Why not consider doing away with the inane "double enforcement" for intentional DPI which it seems has never been called and change DPI enforcement to always be a fixed 15 yards or spot the ball at the 1 yard line if previous spot is the B-16 or inside.  Wouldn't that pretty much address the " ... goal-to-go or half-the distance situations."?

IMHO, if you alter 'half-the distance' to full 15, you would need to apply that when the LOS was inside the 30 not inside the 16. A proposal was put in a few years ago to add AFD to DFI if the LOS was inside the 30. It had little support. The major reason was:

   AN EXCEPTION