RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: NVFOA_Ump on August 08, 2019, 07:01:55 AM
-
Last night during a rules presentation for coaches a few questions were asked that went something like:
3rd and 18 at the 50 yard line. A is in shotgun formation with QB A-10 standing at the A-42 where he takes the snap. B brings an all out blitz and A-10 is running for his life while still looking for a receiver downfield.
1. Just as he is releasing the pass he is tackled by the facemask by B-52 at the A-32 yard line. The ball is dropped by TE A-82 just beyond the LOS so we have an incomplete pass. What's the call?
2. Just before he can release the pass he is tackled by the facemask by B-52 and the DB spot is the A-32 yard line. What's the call?
3. Just as he is releasing the pass he is tackled by B-52 by grabbing the inside back collar of his jersey/shoulder pads buckling his knees and going down hard backward. The ball is dropped by TE A-82 just beyond the LOS so we have an incomplete pass. What's the call?
4. Just before he can release the pass he is tackled by B-52 by grabbing the inside back collar of his jersey/shoulder pads buckling his knees and going down hard backward and the DB spot is the A-32 yard line. What's the call?
-
Assuming he releases the pass in all 4 scenarios, they are all Roughing the Passer. Previous spot enforcement.
-
Last night during a rules presentation for coaches a few of questions were asked that went something like:
3rd and 18 at the 50 yard line. A is in shotgun formation with QB A-10 standing at the A-42 where he takes the snap. B brings an all out blitz and A-10 is running for his life while still looking for a receiver downfield.
1. Just as he is releasing the pass he is tackled by the facemask by B-52 at the A-32 yard line. The ball is dropped by TE A-82 just beyond the LOS so we have an incomplete pass. What's the call?
15 yd facemask treated as Roughing the Passer. 15yds from previous spot Automatic first down.
2. Just before he can release the pass he is tackled by the facemask by B-52 at the A-32 yard line. What's the call?
15yd facemask PF 15yds end of run, replay down unless first down.
3. Just as he is releasing the pass he is tackled by B-52 by grabbing the inside back collar of his jersey/shoulder pads buckling his knees and going down hard backward. The ball is dropped by TE A-82 just beyond the LOS so we have an incomplete pass. What's the call?
15yd horsecollar treated as roughing the passer. 15yd previous spot automatic first down.
4. Just before he can release the pass he is tackled by B-52 by grabbing the inside back collar of his jersey/shoulder pads buckling his knees and going down hard backward. The ball is dropped by TE A-82 just beyond the LOS so we have an incomplete pass. What's the call?
I'm assuming you meant to delete the alleged dropped pass because he was pulled down before he can release the pass. If that's the case, 15yd personal foul for horsecollar tackle. 15yds from end of run replay down unless first down.
-
Shouldn't post before coffee in the morning. :) Edited the original post (blue text) to get at the intended question.
-
I agree with Calhoun here.
To emphasize the blue edits, in #2 and #4 it sounds like A10 was tackled prior to releasing the ball -- in this case he's not a passer, so you can't rough the passer. You can (and do) have PF facemask and horse collar fouls, but they are enforced from the end of the run, A32. In both scenarios, enforce 15 yards is a net 3 yard loss, but it will be 3rd and 21 from the A47.
-
Plays 1 & 3, A legal forward pass, are considered loose ball plays.
Basic spot for a loose ball play is the previous spot.
Plays 2 & 4 if brought down before the pass is thrown are considered running plays.
Basic spot for a running play is the end of the related run. Where A-10 is taken down.
Coaches in mass aren't going to like that enforcement
-
So personal fouls by the defense that occur 18 yards behind the LOS during a running play are enforced from the end of the run? So a PF just as the QB releases the ball will effectively "convert" to a roughing the passer call, 15 yards previous spot, and an automatic 1st down, but if the "passer" tucks the ball away and gets tackled the "same foul" at the same spot is a simple personal foul, 15 yards spot of the foul and replay the down?
So with one difference, the QB releasing the ball, we end up with a difference of almost 20 yards in field position and a 1st vs. replay 3rd down?
-
Plays 1 & 3, A legal forward pass, are considered loose ball plays.
Basic spot for a loose ball play is the previous spot.
Plays 2 & 4 if brought down before the pass is thrown are considered running plays.
Basic spot for a running play is the end of the related run. Where A-10 is taken down.
Coaches in mass aren't going to like that enforcement
The coaches in our rules seminar were beside themselves when we were discussing this last night. I wanted to make sure that I got this right so I posted the types of plays we were discussing just to be sure. They insisted that this was clearly "not equitable".
-
Here's another wrench -- lets slightly modify scenario 4:
4b) Just as he releases the pass he is tackled by B-52 by grabbing the inside back collar of his jersey/shoulder pads buckling his knees and going down hard backward. The forward pass is caught by running back A15 who is also at the A32 and gets immediately tackled. What's the call?
In this case, we have a pass, we now have roughing the passer and this foul gets enforced from the previous spot since the dead ball spot is behind the LOS -- enforcement is the same as in #1 or #3.
The loss of 18 yards on the play is completely wiped out by the enforcement of the penalty.
-
So personal fouls by the defense that occur 18 yards behind the LOS during a running play are enforced from the end of the run? So a PF just as the QB releases the ball will effectively "convert" to a roughing the passer call, 15 yards previous spot, and an automatic 1st down, but if the "passer" tucks the ball away and gets tackled the "same foul" at the same spot is a simple personal foul, 15 yards spot of the foul and replay the down?
So with one difference, the QB releasing the ball, we end up with a difference of almost 20 yards in field position and a 1st vs. replay 3rd down?
Yes. It's been a topic of discussion for a couple of years in High School. In keeping with the "all-but-one" principle, the foul behind the line before the pass is considered a foul during a running play, with enforcement at end of run. While it seems unfair, the idea is that without the foul, A would have the ball with the down counted at the spot. With the foul, at least A gets additional yardage + a replay.
One more note on the roughing the passer. Roughing the passer is also a tack-on foul. If A82 catches the pass and runs beyond the LOS, we tack the 15yds on to the dead ball spot. It's only if it's incomplete, down behind the line, or a change of possession that we go back to previous spot.
I think the rule says the spot of enforcement is the dead ball spot if the run ends beyond the line of scrimmage and there is no change of possession. Otherwise, the spot of enforcement is the previous spot. Something to that effect.
-
So personal fouls by the defense that occur 18 yards behind the LOS during a running play are enforced from the end of the run? So a PF just as the QB releases the ball will effectively "convert" to a roughing the passer call, 15 yards previous spot, and an automatic 1st down, but if the "passer" tucks the ball away and gets tackled the "same foul" at the same spot is a simple personal foul, 15 yards spot of the foul and replay the down?
So with one difference, the QB releasing the ball, we end up with a difference of almost 20 yards in field position and a 1st vs. replay 3rd down?
I agree it's not logical. But the NFHS rules committee doesn't want exceptions to the All-but-one so this is what we live with. The common joke is if a QB is getting sacked and he knows there is a foul on the defense he should fumble and recover the ball so we have a loose ball play rather than a running play. Of course he has not guarantee of recovering his fumble, but that's the messed up logic of the current rules. Fortunately it doesn't come into play that often.
-
I agree to a point that it seems illogical. But I also see the argument from the camp that says previous spot is way too generous. If A gives up 28 yds by retreating, giving them those 28 yds back + 15 more and a replay for the foul seems kinda overboard.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The coaches in our rules seminar were beside themselves when we were discussing this last night. I wanted to make sure that I got this right so I posted the types of plays we were discussing just to be sure. They insisted that this was clearly "not equitable".
Yep, it's almost as if switching away from NCAA was a massively unpopular move
-
So personal fouls by the defense that occur 18 yards behind the LOS during a running play are enforced from the end of the run? So a PF just as the QB releases the ball will effectively "convert" to a roughing the passer call, 15 yards previous spot, and an automatic 1st down, but if the "passer" tucks the ball away and gets tackled the "same foul" at the same spot is a simple personal foul, 15 yards spot of the foul and replay the down?
So with one difference, the QB releasing the ball, we end up with a difference of almost 20 yards in field position and a 1st vs. replay 3rd down?
Appears to be, you finally understand the relevant NFHS rules. These situations may well be handled somewhat differently at other levels, which would apply to games played under those "other level" rules. To help understand the difference between these situations, you might very carefully reference the specific language of both NFHS 2-32-11 (A Passer) and NFHS 2-32-13 (A Runner).
NFHS Coaches have access for consideration of rule modifications, and should they present strong enough argument for change, their concerns may persuade rule makers to adopt changes.
-
Yes. It's been a topic of discussion for a couple of years in High School. In keeping with the "all-but-one" principle, the foul behind the line before the pass is considered a foul during a running play, with enforcement at end of run. While it seems unfair, the idea is that without the foul, A would have the ball with the down counted at the spot. With the foul, at least A gets additional yardage + a replay.
One more note on the roughing the passer. Roughing the passer is also a tack-on foul. If A82 catches the pass and runs beyond the LOS, we tack the 15yds on to the dead ball spot. It's only if it's incomplete, down behind the line, or a change of possession that we go back to previous spot.
I think the rule says the spot of enforcement is the dead ball spot if the run ends beyond the line of scrimmage and there is no change of possession. Otherwise, the spot of enforcement is the previous spot. Something to that effect.
This is a tack on foul. We would enforce from the dead ball spot.
-
This is a tack on foul. We would enforce from the dead ball spot.
9-4-Art. 4 PenaltY: roughing the passer – (S34-8) – 15 yards and a first down from the dead ball spot when the dead ball spot is beyond the neutral zone and A has possession of the ball at the end of the down and there has been no change of team possession and the foul is not for an incidental face mask as in 9-4-3h, or otherwise 15 yards and first down from previous spot;
-
Yep, it's almost as if switching away from NCAA was a massively unpopular move
True, but the good news is this happens very rarely so while it's a vastly different and arguably unfair rule difference, it may happen to a team once or twice a year. With 120 plays per game and 10 games on average once or twice in 1200 players is not significant.
-
Appears to be, you finally understand the relevant NFHS rules. These situations may well be handled somewhat differently at other levels, which would apply to games played under those "other level" rules. To help understand the difference between these situations, you might very carefully reference the specific language of both NFHS 2-32-11 (A Passer) and NFHS 2-32-13 (A Runner).
NFHS Coaches have access for consideration of rule modifications, and should they present strong enough argument for change, their concerns may persuade rule makers to adopt changes.
Why do you talk to other posters like they're idiots?
-
Yep, it's almost as if switching away from NCAA was a massively unpopular move
Rarely do we enjoy a change, and it's human nature to search for it's weak/unfair/ awful differences - the weakest links - to magnify one's displeasure. In Maine, many officials are griping about our 40" clock. I didn't want to pass, but it did. It's now OUR RULE and we'll do our best to make it work. IMHO, we should all try to go into our season with a positive mental attitude and our rule changes/differences will soon become second nature.
-
Appears to be, you finally understand the relevant NFHS rules. These situations may well be handled somewhat differently at other levels, which would apply to games played under those "other level" rules. To help understand the difference between these situations, you might very carefully reference the specific language of both NFHS 2-32-11 (A Passer) and NFHS 2-32-13 (A Runner).
NFHS Coaches have access for consideration of rule modifications, and should they present strong enough argument for change, their concerns may persuade rule makers to adopt changes.
I believe that I have a pretty good understanding of the NFHS rules since I have been doing about 1/2 of my schedule in RI the last 3 years. The difference this year is that I'm on a team that has pulled together some training materials (mostly gathered from NFHS and links on this board) to use in seminars for our officiating board (about 100 members) and coaches. The number of "that can't be right" and "that's absurd" comments (many from the coaches seminar last night) led me to post some of the specific "I can't believe that's correct" scenarios.
We'll have a bumpy road here in MA getting through the transition but we'll get it done. This board has been an invaluable part of the toolbox for me over the years and I appreciate all of the comments regardless of the tone. They all help in one way or another.
-
Why do you talk to other posters like they're idiots?
Sorry YOU took it that way, which was not intended.
There appears to be some individuals who consistently want to converge every level of Football into a single, universal rule set. The significant difference in physical capabilities, maturity and experience between the different levels of participants of this sport strongly suggest each level requires specific consideration for "some" of the various details, and objectives that apply to each sport somewhat differently based on the difference in capability at each level.
The usually subtle differences in similar rule application is designed to accommodate these level differences, and have been given, steady, detailed and serious consideration and are subject to constant review and assessment. We each have opportunity to petition NFHS rule makers regarding suggestions and modifications, and are subsequently bound to accept and enforce any changes, adjustments or modifications that may be decided.
-
Sorry YOU took it that way, which was not intended.
There appears to be some individuals who consistently want to converge every level of Football into a single, universal rule set. The significant difference in physical capabilities, maturity and experience between the different levels of participants of this sport strongly suggest each level requires specific consideration for "some" of the various details, and objectives that apply to each sport somewhat differently based on the difference in capability at each level.
The usually subtle differences in similar rule application is designed to accommodate these level differences, and have been given, steady, detailed and serious consideration and are subject to constant review and assessment. We each have opportunity to petition NFHS rule makers regarding suggestions and modifications, and are subsequently bound to accept and enforce any changes, adjustments or modifications that may be decided.
There are also high school officials that get bent out of shape over every change that trickles down from the higher levels, even if the majority of officials concur that it makes the game better. Such as the 40-second play clock and other "solutions looking for problems" that you consistently bellyache over in these long-winded, weirdly formatted posts.
Hell, this offseason the NCAA adopted a rule that the NFHS came up with (BSB), and I don't see NCAA officials complaining about "high school rules" coming to their games.
-
There are also high school officials that get bent out of shape over every change that trickles down from the higher levels, even if the majority of officials concur that it makes the game better. Such as the 40-second play clock and other "solutions looking for problems" that you consistently bellyache over in these long-winded, weirdly formatted posts.
Hell, this offseason the NCAA adopted a rule that the NFHS came up with (BSB), and I don't see NCAA officials complaining about "high school rules" coming to their games.
What you consider "bellyache over in these long-winded, weirdly formatted posts" seems more like (still) searching for unanswered questions about what benefits these changes hoped to produce, that other corrective adjustments may have accomplished with far less consternation and turmoil.
As is usually the case, time will eventually tell, and hopefully, whether the experience will prove to have been worthwhile, but suggesting, "the majority of officials concur that it makes the game better. Such as the 40-second play clock and other "solutions looking for problems", seems a somewhat premature assessment and may require a considerably longer "period of adjustment" than anticipated, or advertised.
-
What you consider "bellyache over in these long-winded, weirdly formatted posts" seems more like (still) searching for unanswered questions about what benefits these changes hoped to produce, that other corrective adjustments may have accomplished with far less consternation and turmoil.
As is usually the case, time will eventually tell, and hopefully, whether the experience will prove to have been worthwhile, but suggesting, "the majority of officials concur that it makes the game better. Such as the 40-second play clock and other "solutions looking for problems", seems a somewhat premature assessment and may require a considerably longer "period of adjustment" than anticipated, or advertised.
A lot of changes get made that aren't "do or die." NFHS would have been just fine without the 40-second clock. But the research from the higher levels and the experimental states concludes that most believe it makes the game better. I see no reason to keep it away from the high school game. Your constant patronizing reminders about whom NFHS rules are written for are not really relevant to why there should or shouldn't be a 40-second clock.
The game evolves. Either we evolve with it or we get out.
-
I for one appreciate the contributions from the college officials who post on this board. I see value in their expertise and the level of training they receive. I also appreciate the insight into intent and advantage philosophy. However, sometimes it does portray a negative connotation. If not careful, posts can be taken as, "This is the way we do it UP here at the next level, and so this is the way you should do it DOWN there." Plus, not every high school association interprets mechanics and even the rules identically, so there is a tension between what should be done and what is required from us from our association. For example, in regard to the numbering exception situation we have beat to death, I agree with the college guys in that we should not have to require 5 ineligibles on the line during a 4th down kick/try. Only problem is, my assigner has made the decision that is to be a foul for illegal formation. So we have conflicting interpretations. That brings frustration, especially when we are being looked down upon by those in the college ranks. My two cents.
My challenge and advice - Let's move on. Everybody needs to get along.
-
But the research from the higher levels and the experimental states concludes that most believe it makes the game better. I see no reason to keep it away from the high school game.
+1
The 40/25 provides consistency within the game, and consistency from one game to the next game. That makes the game better for the teams.
-
+1
The 40/25 provides consistency within the game, and consistency from one game to the next game. That makes the game better for the teams.
Once the referees realize they don't have to blow their whistle as much they'll LOVE it!
-
I honestly have never thought I blew my whistle too much. I certainly hope that was not a factor in the decision making process.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Anytime something new comes along there is always a little panic. Nobody wants to screw up and look bad. As I have told coaches, parents, and friends that I have spoken to, there will surely be some glitches by all of us: coaches, officials, chain crews, clock operators and ball boys.
I think we expect too much out of the NFHS sometimes. They do not have a dedicated staff to rules and officials like NCAA/CFO and thus the "sausage" is a little harder to make. It took several years to beat the horse collar tackle into submission and it will take some time for those of us who didn't participate under the play clock experiment to get it 100%. There will be squalling and griping from coaches and fans but why should today be any different?
Scrimmages start tomorrow in NC. We also get our turn to experiment this year with allowing a spike from shotgun to stop the clock.
-
I honestly have never thought I blew my whistle too much. I certainly hope that was not a factor in the decision making process.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's the RFP whistle. You likely blow it 120-140 times per game. With a 40-second play clock you may only blow it 50-60. That's a lot less pounding on the ears. I doubt it was any factor in any decisions, but the referees I have talked with have said it's been a nice side benefit.
-
A lot of changes get made that aren't "do or die." NFHS would have been just fine without the 40-second clock. But the research from the higher levels and the experimental states concludes that most believe it makes the game better. I see no reason to keep it away from the high school game. Your constant patronizing reminders about whom NFHS rules are written for are not really relevant to why there should or shouldn't be a 40-second clock. The game evolves. Either we evolve with it or we get out.
Unfortunate, that you consider reminders about relevant differences between the DRAMATICALLY different (Maturity & Physical Capability) levels of participants at the various levels of Football, as patronizing, but the reality is, they are significantly different. Improving the game, as well as the safety of the participants, is absolutely a laudable objective. However, "Improvement" much like "Beauty" is very often, "in the eye of the beholder".
Much can be learned from higher levels of execution, but each of those levels hold much higher value in specific, valid objectives, that may not be as relevant, or necessary, to what amounts to the "basic (learning) level of a very complex, demanding and rewarding game. Evolving differences in the overall game of Football, designed specifically to address circumstances and objectives to benefit higher levels, DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY translate as well, or as necessary, to the Interscholastic level. (Which is why so many subtle differences currently exist)
As suggested, "TIME WILL TELL" whether the 40 second clock, and all the associated necessities and requirements to transport this capability will benefit, and/or improve Interscholastic level football.
The game does evolve, the choices you suggest ("evolve with it or we get out") should also include a 3rd option of carefully deciding, and assessing, if adopting a solution from higher play levels is BETTER for the needs of the Interscholastic level, and whether the overall changes necessary to support the plan are worth the anticipated benefit rather than simply mimicking what, may address well, objectives and necessities far more unique to progressively higher levels.