RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Texas Topics => Topic started by: ElvisLives on April 19, 2024, 01:30:45 PM
-
https://www.ncaa.org/news/2024/4/19/media-center-technology-rules-approved-in-football.aspx
Here are the PROP Approved Rules Changes. Now we wait to see what exceptions, if any, the UIL will take to these changes. My guess is that the UIL will approve the 2-minute T/O in 2nd/4th periods, but take exception to everything else.
The PROP rejected additional rule change to uniforms. So, no change there for UIL for 2024. So, we'll still see bermuda shorts, and no one will do anything about it, including us. Status quo. End of story for 2024.
-
I think the UIL will also accept the change to horse-collar tackle in the tackle-box now being a foul.
-
I think the UIL will also accept the change to horse-collar tackle in the tackle-box now being a foul.
Yes, I concur.
-
I’m not sure I see the UIL taking the 2 minute warning unless they take other timing rules with it. It’s kind of hard to justify an extra timeout when you’re still stopping the clock on first downs all game and the clock is on the snap on OOB plays all game.
-
If the UIL does adopt the 2 minute warning I would then like to see them also adopt/remove the first down clock stoppage. Unofficially, we all seem to adopt our own rules anyway. For example, we may stop the clock on the first down but within about 3-5 seconds after giving the stop clock signal we are already winding the clock even as the chains haven't even started moving downfield yet. ;D
-
I am hearing talk on the plains about the UIL Rules Committee Acceptance of Proposed Rule Changes as follows:
"The two-minute timeout was discussed but the UIL's football rules committee decided that we will continue to use our current clock rules as they pertain to stopping & starting the clock under two minutes of each half. No two-minute timeouts."
"The uniform rule & horse collar rule WILL both be applicable to UIL games going forward."
-Direct Quote from a Head Coach
-
What uniform rule? They’re going to take the rule denied by PROP and adopt it anyway?
-
..has that ever been done before? (adopting something PROP committee denied?)
Even if they do, it doesn't change anything really - officials still won't enforce it.
-
Last year they wrote their own rule regarding defensive linemen on field goal attempts that was not even a blip on the NCAA radar. It’s not quite the same, but it’s the only time I remember them going off on their own in the almost 15 years I’ve been doing this.
-
We all have heard the TASO Football Officers push for us to try to police the uniform situation since 2018. Hopefully by now, the coaches are tired of this mess and will allow us to enforce the rules since the oked this uniform policy.
-
What uniform rule? They’re going to take the rule denied by PROP and adopt it anyway?
I second that question: What uniform rule (change)? There aren’t any, unless the UIL unilaterally chooses to adopt something. If they do, then I say that we hit ‘em hard in week 1, so they either show they mean it and gives 100% support, or decide they don’t really mean it, and then WE just go back to what we have been doing, which is nothing.
-
..has that ever been done before? (adopting something PROP committee denied?)
Even if they do, it doesn't change anything really - officials still won't enforce it.
If they did pass it, why wouldn't you try to enforce it?
-
If they did pass it, why wouldn't you try to enforce it?
Not trying to be insulting, but, with that comment, you would not seem to be an official working UIL (Texas) HS football. Coaches from both teams in every contest have the ‘right’ to accept or reject officials for their games. So, official R1 enforces the rule, and keeps a star player out of a game for some amount of time while he gets pants that get his knees covered. Even if they win the game, Coach X doesn’t like being handicapped for even one down, and vows to scratch that official/crew from ever working his games. Word gets around to other coaches that official R1 enforces the rule, but official R2 doesn’t, so they should choose R2. R1 finds out that he isn’t getting assignments to those top programs (who have strong attendance at their games, thus greater officiating fees), and R1 decides not to enforce that rule, any more.
And so it goes.
-
While I can appreciate you trying to not be insulting @ElivisLives, from what you are saying plays right into the coaches hands. You will officiate for them the way they want. I know this is a cut throat profession and we all want playoff games, but to what to end. If each crew in each chapter enforced the rules as instructed, then it would become the norm and coaches would fix the problem on their own because the rule will be enforced. Coaches are just like players, they will try to get away with as much as you let them. Just Zebra up and enforce the rule. It will help all your fellow Zebras down the line.
I do officiate in Texas
-
While I can appreciate you trying to not be insulting @ElivisLives, from what you are saying plays right into the coaches hands. You will officiate for them the way they want. I know this is a cut throat profession and we all want playoff games, but to what to end. If each crew in each chapter enforced the rules as instructed, then it would become the norm and coaches would fix the problem on their own because the rule will be enforced. Coaches are just like players, they will try to get away with as much as you let them. Just Zebra up and enforce the rule. It will help all your fellow Zebras down the line.
I do officiate in Texas
That's fantasy. You are normalizing coaches having a say in choosing officials, which is the root of the problem. Literally no other level, or location, of competitive sports allows coaches the right to unilaterally pick who they want to officiate their games - for very good reason. As long as coaches are allowed to introduce corruptibility into the process, this will not change.
-
I know coaches do have a great say in what officials to use. We as Zebras have a great say in how we officiate and enforce rules. You have to decide what side of the fence you want to be on. You can't be scared to make the correct call no matter the consequences because it effects all your fellow Zebras.
-
Do not confuse my ability or courage to make a correct call during a game with enforcing uniform stylistic choices.
Coaches sign a card that their teams have been instructed to wear and how to wear mandatory equipment. It's their problem.
-
Correct. Coaches do sign equipment card. It's their problem when Zebras enforce the rules that come with the agreed contract. Do your part to force them to do their part. If you can't handle the simple stuff, how can you be expected to handle the big stuff.
-
If you can't handle the simple stuff, how can you be expected to handle the big stuff.
Because I can discern what is important and relevant, and what is not. But you do you, and I'll keep on keeping on as well.
-
Very good @dammitbobby. Maybe one day we will agree on a topic.
-
Hmmm. I thought it might be just a one-time typo, but there it is again. What the heck is with the "at" sign in front my (or anybody else's) user name?
Not my label. I'll thank you to refrain from taking liberties with my user name. (I can't speak for others, but they may not like it, either).
And don't pretend to know what I will, or won't, enforce. I'm the guy fighting to get everybody to call illegal shifts (or illegal shift that converts to a false start) when Team A fails to stop and PAUSE for one FULL second before the snap. I'm the guy fighting to keep coaches very near the sideline between downs, while giving signals, then OFF THE WHITE by the time the ball is snapped (end line to end line). I'm the guy fighting to keep defensive players from deliberately stepping on/kneeing/pushing up off the ball carrier after they make the tackle. I'm the guy that checks game balls every game. I'm the guy that insists on having a conference with BOTH clock operators before every game. EVERY GAME! I'm the guy that won't allow the game operations folks to switch the lights off (fully dark) after a score or other 'home' event (in keeping with the NCAA direction, to which the UIL has NOT taken exception). (It won't be me that makes headlines when some kid gets sent to the hospital after getting kicked in the nads, or shanked, or smashed in the head with a helmet while the lights are out, and all we see is the kid laying on the ground in agony (or worse) after the lights come back on.) I'm the guy that makes game management move the end zone camera from right behind the goal support to outside the limit line, and make all photographers and 'dignitaries' stay outside the limit lines THE ENTIRE GAME. I'm the guy that makes the bands not play when the opponent is about to put the ball in play.
The guys that we are talking about don't do that, to ensure their position in the pecking order of 'coach picks,' or because they are too frickin' lazy.
Now. I will grant you that the knee covering thing is a different animal. A player can easily get a mouthpiece. A player can get easily a tailbone pad. A player can easily get a tinted visor removed from his helmet. Unfortunately, a player can't so easily get a pair of pants with longer legs within an hour of game time (especially a visiting team). And the coaches know that. They blame it on the uniform supplier: "Well that's what they sent us!" After two seasons of trying to fight this, everyone just gave up on that issue. Obviously, the coaches not only don't care, but, by omission, they encourage this behavior in the name of improved performance (real or imagined). We might have made one or two players work hard to keep their pants pulled down at the start of a drive, but then they 'shrink' up. And we just got tired of fighting this. They don't care; we don't care.
If the UIL writes their own rule to increase enforcement of this, then, by all means, WE need to stick it to 'em in those first few weeks, regardless of threats to scratch us, etc. And then we write up every incident where we had to enforce such a new UIL rule, and force the UIL to support us, or tell us, officially, "Just kidding."
Yes, this is an issue that the UIL needs to address internally, and not make us the 'bad guys.' Have us send in incident reports for every team that plays a player that doesn't wear conforming pants. No in-game penalty - just an incident report. Then they can use the incident report to fine the teams. And maybe even rule them ineligible for post-season play, if they have multiple incident reports for this reason.
Won't happen, as much as I wish it would.
Just don't pretend to know what I will, or won't, enforce. And don't call me "@".
-
Whoa at ElvisLives.....I didn't know "@" would cause such emotional damage and trigger you by taking liberties with your user name. A thousand apologies.
The vast check list of items you fight for is quite impressive. Based on it, you provide a great service to the games with integrity in an efficient and constructive manner by going above and beyond what UIL asks. I can appreciate it along with coaches, players, and parents.
I won't pretend to know what you will and won't enforce but based on your checklist, you appear to enforce most rules. I am just going off the language towards the new uniform rule you have written about on here. I would imagine you would enforce this rule since it would go well with your esteemed checklist of services you provide. Writing incident reports on it when coaches get upset about will just be part of it. We are trying to turn a giant ship in the right direction and that will take a little bit of time, a few more incident reports, but will take all of us to do it.
I guess I am naive thinking this rule is a step in the right direction with coaches, UIL, and TASO. Only time will tell us this. The coaches too.
Again.. a thousand apologies for the "@" at ElvisLives
-
I love the discussion taking place. I just wanted to welcome Zebra Watcher as a second or third year official in Texas. He has entered that stage of officiating in which he's done a couple of sub-varsity game in which he was able to control the narrative of the game with the coaches so now he has the confidence to carry that over to the varsity field to work the stadium games and get ready for his upcoming state championship assignment. Well done sir. You are definitely on your way to AT&T.
-
Perhaps all should reread the Guidelines for Texas Forum stickied at the top of this forum.
-
You are right Etref. I apologize for my part in taking this thread in the wrong direction for what it is intended for.
Thank you for the welcome Cosmokramer1. What are your thoughts on this old but new rule?
-
You are right Etref. I apologize for my part in taking this thread in the wrong direction for what it is intended for.
Thank you for the welcome Cosmokramer1. What are your thoughts on this old but new rule?
Zebra Watcher, forgive my ignorance but what old but new rule are you referring too? I see mention in this thread about the UIL adopting the uniform rule but, as others have asked, what uniform rule? Or are you referring to something completely different and I've missed it? So help me out here please and I'll be happy to give you my thoughts.
-
Zebra Watcher, forgive my ignorance but what old but new rule are you referring too? I see mention in this thread about the UIL adopting the uniform rule but, as others have asked, what uniform rule? Or are you referring to something completely different and I've missed it? So help me out here please and I'll be happy to give you my thoughts.
Cosmo, the document attached to the lead post in this thread shows a proposed ‘enhancement’ to the enforcement process for uniform rules (applicable to all, but targeted at the knee pad/pants covering the knees rule), that the PROP REJECTED for NCAA football. But, that doesn’t mean the UIL can’t or won’t adopt this, or some other modification of the uniform/equipment rule enforcement process. So, we are awaiting the UIL’s 2024 “Exceptions” to the NCAA rules, to see which, if any, of the proposed and/or approved NCAA rule changes they will approve, or any new rules they will introduce (like they did with the defensive rusher rule on field goal attempts in 2023).
-
Cosmokramer1, the old-new rule that I mentioned was back in 2018 when TASO pushed hard to fix back pad and knee pads but gave us a no leg to stand on to enforce, so the coaches pushed back harder and thus, we have the situation we have had for the past few years. Now with what appears to be an UIL enhanced proposal, the one ElvisLives stated, to combat the knee pads situation with actual penalties to enforce.
-
You can go back to the 90’s with the sock rule that lasted about a year then went away
-
Cosmokramer1, the old-new rule that I mentioned was back in 2018 when TASO pushed hard to fix back pad and knee pads but gave us a no leg to stand on to enforce, so the coaches pushed back harder and thus, we have the situation we have had for the past few years. Now with what appears to be an UIL enhanced proposal, the one ElvisLives stated, to combat the knee pads situation with actual penalties to enforce.
Thank you, and thank you Elvis (Robert). So my take on it now is no different than my take on it last year and the year before. Not being disrespectful to the UIL but when it comes to uniform rules (either theirs or the NCAA) I pretty much don't care anymore. Why you might ask? Because too many of us got burned by the UIL several years ago when they implemented rules associated with the uniform color and number color. The UIL (and TASO) informed officials to enforce the rule that numbers had to be of contrasting colors to the jersey. So many did only to then watch, that same year, three state championship games being played at AT&T having teams with what was considered illegal jersey/numbers. And UIL let them play without penalty.
I will certainly ask a player to cover his knee's or pull his jersey over his back pad, but I absolutely will not remove that player from the field or penalize them for not doing so. The UIL will tell us they support our enforcement but those actions come with consequences related to the coaches we work for (as Elvis previously mentioned) that counters UIL's supposed support. So I'm not doing it again!
-
I've heard that the uniform proposal declined by the PROP committee will not be adopted by UIL this year. That's not official though but on good authority.
-
https://www.uiltexas.org/files/athletics/2024_NCAA_UIL_Rules_-_Updated.pdf
-
old rule:
If Team A is in a formation to attempt a place kick (field goal or try) it is illegal for a defensive player to immediately run forward at or just after the snap and initiate contact (indicated by forward movement of the defensive player) with an offensive player within 1 second after the snap. It is not a foul if the defensive player is in a three or four point stance, and is aligned in a stationary position within one yard of his line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped. Incidental or slight contact should be ignored.
new rule:
If Team A is in a formation to attempt a place kick (field goal or try), it is illegal for a defensive player who is not in a three or four point stance and aligned in a stationary position within one yard of his line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped, to run forward after the snap and initiate contact (indicated by forward movement of the defensive player) with an offensive player. Incidental or slight contact should be ignored. Exception: There is no foul if, prior to the defensive contact, the snap is muffed or fumbled, or it is obvious there will be no place kick attempt. (Note: This rule is not intended to prevent a defensive player from pursuing a runner or loose ball during a fake or broken play)
Is this just rephrasing last year's rule? It hurts my brain tying to figure out if anything in the new rule is substantively different.
-
The red part is just a rewrite. They moved the “not a foul” portion up to the first sentence. So instead of describing a foul and then saying “it’s not a foul if the player…”, they just added the player description to the definition of the foul.
Then below that they added the section about not being a foul if the snap is muffed or it’s a fake.
Of course that’s kind of pointless in my opinion. The rule only applies within 1 second of the snap. To have a snap, muff by the holder, defensive player see it and then make contact all within 1 second that would be almost impossible. Most high school holders barely get the ball down to the tee within 1 second on a good kick.
-
I am a somewhat surprised they rejected the “2 Minute Time Out.” So, y’all also working NCAA will have to deal with that.
No change to uniform-equipment rule, despite rumors to the opposite. Status quo. They don’t care, we don’t care.
I’m disappointed they’ll allow TV cameras to come on the field. I despise those clowns, getting in our way. But, it will only affect a relatively small number of games across the state.
We don’t get involved with tablets, other than to report them if they use them on the sideline, and the entire planet can see them doing it.
Easy enough.
-
The red part is just a rewrite. They moved the “not a foul” portion up to the first sentence. So instead of describing a foul and then saying “it’s not a foul if the player…”, they just added the player description to the definition of the foul.
Then below that they added the section about not being a foul if the snap is muffed or it’s a fake.
Of course that’s kind of pointless in my opinion. The rule only applies within 1 second of the snap. To have a snap, muff by the holder, defensive player see it and then make contact all within 1 second that would be almost impossible. Most high school holders barely get the ball down to the tee within 1 second on a good kick.
****struck by author**** See next post by this author.
-
I disagree. The new rule says it’s not a foul if *prior to the contact* the ball is muffed or it’s obviously a fake. If the contact occurs first, it’s still a foul.
-
Legacy, you are certainly not wrong about the timing of blocks related to a muff, etc. But, this rule 'tweak' is intended to absolve an upright Team B player who ignores the principal rule, charges ahead and makes immediate contact with a Team A player within one second, but then the holder muffs the snap, or they snap it directly to the potential kicker who then runs or passes the ball, etc. So, we'll have to 'process' the action, and see if Team A's action is a 'normal' kick, then toss a flag for such a foul, or, perhaps, recognize the muff or fake, and realize 'no foul' because of this rule tweak.
I can think a little more clearly now than i could yesterday.
If this is a safety foul, why would/should B be absolved of the foul - the contact is still the same with a lineman in a comparatively vulnerable position, and even with a muff, he doesn't know that the kick will not occur. It seems like the same as the wedge rule, which I also don't understand, from a safety perspective (the kick going OOB negates any wedge foul, even after contact).
I think what Elvis describes is what they intended the rule to be, (regardless of my ignorance or confusion), but Legacy is right in that the wording of the exception says otherwise. Just my opinion.
-
I disagree. The new rule says it’s not a foul if *prior to the contact* the ball is muffed or it’s obviously a fake. If the contact occurs first, it’s still a foul.
I'm with ya. I overlooked the, "...prior to the defensive contact...," language.
As you state, even a muff of a direct snap to the holder will take about a second, from the start of the snap movement to the ball falling from the holder's hands. So, yeah, kinda moot.
The only scenario that I can see that might fit this language is the ball slipping from the snapper's hands as he is snapping it, and falling loose on the ground. Technically, that is not a 'muff,' but simply a ball that is loose from a backward pass. For these intents and purposes, though, I would think it would fall under the same category as a muff. It will most likely fall under the category of, "...obvious there will be no place kick attempt...," in very short order, anyway.
So as not to influence anybody incorrectly, I will strike the language in my previous post.
Thanks.
-
Like ElvisLives said, I would have thought they would have accepted the 2 Minute Warning and then could sync up timing rules with 10 sec run-off. I think it would be good to follow NCAA first timing rules to keep the game moving. Maybe next time around. The uniform police...they don't care enough about it, we don't enforce it. Moving on into the season.
-
I don’t think we will see the NCAA first down and out of bounds rules come to UIL as long as we are still running 12 minute quarters. And there’s no reason to have a two minute timeout if there’s no timing rules that change at that point.
-
I don’t think we will see the NCAA first down and out of bounds rules come to UIL as long as we are still running 12 minute quarters. And there’s no reason to have a two minute timeout if there’s no timing rules that change at that point.
Well, there is one rule change in the last 2-minutes - 3-4-3-b, starting the clock on the snap (at the offended team's option) for a foul by the team ahead in score during the last 2 minutes of a half. Agree, not worth having a timeout for that 'reminder,' alone. We got along just fine without the 2-minute T/O until now. No doubt in my mind this was driven by TV. They love the NFL two-minute warning, and they wanted it for NCAA.
-
Your probably right Legacy Zebra. May never see it with 12 minute quarters. Hopeful wishes... ElivisLives, I truly believe your right on the NCAA coping with the NFL in 2 Minute Warning was driven by TV revenue. Show Us The Money..
-
There is no foul if, prior to the defensive contact, the snap is muffed or fumbled
Now that we’ve covered the actual meat of the rule, can we go back to this part?
Who is writing this? If it’s from the TASO side, we need to do better. If it’s from the UIL side, it needs to be vetted by people who actually know the rules. A snap cannot be fumbled. Just like a pass cannot be fumbled or a kick cannot be fumbled. Only a ball in player possession can be fumbled. If the ball is loose from a snap, it is a backward pass by definition, not a fumble. That distinction actually matters quite a bit in this context since 99.9999% of place kicks occur either on 4th down or a try.
-
I’m assuming this is from the UIL. I haven’t seen nor heard from TASO on this. The next webinar, May 22, is covering the new rules. We should get it covered then.
-
The red part is just a rewrite. They moved the “not a foul” portion up to the first sentence. So instead of describing a foul and then saying “it’s not a foul if the player…”, they just added the player description to the definition of the foul.
Then below that they added the section about not being a foul if the snap is muffed or it’s a fake.
Of course that’s kind of pointless in my opinion. The rule only applies within 1 second of the snap. To have a snap, muff by the holder, defensive player see it and then make contact all within 1 second that would be almost impossible. Most high school holders barely get the ball down to the tee within 1 second on a good kick.
Legacy, I just now noticed that the "one-second" element of the 2023 UIL rule does not exist in the 2024 language. As it is written, these restricted Team B players, apparently, can't make contact at all, if the snap is caught, the ball is successfully placed, and they kick the ball. What? They gotta stand there and wait to see if:
1) the snap is so bad that Team A won't possibly be able to attempt a place kick, or
2) the snap is muffed, or
3) the holder catches the snap then fumbles the ball while trying to place it, or
4) the holder catches the snap and then rises to run with the ball, or
5) the holder catches the snap but then passes the ball, or
6) the snap goes directly to the kicker who runs/passes the ball?
The timing does not seem to matter, any longer. Without waiting any specific amount of time, those restricted players can run through the line, or around the line, if they either don't make contact or their contact is 'slight' (which is actually not different than 2023).
By this language, though, it seems that the UIL doesn't want upright (at the snap) B players to be able to make any contact with Team A players, if the kick attempt proceeds 'normally.'
I will attempt to get clarification in the very near term.
-
RE: 2024 UIL Field Goal attempt rule for contact by B players on A players
OK, what I DO know, positively, is that the elimination of the 1-second element is conscious and deliberate. The UIL wanted this rule to apply longer than one second, so they removed the one-second, but added the parts about muff and fumble. So, as it is (and was, in 2023) an upright B player can rush immediately, and without any other restriction, as long as he doesn't contact an A player, or the contact is 'slight.'
For 2024, an upright B player may not contact an A player, unless the snap has been muffed or fumbled, or it is obvious a place kick will not be attempted. However, there is ambiguity in that part of the rule. For this rule, what amount of 'muff' is required? The ball could be muffed by the holder, but, he could complete the catch before the ball hits the ground, and still successfully place the ball. How does that qualify?
What about a low snap that the holder is able to trap on the ground, but recover quickly and place the ball?
What about a high snap that the causes the holder to rise a bit to catch, but he does (no 'muff' involved), and is still able to place the ball?
What about a ball that bounces to the holder, who is able to recover immediately (no muff involved), and still place the ball?
Yes, we get the fact that the UIL is trying to get the coaches to put all of their 'rushers' in 3 or 4 point stances. Would that they would. But they won't. They'll find ways to push this envelope, and we need clear interpretations of the scenarios I described above to be able to effectively officiate this consistently.
I am seeking clarification on the scenarios.
Stay tuned.
-
Wow, good catch Elvis. I guess my brain filled in that gap without noticing that part of the rule was gone. That does make the part about muffs and fakes more relevant.
I would like TASO or UIL to issue guidance on offense initiated contact when an upright player crosses the neutral zone. We see this a lot in 1A football. A player who is attempting to rush off the edge is blocked by a wing back who crosses the formation and blocks a rusher who didn’t know the block was coming until after he rushed. We also sometimes see it occasionally in 11-man when a wing back reaches out and blocks a defender coming off the edge. Last year there was some debate about whether or not these situations were a foul. The rule says that the defense cannot “initiate contact (indicated by forward movement of the defensive player)”. So some were saying it’s on the defense to avoid that contact. Others said that if the offense initiated the block, there was no foul. It would be great if we could get an official interpretation.
-
I guess my brain filled in that gap without noticing that part of the rule was gone.
I did the same regarding the part about a muff/fumble/fake/broken play before the defensive contact. We’re humans with human brains, all far from perfect. My most respected former boss used to say, “He who ain’t screwin’ up ain’t doin’ anything.” Words to live by.
I am still seeking clarification on the various scenarios. And, I want somebody to ‘admit’ that the language “…the snap is muffed or fumbled…” is clearly improper, as written. (A snap can’t be fumbled.)
Will advise when/if I learn more.
-
Yes, we get the fact that the UIL is trying to get the coaches to put all of their 'rushers' in 3 or 4 point stances. Would that they would. But they won't.
So what problem are they trying to solve here? Wouldn't a rule simply stating that anyone within the confines of the tackle box, +2 or +3 yards, must be in 2 or 3-point stance, if Team A is in a scrimmage kick formation, achieve the same thing, and be much simpler?
-
Oh, and I see no UIL action on other editorial changes:
1-4-2-d
Player has to report to the referee if he enters the game wearing a number other than that on the "game day roster." WTF is a "game day roster"? Never saw one in my years in FBS, and certainly not in UIL football. By taking no other action, is the UIL accepting this change? Are they going require schools to provide us with an official "game day roster"? What a mess.
12-3-3-d-3 is a Replay rule, and there is no reason not to accept it, for those 12 annual games using replay.
12-3-6-i and j is a Replay rule, and there is no reason not to accept it, for those 12 annual games using replay.
I'll see what I can find out about those.
-
UIL 2024 Modification to Exception #52
OK, I know a little more.
Firstly, the 2024 'action' document published by the UIL is not the final Exceptions document. That will probably not be issued until after the actual 2024 NCAA Rules book is released (which should be any time now, I would think).
I have it on good authority that yes, the language in the 'action' document from the UIL is not properly edited, as it relates to a 'snap' and a 'fumble,' as both as defined. I expect that will be corrected.
As I now understand it, if Team A executes a 'routine' field goal attempt, the UIL does not want 'upright' players of Team B who are positioned within one yard of their LOS at the snap to initiate contact with any opponent. They can rush, but they just can't initiate any significant contact. If they can run through a gap or around an end with anything more than minor contact, they are legal. I also understand that those 'restricted' Team B players will be responsible to avoid contact with Team A, even if a Team A player moves into their path. Let's say a wingback steps toward a 'restricted' edge rusher and blocks him below the waist, we may have offsetting fouls. BBW by offense, UNR by defense.
But a bona fide muff of the snap, or a fumble of the ball (after possession is gained) will eliminate the restriction on Team B players.
A 'bad' snap does not necessarily mean the restriction is eliminated. If the ball reaches the holder without him having to leave his position to recover the ball, and then he is able to place the ball, and the kicker makes the kick, that will work as a routine kick, and the restriction applies.
If Team B does anything other than continue their attempt to execute a place kick, like a pass or a run, the restriction is eliminated.
Potential holder A11 tries to catch the snap in flight, but bobbles it in hands and against his chest, then completes the catch. That will be a simple, clean catch, for #52 purposes. Restriction applies.
So, what does count as a muff? Not totally sure yet. Maybe if it hits the ground (?). Surely, that would have to qualify. (Yeah, I know - Stop calling you Shirley. :))
How about a fumble?
Potential holder A11 catches the ball, but then fumbles it as he is moving to place the ball for the kick. That's a fumble, and the restriction is eliminated.
The idea is that the defense must be allowed to attempt to recover a ball loose from a muff or a fumble, make a play for a pass, or pursue a Team A ball carrier attempting to advance. But, if the kick is normal and routine, those restricted folks can't initiate contact with a Team A player.
One way for teams to avoid problems is simply have everybody on the line in 3 or 4 point stances. And B players more than 1 yard off their line are not restricted.
Oh. Also, I understand that we will not have to deal with 'game day rosters.' Although not addressed in the 'action' document, the UIL will not approve that NCAA editorial change for the UIL. Whew!
-
Thank you ElvisLives for doing all this work to clarify UIL's own wording of their rules. A major help.
-
And B players more than 1 yard off their line are not restricted.
This part doesn’t make sense to me from a “Why?” stand point. If a player starts at 2 yards standing up and hits a lineman, how is that more safe than a player starting on the line hitting a back? And how is it safer than starting on the line and hitting a lineman?
-
This part doesn’t make sense to me from a “Why?” stand point. If a player starts at 2 yards standing up and hits a lineman, how is that more safe than a player starting on the line hitting a back? And how is it safer than starting on the line and hitting a lineman?
Don’t get me started. I’m just trying to mitigate the ambiguities in the rule we are getting, and make it as ‘black and white’ as possible, so we can all officiate it consistently.
This will be covered in the Webinar on Wednesday. Tune in.
-
This part doesn’t make sense to me from a “Why?” stand point. If a player starts at 2 yards standing up and hits a lineman, how is that more safe than a player starting on the line hitting a back? And how is it safer than starting on the line and hitting a lineman?
The only rationale I can think of (assuming the wording is intentional) is that there's enough of a delay when they are two yards off the ball to allow the lineman to get their head up. He's still going to get knocked onto his butt, most likely, but much less chance of head/neck injury.
-
When we did training on it last year, we were told that Team B players had to be in a 3 or 4 point stance AND lined up within 1 yard of the LOS to be able to initiate contact. The play they were wanting to avoid was Team B players shooting from depth and crashing into Team A blockers at the snap. And from how I read it, that doesn't change with the new verbiage.
"it is illegal for a defensive player who is not in a three or four point stance and aligned in a stationary position within one yard of his line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped, to run forward after the snap and initiate contact"
That's clumsy phrasing, but if the defensive player is not in a 3 or 4 point AND lined up within 1 yard of the LOS, it is illegal for that player to initiate contact.
-
When we did training on it last year, we were told that Team B players had to be in a 3 or 4 point stance AND lined up within 1 yard of the LOS to be able to initiate contact. The play they were wanting to avoid was Team B players shooting from depth and crashing into Team A blockers at the snap. And from how I read it, that doesn't change with the new verbiage.
"it is illegal for a defensive player who is not in a three or four point stance and aligned in a stationary position within one yard of his line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped, to run forward after the snap and initiate contact"
That's clumsy phrasing, but if the defensive player is not in a 3 or 4 point AND lined up within 1 yard of the LOS, it is illegal for that player to initiate contact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is correct. The 2024 difference is that the one-second time frame has been removed, so now it is illegal for such players to initiate contact with opponents any amount of time after the snap begins, UNLESS the snap is:
-errant;
-muffed;
-caught by the potential holder who then fumbles the ball; and
any of those things affect the potential holder's ability to place the ball for the kick attempt, OR the action is a 'fake', i.e.:
-the potential holder possesses the ball then passes/hands the ball, or rises to run with the ball;
-the snap goes directly to the kicker, or
anything else that is obviously and clearly not a clean, bona fide attempt to place-kick the ball.
A muff or fumble by the holder that he can quickly catch/recover without having to move out of his holding posture will count as a 'clean' placement attempt. If the holder has to stretch up (maybe with his knee coming off the ground a bit) to catch the snap, but is able to immediately drop back into holding posture and place the ball will count as a 'clean' placement.
When the placement attempt is considered 'clean,' there is no time element as to when Team A is allowed to initiate contact. Until it is obvious the ball is loose, or the potential holder will not be able to place the ball for a place kick, or it is obvious a kick will not be attempted, Team B 'restricted' players still can not initiate contact with opponents.
That doesn't mean they can't 'rush.' It just means they must avoid any significant contact with opponents, even if the opponent moves into the path of the Team B restricted player.
TASO members, tune in 7:00 pm tonight. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83050566897?pwd=dzZldDQrS3RwcHpGVjUyVktqRTA3dz09
-
I wonder since it effectively el ok minutes any meaningful interior LOS penetration attempt by B, if we will see teams try to take advantage of that and run more planned fakes.
-
I wonder since it effectively el ok minutes any meaningful interior LOS penetration attempt by B, if we will see teams try to take advantage of that and run more planned fakes.
All 11 Team B players can get in a 3 or 4 point stance within a yard of the NZ and charge forward as hard as they want (and make contact) at the snap. [erroneous info removed by original poster.]
Yes, Team B players outside the width of the tackle box, or more than 1 yard beyond the NZ, can’t block below in the waist, even if they are otherwise permitted to make contact with opponents.
No doubt about it. This is one of the most complicated of all football rules.
-
All defensive players within one yard of the LOS must be in a 3 or 4 point stance at the snap.
No defensive player more than one yard off the ball may initiate contact with a Team A blocker.
Exception: If the snap is fumbled or muffed, or it becomes obvious that no kick will be attempted.
Is that accurate?
-
All defensive players within one yard of the LOS must be in a 3 or 4 point stance at the snap.
No defensive player more than one yard off the ball may initiate contact with a Team A blocker.
Exception: If the snap is fumbled or muffed, or it becomes obvious that no kick will be attempted.
Is that accurate?
NO!
NOBODY must be in any specific posture.
However, Team B players who are not in a stationary 3 or 4 point stance and within one yard of the NZ at the snap may not initiate contact with opponents in or behind the NZ until it is obvious and clear that the play is a fake kick or a ‘busted’ play.
I don’t like using the term ‘busted’ play, because that can mean a lot of things, but that is the simplest way I can put it. What is a busted play? Well, an errant snap that causes the holder to move out of his position to recover the bouncing/rolling ball would qualify. A muff of the snap by the holder that gets away from the holder who has to move out of his position to recover the bouncing/rolling ball would qualify. After catching the snap, a fumble of the ball by the holder that gets away from him and he has to move out of his position to recover the bouncing/rolling ball would qualify.
A bobble (muff) of the snap that the holder is able to control in place, and quickly place for the kick would NOT qualify. A fumble of the ball that the holder is able to control in place and quickly place for a kick would NOT qualify. A low snap that bounces to the holder that he is able to control and place for the kick without having to move out of his position would NOT qualify.
A fake is a direct snap to the apparent kicker or a player other than the apparent holder. A pass made by the apparent holder. Handing of the ball made by the apparent holder to another player. When the apparent holder catches the snap and rises to run. Those events release the restricted players to initiate contact with opponents.
None of this means that ‘restricted’ Team B players can’t ’rush.’ If they can avoid making significant contact with opponents, they are completely free to run through a gap, or around the end to try to block the kick or tackle the holder (holding the ball), if he can get there quickly enough. Once it is obvious and clear the play is a fake or busted, then they can initiate contact with opponents.
-
I'm just trying to boil this down into simpler language/statements to make it easier to understand and digest.
To initiate contact with a Team A blocker, defensive players must be within 1 yard of the LOS, and in a 3-4 point stance, unless <exception>.
Examples:
B73 is lined up within 1 yard of the LOS, in a 3-point stance. He may initiate contact with a Team A blocker in or behind the NZ to attempt to disrupt or block the kick.
B44 is lined up in an upright stance within 1 yard of the LOS. He may not initiate contact with a Team A player in or behind the NZ, unless <exception>.
No defensive player in an upright stance, regardless of location, may initiate contact with a Team A blocker in or behind the NZ, unless <exception>.
Examples:
B44 is lined up in an upright stance 3 yards off the ball (typical linebacker position). He may not initiate contact with a team A player, in or behind the NZ unless <exception>.
<Exception>: If the snap is fumbled or muffed, or it becomes obvious that no kick will be attempted.
-
I'm just trying to boil this down into simpler language/statements to make it easier to understand and digest.
<Exception>: If the snap is fumbled or muffed, or it becomes obvious that no kick will be attempted.
Everything else is OK, but this statement is too simplistic. It is entirely possible for the holder to muff the snap, but quickly recover and place the ball for the kick. It is entirely possible for the holder to fumble the ball, but recover quickly and place the ball for the kick. Those actions would NOT relieve the restrictions on the “restricted” Team B players. Sadly, the edited modified Exception #52 will probably still contain this confusing language. But, the intent is to require a muff or a fumble that makes it virtually impossible for the holder to place the ball for the kick to relieve the restricted Team B players of those restrictions.
-
Yes, I see the problem (both with my language and what the rule is saying.)
Mechanically, whose flag is this, I'd imagine it would have to be wings or U? If they see this, and the kick is successfully attempted, then it's a foul; and if it's not successfully attempted, then no foul?
-
Yes, I see the problem (both with my language and what the rule is saying.)
Mechanically, whose flag is this, I'd imagine it would have to be wings or U? If they see this, and the kick is successfully attempted, then it's a foul; and if it's not successfully attempted, then no foul?
More terminology issues. When it becomes clear and obvious that a kick attempt won’t be made, then they are released to make contact.
When the ball is clearly loose from an errant snap, a muff of the ball, or a fumble of the ball, and the apparent holder has to move from his pre-snap position to try to field the ball, and it is clear a place kick won’t be attempted, Team B restricted players are free to initiate contact. But, as long as the apparent holder is able to remain in his pre-snap position and can field the ball for a potential place kick attempt, the restrictions remain.
If Team A is able to execute a place kick, even after bumbling around with the ball momentarily, then the restrictions remain.
One thing the writer/editor of the rule has not yet addressed is what is possible after the kick is made. If the ball flies away by the kick, then, are Team B restricted players free to initiate otherwise legal contact? If the kick is blocked - same question. I am trying to get these issues addressed. I’m sure they intend that those Team B players would be released from those restrictions once the ball is kicked. But the preliminary language certainly doesn’t say that. The writer/editor simply has to think these things through.
-
All 11 Team B players can get in a 3 or 4 point stance within a yard of the NZ and charge forward as hard as they want (and make contact) at the snap. All Team B players could take upright positions more than 1 yard beyond the NZ and charge forward as hard as they want (and make contact) at the snap. The blocking prohibition only applies to those upright players within 1 yard of the NZ.
Yes, Team B players outside the width of the tackle box, or more than 1 yard beyond the NZ, can’t block below in the waist, even if they are otherwise permitted to make contact with opponents.
No doubt about it. This is one of the most complicated of all football rules.
I do not believe this is correct. The rule states that to charge forward and make contact, the defenders must be in a 3 point stance AND within one yard of the LOS. Standing players beyond 1 yard of the LOS may not move forward and make contact. At least that is the way i am reading it and would rule???
-
I do not believe this is correct. The rule states that to charge forward and make contact, the defenders must be in a 3 point stance AND within one yard of the LOS. Standing players beyond 1 yard of the LOS may not move forward and make contact. At least that is the way i am reading it and would rule???
You are 100% correct. For 2023, they could have, because it would take more than 1 second for them to make contact. No longer. My error. I will fix my post.
-
Well, if I were y’all, I’d disregard everything you’ve heard about former UIL Exception 52. “Former,” because it is now becoming UIL Exception 58 (don’t ask me…I don’t know why, just yet). But, the final rule will, apparently, be QUITE different, and far more restrictive, than we originally understood. If it doesn’t get changed again, truthfully, it will be considerably easier to officiate, but defensive coaches, in particular, will really hate it. And, spectators will be completely befuddled as to “what just happened,” when we make this call, or why the defense did - or, more accurately, DIDN’T do - what they did/didn’t do on that down (because of this rule).
It’s a mess. But, the entire coaching universe (in Texas) will get a preview of the rule they have given themselves at the THSCA convention in mid-July (about 10 days ahead of our State Meeting). ‘January 6’ may have been a tea party compared to the revolt we might (and hope) see.
All because one lousy school (and coaching staff) chose to try to hurt people, because they lacked talent and skill, and coaching integrity. And the UIL chose to put this on our backs, instead of having the fortitude to simply sanction that one school/coaching staff.
As Emily Litella would say, “Never mind.” (For now.)
-
Come on now, spill the tea... we need the hot goss!
And what will exception 57 be, current list (2023) ends at 56...
-
Come on now, spill the tea... we need the hot goss!
And what will exception 57 be, current list (2023) ends at 56...
“Patience, young grasshopper.” (Bonus points for identifying the origin of that reference.)
-
From my era, it's from the Karate Kid but I'm guessing it's older than that.
-
From my era, it's from the Karate Kid but I'm guessing it's older than that.
Oh, yeah. Older. No points. Originally from the original “Kung Fu,” (‘72-‘75) with David Carridine, as Kwai Chang Caine. His blind master, Master Po (Keye Luke) said that to him from time to time, when student Caine would get impatient. Pat Morita (or the script writer) stole it for Karate Kid (‘84).
-
For those wondering, the reason UIL 52 became UIL 58 is because of all the additions and re-numbering of the Exceptions. There were 56 exceptions in 2023; now there are 62.
OK, so for UIL 58, take a look at it. It seems simple. But, what you don’t see at first glance is that a “restricted” player of Team B (my term, but one that I believe will become universally accepted) - as of this moment - can’t tackle (initiate contact) a Team A ball carrier (or initiate contact with ANY Team A player) behind the neutral zone. Once the BC gets beyond the NZ, then restricted B players may initiate contact with him.
As of now, it doesn’t make any difference if the snap is errant, if they muff the snap, if they catch the snap and then fumble, if they snap directly to somebody other than the potential holder, or if they do any sort of fake (pass or run). A “restricted” B player can’t initiate contact with any A player in/behind the NZ. They may cross and be behind the NZ, but they just can’t initiate contact with any A player(s). So, they still have some opportunity to block a kick, but they better not initiate contact with any A players behind the NZ.
Now, from an officiating perspective, that’s actually a pretty easy rule. Do we have any defensive coordinators in the room? What do y’all think?
I believe this will be reviewed in graphic detail at the THSCA Convention in July. No tellin’ what might happen when they all get a good whiff of this rule.
Yeah. Sure. Just put all 11 on the line and with at least one hand in contact with the ground, and this rule becomes moot. Is that a good defensive strategy? I don’t know. Not a coach. But it seems like a real hamstring to me.
And, all because of one school (or a very small handful of schools/coaches) that just want to inflict pain and injury.
-
For those wondering, the reason UIL 52 became UIL 58 is because of all the additions and re-numbering of the Exceptions. There were 56 exceptions in 2023; now there are 62.
OK, so for UIL 58, take a look at it. It seems simple. But, what you don’t see at first glance is that a “restricted” player of Team B (my term, but one that I believe will become universally accepted) - as of this moment - can’t tackle (initiate contact) a Team A ball carrier (or initiate contact with ANY Team A player) behind the neutral zone. Once the BC gets beyond the NZ, then restricted B players may initiate contact with him.
As of now, it doesn’t make any difference if the snap is errant, if they muff the snap, if they catch the snap and then fumble, if they snap directly to somebody other than the potential holder, or if they do any sort of fake (pass or run). A “restricted” B player can’t initiate contact with any A player in/behind the NZ. They may cross and be behind the NZ, but they just can’t initiate contact with any A player(s). So, they still have some opportunity to block a kick, but they better not initiate contact with any A players behind the NZ.
Now, from an officiating perspective, that’s actually a pretty easy rule. Do we have any defensive coordinators in the room? What do y’all think?
I believe this will be reviewed in graphic detail at the THSCA Convention in July. No tellin’ what might happen when they all get a good whiff of this rule.
Yeah. Sure. Just put all 11 on the line and with at least one hand in contact with the ground, and this rule becomes moot. Is that a good defensive strategy? I don’t know. Not a coach. But it seems like a real hamstring to me.
And, all because of one school (or a very small handful of schools/coaches) that just want to inflict pain and injury.
Surely it will not be written this way.
-
Surely it will not be written this way.
It already is. That's what I'm telling y'all. Really not hard for us to officiate as it is, but is it good for football? I hope the coaches come to their senses, and insist on fixing this. And then seek some true expert help with editing the rule. Not sure they have a real expert, at the moment.
-
There's a draft revision making the rounds that adds the following verbiage at the end:
(Note: This rule is not intended to prevent a defensive player from pursuing a runner or loose ball during a fake or broken play)
-
I do not see that "note" on the copy from the TASO site.
-
I do not see that "note" on the copy from the TASO site.
That was a “note” of intent that was included with an earlier preliminary (published) iteration of the rule. That doesn’t appear in the final published Exceptions document.
I’m hoping, but not counting on, further modifications. As it is, IMHO, the rule is not good for football. Conceived with good intentions, but poorly executed.
-
On FB, TxMike said there would be a revision before the season started.
-
Hopefully not 2 days before he first season games. LoL
-
Ok, here is 58 in it's entirety: If Team A is in a scrimmage kick formation to attempt a place kick (field goal or try), it is illegal for a
defensive player who is not in a three or four point stance and aligned in a stationary position within one
yard of his line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped, to enter the neutral zone and initiate contact
(indicated by forward movement of the defensive player) with an offensive player in or behind the
neutral zone. Incidental or slight contact should be ignored. EXCEPTION: there is no foul under this rule
after a change of team possession, however other personal foul rules may apply.
PENALTY – Personal Foul, 15 yards and automatic first down. So if i am reading this correctly and i believe this is Robert's point. No contact with with the offense is permitted by restricted players on a FG or try. This would apply to muffs, fumbles, fakes, etc??? So Team A in a place kick formation can snap the ball to the holder, he can stand up and scan the field and look for receivers far as long as he wants, without the defense being able to rush him or make contact. The exception to this being that non restricted lineman could rush but that would normally be limited to 3 or 4 guys against the entire offense. I mean what???!!! Who thought/ thinks this would be a good idea? Am i missing something?
-
The (non-TASO version I have seen had this appended to the end of the exception:
(Note: This rule is not intended to prevent a defensive player from pursuing a runner or loose ball during a fake or broken play)
While not... elegant, it would seemingly address the issue you bring up.
That said - in its current form, yes, it's essentially a free play for the offense, IMO
-
Fresh off Face Book from Mike Wise
The revised Exc 58- 58. UIL RULE - PERSONAL FOUL ON FIELD GOALS AND TRY ATTEMPTS (Additional rule applicable to UIL games only)
When the offensive team attempts a place kick (field goal or try), it is illegal for a defensive player who is not in a three or four point stance in a stationary position within one yard of his line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped, to enter the neutral zone and initiate forcible contact (indicated by forward movement of the defensive player) with an opponent in or behind the neutral zone. Incidental or slight contact should be ignored. EXCEPTION: There is no foul under this rule if the contact is after it is obvious the place kick will not be attempted, or the place kick attempt has been blocked; however other personal foul rules may apply.
PENALTY – Personal Foul, 15 yards and automatic first down. [S38]
Looks to be about the same as it was before. Its just football with a little restriction. I think Robert nailed it on the head in an earlier post on this thread.
-
Been thinking on this.
Try, B38 is a linebacker lined up on the edge, upright (i.e., restricted.) At the snap, he rushes across the line untouched, and lays out to block the kick.
1) B38 knocks over the holder before he blocks the ball.
2) B38 blocks the ball, then knocks over the holder.
For me, 1) is either PF/UNR or running into the holder foul (9-1-16-a-2), but also also an Exception 58 violation. So there's essentially no way to have a 5-yard foul for running into the kicker/holder with the new exception, is that correct? If the contact is before the block, or there is no block, it's now automatically a personal foul?
2) No foul for exception 58, but could have a foul for roughing or running into the holder.
Essentially exception 58 is null if the kick is blocked first.
Is that correct?
-
Fresh off Face Book from Mike Wise
The revised Exc 58- 58. UIL RULE - PERSONAL FOUL ON FIELD GOALS AND TRY ATTEMPTS (Additional rule applicable to UIL games only)
When the offensive team attempts a place kick (field goal or try), it is illegal for a defensive player who is not in a three or four point stance in a stationary position within one yard of his line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped, to enter the neutral zone and initiate forcible contact (indicated by forward movement of the defensive player) with an opponent in or behind the neutral zone. Incidental or slight contact should be ignored. EXCEPTION: There is no foul under this rule if the contact is after it is obvious the place kick will not be attempted, or the place kick attempt has been blocked; however other personal foul rules may apply.
PENALTY – Personal Foul, 15 yards and automatic first down. [S38]
Looks to be about the same as it was before. Its just football with a little restriction. I think Robert nailed it on the head in an earlier post on this thread.
With the TASO test released, there's a test question out there:
Team A attempts a FG from the B-10, 4th and Goal. B22 is standing upright 2 yards beyond the neutral zone. He waits one second after the snap and then attempts an outside rush towards the holder to block the kick. He ends making forcible contact with A15, a wingback in the backfield. Kick sails wide left. Result of the play will be:
So after reading what everyone has said the UIL exception has been updated, why is the correct answer:?
C) Foul on B22. After penalty is accepted it will be 1st and goal at the B-5.
What am I missing given the play described has the defensive player specifically 2 yards back?
-
Because he was not in a 3 or 4-point stance, within 1 yard of the LOS, he cannot rush in with contact, period. As written, it doesn't matter if he is 2 yards back or 10 yards back, he cannot initiate contact at all unless it is clear and obvious there will be no kick. He's essentially out of the play until that occurs. There is no one-Mississippi rushing rule, so to speak.
-
Because he was not in a 3 or 4-point stance, within 1 yard of the LOS, he cannot rush in with contact, period. As written, it doesn't matter if he is 2 yards back or 10 yards back, he cannot initiate contact at all unless it is clear and obvious there will be no kick. He's essentially out of the play until that occurs. There is no one-Mississippi rushing rule, so to speak.
Thanks, Michael. Forest through the trees for me on that one.