RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: bossman72 on November 25, 2025, 09:59:25 AM
-
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LPNVKGF
-
Are the five questions on Part III the only changes up for consideration by the committee?
I’m in favor of all those items other than allowing B to score on a try. The 5-yard facemask foul should have been eliminated 20 years ago.
I want to see all the NCAA leaping rules on punts and field goals come to NFHS. Currently we can only penalize the action if it qualifies as hurdling.
We also need to get rid of enforcing B fouls on scoring plays other than personal fouls. And need to bring back the automatic first down on DPI.
-
Ralph,
On the issue of an ‘exchange’ in 6-player football, if you haven’t already, define the Team A player that first possesses the ball after it leaves the snapper’s hand(s) as the “receiver of the snap.” That could be the player intended to receive the snap, or any other Team A player who is the first Team A layer to gain possession of the ball after it leaves the snapper’s hand(s). After that, the receiver of the snap must pass the ball (forward or backward), hand the ball, fumble the ball, or kick the ball before it may be advanced beyond the neutral zone by Team A.
In your game, what happens if the ball does get advanced without an exchange? Does the ball remain alive? Foul? Enforcement spot?
The issue that you also need to address (which Texas has not yet formally addressed) is what happens if the loose ball should happen to travel beyond the neutral zone before the exchange has been completed? Does that count as an ‘advance’? And, if it then returns behind the NZ (still before an exchange has been completed)? If A Team A player recovers the ball in/behind the NZ, does that count as an exchange?
You should clarify those things.
-
The 5 questions under Part III will be the proposed changes along with 20-30 others. I'll get the entire list in a couple of weeks and post them here to get your opinions. The results of the questionnaire that Bossman provided the link to will be available to us at the NFHS meeting. The response can sway some members that are on the fence, so be sure to get your vote counted.
:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8] ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-*
-
Elvis-
We don't have 6-man football in Maine. I do attend the 6,8,9-man meeting, but sleep with my eyes open during 6-man discussions. At our final floor vote, I sit next to a six-man guy and vote as he does on 6-man stuff. Sorry I can't help.
-
Elvis-
We don't have 6-man football in Maine. I do attend the 6,8,9-man meeting, but sleep with my eyes open during 6-man discussions. At our final floor vote, I sit next to a six-man guy and vote as he does on 6-man stuff. Sorry I can't help.
No skin off my nose. I was offering suggestions on issues where I have found Texas rules to be lacking. I have reported my ‘opinions’ to the big boys. The current 6-player rules interpreter is leaving that position at the end of this season, so, there isn’t much dialogue happening right now.
Feel free to ignore me, or pass along my observations to someone that might benefit from it.
Get some rest.
-
I want to see all the NCAA leaping rules on punts and field goals come to NFHS. Currently we can only penalize the action if it qualifies as hurdling.
9-4-3e No player or nonplayer shall: position himself on the shoulders or body of a teammate or opponent to gain an advantage. (15 yd personal foul). If anyone tries to leap the punt blocker wall or the o line and makes contact, you can call a personal foul, doesn't necessarily need to be hurdling.
-
9-4-3e No player or nonplayer shall: position himself on the shoulders or body of a teammate or opponent to gain an advantage. (15 yd personal foul). If anyone tries to leap the punt blocker wall or the o line and makes contact, you can call a personal foul, doesn't necessarily need to be hurdling.
True, but it would be easier to support if we had a specific rule for leaping, a la NCAA 9-1-11. I think you're better off having explicit definitions/categories for certain actions that need to be penalized.
-
How about extending the maximum length of halftime to 23 minutes and getting rid of the mandatory 3-minute warmup with its own required "countdown"?
-
Creating a penalty for a defensive player who leaps directly above the frame of a player(s) providing protection for the punter.
This is worded weird, and I'm very hesitant on how it will be implemented incorrectly.
Is this just for the backs that are standing in front of the punter? If there are no backs, does the line count? If there are backs, does the line not count? Only on a punt, but not a field goal?
I'd support making it a foul to attempt to jump over an opponent in an attempt to block a kick, globally, with no odd restrictions. I'd also support the same foul for jumping over the A-gap, even if it's not technically within the frame of a player's body.
-
True, but it would be easier to support if we had a specific rule for leaping, a la NCAA 9-1-11. I think you're better off having explicit definitions/categories for certain actions that need to be penalized.
Agreed, for sure.
-
INHO, "leaping" ^flag sounds quite vague and is currently coached to block kicks and passes. I don't see the need and would also be an opponent of removing the 5-yard fasemask. IMHO, it teaches kids to stay away from the runner's helmet when tackling. IMHO, some/many of you may not agree. IMHO, if we all agreed on everything, this would be more of a sewing circle and less of a forum !
pi1eOn hEaDbAnG :sTiR: tR:oLl
-
I voted No for allowing a try returned for 2 points. NCAA has a ton of complicated penalty enforcement exceptions just for the try. That doesn't need to go to NFHS. There's really no way to simplify it.
-
I voted No for allowing a try returned for 2 points. NCAA has a ton of complicated penalty enforcement exceptions just for the try. That doesn't need to go to NFHS. There's really no way to simplify it.
Plus, this is rare in NCAA games, and would be even more so in NFHS. It’s almost in the “unicorn” category.
-
I,too, am aginst the potential score by B/R on a PAT. It came within one vote of passing several years ago. An experimental rule had ran in Oregon and a video was shown of a state championship game where B was trailing 27-0 when a PAT kick was blocked and returned +90 yards to make it 27-2. Some were moved by the excitement by B players;however, I was more moved by watching the poor ref running +90 plus yards to keep up with the play ::) knowing that he would have to retrace his steps for the following kickoff. :(
I voted NO tiphat:
MONDAY MORN TRIVIA : What NCAA team holds the record for the MOST defensive PAT's in the same game ?
-
INHO, "leaping" ^flag sounds quite vague and is currently coached to block kicks and passes. I don't see the need and would also be an opponent of removing the 5-yard fasemask. IMHO, it teaches kids to stay away from the runner's helmet when tackling. IMHO, some/many of you may not agree. IMHO, if we all agreed on everything, this would be more of a sewing circle and less of a forum !
pi1eOn hEaDbAnG :sTiR: tR:oLl
The NCAA rule on leverage and leaping is not vague at all. NFHS could literally just copy and paste (which for some reason they never do when they adopt changes from NCAA).
The problem I have with the 5-yard FMM is that almost all the ones I see called really should be 15-yard personal fouls, but because we have the 5-yard foul we use it as a crutch to avoid enforcing the bigger penalty.
-
The penalty for all personal fouls needs to be the same. There’s no reason why we should carve out an automatic first down just for the “roughing” fouls – why should roughing the passer have a more severe penalty than targeting or spearing?
Either include an automatic first down for all personal fouls (my strong preference) or eliminate the AFD for the roughing fouls and make all PFs just a 15-yard penalty.
The other change I would like to see is allowing dead ball contact well after the play to be UNS rather than a PF so that we can put a counter on players who commit these actions. It’s stupid that pulling an opponent off a pile, or shoving an opponent five seconds after the play is over, can’t be unsportsmanlike conduct because it involves contact.
-
would like to see a spot foul for taunting, showboating in the field of play for scoring plays...the NFHS is so concerned about sportsmanship but refuses to do anything to stop this...to me, enforcing this on the PAT or kickoff is ridiculous
-
would like to see a spot foul for taunting, showboating in the field of play for scoring plays...the NFHS is so concerned about sportsmanship but refuses to do anything to stop this...to me, enforcing this on the PAT or kickoff is ridiculous
I gotta strongly disagree with this one. It’s very rare in my experience that HS players taunt or alter their stride going into the endzone. And given the questionable judgment I see from many HS officials when it comes to unsportsmanlike conduct, I like treating all UNS fouls as dead ball fouls.
-
I gotta strongly disagree with this one. It’s very rare in my experience that HS players taunt or alter their stride going into the endzone. And given the questionable judgment I see from many HS officials when it comes to unsportsmanlike conduct, I like treating all UNS fouls as dead ball fouls.
One of the handful of NFHS rules that I like better than NCAA (which was the old NCAA rule too).
-
How about extending the maximum length of halftime to 23 minutes and getting rid of the mandatory 3-minute warmup with its own required "countdown"?
With the exception of Homecoming, we set all our halftimes at 15 minutes. If both teams are out and walming up prior to the end of 15, we assume that is complied consent of the coaches to shorten the half and reset the clock to the required three. A coach can ask for the full 15 minutes plus 3 and that will be granted. We started this around 2000 bt announcing this at our coaches clinic. It's never been a problem.
-
How about extending the maximum length of halftime to 23 minutes and getting rid of the mandatory 3-minute warmup with its own required "countdown"?
I believe this was put in place primarily to get the bands off the field. Give ‘em an inch....
-
I believe this was put in place primarily to get the bands off the field. Give ‘em an inch....
When I was in high school, at least in my area, every halftime was 20+3. Each band, home and away, had a 10 minute show, including getting on/off the field. Things were dialed in with military precision. It was a little weird when I started officiating and learned that 15 minute halftimes were "normal".
Where I work now, you rarely see two bands at a game, and the away band almost never performs on the field. If the home band performs (which again, is an "if"!), they'll spend 8 minutes setting up and then play for 5. It's kind of sad, honestly.
-
The penalty for all personal fouls needs to be the same. There’s no reason why we should carve out an automatic first down just for the “roughing” fouls – why should roughing the passer have a more severe penalty than targeting or spearing?
Either include an automatic first down for all personal fouls (my strong preference) or eliminate the AFD for the roughing fouls and make all PFs just a 15-yard penalty.
The other change I would like to see is allowing dead ball contact well after the play to be UNS rather than a PF so that we can put a counter on players who commit these actions. It’s stupid that pulling an opponent off a pile, or shoving an opponent five seconds after the play is over, can’t be unsportsmanlike conduct because it involves contact.
I don't agree with giving out automatic first downs for every Personal Foul. It's excessive and not necessary.
And giving them out for roughing fouls is easy to explain. In every case - RTP, RTK, RTS, RTH - the player fouled in a personal foul is extremely vulnerable because of their position and/or the action they're taking when they're fouled. An additional penalty beyond 15 yards is justified.
-
Here's a half baked idea - what if there was an option for some penalties on B where you could get either the 15 yards as currently implemented, OR an awarded first down at the basic spot (i.e., no additional yards).
I wouldn't do this for every 15 yard penalty, but maybe just any sort of unnecessary roughness (targeting, roughing, etc.), a dead ball PF, any unsportsmanlike and DPI? I haven't really hashed that fully out, so I'm sure that list has issues.
In this case, if there's DPI on 3rd and 20 from the 50, the offense can choose 3rd and 5 at the 35 or 1st and 10 at the 50. This would probably come into play more in goal to go scenarios where half the distance is unlikely to result in a first down by yardage.
Edit - and even reading that last line shows how half baked this is. You can't get a first down by yardage if it's goal to go, so replace that with "red zone".
-
The auto 1st down on all PFs by B has been on the docket a few times, but never made it to the floor for a final vote. IMHO, two major reasons : (1) As GoodScout posted, it currently treats foul on a defenseless player as more severe; (2) If all PFs were AFD, it would only benefit the offense and some would push for LOD if foul by A/K.
-
The auto 1st down on all PFs by B has been on the docket a few times, but never made it to the floor for a final vote. IMHO, two major reasons : (1) As GoodScout posted, it currently treats foul on a defenseless player as more severe; (2) If all PFs were AFD, it would only benefit the offense and some would push for LOD if foul by A/K.
Regarding #1, then why isn’t blindside block, targeting, and hit on a defenseless receiver also an AFD? In the context of the NFHS preferring to avoid exceptions, it doesn’t make sense to single out the “roughing” fouls as being worthy of an AFD but not the other ones I mentioned. Heck under the current rule a B player can punch an A player in the face and be charged with fighting and disqualified, and it still isn’t an automatic first down. How does that make any sense?
Regarding #2, if A commits a live ball personal foul on 1/10, their next play would be 1/25. If B does it, A’s next play is still 1/10. If instead A’s next play was 2/25, which is a drive killer at the HS level pretty much. I would argue that unbalances the scale of offense vs. defense in the opposite direction.
-
I don't agree with giving out automatic first downs for every Personal Foul. It's excessive and not necessary.
And giving them out for roughing fouls is easy to explain. In every case - RTP, RTK, RTS, RTH - the player fouled in a personal foul is extremely vulnerable because of their position and/or the action they're taking when they're fouled. An additional penalty beyond 15 yards is justified.
You could say the same thing for targeting, blindside block, hit on a defenseless receiver, and fighting – and none of those fouls include an AFD. In the context of NFHS not liking exceptions, it’s a lot easier to make all PFs and AFD rather than pick and choose four fouls that are subjectively deemed “worthy” of an AFD.
-
(2) If all PFs were AFD, it would only benefit the offense and some would push for LOD if foul by A/K.
And to keep the circle of arguments going, it would benefit the offenses of both teams. :)
-
I vote no on every change. honestly there is no need for any of these and I can't stand just parroting NCAA as a justification for a rule change.
-
I vote no on every change. honestly there is no need for any of these and I can't stand just parroting NCAA as a justification for a rule change.
The whole reason rules trickle down from the higher levels is because those levels essentially take on the risk of trying out those changes, and if they’re successful, it’s fair to believe that they can be successful at the HS level.
So while I agree that it’s silly to adopt a rule change “because that’s the college rule so it must be better,” it’s equally stupid to avoid changing rules simply to be different. Too many HS officials just don’t want to align with the higher levels because of some feigned distaste for NCAA/NFL.
“BECAUSE IT’S HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL AND THESE ARE KIDS,” despite what some on this forum believe, is not a good reason to avoid rules from the higher levels.
-
“BECAUSE IT’S HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL AND THESE ARE KIDS,” despite what some on this forum believe, is not a good reason to avoid rules from the higher levels.
Except it IS a good reason. It is many good reasons,. 1 High school games aren't built for TV timing and million dollar budgets. 2. High school kids aren't college level athletes. 3. High School sports are about learning skills, both athletic and life, they are part of education. 4. etc. etc. etc.
and TOTAL BS they take a risk of trying new rules so they can work for high school. Where did you get that line of dung? They adopt rules that work for their game. They aren't experimenting with rules to help NFHS. That's laughable.
-
You could say the same thing for targeting, blindside block, hit on a defenseless receiver, and fighting – and none of those fouls include an AFD. In the context of NFHS not liking exceptions, it’s a lot easier to make all PFs and AFD rather than pick and choose four fouls that are subjectively deemed “worthy” of an AFD.
I disagree. The 4 AFD fouls are fouls that take into account the serious "risk position" that the 4 players are in based on their role(s) and position pre-snap. While most PF's have some level of risk from injury, the 4 AFD fouls IMHO have a significantly higher risk that is known pre-snap and that the defense is aware of pre-snap. I'm satisfied that we don't need to "emulate" some other code(s) when we don't need to fix anything.
-
Those fouls zebrastripes mentioned also merit an AFD. This is because the fouls are committed on a player "whose position and focus of concentration make them vulnerable to injury". Hits to the head or to a player in a defenseless position are dangerous, because the victim has no way to reasonably defend himself. Fights and UNS need an additional deterrent. The automatic first down can serve as that deterrent. If NFHS wants to avoid exceptions, all 15-yard penalties can be an automatic 1st down. IP can be downgraded to a 10-yard penalty or removed from the book to avoid giving a 1st down for illegal participation.
-
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and to a lesser/more specific degree so is punishment. Multiple punishments available for specific fouls (based on judgment) provide the calling official the option of evaluating the specific instance being observed.
-
Except it IS a good reason. It is many good reasons,. 1 High school games aren't built for TV timing and million dollar budgets. 2. High school kids aren't college level athletes. 3. High School sports are about learning skills, both athletic and life, they are part of education. 4. etc. etc. etc.
and TOTAL BS they take a risk of trying new rules so they can work for high school. Where did you get that line of dung? They adopt rules that work for their game. They aren't experimenting with rules to help NFHS. That's laughable.
I tend to agree with Lawdog here. I hate when the NCAA adopts an NFL rule "because NFL". Similar reasons for NFHS adopting NCAA. There are some NFHS rules that are better and there are some NCAA rules that really don't need to be in the NFHS game (like forward fumble OOB new rule). Some rules are better in NCAA and I'm glad NFHS adopted them, but others don't really need to be changed.
At the same time, when the NCAA adopts an NFL rule, they just copy the NFL rule. NFHS tries to start from scratch and butchers it completely almost every single time without exception. The revisions to Rule 10 come to mind immediately among many others. So that adds to the frustration more when NCAA rules are copied to NFHS.
-
Yo, just got the questionnaire results. Some close ones are....
B?R scoring on a PAT : yea 47% , nah 53%
remove 5 yd FM : yea 46% , nah 54%
leaping on kick yea 50%, nah 50%
Leading responses from officials....
Illinois 871
Ohio 688
Florida 359
Will have more info on this when I return from NFHS meeting. tiphat:
-
Yo, just got the questionnaire results. Some close ones are....
B?R scoring on a PAT : yea 47% , nah 53%
remove 5 yd FM : yea 46% , nah 54%
leaping on kick yea 50%, nah 50%
Will have more info on this when I return from NFHS meeting. tiphat:
"When in doubt, leave it out."
-
"When in doubt, leave it out."
On final floor votes, 2/3 yea's are needed. The close ones - such as listed - will need to try again next year..