Recent Posts

31

NCAA Discussion / Re: Rules Changes Document

« Last post by TxJim on April 14, 2026, 10:21:12 AM »

So, I am hoping this new rule will explicitly REQUIRE that, in addition to all of the current SKF requirements, there must be two linemen on each side of the snapper, in order to qualify as a SKF, and permit numbering exceptions. The snapper and those four linemen would be ineligible by position, even if one of those linemen is positioned on the end of the line. Then by rule, a swinging gate formation would not qualify as a SKF. They may still use a ‘gate’ formation, but they must comply with mandatory numbering, and the snapper doesn’t have any special protection (as he would in a true SKF).
Having two ineligible linemen on each side of the snapper renders a swinging gate formation pretty much useless. But, we’ll probaby still see it, even if we get the rule I am hoping for.
But, we musty stay tuned. I am hearing that some number of NCAA coaches don’t like this SKF proposal. The PROP meets on Wednesday, so, who knows what we’ll end up with.

I think they actually intended "if" they are aligned within the tackle box and did not mean that numbering exceptions "must be" aligned in the tackle box.


89     76 14  12  63  52  47(s)                         
                                                                  88

                                            49  48
                                                   

                                    19 (k)

32

National Federation Discussion / Re: Free Kick after a fair catch

« Last post by Kalle on April 14, 2026, 05:44:36 AM »

Let's take the NCAA mechanics discussion to the NCAA forum.

33

National Federation Discussion / Re: Free Kick after a fair catch

« Last post by ElvisLives on April 13, 2026, 10:04:35 PM »

Last week, Shaw mentioned in a clinic that they were leaning towards keeping B&F on goal posts, H&L on pylons, S/C/B on restraining lines, and R giving the kicker the ball then hacking it in.

Any mention of clock and game timing? Start on the kick? When legally touched in the field of play?
Any word?

34

National Federation Discussion / Re: Free Kick after a fair catch

« Last post by ElvisLives on April 13, 2026, 10:01:53 PM »

Last week, Shaw mentioned in a clinic that they were leaning towards keeping B&F on goal posts, H&L on pylons, S/C/B on restraining lines, and R giving the kicker the ball then hacking it in.

Once per career, those 8 can handle it. 

35

National Federation Discussion / Re: Free Kick after a fair catch

« Last post by Rob S on April 13, 2026, 09:54:23 PM »

I'm just bracing for the dumb mechanics they're going to make us do for this play instead of just taking the R and C and putting them under the upright and keeping everyone else in their normal free kick positions.  But that's too simple.

Last week, Shaw mentioned in a clinic that they were leaning towards keeping B&F on goal posts, H&L on pylons, S/C/B on restraining lines, and R giving the kicker the ball then hacking it in.

36

NCAA Discussion / Re: Rules Changes Document

« Last post by dammitbobby on April 13, 2026, 04:53:08 PM »

Yes, I meant A

And I am onboard with your proposed change.

37

Texas Topics / Re: Approved NCAA rule changes

« Last post by ElvisLives on April 13, 2026, 04:38:22 PM »

I was reading Nelson's book the other day and came across that it was the 1932 rules committee that made "knee guards" mandatory, and ironically, in 1933, helmets were merely recommended, before those too were made mandatory in 1939. So, almost 95 years later, still putzing with it.

In 1931, there were 49 deaths in the U.S. in football, almost all due to head injuries. Nelson used the word “crisis” in discussing this, and the rule change to require padding on hard surfaces, and for knee pads. I’ve been telling everybody that knee pads were to protect heads - not knees. Maybe not so much after hard-shell helmets came about. But, definitely prior to hard-shell helmets.

38

NCAA Discussion / Re: Rules Changes Document

« Last post by ElvisLives on April 13, 2026, 02:41:47 PM »

Yes it's a foul at the snap, but we would/should know that B can't use the numbering exceptions in the gate, so they would have to shift back or they can't run a legal play. (assuming, of course, that they actually invoked the exception in the first place.)

Really hope we get a precise rule and ARs out of this.

“B” ? I think meant “A”. (?)

The current ‘rules’ don’t truly address offset formations, which are the problem. Shaw issued rulings, by bulletin play situations, that pretty well make ‘swinging gate’ formations NOT scrimmage kick formations, so Team A must comply with mandatory numbering. But coaches don’t read/study rules, so they don’t know that the ‘gate’ isn’t a SKF, and they must comply with mandatory numbering. Then they challenge us and tell us we don’t know the rules, blah, blah, blah…
So, I am hoping this new rule will explicitly REQUIRE that, in addition to all of the current SKF requirements, there must be two linemen on each side of the snapper, in order to qualify as a SKF, and permit numbering exceptions. The snapper and those four linemen would be ineligible by position, even if one of those linemen is positioned on the end of the line. Then by rule, a swinging gate formation would not qualify as a SKF. They may still use a ‘gate’ formation, but they must comply with mandatory numbering, and the snapper doesn’t have any special protection (as he would in a true SKF).
Having two ineligible linemen on each side of the snapper renders a swinging gate formation pretty much useless. But, we’ll probaby still see it, even if we get the rule I am hoping for.
But, we musty stay tuned. I am hearing that some number of NCAA coaches don’t like this SKF proposal. The PROP meets on Wednesday, so, who knows what we’ll end up with.

39

NCAA Discussion / Re: Rules Changes Document

« Last post by dammitbobby on April 13, 2026, 01:04:53 PM »

Yes it's a foul at the snap, but we would/should know that B can't use the numbering exceptions in the gate, so they would have to shift back or they can't run a legal play. (assuming, of course, that they actually invoked the exception in the first place.)

Really hope we get a precise rule and ARs out of this.

40

NCAA Discussion / Re: Rules Changes Document

« Last post by TxJim on April 13, 2026, 10:11:02 AM »

If this rule works like I am hoping it does, no swinging gate formation would qualify as an SKF, so they would be required to fully comply with mandatory numbering. Not illegal, but they wouldn’t qualify to use numbering exceptions.

It's still only a foul at the snap. I don't see this ending the gate though. I can still imagine there still some coaches out there setting his team up a in gate and shifting in an attempt to confuse Team B. But it does seem A now has new chances to confuse themselves and foul shifting from a gate into a legal SKF.... of course, all this depending on the final rule statement and new ARs.