The New "Halo"

[TXMike]

Anyone heard anything about the rule change regarding the area which must not be violated by a Team A player who is approaching a Team B kick receiver being expanded? When the change came out it was that the  "halo" area  is the width of the receiver's shoulderrs and extending 1 yard in front of him.   When you diagram that, it creates a rectangle of protection.   I heard scuttlebutt today that there has been a tweak that now has the 1 yard extending to each side of the returner.  That would make the area a semi-circle.  (see attached 2) Anyone heard that or know where it is coming from?

[attachment deleted by admin]

[El Macman]

Yeah, I've heard it through the grapevine (I think there's a song there...). I 'believe' this is something coming from individual coordinators, and not necessarily a nationally coordinated effort (no pun intended...well, maybe).

RR is moving things in the right direction for national consistency. Things like this just create confusion and inconsistency. Hopefully, RR will hear about this before late August and address it one way or another. I don't care which way. Just let us know what we are ALL to do.

[Rulesman]

Unfortunately, I see problems like this occurring so long as the coordinators report directly to their conference commissioner and not directly to CFO.

[ljudge]

So if I understand correctly the following ruling would now be a KCI foul with this change?

2. Punt receiver B44 is at the B-30 in position to catch a punt. He does not signal for a fair catch. Downfield to cover the kick, A88 passes close to the side of B44 so that he is within one yard and even with but not directly in front of B44 before he touches the ball. B44 does not have to adjust his position and catches the ball. RULING: No foul. A88 does not get in front of B44 and thus is not inside the defined one-yard area before B44 touches the ball. The ball remains alive until B44 is tackled or the ball otherwise becomes dead.

[ref6983]

I'm not sure how anyone can re-define the new rule in any way other than "within 1 yard and between the shoulders." That is quite specific and there is no way a player standing to the side would fall under this rule.

Any player not "between the shoulders" would fall under the other aspect of KCI, which is the "unobstructed path to the ball" rule. If the guidance for applying this rule is being altered to include players standing very close to the side or buzzing to the side, then that's fine. But the new rule would have nothing to do with that.

[Atlanta Blue]

If you look at Q25 on the CFO exam, it SEEMS to imply that there may well be a semi-circle rather than a rectangle.  Not sure how or why, because that clearly isn't what the rule says, but that question calls it a KCI foul for a covering player that runs by the shoulder of the receiver.

[ref6983]

If you look at Q25 on the CFO exam, it SEEMS to imply that there may well be a semi-circle rather than a rectangle.  Not sure how or why, because that clearly isn't what the rule says, but that question calls it a KCI foul for a covering player that runs by the shoulder of the receiver.

Based on the problems with a number of answers to this test that have been noted in the exam thread, I have a hard time putting much stock in any of the test answers as "official" interpretations.

[TXMike]

Perhaps a clarifying answer was  provided by someone and I will try to rephrase it.  It does not appear there is actually a semicircle unless the receiver has to turn towards his left or right to make the catch.  In that case the 1 yard protected area pivots with him (makes sense to me).  It should not be viewed simply as a set 1 yard X shoulder width rectangle but as a floating rectangle that moves as the player turns left or right.  That makes much more sense than a set semi circle with a 1 yard radius strecthing out from each side of the receiver.

[TxSkyBolt]

During he recent CFO West meeting it was said that it's be a 180 degree arc.

[ref6983]

If this is true, then it in no way matches the wording of the rule.

"...the width of the receiver's shoulders and extending one yard IN FRONT" is very exact. A 180 degree arc includes both sides of the receiver. The "side" simply is not part of the "front".

I just noticed that I repeated myself here. At least I'm consistent.

[TxSkyBolt]

Can't disagree with you, but that was said buy the Big XII Coordinator.

[Rulesman]

Can't disagree with you, but that was said buy the Big XII Coordinator.

...who very often brings his own music to dance by.

[Andrew McCarthy]

The Big Ten coordinator described it like the floating rectangle that moves as the player turns left or right- as TXMike noted above.

[El Macman]

180 degress FOR THE NEW RULE is simply incorrect, regardless of what the CFO-W folks were told.

The receiver does, and always has had, 180 degress worth of protection. For 2012, the protection varies, dependent upon the location of the opponent. If the opponent is in the area the width of the receiver's shoulders x one-yard in front on him, then no opponent may enter that area while the receiver is in position to make the catch. No judgment. If he enters, he fouls. From the side edges of this 'frontal zone,' fanning out 90 degress either side, the receiver has the previous rule to protect him. However, these 'side' zones require judgment on our part as to whether the receiver was affected. (Note: Even though the rule doesn't state that any visible affect is required, that is the philosophy most, if not all, FBS folks use). Clean catch, no flinch, no movement to avoid the opponent - no foul. Any 'flinch,' side step, short-arm - and certainly a muff - caused by an opponent entering or passing through those side zones is foul.
The CFO-W bosses may prefer that anything in the 180 arc be called, and they will probably support all such calls. It will be hard to definitively declare a KCI call in the 180 arc to be incorrect, since judgment is involved. But to declare that the new rule applies within the 180 degrees arc is simply incorrect. 

[TXMike]

If you are in the CFO West, go ahead and call it that way.  I am sure RR neds some video clips for next year's preseason video so give him some material.   

But like MacDaddy says, that ain't the rule and there has not been any clarification memo from RR that would make it that way either (yet). 

[Cowman52]

Clinic sat defined " halo" unofficially as receivers arms extended, 360 degrees,  ie if you are within 6 inches of him and behind him, foul, 

[TXMike]

Where was the clinic?  If the receiver is looking over his shoulder and trying to cathc the ball as it comes down "behind" him, I can see extending the protected are "behind " him.  But if the ball is coming down in front of him and a guy is standing 6 inches behind him, that is NOT a foul.