« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Rules Committee Action  (Read 10432 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Andrew McCarthy

  • *
  • Posts: 1010
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-6
Rules Committee Action
« on: February 10, 2011, 04:16:45 PM »
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/february/football+rules+committee+recommends+restrictions+on+blocking

Won't we still have to know where a player was lined up in order to determine if his low block is legal?
Logged

Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 2007
  • FAN REACTION: +45/-46
Re: Rules Committee Action
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2011, 04:45:34 PM »
I see your point.  Not a very well written synopsis of the rule change.  Hopefully it will be more fully vetted before becoming law.  Seems at first blush it will be harder for our 5-man officiating crews here in TX high school.

Best regards,

Brad
Logged

Offline VA-Ump

  • <><
  • *
  • Posts: 312
  • FAN REACTION: +25/-10
Re: Rules Committee Action
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2011, 04:58:27 PM »
Am I missing something...  other than removing the 10 yard zone beyond the LOS, and maybe rewording the verbiage, I don't see any practical change.  Was that their intent?
Logged
Goodness is the enemy of Greatness

If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?... John Wooden

Offline JasonTX

  • *
  • Posts: 2978
  • FAN REACTION: +113/-59
Re: Rules Committee Action
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2011, 05:15:59 PM »
I hope they aren't removing the 10 yard "zone".  If they do it will make it even more difficult to officiate because then, not only do we have to remember where a player started but we're going to to have to remember beyond the 10 yards.  Typically, after a player cleared the 10 yards I no longer needed to remember where he started.
Logged

Offline Etref

  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 2350
  • FAN REACTION: +87/-29
  • " I don't make the rules coach!"
Re: Rules Committee Action
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2011, 07:07:28 PM »
Quote from: SATCFI on February 10, 2011, 04:45:34 PM
I see your point.  Not a very well written synopsis of the rule change.  Hopefully it will be more fully vetted before becoming law.  Seems at first blush it will be harder for our 5-man officiating crews here in TX high school.

Best regards,

Brad

I agree! Why not make a block below the waist illegal if outside the tackle box, period end of story.

The linemen (three abreast) are they applying the wedge to front linemen?

The devil in in the details. I think we should wait for RR to write them before we make too much of the changes.
Logged
" I don't make the rules coach!"

cincybearcat

  • Guest
Re: Rules Committee Action
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2011, 09:16:22 PM »
Quote from: VA-Ump on February 10, 2011, 04:58:27 PM
Am I missing something...  other than removing the 10 yard zone beyond the LOS, and maybe rewording the verbiage, I don't see any practical change.  Was that their intent?

the change is a WR can't come inside and block a LB low...period...even if it is a north/south block
Logged

cincybearcat

  • Guest
Re: Rules Committee Action
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2011, 09:18:01 PM »
somebody needs to explain the whole triple team by the defense thing on a kick play...I'm just not getting it
Logged

Offline JasonTX

  • *
  • Posts: 2978
  • FAN REACTION: +113/-59
Re: Rules Committee Action
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2011, 10:11:25 PM »
Quote from: cincybearcat on February 10, 2011, 09:16:22 PM
the change is a WR can't come inside and block a LB low...period...even if it is a north/south block

•Wide receivers more than seven yards from the center at the snap of the ball can block below the waist only against a player facing him or toward the nearest sideline.
•Running backs/receivers in the backfield and outside the tackle box (the area five yards on either side of the center) or players in motion can block below the waist only on players facing them or toward the nearest sideline.


Do the highlighted terms indicate North/South?  Maybe what we need now is a definition of a "player facing him".  Perhaps the WR runs toward the original position of the ball at a 45 degree angle blocks below the waist against the Linebacker who was "facing him" at the same 45 degree angle. 
Logged

refdawg

  • Guest
Re: Rules Committee Action
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2011, 11:09:27 PM »
Didnt think it was possible to make the illegal block below the waist MORE complicated, but I think they've done it.    And, where did the 3 players shoulder-to-shoulder on a kick come from?  Bizarre.   
Logged

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 4121
  • FAN REACTION: +107/-312
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Rules Committee Action
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2011, 04:17:33 AM »
Actually I'm reading this to be decent simplification providing we get a good definition.

 - All BBW are illegal, with just 3 exceptions:

 Ex #1:  Players on the line, lined up in the tackle box can BBW anywhere
 Ex. #2  Wide receivers more than seven yards from the center at the snap of the ball can BBW only against a player facing him or toward the nearest sideline.
 Ex. #3  Running backs/receivers in the backfield and outside the tackle box or players in motion can block below the waist only on players facing them or toward the nearest sideline.

As noted the "rest of the story" will be a clear and unambiguous definition of one seemingly simple word, facing.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2011, 05:03:27 PM by NVFOA_Ump »
Logged
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline VA-Ump

  • <><
  • *
  • Posts: 312
  • FAN REACTION: +25/-10
Re: Rules Committee Action
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2011, 05:47:31 AM »
But again... other than than removing the 10 yard restriction, what changed...  ???
Logged
Goodness is the enemy of Greatness

If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?... John Wooden

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8770
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-266
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Rules Committee Action
« Reply #11 on: February 11, 2011, 06:10:00 AM »
This first press release is always written for the great unwashed masses.   And it almost always causes confusion among  WE who are really into the minutae of the rules.  A press release cannnot give the degree of clarity WE need to do OUR jobs.  Thankfully, it looks like this year for the 1st time, WE are going to get our own version in a document to be posted on the CFO website in a week or so. 
Logged

cincybearcat

  • Guest
Re: Rules Committee Action
« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2011, 07:11:45 AM »
Quote from: cincybearcat on February 10, 2011, 09:16:22 PM
the change is a WR can't come inside and block a LB low...period...even if it is a north/south block

...now that I re-read this, I think my comment is wrong...I have no idea...this is confusing
Logged

MJT

  • Guest
Re: Rules Committee Action
« Reply #13 on: February 11, 2011, 08:38:57 AM »
Even if the 10 yard belt is the only real change, that will make it easier. Now I just need the number of my key/receivers but don't need to also remember where the 10 yard belt ends. The "facing them" is the wording that will need clarity, and I'm sure it will.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »