Ancient Rulebooks

[clearwall]

I know I've seen one person on this board that collects all the old rulebooks. I'm looking to see if anyone can help me find a rule reference in a 1973 or 74 edition for roughing the kicker. Anyone here able to help?

[ElvisLives]

Well, I don’t 'collect’ them, I simply have kept them ever since I started this activity back in 1972.
How can I help you?

[TxJim]

I know I've seen one person on this board that collects all the old rulebooks. I'm looking to see if anyone can help me find a rule reference in a 1973 or 74 edition for roughing the kicker. Anyone here able to help?

FWIW, according to Nelson's book he briefly mentions rule changes
1973 Add automatic first down for roughing the kicker
1974 It is not roughing the kicker if a teammate of the kicker blocks an opponent into the kicker or holder.

[ElvisLives]

FWIW, according to Nelson's book he briefly mentions rule changes
1973 Add automatic first down for roughing the kicker
1974 It is not roughing the kicker if a teammate of the kicker blocks an opponent into the kicker or holder.

Yeah, and curiously enough, the 1974 'change' wasn't so much of a change as it was just moving the language that was in the 1973 Interpretations Book into the actual rule. The '73 Interpretations book said that a B player blocked into the kicker by an opponent was not a foul. I guess that is why the rule 'change' wasn't highlighted in the Rules Book, or included in the list of changes at the front of the book.

[ElvisLives]

Don’t know what Clearwall is looking for, but I can tell you that until 1983, an opponent that was blocked into the kicker by a teammate of the kicker was NOT guilty of a foul, by rule. No distinction between legal or illegal blocks.
In 1983, that changed. Between ‘83 and ‘94 you were still guilty of a foul if you ran into or roughed the kicker, even if you were blocked (legally or illegally) into the kicker by a teammate of the kicker. In ‘95, the rule was changed to exempt a player from a foul if he was illegally blocked into the kicker, but he was still guilty of a foul if he was legally blocked into the kicker. In 2011, the rule was changed to what we have today. You are not guilty of a foul if you are blocked - legally or illegally - into the kicker.
We’ve come full circle.

[HLinNC]

A topic came up last night on the NFHS facebook page about some old CFB videos on YouTube where certain officials were wearing colored armbands.  My thought was they were a position designator before plackets but someone mentioned that substitutes had to report in to certain officials in the 60's and 70's.  I could not find anything written on on it beyond substitution rules being liberalized in 1964.  I did find color photos from one of our university's archives where one official has a red armband and another that appears to be the U from his position wearing a dark/black band.  Green was also mentioned as a color used.

Any insight on this topic?

[bossman72]

Don’t know what Clearwall is looking for, but I can tell you that until 1983, an opponent that was blocked into the kicker by a teammate of the kicker was NOT guilty of a foul, by rule. No distinction between legal or illegal blocks.
In 1983, that changed. Between ‘83 and ‘94 you were still guilty of a foul if you ran into or roughed the kicker, even if you were blocked (legally or illegally) into the kicker by a teammate of the kicker. In ‘95, the rule was changed to exempt a player from a foul if he was illegally blocked into the kicker, but he was still guilty of a foul if he was legally blocked into the kicker. In 2011, the rule was changed to what we have today. You are not guilty of a foul if you are blocked - legally or illegally - into the kicker.
We’ve come full circle.

Off topic, but wasn't there a rule at one point in time in NCAA rules, Team B could not advance a fumble?

[ElvisLives]

A topic came up last night on the NFHS facebook page about some old CFB videos on YouTube where certain officials were wearing colored armbands.  My thought was they were a position designator before plackets but someone mentioned that substitutes had to report in to certain officials in the 60's and 70's.  I could not find anything written on on it beyond substitution rules being liberalized in 1964.  I did find color photos from one of our university's archives where one official has a red armband and another that appears to be the U from his position wearing a dark/black band.  Green was also mentioned as a color used.

Any insight on this topic?

Hard to believe, I know, but that was before my time. So, I don't have authoritative knowledge. But, I do know they were to identify the appropriate official to whom players were to report as substitutes. I know Red and green were some colors (if not THE colors - not aware that black may have been an arm band color, but maybe).

[ElvisLives]

Off topic, but wasn't there a rule at one point in time in NCAA rules, Team B could not advance a fumble?

I seem to recall that may have been how it was in my early days. Also, there were restrictive rules about advancing a recovered backward pass. I'll have to research.
Thanks. I need something to do in the evenings, other than go to bed early.

[Imperial Stout]

Early 90's I believe, where there were incremental changes with respect to Team B advancing a fumble.  Originally, Team B couldn't advance.  An initial change allowed Team B to advance only when the fumble occured beyond the neutral zone, then a few years later, a change was made to anywhere on the field.

[ElvisLives]

Advancement of a Recovered Fumble or Backward Pass

First things first: Ever since I've been officiating (1972), any player may advance a caught fumble or backward pass.

Yeah, prior to 1990, if a fumble or backward pass was recovered by the opponent of the fumbling/passing team, the ball was dead, and belonged to the opponent at that spot. (I believe the rationale was that allowing the opponent to advance a fumble or backward pass led to 'cheap' touchdowns, since so many backward passes/fumbles occurred behind the NZ. Remember, this was before the explosion in the passing game, and much of the game was "pitch option" type of plays.)
In 1990, the rule was changed to allow the opponent to advance a recovered fumble, unless the ball was fumbled in/behind the NZ (then the ball was dead when/where recovered and belonged to the recovering team).
In 1992, the rule was changed to allow any recovered fumble to be advanced by either team. However, a backward pass recovered by the opponent still could not be advanced (dead where/when recovered and belonged to recovering team).
I believe the rule was changed again in 1998, to allow any recovered backward pass to be advanced. Somehow, I have misplaced my 1998 book. Advancement was not allowed in 1997, but was allowed in 1999. The rule was not highlighted or listed as a rule change in 1999. By logical deduction, advancement must have been allowed beginning in 1998 (see how I did that?).

And that is where we are today, with respect to advancement of a recovered fumble or backward pass.

[clearwall]

Elvis, the question that started this is that I was talking to an older friend of mine about the 1973 Sugar Bowl where Bear Bryant DECLINED a roughing the punter penalty and accepted a punt that was downed at the 1-yard line. That made absolutely no sense to me and said I would try to see what rules were in place for that. He said that it was declined because the result would have been like a 4th and 4 and they'd have to re-punt anyway so they took the result of the play. Makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm thinking he just has to be wrong.

Here's a video of the play. 4/20 @ A30.  You can clearly see the signal is PF roughing kicker declined. Why?
https://youtu.be/_v6UPz8d9sI?t=1429

[Legacy Zebra]

The 1973 Sugar Bowl would have been at the end of the 1972 season. So this play probably spurred the change to add an automatic first down. 

[ElvisLives]

Elvis, the question that started this is that I was talking to an older friend of mine about the 1973 Sugar Bowl where Bear Bryant DECLINED a roughing the punter penalty and accepted a punt that was downed at the 1-yard line. That made absolutely no sense to me and said I would try to see what rules were in place for that. He said that it was declined because the result would have been like a 4th and 4 and they'd have to re-punt anyway so they took the result of the play. Makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm thinking he just has to be wrong.

Here's a video of the play. 4/20 @ A30.  You can clearly see the signal is PF roughing kicker declined. Why?
https://youtu.be/_v6UPz8d9sI?t=1429

I believe TxJim and Legacy are on the right track. Roughing the kicker was probably a "repeat the down" penalty prior to 1973. In that case, if the distance penalty didn't yield a new series, then the option to decline the penalty and pin the opponent deep in their own end of the field is certainly viable. Looks like what Bryant elected. I will check my books tonight and verify. I was just a second-year official back then, and my memory fails me on this specific issue. And, sorry, I don't carry all my old books around with me in a 'football' briefcase like the nuclear codes; maybe I should. They are certainly just as important and, used far more often.

[bama_stripes]

The 1973 Sugar Bowl would have been at the end of the 1972 season. So this play probably spurred the change to add an automatic first down.

Nope. It was played on New Year’s Eve of 1973 — the end of the 1973 season.  I was there.

[ElvisLives]

Well, let not your hearts be troubled. If it happened between 1972 and today, I will find it and report! 

Check back in about two hours.

[ElvisLives]

Auto first down for Roughing the Kicker

Beginning in 1979, the penalty for Roughing the Kicker is 15 yards from the previous spot and a first down for Team A. Prior to that, there was only the distance penalty, with the down repeated (if accepted).

There ya go.

[clearwall]

Weird. Can't imagine how different the game would be compared to then. I've only been officiating since 2009 and even that has seen a tremendous shift in a number of things. Thanks for the help

[ElvisLives]

Weird. Can't imagine how different the game would be compared to then. I've only been officiating since 2009 and even that has seen a tremendous shift in a number of things. Thanks for the help

Glad to help.
I hadn't actually looked at the video until just now. Lot's of changes since then:
-R almost close enough to the kicker to block the kick himself if he wanted to
-Red-white foul markers
-Black stirrup stockings with white undersocks
-Solid black shoes (to which we should return)
-No position letters on the shirts
-Chain crew right on the sideline, and team personnel (legally) right up to the sideline; the restricted area and coaches box were a couple of years away
-R gives a preliminary signal for fouls (correct for the time)
-R gives very rushed signals (not 'wrong,' but less polished than what we do today)
-R gives final signal to BOTH sides of the field (correct for the time, but the field mic made that go away)
-R steps off the penalty (correct for the time)
-R practically in the running back's pockets at the snap
-Wings inside the the numbers at the snap, at times
-Only one pass in that entire action (6 or 7 downs)
-25 second play clock, started by R on each down (doesn't seem that long, but, we got the 40-second clock in 2008 - 12 years ago)
-We don't see a visual play clock - I believe those weren't around yet
-Ball persons run the ball out to the U between downs
-Obviously, only a crew of 7
-Alabama's game ball had no stripes, but ND's ball had stripes (requirement for stripes a few years away)
-Nobody holding up the snap for substitutions (correct for the time)
-Notice how much larger shoulder pads were then, compared to today

I wasn't working college football then (just high school), but the uniforms, mechanics, etc., were the order of the day. Been there, done that. Glad we have advanced to plastic grass, visual play clocks, and field mics!

[Etref]

Was also really glad to see the stirrup socks go! Not comfortable at all.

[bama_stripes]

Anytime I watch old game films, I’m amazed that officials of that era got as many calls right as they did, given the mechanics in use then.

Of course, the game has changed drastically from the wishbone/veer offenses to the spread and HUNH attacks that we deal with now.

[JasonTX]

Anytime I watch old game films, I’m amazed that officials of that era got as many calls right as they did, given the mechanics in use then.

Of course, the game has changed drastically from the wishbone/veer offenses to the spread and HUNH attacks that we deal with now.

I'd get many more right if it wasn't for super slo-mo and HD video that can count the hairs on a mosquito.