Rules Changes Document

[ElvisLives]

Just released by the CFO (attached).

[dammitbobby]

Proposed Change – Rule 9-2-1-a

...

-In order to update the rule and stay in pace with the modern game, Rule 9-2-1 is being adjusted to
ensure that officials will use good judgement in penalizing actions that interfere with orderly game
administration, taunting actions that are directed at an opponent, and abusive, threatening, or
celebratory actions that are demeaning to the game or an opponent.
-The list of automatic unsportsmanlike conduct fouls will be minimized and will be consistently
penalized including:

...

...so what's the actual proposed rule verbiage? Surely not the statement above that say 'we're changing the rule' and the awful grammar in the last sentence???

[ElvisLives]

Proposed Change – Rule 9-2-1-a

...

-In order to update the rule and stay in pace with the modern game, Rule 9-2-1 is being adjusted to
ensure that officials will use good judgement in penalizing actions that interfere with orderly game
administration, taunting actions that are directed at an opponent, and abusive, threatening, or
celebratory actions that are demeaning to the game or an opponent.
-The list of automatic unsportsmanlike conduct fouls will be minimized and will be consistently
penalized including:

...

...so what's the actual proposed rule verbiage? Surely not the statement above that say 'we're changing the rule' and the awful grammar in the last sentence???

Oh, no. Not the final language. Unfortunately, we won’t see that before the final rule book is published - at least electronically. I wish Shaw would solicit review by some of us in the trenches, but that won’t happen. So, we get ambiguous, if not flawed, rules.

[dammitbobby]

Well, the others proposed changes are a lot more specific than this one.

[bossman72]

So can you spike the ball now after a TD?

[ElvisLives]

So can you spike the ball now after a TD?

Just don’t do it ‘at’ an opponent.That will be the standard for many actions.

[ElvisLives]

2026 Rule Changes
-Targeting disqualification reduction
Don’t care. Not our problem. That’s for governing bodies to worry about. Target in a game, and you’re done for the game. That’s all we care about.

-Scrimmage kick formation numbering exceptions
They are on the right track, but they’ve left ambiguities. So, does this mean they MUST have two linemen on each side of the snapper to qualify as a SKF? If so, and they are all ineligible, regardless of numbers, then I believe the problem is solved. There are your ineligibles (regardless of their numbers).
And I hope this is the case. Team A will simply not be able to confuse Team B regarding eligibles, if they MUST have two players adjacent to the snapper, on each side of the snapper. We shall see.

-10-yard penalty for OPI. Not a fan, personally, but it is no skin off my nose. If that’s what they want, so be it.

-Play Clock after review after the 2-minute time out (play clock “freezes” where it is when stopped for the review)
The biggest problem here will be making sure the PCO pays close attention and only STOPS the play clock when the crew stops the clock for the review - and he doesn’t reset it. Hopefully, the play clock always shows up on video available to the RO, so he can get the play clock set correctly, if needed.

-UNS fouls being relaxed. No surprise. IMHO, not good for the game, but I’m not in charge. I’m guessing they’ll be able to do nearly anything they want as long as they don’t direct it at an opponent.

-Additional Replay Challenge
Where will it end?

-Fair Catch Kick
Looks like a hybrid of a kickoff and a scrimmage kick. Kickoff rules to put the ball in play, but scrimmage kick field goal rules thereafter. That should be easy enough. But, no mention of the clock. Does it start on the kick? When legally touched in the field of play? Fortunately, most of us will never see one. But, we gotta know what to do if it happens.

[dammitbobby]

-Scrimmage kick formation numbering exceptions
They are on the right track, but they’ve left ambiguities. So, does this mean they MUST have two linemen on each side of the snapper to qualify as a SKF? If so, and they are all ineligible, regardless of numbers, then I believe the problem is solved. There are your ineligibles (regardless of their numbers).
And I hope this is the case. Team A will simply not be able to confuse Team B regarding eligibles, if they MUST have two players adjacent to the snapper, on each side of the snapper. We shall see.

How would this work for a swinging gate formation? (I personally think it's the dumbest thing teams do in football, but I'm a ref, not a coach, so.)

[ElvisLives]

How would this work for a swinging gate formation? (I personally think it's the dumbest thing teams do in football, but I'm a ref, not a coach, so.)

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.

[Etref]

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.

Which hopefully might put an end to the swinging gate

[JasonTX]

Some playclocks are programmed to be either 25 or 40.  There is no function  to set them at 10 seconds on the ones I have ran.  I guess they can put it on 25 and run it down to 10 if that ever comes into play.

[ElvisLives]

Some playclocks are programmed to be either 25 or 40.  There is no function  to set them at 10 seconds on the ones I have ran.  I guess they can put it on 25 and run it down to 10 if that ever comes into play.

Yeah, they’d have to run it down to get anything between 25 and 40, or less than 25. Least of my replay complaints. I liked replay to fix a missed touching of the ball, step out of bounds, ball touching ground before firm hold of ball, etc. Not a fan of using it for much of anything else.
(Says the guy (R) that holds the FBS record for longest replay review in history. 😒)

[TxJim]

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.

[dammitbobby]

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.

[ElvisLives]

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.

[dammitbobby]

Yes, I meant A

And I am onboard with your proposed change.

[TxJim]

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)

[ElvisLives]

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)

Certainly not arguing, because we just don’t know. But, by Shaw’s interpretations to date, the formation you presented does not qualify as a SKF, because it is not “obvious” that a scrimmage kick will be attempted. I am hoping that the committee is wanting to force Team A to use a tight formation to be able to use numbering exceptions. We’ll just have to wait until we can get somebody to press Shaw for answers to these questions.