Changes (Including Editorials)

[TXMike]

Wow..moving at warp speed this year. Now they have published a doc that includes the editorial changes  (attached)

[attachment deleted by admin]

[dvasques]

Second item "Visibility of yard lines etc" is marked as 1-4-1 but it's actualy 1-2-1, or am I wrong?

Also on the second item of Rule 2. It's 2-4-1, not 2-1-4 as it's written

[dvasques]

The change on the rule 2-4-3 to clarify "catch" omits what I had as item g. When in doubt, it is not a catch, interception or recover.

Is this supposed to be taken out?

[dvasques]

Sorry to be bugging, but I'm finding issues as I translate.

Rule 2-27-4-d-1 has no "Strike through" wording in the file I have of NCAA rulebook 12/13

Can someone help me out here?

[Andrew McCarthy]

Distance Penalties!!!

[Magician]

Rogers makes a lot of significant changes via editorial changes. If I'm reading right holding or offsides by B at the LOS will now be PSK enforcements.  That's huge!

[Andrew McCarthy]

Rogers makes a lot of significant changes via editorial changes. If I'm reading right holding or offsides by B at the LOS will now be PSK enforcements.  That's huge!

I'm not sure offside will be- another change was the foul being during a "scrimmage kick play" became during a "scrimmage kick".

I'm more concerned about roughing the kicker- now PSK?? 

[dvasques]

wow
that IS huge...
Team A will never get a first down from a RRK on a punt... or a missed FG...
and they changed the text on the penalty for RRK to include "automatic first down"

What gives?

[Kalle]

and they changed the text on the penalty for RRK to include "automatic first down"

What gives?

This was a mistake in the rules, I think. At least I have been awarding an automatic first down for ever. At least the 2009 book has the first down.

But yeah, roughing the kicker is now a PSK foul, as it must, by definition, occur during a scrimmage kick.

[Osric Pureheart]

Doesn't roughing the kicker have a specified enforcement spot, though?  I'm looking at last year's book and I've got this:

ARTICLE 16. a. When it is obvious that a scrimmage kick will be made, no
opponent shall run into or rough the kicker or the holder of a place kick...
...
PENALTY—15 yards from the previous spot [S27].

[Andrew McCarthy]

Doesn't roughing the kicker have a specified enforcement spot, though?  I'm looking at last year's book and I've got this:

But what would this site be without panic and overreaction?   

[LJ Silver]

ING to conserve time (including spiking the ball incorrectly) no longer includes a 5 yd penalty.

[Morningrise]

This was a mistake in the rules, I think. At least I have been awarding an automatic first down for ever. At least the 2009 book has the first down.

But yeah, roughing the kicker is now a PSK foul, as it must, by definition, occur during a scrimmage kick.

When RR went through in 2011(?) and removed the words "from the basic spot" in every penalty statement, he moved all the personal foul penalties to the very beginning of 9-1. All personal fouls are 15 yards and auto first down. And *almost* all are from the basic spot. But since roughing the kicker specifically said previous spot instead of basic spot, it got a separate penalty statement - which omitted the auto first down, until now. However it's clear from ARs and test answers that the "blanket" auto first down provision from 9-1 was indeed supposed to apply to this as all other PFs.

However, I'm not sure why roughing the kicker HAD mentioned previous spot in the first place. For this foul, previous spot and basic spot always meant the same thing. Until 2013. Now, as Osric points out, the previous spot specification is important.

[VALJ]

Is this the year that the republish the book, too?  For us aspiring officials, will we have all of this in one place?

[Rulesman]

For us aspiring officials, will we have all of this in one place?

I wouldn't hold my breath for that. The CFO website is probably your best bet, although most who frequent this board help to keep information up to date... unoffically, at least. If I remember correctly, the last iteration of the rule book had changes before the ink was dry. 

[FLBJ]

Addition to 'defenseless' player...

i. A quarterback any time after a change of possession.

Anyone catch the SEC championship last year? This is definitely a move toward NFL philosophy. While they may not be 'franchise players', perhaps they are (4 year) 'dynasty players'. Will the philosophy be that unless he's moving to participate, no touchey?

[younggun]

Addition to 'defenseless' player...

i. A quarterback any time after a change of possession.

Anyone catch the SEC championship last year? This is definitely a move toward NFL philosophy. While they may not be 'franchise players', perhaps they are (4 year) 'dynasty players'. Will the philosophy be that unless he's moving to participate, no touchey?

The defenseless part just applies to contact to the head or neck area or targeting.

[sj]

Defenseless Player definition.  (2-27-14) E

g. A player who receives a blind-side block.

This is an editorial change and not a rule change. So the Wisconsin kid here was defenseless then and defenseless going forward. Correct?

http://youtu.be/xKDz-P821Fw

[Osric Pureheart]

Did this get accompanied by a definition of a blindside block, or do we have to guess what it is for ourselves?

[Magician]

Defenseless Player definition.  (2-27-14) E

g. A player who receives a blind-side block.

This is an editorial change and not a rule change. So the Wisconsin kid here was defenseless then and defenseless going forward. Correct?

http://youtu.be/xKDz-P821Fw

I think BC and RR both supported this call as unnecessary so I believe this is their attempt to codify it with an editorial change.  We'll need to see if they have a definition for blind-side block.

[younggun]

I imagine it will be simular to this  "A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward or parallel to his own end line and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side." That is from the NFL rule book.

[Andrew McCarthy]

I wonder what the philosophy will be for a foul like leaping over the punt shield.  Is it the intent to make this a PSK foul or to enforce it from the previous spot?

I know there was philosophy in the past to make any hold on the gunners a PSK foul even if it was not 3 yards beyond the LOS.  Perhaps this leaping foul will be PSK even if it technically occurs before the kick.

[TXMike]

I think the penalty statement this year for leaping specifies to penalize from prev spot

[Andrew McCarthy]

So they did not address the substitution issue at the end of the half for a hurry-up field goal attempt.  Or am I missing it?

[BNE-Ref]

What's the general consensus on running into the kicker/holder?

I think we are in general agreement that the interpretation of the PSK changes is that PSK kicks in (pun not intended) once the punter has set foot to ball, and roughing remains a previous spot AFD because of the specific spot provision in the rules.

However, running (9-1-16-a-2) only has the note saying that running into "...carries a five yard penalty."  Are we to read this as five yards, previous spot as we've always done, or does running into now inherit the AFD, or does running into become PSK as it occurs after the punt has gone?