New Fed "Clarifications"

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by rainmaker


But really, how many times is it going to be an issue?

I agree that it is not going to be an issue that much, but all it takes is one big game, and it will become an issue. It is very possible that an assignor will not have the NF website to support this, when the rulebook says something else. I can see a coach going ballistic over whether a player's foot was on the line or not, something we are not trained to look at in the first place. I just think it is a bad rule in the first place and it is made worse by the way the NF has chosen to tell us. Everyone is not computer literate.

Peace

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I agree that it is not going to be an issue that much, but all it takes is one big game, and it will become an issue. It is very possible that an assignor will not have the NF website to support this, when the rulebook says something else. I can see a coach going ballistic over whether a player's foot was on the line or not, something we are not trained to look at in the first place. I just think it is a bad rule in the first place and it is made worse by the way the NF has chosen to tell us. Everyone is not computer literate.

Peace

Amen...again!!!

[Rich]

Would you folks be complaining so vehemently if the clarification went the way you wanted?

I don't remember this ever happening before, but then again I never looked down at the feet when calling a block/charge either

Rich

[Hawks Coach]

This absolutely boggles my mind. We had a very interesting discussion of this rule. It could be read in one of two ways. You could either literally interpretat the rule and piece together individual lines in a specific way that led one direction. Alternatively, you could look at spirit of the rule in light of the problem that NFHS appeared to be trying to fix and choose to believe that they failed to reword a line of the rules in order to make their intent perfectly clear. Because of this, there was legitimate argument over what NFHS intended - that's as it should be.

Now NFHS has clarified, and explained in very clear terms how they want it called and why they want it called this way. And their interpretation and support for that interpretation is extremely logical. How can we still be fighting about this, and why?

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
...I never looked down at the feet when calling a block/charge either

Rich

Better start doing it now!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Whadya call a dog with no legs?



[/B]

If you throw him in your pool, you can call him "Bob"! [/B][/QUOTE]

If he's got only 2 legs call him Eileen. Unless he's from (your favorite Asian country inserted here) then he's Irene.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Now NFHS has clarified, and explained in very clear terms how they want it called and why they want it called this way. And their interpretation and support for that interpretation is extremely logical. How can we still be fighting about this, and why?

Amen!

What's needed now is uniformity in calling it- like it or not.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

If you throw him in your pool, you can call him "Bob"! [/B]

If he's got only 2 legs call him Eileen. Unless he's from (your favorite Asian country inserted here) then he's Irene.

[/B][/QUOTE]I think we may have a winner!

[Rich]

I still won't explicitly look down before the crash. It's just like calling a batter out for having a foot out of the box -- you just have to have a feel for where it is and look down after the contact.

Rich

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
I still won't explicitly look down before the crash. It's just like calling a batter out for having a foot out of the box -- you just have to have a feel for where it is and look down after the contact.

Rich

Reading the interp, I think this is where NFHS is on this anyway. They just want to clarify that you can't straddle the boundary or put a foot on the line to take away the line. You don't need to be on the lookout for the foot barely grazing the line issue, but if the defense has been trained to straddle or put a foot on the line (usually on the trapping press), you will notice it and you should call it.

[zebra44]

Hang the dog and one of his littermates over your window and call them "Curt 'n Rod".

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach


Now NFHS has clarified, and explained in very clear terms how they want it called and why they want it called this way. And their interpretation and support for that interpretation is extremely logical. How can we still be fighting about this, and why?

Because every official, coach and player are never going to see the website. Because when there is a dispute over this situation, it is much harder to refer to a website than it will be to refer to the rulebook. If you do not believe that, then look at all the trouble the NF caused when making Post Scrimmage Kick enforcement in football. The NF did not have all their publications on the same page and all it did was cause some confusion as to what to do. This is the same thing. Because 98% of the officials and coaches that I will come in contact with, will never see anything from the website. And in a hotly contested game, no one is going to go right to the website to prove their point. I do not know about anyone here, but I will not have a computer handy. I will have a rulebook in my bag, but that is about it. And we do call more block/charge situations in a game and a season than I ever did calling PSK during the football season.

Peace

[Hawks Coach]

Not everybody has to read this clarification on-line. Local leadership (rules interpreters, local boards, etc.) should be able to look it up and get this essential information to their refs.

We are about to start a new season. A new rule is going into effect, people got a bit confused, NF clarified their intent. The rule is now so incredibly straightforward it isn't hard to tell folks what it means. It doesn't require a laptop or an internet connection - just remember that defenders have to stay on the court. How hard is it to get that message out to refs?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I will have a rulebook in my bag, but that is about it. And we do call more block/charge situations in a game and a season than I ever did calling PSK during the football season.

Peace

Sure, we call more block / charge situations -- but how many involve a foot that may or may not be near / on the line?

And, you could print out the interps, and the clarification and keep them tucked neatly inside your rules book.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Not everybody has to read this clarification on-line. Local leadership (rules interpreters, local boards, etc.) should be able to look it up and get this essential information to their refs.

That might work in your state, but that does not necessarily work in ours. Once the rules meeting are over, there is no "statewide" updates. At least one that the coaches ever see. We cannot get the coaches to read a simple rulebook, how are we going to get them to understand the many interpretations on the NF website? Coaches here spend more time learning what the rules are by what the officials did the night before. And I have come to the conclusion that they are lying half the time anyway.

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

We are about to start a new season. A new rule is going into effect, people got a bit confused, NF clarified their intent. The rule is now so incredibly straightforward it isn't hard to tell folks what it means. It doesn't require a laptop or an internet connection - just remember that defenders have to stay on the court. How hard is it to get that message out to refs?

The officials are the last of my concern. The coaches are the ones that are going to "pitch a b!t@h" we used to say. At least all officials are required by the IHSA By-laws have to attend a meeting, every year no matter what. Coaches on the other hand, only have to have a representative to a IHSA Rules Meeting. So many times the Head Varsity coach will not attend the meetings at all and they are the ones that run the program. They will send a Freshman Assistant Coach (who does not know there is a rulebook to begin with) try to report back the fine details of the new rule. I am sure something will get lost in the translation. Just like it did when a coach went ballistic on my about what his player could do after a made basket. That coach was clueless then, I am sure he and others will be clueless about this new rule as well.

Peace