Rule 5-1-1: Bizarre state rule interpretation?
 

I'm curious what rules interpretations are being given for rule 5-1-1 in states other than here in Oregon.

The chairman of the NFHS rules committee is Brad Garrett from Oregon. He as well as the state rules interpreter here are telling us that if ANY down is played with the wrong down on the box (even if all officials agree on the correct down), the down MUST be re-played. No exceptions.

The new 2015 Redding guide interprets this rule the same as always. If we notice the box is wrong, we just change it and move on. Our state is saying no. Re-play the down.

There are many of us here that feel there is absolutely no language in the rule as written to support doing this. if you call back a touchdown because the box had 3 instead of 2, a coach is going to want to know by what authority you base your decision on. As written, this rule has none in the opinion of many here in our association.

So tell me. What are other state rules interpreters telling you all about this rule?

Thanks,

WC

Not this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Rich, which state?

Wisconsin. The rule is explained well enough by the rule and case plays and NFHS interps. The down box has nothing to do with the rule. It's just an administrative tool....no different in practice than if the scoreboard has the wrong down.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree 100% with you, but our problem is that we have this bizarre interpretation being pushed at us in spite of the fact that nowhere in the rule, the NFHS interpretations, or the case book does it say to replay a down because the number on the down box was wrong.

Any other states care to chime in on what you're being told?

Typical of many NFHS rule changes, the new is creating more confusion than clarity.

I do so love it when the Fed fixes something.:rolleyes:

Would appreciate it if I could get the states that you're from and what your state rules interpreters are saying about this one issue: A down played with the wrong number on the box. Also, even if we're trying to get the box changed by signaling the HL, if it looks like the snap is eminent we are supposed to shut it down if we think it won't be changed in time. Kill the clock even though we all know the box needs to be changed. Needless to say a large number of us think these ideas are silly, and not supported by th rules, NFHS interpretations or case plays.

They are mixing problems. Their "fix" is for crews who have genuinely lost or gained a down and then realize it, somehow.

The over-eager/inattentive down box operator can be easily corrected and should not be categorized in the same problem.

So they want to hold the game hostage to an assistant who's probably a HS kid scrounged up minutes earlier to hold the down stake?

At the varsity level this most probably isn't the case. Those people are generally regulars and are quite good at what they do, at least in my area.

But yours is a good point -- at the subvarsity levels, the box person is usually a kid or a volunteer parent roped in at the last minute.

I'm not holding up a play to fix a down box. No chance. We'll get it after the play.

I take the opposite view, Rich. We're not playing a down when the box is wrong. It's too easy to take ten seconds (or less) to fix it right then & there.

We disagree then.

No reason to disturb the rhythm of the game, stop the play clock, have the down box changed, and then reset all of it for something that can be fixed after the fact, UNLESS it matters at the time (box says 3rd down, it's 4th down, team doesn't send its punt team out, etc.).

Would you stop the game to correct the electronic game clock if you noticed it was incorrect and the snap was eminent or let play continue and correct it afterward? If yes, why is the down box different?

Still interested in what your state rules interpreters are telling you in your states