The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   We need a new signal for IF! (https://forum.officiating.com/football/100087-we-need-new-signal-if.html)

bigjohn Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:04am

We need a new signal for IF!
 
Had at least 10 live ball false starts the other night if you listened to the PA guy! Officials kept yelling 5 backs at the sidelines.

Rich Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:09am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigjohn (Post 966483)
Had at least 10 live ball false starts the other night if you listened to the PA guy! Officials kept yelling 5 backs at the sidelines.

Are you saying something about the 5 backs too...or just the PA guy?

Our wings see that we (R/U) have 11 and then count the backs. They only actually count linemen if we signal 10.

Too bad the NFHS doesn't see the wisdom in the NCAA rule -- there's no good reason to penalize 6 on the line when there are 10 on the field.

JRutledge Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:21am

No, we do not need a new signal. That is what the microphone is for. If you need that much communication, get a microphone for the games. ;)

And there is no reason for a rules change either. I like the NF rule.

Peace

Welpe Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 966484)
Too bad the NFHS doesn't see the wisdom in the NCAA rule -- there's no good reason to penalize 6 on the line when there are 10 on the field.

Agreed. It is easier to officiate too IMO.

That said it is amusing to hear the "false start" on a live ball foul coming from the announcer. One of my first games of the season, somebody on the crew flagged an illegal formation that ended up calling back a score. The announcer called it a false start and a parent started yelling "If it was false start you should have blown your whistle blah blah blah."

One of the coaches for the team that fouled turned around and yelled back at his fan "It wasn't a false start! Now shut up!" :D

bigjohn Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:17pm

Hell after a while I thought they were calling travelling!!!
:)

CT1 Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:19pm

I agree we need a separate signal. Perhaps it could be the signal given by men to silently describe a voluptuous woman's shape.

Rich Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:20pm

On top of that, the "dead ball foul" signal is completely worthless on those presnap fouls -- NCAA has eliminated them and it would be nice to see the NFHS (officially) do the same.

10 on the field for a punt, 6 on the line.

10 on the field anytime, 6 on the line.

I can't imagine a single reason why this should be a formation foul and can't understand why anyone (Rut, care to explain) thinks the rule is "OK as it is."

JRutledge Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 966488)

One of the coaches for the team that fouled turned around and yelled back at his fan "It wasn't a false start! Now shut up!" :D

That would have been hard to keep a straight face if I heard that for sure.

Again, problem solved if the Referee is mic'd.

Peace

JRutledge Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 966495)
On top of that, the "dead ball foul" signal is completely worthless on those presnap fouls -- NCAA has eliminated them and it would be nice to see the NFHS (officially) do the same.

10 on the field for a punt, 6 on the line.

10 on the field anytime, 6 on the line.

I can't imagine a single reason why this should be a formation foul and can't understand why anyone (Rut, care to explain) thinks the rule is "OK as it is."

I think this is a solution looking for a problem. I think it makes no difference either way. All rules that work at the higher levels do not need to be changed at the high school level. This is one of those rules IMO that makes no competitive advantage or even common sense to just require 4 in the backfield. All the other time they can have more on the line, but if we have 10 now we have to make sure they have 4 in the backfield. Sorry, that sounds very unnecessary to me. And I work college so this does not bother me at all that the rule is different. Honestly I do not get why NCAA felt the need to change in the first place. But then again I am almost never a short wing so this is not something I have to worry about most of the time if ever. I would much rather worry about getting more official on the field and covering more things than worrying about a rule that does not make you better because you have 4 in the backfield with only 10 or fewer on the field.

Again, just an opinion. It does not have to be right. But I get a little tired of always trying to change a high school rule because college or pro has that rule.

I do have a question about this rule overall. Does NFL have this rule in place?

Peace

Rich Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 966497)
I think this is a solution looking for a problem. I think it makes no difference either way. All rules that work at the higher levels do not need to be changed at the high school level. This is one of those rules IMO that makes no competitive advantage or even common sense to just require 4 in the backfield. All the other time they can have more on the line, but if we have 10 now we have to make sure they have 4 in the backfield. Sorry, that sounds very unnecessary to me. And I work college so this does not bother me at all that the rule is different. Honestly I do not get why NCAA felt the need to change in the first place. But then again I am almost never a short wing so this is not something I have to worry about most of the time if ever. I would much rather worry about getting more official on the field and covering more things than worrying about a rule that does not make you better because you have 4 in the backfield with only 10 or fewer on the field.

Again, just an opinion. It does not have to be right. But I get a little tired of always trying to change a high school rule because college or pro has that rule.

I do have a question about this rule overall. Does NFL have this rule in place?

Peace

It is easier to count backs than to count linemen. Much easier in college.

JRutledge Tue Sep 08, 2015 01:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 966499)
It is easier to count backs than to count linemen. Much easier in college.

OK, but still trying to figure out why creates a competitive advantage. Something that only makes it easier for us to me is not a good reason for a rules change. Also in college you have many more things to consider as well.

Peace

Rich Tue Sep 08, 2015 01:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 966500)
OK, but still trying to figure out why creates a competitive advantage. Something that only makes it easier for us to me is not a good reason for a rules change. Also in college you have many more things to consider as well.

Peace

My point is that it doesn't create a competitive advantage in HS to have 10 on the field and 6 on the line, so it *shouldn't be a foul.*

CT1 Tue Sep 08, 2015 03:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 966500)
Also in college you have many more things to consider as well.

Such as?

Robert Goodman Tue Sep 08, 2015 03:55pm

Canadian football had that provision for if team A was playing short long before NCAA had it, and even before I saw the Canadian rule I thought that's how it should be. Somebody a long time ago conceived it as a minimum on the line instead of a maximum in the backfield, when it's clear the latter was the effect they wanted.

JRutledge Tue Sep 08, 2015 05:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CT1 (Post 966507)
Such as?

Low blocks in many areas of the line, not just a confined area as small as the FBZ, changes for a player that goes in motion as well.

Peace


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1