Methinks we can....
 

Unsticky the 2015 rule changes.

I'm going to leave them for another 5 months now. :)

OK done. 2016 changes involving things nobody was asking for along with adding additional obscurities to the rules are less than a month away!

Isn't that always the case? :p

Absolutely which is why I can say so with confidence. :)

Reading the thread on RefStripes where a member of the rules committee posts leaves me depressed. I'd bet nothing of substance will be changed...again, although there are some things mentioned there that would make a lot of sense, such as allowing a spike from a shotgun like every other level of football.

The mindset of "We're not going to do it that way just because NCAA does" likely won't change in our generation.

Does that mindset mean, "Because NCAA does it 1 way, we're going to do it another"? Or does it mean, "The mere fact that NCAA does it 1 way isn't enough reason for us to do it that way"? I sure hope it's #2, not #1.

For some it is probably a little bit of both.

Peace

Let me answer your question with a question:

Why is FED baseball the only code to designate runners' position on base at the start of a play differently from everyone else in the baseball-playing world?

All Sports played under NFHS rules govern (Interscholastic) games played by adolescents between the ages 8/9 and 18/19, whereas NCAA rules (mostly) apply to young adults between ages 18/19 and through their 20s. Professional sports are played by grown men & women.

There are LOTS OF EXAMPLES where things that may work really well at one level just don't fit all that well at other levels, despite a lot of effort trying.

Different skill sets, different abilities, different maturity levels, different objectives sometimes require different rules considerations.

And there are a lot of gratuitous differences that do not need to exist.

I'll acknowledge your side if you acknowledge mine.

Maybe it would just work, if the notions, that "Change" in either direction (to or from) should be based on whether there is an actual and definable need, or benefit, in doing so.

I just saw why we have different rules at different levels. In the AFC Title game there was a punt with a kicking team player going out of bounds and staying out of bounds while running down the line. That is something a pro player will likely do, not a high school kid. The penalty was for USC, not Illegal Participation or some other kind of violation.

Peace

The funny thing is that just a few decades ago there was a NCAA-Fed liaison committee for football rules. They wanted things discussed together so they could cooperate, pick up tips, whatever.

OTOH, a couple decades before that, there was a Fed-instigated Alliance that wrote football rules for Fed, NAIA, & NJCAA.

So sometimes it's been, let's work together while honoring our unique needs, while other times it's just been, we're better at this than you are.

Presuming for the moment (or at least hoping for) rule makers were more concerned with the objectives of and benefits football may provide at their specific level, than "we're better at this than you are", the differences are striking.

NFHS rules govern thousands of High Schools playing interscholastic sports, designed, in general, to provide physical outlets to growing, active CHILDREN and teach sportsmanship, teamwork, reliance on and responsibility to others and a wide variety of other necessary "Life" lessons. There is an enormous difference in available financial resources, facilities, size of participant pools, participation and community interest levels and the age and physical stature of interested participants, who may be in various stages of natural growth.

NCAA rules govern, generally, student activities at a physically, and usually emotionally and maturity, level of older participants at higher levels of skill, interest and experience within a similarly wide variety of levels broken down by financial capability, organizational objective and focus, resource allocation, facilities and expenditures, that add a variable level of recruiting, scholarships (worth considerable amounts of money requiring higher individual skill sets)) that often, at various internal levels, produce considerable revenues that help support and pay for additional organizational activities and expenses.

NFL rules govern a highly successful business venture, that provides enormous sums of money to extensive business enterprises that impact large population centers and financial interests, that enjoy virtually unlimited capabilities for facilities, venues, world wide advertising as well as participant career development and high level earning capacity. Players are those at the apex of skill sets, experience and ability and are usually extremely well paid for the services they are able to render.

The basic, and primary, objectives at each of these levels, although generally related are specifically and intentionally different and not surprisingly, have developed rule adjustments and differences designed to support their unique and specific objectives and perceived needs.

Is it reasonable to expect "one size would (should or ever could) fit all"?

No. Level specific differences are appropriate. Differences for the sake of being different are not and there are plenty of examples where this is true between NFHS and NCAA and the reason is due to NFHS specifically not desiring to be like NCAA.

Consistency between the NFHS and NCAA where practical is a good thing for the players, coaches and officials. I would say I don't see why that's such a difficult concept but I'd be lying.

Those are the gratuitous differences I am talking about.

For example, requiring a holder to lift a knee before pitching the ball. Every year I hear of a team doing that and it being called in a HS game and I always wonder -- exactly why should that be different than what everyone sees on TV?

Why can I tackle a QB by the face mask in a HS game and benefit from it?

And so on. Gratuitous.

The committee met last weekend and I'm not expecting a lot of changes.

The EXCEPTION to the rule that any player in possession of a live ball with other than a hand or foot on the ground is DEAD, allows a place kick holder to possess the ball while his knee is on the ground. The EXCEPTION is to allow the holder, to hold for a placekick.

If he's going to do something other than hold, he doesn't enjoy the exception and NFHS requires he rise, to take his knee off the ground.

Under the NFHS code a tackle involving grasping a facemask, applies to anyone grasping an opponent's face mask, which calls for a penalty enforcement from the spot of the foul. Applies to grasping a QB by the facemask whether the foul is committed behind, or in advance of the LOS, as it does for anyone else. How is either gratuitous?

It is not a spot foul. It's an all-but-one enforcement. The basic spot's the end of the run. If you're going to be stubborn, at least be accurate.

The only reason I tackle the QB is because I illegally grab his face mask. And I get the benefit of those yards. The only truly fair enforcement is going back to the previous spot and tacking on the 15 yards. Having exceptions for fouls committed behind the line of scrimmage for BOTH teams is consistent, BTW, and it's what the NCAA does.

Obviously the NF does not care what you or I think is fair. And that is not the point of why rules are different. NF does not like to make exceptions to their rules and the NCAA is full of them.

Remember these rules are not made for you or me, they are made for the masses to understand and the mass of officials that work that level. This entire argument that the NCAA does makes more sense is not accurate IMO. Officials will screw up those kinds of things as not everyone is that knowledgeable about he rules they have in front of them already. And a lot of officials never work college ball so it makes little difference to them what the NCAA might do in some specific situations.

Peace

The NFHS has plenty of exceptions as well. They just aren't called out as Exceptions. They are in line of the rule using words like "unless" or "except". We had a local official go through the rule book looking for these words and he found the number of "exceptions" in HS wasn't that much different than NCAA.

The one area that stands out to me as a difference that NFHS must be different on is the blocking rules. I am not an NCAA official but I work with a few and end up being involved in conversations with them or around them.

I don't want to be demeaning but there are a vast group of HS officials that would have difficulty calling some of the low blocking rules that the NCAA allows that we don't. Some of the equipment regulations that the NCAA either allows or ignores (knee pads & mouthpieces come to mind) would be safer if they followed the NFHS' lead. (And I do not wish to begin the debate of the uncovered knee).

The Fed is not totally heathen as they do allow the FBZ, adopted PSK, and the restricted area on the sideline.

As the Rules committee becomes younger, I'm sure you'll see a move more towards homogenization.

Accuracy, very much like "beauty" is, "often in the eye of the beholder". Presuming a QB, tackled by the face mask, is downed where the foul takes place, the spot of the foul IS the end of the run, so there really is no need to invoke an "All but one" adjustment.

When the defense has accomplished reaching the QB, or any runner behind the LOS without benefit of ANY illegal act, they are entitled to whatever yardage advantage they have legally attained.

Conversely, when the defense has legally forced the offense to retreat 10, or more yards, behind the LOS their is NO CONSEQUENCE to the offence choosing to foul, and in addition to the loss of yardage being the same, or less, (depending on the offensive foul selected) they gain, what some consider an UNFAIR advantage of replaying the down, when the penalty is accepted. In essence, the offense is ENCOURAGED to foul, as the penalty for doing so is negated by enforcing the penalty for fouling from the previous spot.

Much like "beauty", "stubbornness" is also, "often in the eye of the beholder.

The NCAA also has 7 or 8 officials. Many of us never work anything outside of 5 in any high school game. You can key on players a lot better in 7 or 8 than you can with 5 officials.

Peace

Agreed, another significant factor.

I believe, though I'm not sure, that difference, like the one below, was a result of NCAA's change, Fed's inertia. Some years after adopting (early 1930s, before Fed had their own football rules) the provision that a knee down made the ball dead except when holding for a place kick, NCAA added language allowing the ballcarrier in such a position to "arise". Much later, NCAA looked at play situations & decided that wording was unnecessarily restrictive; situations of passing the ball while kneeling just hadn't occurred to them when they originally adopted the provision. They might not have been pushed into reconsidering until after some officials complained about having to make the call of whether the holder got his knee off the ground in time to pass.
That last difference resulted from a change by NCAA, Fed keeping the old rule. However, they could also say that with the number of people officiating under Fed rules, the need to keep administration of penalties simple is greater than it is for NCAA or NFL.

"Reaching the QB" and "tackling the QB" are often two different animals.

Here's Rich's quote: "The only reason I tackle the QB is because I illegally grab his face mask. And I get the benefit of those yards." (emphasis added)

Do we know what would have happened had the illegal act not occurred? No. The offense might have made a significant gain. That's why the penalty administration in this case is considered a "gratuitous difference".

Of course the same could be said of the same foul's occurrence anywhere on the field. The offense might've made a significant gain from there, but what does the previous spot have to do with that?

You could change the rule to make it a judgment call on that basis if that's the concern. At a rugby match I saw a player reach out & make a neck tackle at midfield, upon which the ref awarded a penalty try, which is supposed to be given if absent the foul play a try would probably have been scored. I had my doubts about that, so I asked the ref & he said indeed that by his judgment of the situation (it was the wing on that side, who was outside the rest of the defense) if the tackler hadn't reached up with his arm like that, he would not have been able to make a tackle. (I still thought he could instead have gone low & grabbed a leg instead, which could as well be said in the case of the face mask grab Rich was referring to.)

Is it POSSIBLE to tackle anyone, without first reaching them? "Reaching" any player is totally and completely separate from anything you actually do to a player you have successfully reached. If a DEFENSIVE player subsequently does something illegal at that point (where an opponent is reached) the illegal behavior is penalized EITHER from that spot, or if the fouled player continues to advance after the foul, from the spot where his advancement ends.

When an OFFENSIVE foul is committed BEHIND the eventual End of the Run, the NFHS ALL BUT ONE enforcement principle presumes that any yardage gained BEYOND/AFTER the spot of the foul is an "Ill gotten gain", and the enforcement is applied from the spot of the foul RATHER than the spot where the run ACTUALLY ended.

ALL BUT ONE does NOT apply to defensive fouls, so I'm not sure what your above reference is intended to relate to.

Under the NFHS code, the runner is entitled to any and all yardage he legally gained (without benefit of any fouling). NFHS:10-4-2 defines those instances where the "basic spot" (NFHS: 2-41-1) to be used for PENALTY enforcement is "the previous spot".

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to infer regarding, "gratuitous difference" and, to my understanding, NFHS does not consider, "things that might have been"(Thankfully)

Aren't they among the "all"? :confused:

Under NCAA rules, a foul by the defense behind the LOS is penalized from the previous spot, regardless of the type of play (running or loose ball).

In NFHS, if the QB is tackled by the facemask & goes to the ground, it's a running play & penalized from the end of the run. If he passes or fumbles, it's a loose ball play & is penalized from the previous spot.

There's no logical reason for such a difference -- therefore, it's "gratuitous".

Even though I find it hard to understand the logic of the NCAA version of handling such situations, I presume they had specific objectives, they may have honestly considered valid, for arbitrarily depriving the defensive effort of the advantage, they honestly achieved, by causing the offense to foul BEHIND where play began to lessen the impact of the consequences earned by, and applied against, the fouling offense.

NFHS prefers consistency in it's handling of penalty enforcement, by establishing "basic spots", which are determined by action that occurs immediately prior, actually during, and after the down, as well as non-player fouls.

"Gratuitous" seems largely a matter of personal perspective.

You may very well be confused. It would seem "ALL, but one" is a concept directed towards, and relates exclusively to, Offensive fouls.

Nope, you're the one who's confused.

All-but-one applies to ALL fouls. All fouls are enforced from the basic spot with the exception of the "one" - fouls committed behind the basic spot by the team with the ball at the time of the foul.

We're talking about a DEFENSIVE foul.

When all else fails, Rich, read the rule book;":Football Penalty Enforcement, NFHS 10-6 (page 80, 2nd paragraph):

"Enforcement philosophy is based on the fact that a team is given the advantage of the distance which is gained without assistance of a foul. It is assumed that the only foul which would give this aid is a foul by the offense behind the basic spot. Therefore, all fouls but this one, that is a foul by the offense behind the basic spot are penalized from the basic spot unless the spot is otherwise specified by rule. This one foul is penalized from the spot of the foul."

This discussion started referencing a player (presumed to be an opponent/defensive player) tackling by the facemask. The concept of, "All-But-One" applies EXCLUSIVELY to Offensive fouls

You have just posted the definition of all-but-one. The "ALL" is EVERY OTHER FOUL, both offense and defense.

The "BUT ONE" refers to offensive fouls behind the basic spot.

I guess, sometimes even reading EXACTLY what the book says doesn't help. At any rate, this poor horse is so dead, it deserves to be left to RIP

The book says exactly what Rich says that it does. All but one enforcement applies to all fouls. It's right there in the text you quoted.

But by all means, don't just actually admit you might be wrong, continue to bluster on about it for paragraphs.

On a scale of 1 - 1 Billion, where would you rank the significance of your argument, maybe a 3?

The original question related to defensive fouls behind the LOS being enforced either from the spot of the foul (NFHS), or the previous spot (NCAA). If you can force yourself to be honest, there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER about "All-But-One" that relates to Defensive fouls, other than they DON'T APPLY.

This has nothing to do with "admitting anything wrong". If you want to argue the meaning of "ALL" (taken totally out of context) knock yourself out, but you'd be a lot more challenged by a language expert, or someone else who just might care, even a little bit.

Methinks we can....
 

I've never seen someone be wrong and double down the way you do.

I'm amazed actually. I've taught all-but-one many times and it's clear that the phrase has to do with basic spots and does apply to defensive fouls as well.

In college rules, it's referred to as 3-and-1. The 3 are offensive fouls beyond the basic spot, defensive fouls beyond the basic spot, and defensive fouls behind the basic spot. The one is offensive fouls behind the basic spot. The 3 have basic spot enforcement. The 1 is enforced from the spot of the foul.

Irrelevant to my post. I'll be charitable and say you misspoke insisting that all-but-one only applies in one situation. Everyone else is simply telling you that all-but-one applies to all fouls. And it does, the rules you quoted say as much.

Do not question my integrity again.

Where are fouls by the defense enforced from? The basic spot you say? You mean that it fits the definition of all-but-one, which is all fouls, except a foul by the offense behind the basic spot, are enforced from the basic spot?

Sure it does. You made a statement that was flat out wrong, got called on it, and now you can't crawdad your way away from it fast enough.

Just so you know, the NCAA equivalent is the 3 and 1 principle and it's exactly the same as the all-but-one principle. The 3 refers to the number of types of fouls that are enforced from the basic spot. Fouls by the defense in front of the basic spot, behind the basic spot and fouls by the offense beyond the basic spot.

It's exactly the same. Your arguing against it doesn't make it so.

This one seems to have run its productive course.