Does this site ever discuss football?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Rich

While I don't think 2 should trump 48 or 49, those states show that NCAA rules work at the prep level, as well. There's just no compelling reason to play them.

Sure they work. The high schools and the pros started out playing by the same rules the college teams used. But then they had reasons for developing their own.

What's bizarre is when in recent time Fed football has gone out of its way to sound different from NCAA when there was no real reason to, other than to look original. The team K rule, I mean.

Sometimes the reason has just been, "You're sticks in the mud, ours are better." That must be how Fed, NAIA, and NJCAA wound up playing by those "Alliance" football rules that Fed instigated. It's not like the NAIA players were any less mature than NCAA's. Similarly in the interval when there were 3 regional rule sets used by the colleges, and then another interval when there were 2. (And that was just in the USA, let alone Canada.) Or when different pro leagues use different rules. Or different youth leagues. Usually it's a matter of some people wanting to change something, others wanting to keep it the same, and they split.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Sure they work. The high schools and the pros started out playing by the same rules the college teams used. But then they had reasons for developing their own.

What's bizarre is when in recent time Fed football has gone out of its way to sound different from NCAA when there was no real reason to, other than to look original. The team K rule, I mean.

Sometimes the reason has just been, "You're sticks in the mud, ours are better." That must be how Fed, NAIA, and NJCAA wound up playing by those "Alliance" football rules that Fed instigated. It's not like the NAIA players were any less mature than NCAA's. Similarly in the interval when there were 3 regional rule sets used by the colleges, and then another interval when there were 2. (And that was just in the USA, let alone Canada.) Or when different pro leagues use different rules. Or different youth leagues. Usually it's a matter of some people wanting to change something, others wanting to keep it the same, and they split.

I do not think it is that petty. I think football at the high school level has different concerns and NCAA often does not address them or the main thing, you have college coaches that try to always find holes they can exploit. Those same exploitation do not take place in NF because there are more coaches and many coaches are not only coaches by profession. I do not think the NF goes out of their way, they just do not see the need to change something that is simple that is mostly taking place at the college level. Again, the players and skill level is very different from high school to college. Heck some even feel that what goes on at the D3 level for example should not be influenced by what happens at the D1 level. So many layers to what is going on, you are not going to get total agreement on what should be changed or how the rules should be the same.

Peace

[ajmc]

Absolutely agree, it's not a question of "better" it's a matter of different objectives, designed to deal with different skill sets. NFHS Rules don't just apply to Varsity level, there's JV, Freshman, Modified and a whole gaggle of Youth Football that follow NFHS rules, with countless adjustments designed specifically for the individual leagues and groups.

"One size fits all", may be one of the dumbest objectives mankind has even considered, it NEVER, EVER works as well as expected about ANYTHING.

Consistency is usually a very good thing, except when it's taken down to the gnat's eyelash level for no practical, or common sense reason. Football is a great game that has always relied on common sense judgment by players, coaches and officials whose focus should be on the situation unfolding in front of them.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think it is that petty.

I didn't say it was petty, just differences of opinion.

I think football at the high school level has different concerns and NCAA often does not address them

Indeed, and that's the reason Fed has usually given for their differences, and usually they're right.

or the main thing, you have college coaches that try to always find holes they can exploit. Those same exploitation do not take place in NF because there are more coaches and many coaches are not only coaches by profession.

Think about this: Where is a loophole more likely to be found & exploited: among full-time pros, or among a far greater number who include some part-timers & volunteers? Fed has so many more games played by their rules (not even limited to their member ass'ns), the exploitation's usually going to come first there, rather than in the smaller world of NCAA rules users.

I do not think the NF goes out of their way, they just do not see the need to change something that is simple that is mostly taking place at the college level.

Then how do you explain their adopting a provision which, although it was intended to have the same effect as a recently-adopted NCAA one regarding approach by the kicking team to their free kick line, was worded differently in a way that made it hard to administer if officials were actually to take it literally (which I'm sure they didn't)? Why didn't they just adopt NCAA's language? They used to cooperate via a liaison committee with NCAA, ideas going back & forth, sometimes adopting the same change at the same time if they both found it appropriate.

I'll give you an example of a difference that existed for about 60 yrs. as a result of Fed's change: # of forward passes allowed per down. When the Football Rules Committee (pre-dating NCAA) legalized the forward pass in 1906, they limited forward passes to one per down. All the major codes kept it that way, except Fed. Shortly after Fed started writing their own rules for football, they took several years to deliberate things; you can see their sec'y's notes on this in their archives from that time. Taking nothing for granted, they looked over the whole code, not only for what different needs pre-collegians might have, but what could be improved generally. They said, why should forward passes be limited to once/down? So they abolished that requirement, reinstating it only recently. I don't know why they reinstated it. I also don't know why the other codes kept it. I think it makes the game marginally better to allow more than one forward pass per down, and it also makes administration easier when you don't have to see whether a swing pass preceding a forward pass went forward.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Then how do you explain their adopting a provision which, although it was intended to have the same effect as a recently-adopted NCAA one regarding approach by the kicking team to their free kick line, was worded differently in a way that made it hard to administer if officials were actually to take it literally (which I'm sure they didn't)? Why didn't they just adopt NCAA's language? They used to cooperate via a liaison committee with NCAA, ideas going back & forth, sometimes adopting the same change at the same time if they both found it appropriate.

Coaches or individuals that would be involved in FED Rules would not likely do it for a living as a college coach would. That was the point, not how many play under those rules. And because there is so much more money on the line in a college game, there are coaches always looking for an advantage or figure out a way to do something that might need to be addressed by the rules committee. Not so much the case as something that happens in Nevada for example, might not every take place in Ohio. Even the A-11 Offense that was developed was a rare situation. But Bill Belichick or Oregon has nothing better to do than to find a rule to exploit. They have more training time and more practice time with their players and systems. A HS football coach might not ever have a player in the off-season just based on other sports and other activities.

Also I think the FED and rightfully so does not want to have to deal with the logic of the NCAA or any other level for that matter. Just like the NCAA is not going to use NFL rules for their stuff either. Different consequences to a rules change and a different staff as officials to train for those rules as well. Making the rules the same only benefits really a very small percentage of people.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Coaches or individuals that would be involved in FED Rules would not likely do it for a living as a college coach would. That was the point, not how many play under those rules. And because there is so much more money on the line in a college game, there are coaches always looking for an advantage or figure out a way to do something that might need to be addressed by the rules committee.

I understood that point, but that factor is unimportant when you compare it to the number of people playing by Fed rules. No matter how motivated professional coaches are, they're not going to do as thorough a job finding loopholes as the sheer mass of numbers is. How else could you explain how many years it took for them to find that absolutely gaping loophole in NCAA rules that allowed a backward pass to be batted forward for recovery inbounds to gain yardage?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I understood that point, but that factor is unimportant when you compare it to the number of people playing by Fed rules. No matter how motivated professional coaches are, they're not going to do as thorough a job finding loopholes as the sheer mass of numbers is. How else could you explain how many years it took for them to find that absolutely gaping loophole in NCAA rules that allowed a backward pass to be batted forward for recovery inbounds to gain yardage?

If you look at many NCAA rules changes (even the NFL), many of the changes were directly because of loopholes that needed to be closed because coaches were on the edge or going over the line of things that could apply to the game. Many of those rules do not translate or are not problems at the high school level as an example because coaches are not pushing the envelope that much if at all. Like the substitution rule were the defense has an opportunity to match subs under NCAA Rules. No such rule exists in NF code because it is not really needed. Also no forward fumble rule either in NF. Again I do not think coaches have time to get that cute at the high school level because you will simply outfox yourself instead of your opponent.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again I do not think coaches have time to get that cute at the high school level because you will simply outfox yourself instead of your opponent. Peace

Even predictably more frustrating is trying to outfox the Referee of the game you're playing. If you're successful, it's not likely to gain anything.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you look at many NCAA rules changes (even the NFL), many of the changes were directly because of loopholes that needed to be closed because coaches were on the edge or going over the line of things that could apply to the game. Many of those rules do not translate or are not problems at the high school level as an example because coaches are not pushing the envelope that much if at all.

If you considered only the coaches of children's football being played under Fed rules, you'd see a lot more pushing of the envelope than you ever see in college. For instance, that was the primary place for the development of "not ready" tactics that both Fed & NCAA then saw necessary to legislate specifically against. I don't know what impelled Fed to legislate against 2 forward passes in a down, but I bet it started with children's football. If these things stayed confined to children's play, Fed would see no need, but they percolate up to HS level.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What's bizarre is when in recent time Fed football has gone out of its way to sound different from NCAA when there was no real reason to, other than to look original. The team K rule, I mean.

Sometimes the reason has just been, "You're sticks in the mud, ours are better." That must be how Fed, NAIA, and NJCAA wound up playing by those "Alliance" football rules that Fed instigated. It's not like the NAIA players were any less mature than NCAA's. Similarly in the interval when there were 3 regional rule sets used by the colleges, and then another interval when there were 2. (And that was just in the USA, let alone Canada.) Or when different pro leagues use different rules. Or different youth leagues. Usually it's a matter of some people wanting to change something, others wanting to keep it the same, and they split.

Please understand folks, this is one person's opinion.