Does this site ever discuss football?

[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.

[Texas Aggie]

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.

Coaches use this all the time in Texas. 3 or 4 years ago, when I had the pregame conversation with a coach, the first thing he said was that "we run up tempo and snap the ball when its down since we don't sub." That was fine, although they didn't run THAT up tempo and snaps were often well after the ball was put down. Anyway, we let defensive illegal substitution fouls go in the very last series (game was out of hand) because we didn't want to stop the clock, but it was clear the strategy worked.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

I am not talking about just pushing an envelope, I am talking about having enough time and energy to know the current rules and find a loophole. Most coaches are not going to do that very well unless they have nothing else better to do than just coach. Youth coaches do not make a living only on coaching.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not talking about just pushing an envelope, I am talking about having enough time and energy to know the current rules and find a loophole. Most coaches are not going to do that very well unless they have nothing else better to do than just coach. Youth coaches do not make a living only on coaching.

Then you'd be surprised at the proportion of advances in many fields that are made by amateurs.

But even if you don't count the amateurs, most of the tactical advances in football that came to be popular in college and/or the pros debuted in high school. It's an enormous laboratory out there. And among those who straddle a fence, some try things out in the lower-stakes field before trying it in the higher-stakes one. For instance I knew of a couple HS coaches who'd experiment with stuff in women's football.