Fed press release link
 

I've been writing my takes at coaching discussion sites on the announced Fed football changes, but at least one of them I think deserves special discussion here:

Because of the way Fed defines the snap's extent in time (unlike NCAA, where the snap ends when the ball leaves the snapper's hands), if the press release is accurate, the snap will become a free pass in Fed. (It'll be like the way many people play half-court basketball, where the throw-in after a goal can't be intercepted, but unlike that game, there's no requirement of a subsequent pass in football 11s.) That'll make no difference to the most common styles of snap, but when you think about it, it makes a profound difference to certain other styles.

I think you are, as usual, reading to much into this...it is stopping the crazy trying to knock the ball out of the snappers hand during a knee...that is all...

So you're saying the wording in the press release wouldn't apply to a player of team B's getting a hand on a snap that's slung far & shallow to a side of the field? What about it gives you confidence that won't be ruled encroachment?

It's called the case book, and judgement. and you should read what the definition of a snap is...

As bcl1127 suggests Robert, NFHS 2-40-1,2 & 3 explain, this new rule adjustment seems to fit well the condition you describe.

We're reading the same definition, so how do you think this rule adjustment won't produce an encroachment foul in that situation?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "that situation", but if you are referencing a situation where a defensive player attempting to slap, a snap (in ANY direction) in such a manner that it also violated 9-4-6 (Roughing the snapper) unless there was distinct separation between the actions, I would consider the attempted interference with the snap as a component, or part, of the greater violation of Roughing the snapper, and consider both actions as a single Dead Ball foul.

7-1-6: Now stipulates that it is encroachment to strike the ball or the snapper’s hand/arm prior to the snapper releasing the ball.

Rationale: Defensive players are restricted from contacting the ball or the snapper’s hand(s) or arm(s) until the snapper has released the ball

I went by the wording of the press release:
Where did your quote come from? I sure hope either the p.r. got it wrong, or they had 2nd thoughts after it came out, & adopted the wording you quoted.

A press release is merely a synopsis of the rule change. It isn't meant to be used to interpret the actual rule.

Of course, but where did bcl1127 get his summary statement?

Beat me to it.

Thanks. Now I'm wondering why Fed even cares about who advertises on game balls. Their "Rationale" isn't a rationale at all, just an elaboration.

Probably a preventative measure. Someone has either proposed it or it has been done. Imagine a football that looks like a Budweiser label, or a Coke can, or a McDonald's bag. Fed may just be trying to get out in front, for once.

I'm truly bothered that the Rules Committee has taken the time to adopt a rule concerning the loss of a prosthetic limb, yet still refuses to define the IB/OB status of an airborne player.

Doesn't make sense, considering they allow the leagues & schools themselves to advertise there, just not to rent the space out to others. If a state ass'n wants to do so, why would Fed care?

Not EVERYTHING that turns out to be good for the goose, is automatically good for the gander. I have yet to see, or hear of, league or school advertising that comes anything near, "a football that looks like a Budweiser label, or a Coke can, or a McDonald's bag" that could easily become problematic to the extent of negatively affecting the game.

Lets, "not just go there", although there are likely "some" that would sell their soul for advertising revenue..

But why does the Federation think it knows better about this than its members do? I could understand if Fed itself were licensing its logo & didn't want it slapped on certain things, but this measure is not about separating those. Rather, Fed is dictating to member organiz'ns what they can put logos on.

This is not like a governing body wanting to keep professional players out of their game. It's not like ad space is going to give anybody a competitive advantage in games. It's also not going to provoke bad sportsmanship, like face paint that disses the opposing team or whatever it was they were trying to pre-empt previously.

Why doesn't Fed ban all advertising in the arena & stipulate that no admission or cover charge be allowed, or even specify that there be no seats facing the games, or other things that encourage outsiders to look on?

Assuming, "One size fits (or doesn't fit) all" rarely, if ever, proves smart. Advertising related to HS athletic activities has a place, BUT it's not EVERY place, and NFHS has considered, and decided, the "game ball" is NOT an appropriate place for optional advertising.

Assuming, "One size fits (or doesn't fit) all" rarely, if ever, proves a worthwhile idea. Advertising related to HS athletic activities has a place, BUT it's not EVERY place, and the NFHS has considered, and decided, the "game ball" is NOT a suitable place for additional commercial advertising, which seems a reasonable and rational restriction.

Because the ball is an implement of the game and it makes sense to have some reasonable standards on appearance to ensure at least some consistency, even if both teams use their own. Just like HS uses a white stripe football vs the non-stripe used in other levels. I don't think there was some spate of ad-filled balls out there - which would be a very poor spend of ad $ anyway, since no one in the stands could see it - but this seems like an eminently reasonable pre-emptive measure.

I don't see any logic whatsover in extending that past the point of absurdity in tying standards for the major game implement to an ad on the fence or stadium ticket policies. There has to be a line, and the ball and player uniforms seem well within that line.

But look at all the exceptions they make. It's not like they don't allow a ball to be all marked up, only that the markings can't be commercially sponsored. A ball's just as marked up if it says, "Property of Podunk Bd. of Ed." as it is if it says "Budweiser". So it's not about consistency of appearance.

But you're right that it would be a poor spend of ad $ if they wanted people to see it at a distance. This is more about the possibility of a sponsor's making a donation in kind to a school -- balls marked with their logo or name -- so the kids using the equipment will appreciate them.

Most High School students don't need visual stimulation to heighten their appreciation of Budweiser (or competitors).

Need to make it the same for all involved!

Whoa Nellie there Robert Goodman - You are mistaken.
 

The NFHS, commonly referred to as "The Fed" or "The Federation" is made up of 1 voting member from each member state. You can find the list of member state names on Page 4 of your 2016 NFHS Rules Book.
Rules changes are proposed by member states and voted on by member states. If a super majority of the members votes in favor, a rule is changed, if not, it remains unchanged.
Restated, NFHS Members propose changes and vote on changes as the federation is simply made up of members representatives from member states.

It is for this reason that your statement - "But why does the Federation think it knows better about this than its members do?" is foolhardy and a bit askew!

Again, there is no mystery or shroud of secrecy as only state associations members a rep from the Officials association and a rep from the coaches association make up the federation. In this situation, One (or more) of the member states "cared" and presented a Rule Proposal to not allow advertising on the ball. They defined advertising, it was voted on and adopted. Nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps you may want to factor in and adjust to some facts before continuing to make your assumptions and/or "conspiracy theory" type objections to NFHS rule changes you continue to publish on this and other chat boards.

But then thats just My 2 cents

But if they really cared, wouldn't they be more directly effective by getting their own state to adopt such a policy? Or their own league? Or their own school? Why should they care what advertising some other school, maybe across the country, puts on the balls they use? It doesn't affect the game itself.

Well...says you. Others with the responsibility of executing the policy have decided it does affect the game and disagreed with your premise. There will always be a tension between uniformity and delegation to each state. It's entirely reasonable to debate where that line should be...it's entirely unreasonable and a complete waste of time to argue there should be no line.

Well even if the NF has put in a rule about advertising that I agree with in principle, but I do feel that the NF worries too much about many things that are really not their concern overall. For example in my state there is a contract with what type of football (or other types of balls/equipment used) and the games are not supposed to be played at least in the playoffs without that specific type of brand being used. Now, wouldn't that be at the real jurisdiction of the state or member what is on their football? I remember when the NF put how many panels should be on the basketball only to have a basketball produced by the licensed sponsor company of our state had produced a basketball with more panels that the rules allowed. I remember that discussion got so silly about what type of basketball could be used only based on the panels on the specific ball. It just seems like the NF gets way into things that they should allow the states to set some standards, just like they do in many other areas. Because if someone has an advertisement on the field or football, what are we going to ultimately do? Are we going to not play the game? I know depending on the issue, we were told to not play the game if the right licensed ball was used, even if we had no other footballs available. But that was the position of the state, not the NF. I have no problem if states set some standards, but the NF comes up with many issues that only create further problems when they are not needed IMO.

Peace

Uniformity and Consistency!
 

Uniformity and Consistency! :cool:

For that they could specify the music to be played at all games.

Is music a directly used game tool used by both teams? This is an absurdity.

Are the writings on a football a game tool either? They have no effect on how the ball bounces. But the music is going to be more noticed by everyone in the vicinity who isn't deaf.

They were already getting ridiculous with things like this that have no effect on the game when they started meddling with face painting.

And I've noticed the same when it comes to governing bodies of all sorts of games. The rule books keep growing as they keep specifying more details, which is OK when necessary but silly when it gets into matters extraneous to the play of the games themselves, which unfortunately it often does.

"Face painting" is not always innocuous. At the NFHS level (Interscholastic athletes, and younger) it can easily lead to trash talking, which can often lead to bigger problems. Considering there is no possibility of out-imagining" what the average American teenager can think of, specific restrictions and definite limitations make a lot sense and avoid a LOT of needless arguments.

Music is no exception.

I hope you know I wasn't serious about the music, but was using it for reduction to absurdity. But you are serious about music issues?

So could tattoos and that was once a rule from the NF addressing issues with tatoos. I am not sure this was also a football rule, but I remember it in another sport. Thank God that went away very quickly.

Peace

The only reason NFHS addresses such items is because somewhere, at sometime, a problem arose from players' misuse of said items.

It's a shame that we are portrayed as the spoilsports when we act as the Fashion Police.

I agree, so let those places deal with their issues on some level. Advertising is not a big issue every place.

For example, we have had had an issue with logos in the middle of the field. Many logos do not have the line going through the logo properly. Well our state said to just report it and that can influence if a school hosts a playoff game. Usually solves the problem and if there is no line going through the logo, somehow the world functions.

Peace