NFHS Penalty Announcement

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Somewhere along a long line, I learned "You can't prove a negative". If the best you've got is, "Because they do it at higher levels" that's the best you've got and it will have to do.

I've simply been asking is their any specific reason, other than "everyone else does it" to suggest that there is some specific reason, purpose or benefit derived, or expected from identifying a player who has been disqualified.

If so fine, if not why bother? I'm not advocating a change, but if a change is recommended, I'd like to be able to understand, and if necessary, explain why. ("Because other levels do it", seems a little weak)

Part of the problem is you are really not asking the right people. None of us here made the change. We might agree with the change but we did not actually make the decision. Maybe you should send an email to the committee or a committee member that has the insight.

Peace

[CT1]

Why would higher levels change an accepted practice in the first place? Don't you think, with their abundant resources, that they have made a full study of the proposed change?

The absolute worst rationale that a NFHS rule committee should EVER use is "We just don't want to be like the NCAA / (pro league)."

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by CT1

The absolute worst rationale that a NFHS rule committee should EVER use is "We just don't want to be like the NCAA / (pro league)."

And yet, of late, I suspect them of thinking like just that. For instance, when they adopt a provision that probably has the same effect as the other bodies have, only written in such a way as to make it harder to administer or understand, or that has untoward side effects. Like they can't admit the other bodies had a good idea, so they have to put their own twist in the wording.

There used to be a liaison committee to foster Fed-NCAA cooperation on football rules. Now it's "NIH".

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

And yet, of late, I suspect them of thinking like just that. For instance, when they adopt a provision that probably has the same effect as the other bodies have, only written in such a way as to make it harder to administer or understand, or that has untoward side effects. Like they can't admit the other bodies had a good idea, so they have to put their own twist in the wording.

There used to be a liaison committee to foster Fed-NCAA cooperation on football rules. Now it's "NIH".

Have you considered that NFHS rules govern a game involving serious competitive physical contact, complicated tactical interactions and the maturity to prioritize group over personal objectives for players between the formative ages of 8 and 17-19

Whereas NCAA rules govern the same type of interwoven challenges between young men (upper teens-mid/late 20s) entering the next level of human development, the majority of whom have likely been exposed to, trained and experienced the game, to some extent, having progressed through that initial stage and are exposed to a radically larger venue, with totally different responsibilities and objectives .

Why are you surprised that there would be applied incremental adjustments created for the considerably different physical conditions, mental development, experience and maturation of these participants ?

Climbing to the next level in the exceedingly steep physical, skill and mental focus of the Football pyramid, which includes an entirely different objective and reward and responsibility formula and benefit, played by fully grown men at the apex of physical development creates even wider, and different priorities.

Why would you even consider one absolute standard could properly service such dispirit environments equally ?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Have you considered that NFHS rules govern a game involving serious competitive physical contact, complicated tactical interactions and the maturity to prioritize group over personal objectives for players between the formative ages of 8 and 17-19

Whereas NCAA rules govern the same type of interwoven challenges between young men (upper teens-mid/late 20s) entering the next level of human development, the majority of whom have likely been exposed to, trained and experienced the game, to some extent, having progressed through that initial stage and are exposed to a radically larger venue, with totally different responsibilities and objectives .

Why are you surprised that there would be applied incremental adjustments created for the considerably different physical conditions, mental development, experience and maturation of these participants ?

Climbing to the next level in the exceedingly steep physical, skill and mental focus of the Football pyramid, which includes an entirely different objective and reward and responsibility formula and benefit, played by fully grown men at the apex of physical development creates even wider, and different priorities.

Why would you even consider one absolute standard could properly service such dispirit environments equally?

I'm not surprised by any of these things. What vexes me is that in recent years Fed in football has frequently adopted rules language that attempted to achieve the same effect as recent changes by NCAA, but put it in ways that make them harder to administer or do strange things. What I'm thinking about is the rules governing the left-right formation or motion of players on the team making a free kick, and also the technique of such a kick. NCAA had addressed those problems fairly simply and equitably, but Fed rather than adopting those exact provisions made in one case language that makes the officials' job hard for no good reason (watching the motion of players left and right relative to the kicker, rather than just referencing the spot of the ball, as they approach the free kick line) and in the other case kills play inequitably.

The substance of the rules should take into acc't the desires of the players at the level they'll play the game. The style in which the rules are written should reflect those desiderata too. Originality is not a virtue here. All the major codes are based on the wording of a single code adopted long ago; it's not like copyright is in play! You write the rules differently to the extent you want a different effect, not to the extent you want your rules committee to seem kewl & creative.

[Welpe]

Texas went to announcing numbers several years before the NFHS allowed it. Somehow the world did not end, even in the state where football is the second religion here.

Let's see:

In soccer, cards are show directly to the player committing the offense.

In basketball and lacrosse the numbers of the violator are reported to the table.

In baseball, we point directly at the player that has committed obstruction/interference.

But football players are different....right.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Have you considered that NFHS rules govern a game involving serious competitive physical contact, complicated tactical interactions and the maturity to prioritize group over personal objectives for players between the formative ages of 8 and 17-19

Whereas NCAA rules govern the same type of interwoven challenges between young men (upper teens-mid/late 20s) entering the next level of human development, the majority of whom have likely been exposed to, trained and experienced the game, to some extent, having progressed through that initial stage and are exposed to a radically larger venue, with totally different responsibilities and objectives .

What does this have to do with announcing the number?

Oh, you must think we need to protect these kids from some perceived embarrassment. If I had a football playing son that got embarrassed when his number was announced, I’d tell him to get over it and stop fouling.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by SC Official

What does this have to do with announcing the number?

Oh, you must think we need to protect these kids from some perceived embarrassment. If I had a football playing son that got embarrassed when his number was announced, I’d tell him to get over it and stop fouling.

Aside from all the dodging and dancing; the original question is still unanswered, "Is there a relevant or logical reason (necessity, purpose, objective, benefit) for the practice of identifying the player who has committed a foul (or been disqualified) to the spectators watching the game.

The validity of identifying the player to HIS coaching staff and/or HIS School Administrative staff when necessary, has been established.

As for correcting your son, doing so personally would be an appropriate action for you, as a parent, to take. I hope you might consider doing so personally (one to one) rather than in front of your entire neighborhood (or the crowd observing your son's game). It's likely a private discussion would have more lasting value, just a suggestion.

[SC Official]

The question has been answered: there is no reason not to announce the fouling player's number. That information is being given to the R along with all the other information, so why withhold it? By your logic we might as well not announce the foul either; as long as both coaches know what the foul was, who cares if the fans know?

The NFHS thankfully realized that there was no reason to restrict this information.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Aside from all the dodging and dancing; the original question is still unanswered, "Is there a relevant or logical reason (necessity, purpose, objective, benefit) for the practice of identifying the player who has committed a foul (or been disqualified) to the spectators watching the game.

Yes. Fans have expressed a desire to know, and the relevant authorities have weighed the pros and cons and decided that this is a reasonable and necessary request. Asked and answered.

The validity of identifying the player to HIS coaching staff and/or HIS School Administrative staff when necessary, has been established.

And, by weighing the stated desires of spectators and agreeing to meet those desires, the relevant authorities have equally established the validity of announcements. Asked and answered.

As for correcting your son, doing so personally would be an appropriate action for you, as a parent, to take. I hope you might consider doing so personally (one to one) rather than in front of your entire neighborhood (or the crowd observing your son's game). It's likely a private discussion would have more lasting value, just a suggestion.

This is conflating taking corrective and potentially punitive action with the mere act of identifying a foul. You make a very good suggestion - it's just wholly irrelevant to the question at hand.

You continually ask for someone to say why this is necessary, when multiple people have said exactly that. It is plainly obvious that you simply disagree with the result and are masking that disagreement by falsely saying that no one has provided justification. When in reality, since relevant authorities have decided that this is useful information for spectators, I submit the burden of proof is on *you*. Why ISN'T this acceptable or wise to do so? Why would it NOT be relevant?

I await your answer - hopefully in the form of a statement with reasons addressing those points rather than simply more questions of the same variety, over and over and over again.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Yes. Fans have expressed a desire to know, and the relevant authorities have weighed the pros and cons and decided that this is a reasonable and necessary request. Asked and answered.
And, by weighing the stated desires of spectators and agreeing to meet those desires, the relevant authorities have equally established the validity of announcements. Asked and answered.
This is conflating taking corrective and potentially punitive action with the mere act of identifying a foul. You make a very good suggestion - it's just wholly irrelevant to the question at hand.

You continually ask for someone to say why this is necessary, when multiple people have said exactly that. It is plainly obvious that you simply disagree with the result and are masking that disagreement by falsely saying that no one has provided justification. When in reality, since relevant authorities have decided that this is useful information for spectators, I submit the burden of proof is on *you*. Why ISN'T this acceptable or wise to do so? Why would it NOT be relevant?

I await your answer - hopefully in the form of a statement with reasons addressing those points rather than simply more questions of the same variety, over and over and over again.

I'll try my best. In other words, Scrounge, YOU don't have an answer. Which is fine, but shouting a stupid answer doesn't make it any smarter. "Because relevant authorities said so" isn't any more instructional than, "Because everyone else is doing so", but if that's all YOU can come up with, that's all you've got.

I didn't ask IF, or suggest THAT it wasn't allowable, I asked if there was any rational reason WHY it was changed to allowable. I've indicated why I think it shouldn't have been changed.

I've looked carefully at the NFHS (2016-2017) Game Official's Manual
instructions for "Administering Penalties" for both 4-Man Pg 73 & 74 (Referee) and 5-Man Pg 49 & 50 (Referee) and find NOTHING providing ANYTHING about announcements to ANYBODY, so I'm not really sure which "relevant authorities" you are referring to.

I Understand, and accept, that what you may do locally is decided locally and have no issue with that, I simply asked if there was a logical reason for doing so. Thus far I've yet to hear or read one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I didn't ask IF, or suggest THAT it wasn't allowable, I asked if there was any rational reason WHY it was changed to allowable. I've indicated why I think it shouldn't have been changed.

Not only were you given several answers to why you were told how things work with the NF, you were given several reasonable answers as to why this was done. Now if you choose to not accept those answers, than that is on you. I asked you to also ask those on the NF Committee and maybe they would give you more information. But you have been given direct answers to why from someone in a better position that was likely in those conversations on the committee.

Peace

[CT1]

"In a fight between you and the world, bet on the world."

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by CT1

"In a fight between you and the world, bet on the world."

Solid, good advice, usually worth seriously considering. However, I'm not convinced it applies as well to a small slice of "the world" who may be convinced they speak for everyone else in "the world".

Perhaps someday, someone, will come up with an answer more detailed than, "because I (we) said so".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Solid, good advice, usually worth seriously considering. However, I'm not convinced it applies as well to a small slice of "the world" who may be convinced they speak for everyone else in "the world".

Perhaps someday, someone, will come up with an answer more detailed than, "because I (we) said so".

Perhaps you might "get it" and stop asking people here (who have already answered the question BTW).

Peace