NFHS Penalty Announcement

[SC Official]

Kinda like 2-hand reporting in NFHS basketball. Was it "imperative" that it was implemented? No, but the reality was that every other level was requiring it and FED was lagging behind for no reason. The best argument opponents could come up with was "we don't need to be like college officials." Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than that.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Kinda like 2-hand reporting in NFHS basketball. Was it "imperative" that it was implemented? No, but the reality was that every other level was requiring it and FED was lagging behind for no reason. The best argument opponents could come up with was "we don't need to be like college officials." Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than that.

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)

[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.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Kinda like 2-hand reporting in NFHS basketball. Was it "imperative" that it was implemented? No, but the reality was that every other level was requiring it and FED was lagging behind for no reason. The best argument opponents could come up with was "we don't need to be like college officials." Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than that.

I think that is a little different argument and situation. Two-hand reporting was not essential to the game or mechanics. It is a style more than informational. At least in basketball, we have an overall problem in the way we report, so that often did not translate the way it will at the higher levels. We do it now, but I do not think it was some drastic advancement. Giving a number of a player that might actually be ejected from the game is very important of a chance.

Peace