The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   2018 NFHS Rules Changes (https://forum.officiating.com/football/103499-2018-nfhs-rules-changes.html)

OKREF Thu Feb 08, 2018 05:57pm

2018 NFHS Rules Changes
 
1-5-4, 1-5-5, 3-5-10e (NEW) 3-6-2, 9-9: Improperly equipped player shall be replaced for at least one down.

Rationale: Prior to the game, the head coach is responsible for verifying that the players are legally equipped and will not use illegal equipment. The penalty for a player who is not properly equipped has changed from a distance penalty against the team to removal of that player for at least one down. The penalty provisions for any use of illegal equipment remain unchanged and result in an unsportsmanlike conduct foul charged to the head coach.

2-32-16a: Defenseless player provisions for passer clarified.

Rationale: The committee clarified that defenseless player provisions do not apply to a passer until a legal forward pass is thrown. The passer continues to be a defenseless player until the pass ends or the passer moves to participate in the play.

6-1-3b PENALTY, 6-1-4 PENALTY: Signal change for free kick infractions.

Rationale: The signal for free kick infractions, other than encroachment of the neutral zone, has been changed from signal 18 to signal 19.

6-1-9b (NEW), 6-1-9b PENALTY (NEW), 10-4-2 NOTE (NEW), 10-5-1j (NEW): New penalty option adopted for fouls by kicking team.

Rationale: In an effort to reduce re-kicks, further minimize risk and ensure that appropriate penalties are in place for all fouls, the committee has added an option for fouls committed by the kicking team during free and scrimmage kicks. The change would allow the receiving team all of the previous options as well as accepting the distance penalty at the end of the down.

SIX-PLAYER FOOTBALL (RULE 3): Length of time between periods revised.

Rationale: The timing rule between periods and intermission for six player football has been standardized to match the current NFHS 8-, 9- and 11-player football rules.



2018 EDITORIAL CHANGES

1-3-7; 3-4-2c; 7-2-5b(1) EXCEPTION; 9-5-1h; 10-4-7; PENALTY SUMMARY; NFHS OFFICIAL FOOTBALL SIGNALS; INDEX.



2018 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

Proper Wearing and Use of Required Equipment
Blindside Blocks and Defenseless Player
Application of Personal Fouls and Unsportsmanlike Conduct
Time Management

Robert Goodman Sat Feb 10, 2018 08:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 1016627)
2-32-16a: Defenseless player provisions for passer clarified.

Rationale: The committee clarified that defenseless player provisions do not apply to a passer until a legal forward pass is thrown.

Sad but true that such a clarif'n was needed. Although written plainly enough, and people should've known "passer" was a defined term, you should've seen the discussion on at least one coaching board over the existing wording.

Jimmie24 Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:37am

It is interesting to note that you mentioned passer is a defined term. I have seen and heard many veteran officials intermix passer and qb. When discussed with them about the definition of passer, they blow it off and say they will call it their way. If we learn the definitions, it makes the rest of the book a little easier to comprehend.

Middleman Mon Feb 12, 2018 03:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1016780)
Sad but true that such a clarif'n was needed. Although written plainly enough, and people should've known "passer" was a defined term, you should've seen the discussion on at least one coaching board over the existing wording.

The rules in 2017 did not say that a passer was a defenseless player. The rule, 2-32-16a, stated that an example of a defenseless player includes "A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass." I have not seen the exact wording of the rule change, but I am guessing that the "clarification" is intended to require that a pass must, indeed, be thrown and said pass must be a legal forward pass.

ajmc Mon Feb 12, 2018 05:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Middleman (Post 1016945)
The rules in 2017 did not say that a passer was a defenseless player. The rule, 2-32-16a, stated that an example of a defenseless player includes "A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass." I have not seen the exact wording of the rule change, but I am guessing that the "clarification" is intended to require that a pass must, indeed, be thrown and said pass must be a legal forward pass.

Actually NFHS 2-32-11, already defines, "A passer is a player who throws a legal forward pass. He continues to be a passer until the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play."

9thIsleZebra Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:32am

Penalty options for fouls by kicking team
 
For the receiving team to accept the distance penalty at the end of the down, must R be in possession at the end of the down in order to exercise this option? I'm hoping this will be clarified when the NFHS rule books are published.

HLin NC Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:42am

Remember, this is just a press release announcing the rule changes, not the actual rule changes.

ilyazhito Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:15am

I would support making all personal fouls, except those enforced between series, 15 and an automatic first downif committed by B. This will deter teams from committing personal fouls inside the 30 yard line. DPI should also have an automatic 1st down, to reduce the strategic use of DPI in late-game and goal to go situations. I do not want these rules just for consistency with the other codes, but also because they would make sense on their own. Support the change on equipment rules, so that players don't receive penalties for preventable equipment issues.

Robert Goodman Thu Mar 29, 2018 04:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilyazhito (Post 1020012)
I would support making all personal fouls, except those enforced between series, 15 and an automatic first down if committed by B. This will deter teams from committing personal fouls inside the 30 yard line.

Only for the team on defense there.

Why not break this down by type of personal foul and play situation, and then see if you think it needs additional deterrence?

Some personal fouls are roughing, which entail certain types of late hits (or otherwise illegal hits) while the ball is live. Other types are unnecessary roughness, some of which are late hits after the ball is dead, and others of which are other types; most commonly seen by the defense are those that involve tackling at or above the neck. Many of these are not tactical sorts of fouls. Some of these are as likely to be committed by players on offense as on defense, and others are not.

Any time you have an AFD, the severity of the penalty varies according to the down the foul occurred on and the distance to go.

ilyazhito Thu Mar 29, 2018 05:57pm

That's what I said. In the casebook (HS), rulebook, or approved rulings (NCAA), Team B is the term used for the defense. The automatic first down is a deterrent to both "tactical" personal fouls and "safety" fouls, and this is the reason why all personal fouls by B (the defensive team, or R, on a kick play, before the kick) are automatic first downs at the NCAA and NFL levels.

Robert Goodman Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilyazhito (Post 1020027)
That's what I said. In the casebook (HS), rulebook, or approved rulings (NCAA), Team B is the term used for the defense. The automatic first down is a deterrent to both "tactical" personal fouls and "safety" fouls, and this is the reason why all personal fouls by B (the defensive team, or R, on a kick play, before the kick) are automatic first downs at the NCAA and NFL levels.

But I was just pointing out that if deterring such fouls is your aim, why would you make a change that affects only the penalties for fouls by team B?

I'm looking for your justif'n for such a penalty in any of the various play situations where such fouls could occur, especially when the value of an AFD varies depending on what the down & distance situation was.

ilyazhito Sat Mar 31, 2018 02:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1020114)
But I was just pointing out that if deterring such fouls is your aim, why would you make a change that affects only the penalties for fouls by team B?

I'm looking for your justif'n for such a penalty in any of the various play situations where such fouls could occur, especially when the value of an AFD varies depending on what the down & distance situation was.

I believe that the NCAA chose to tag all personal fouls by B with the automatic first down to deter fouls in situations where the yardage assessed would not be enough to award A a first down, when A would have otherwise received a first down from the yards gained by penalty. DPI was (and is) an automatic first down, regardless of yards gained, because of the potential for strategic misuse, and the fact that a penalty without the automatic first down gives the defense a "freebie" when yardage is of no consequence. Perhaps the rule makers believed that the 15-yard penalty is an adequate deterrent for the offense, because 1st and 25, 2nd and 20, etc. would put an offense behind schedule, and force them to catch up, and they believed that the converse situation (offense fouls with their backs to their own goal line, making the yardage penalty trivial) would not happen, because there is no purpose for the offense to foul to go backwards. This is why there is no "Loss of Down if committed by A" provision next to the enforcement statement for personal fouls anywhere in the NCAA rulebook. For the record, there are no 15-yard, loss of down fouls (most are for procedural errors, such as a forward pass ahead of the line of scrimmage (5 yards from spot of the foul), intentional grounding (spot of the foul), or illegally batting a kick (10 yards from the previous spot, loss of down)).

Robert Goodman Sun Apr 01, 2018 12:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilyazhito (Post 1020120)
I believe that the NCAA chose to tag all personal fouls by B with the automatic first down to deter fouls in situations where the yardage assessed would not be enough to award A a first down, when A would have otherwise received a first down from the yards gained by penalty.

Then why don't you advocate for an AFD enforcement only in those situations? That is, a new series for the penalty for a live ball foul by the defense when inside B's 30 yard line and 15 yards or less from A's line to gain. And how about making the first down not automatic, but a choice offered the non-offending side? They may prefer to repeat a down if the distance portion of the foul leaves them close to their line to gain but not the goal line, or if they'd be repeating 1st down.

ilyazhito Sun Apr 01, 2018 08:02pm

That was not an option on the NFHS questionnaire for football rules changes. The question was about adding an AFD to personal fouls, so I answered "yes" on that one. I also answered "yes" on the question about adding an AFD to DPI. If there was a question on adding an AFD to USC fouls, I would have answered "yes" to that as well.

The automatic first down provision can also bail out an offensive team that is behind schedule (e.g. 3rd and 20 for A from the A45, 15 yard DPI would ordinarily produce A 3/5 from the B40, but with an AFD, as in NCAA, the situation would be A 1/10 from the B40), so the defense would be encouraged not to foul in long-distance situations, in addition to the situations previously mentioned. Unsportsmanlike Conduct by B (except for fouls enforced between series) should also be an automatic first down, to deter unsportsmanlike action regardless of the down or distance.

Personally, I would agree with the automatic first down inside the 30 rule, or the 1st down on coach's option rule, but those would be more complicated to administer than the "all personal fouls are 15 plus Automatic First Down" rule that exists in the NCAA/NFL. This is why if the personal foul, unsportsmanlike conduct, and DPI enforcements are changed, it would be more likely that these fouls become 15 and automatic first down, rather than the options that you suggest. Ease of administration is the reason why high school football has not adopted the 10-second runoff rule, a rule that also depends on the offended coach's option, even in states that use NCAA rules for high school football.

Robert Goodman Mon Apr 02, 2018 03:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilyazhito (Post 1020198)
The automatic first down provision can also bail out an offensive team that is behind schedule (e.g. 3rd and 20 for A from the A45, 15 yard DPI would ordinarily produce A 3/5 from the B40, but with an AFD, as in NCAA, the situation would be A 1/10 from the B40), so the defense would be encouraged not to foul in long-distance situations, in addition to the situations previously mentioned.

Do you see that as a positive or negative?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:42am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1