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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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)).

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.

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.

Do you see that as a positive or negative?

To me, that is a positive. Any time that the defense chooses to avoid a foul, for strategic reasons or otherwise is a time that I have to call one less foul. The less flags I throw, the better the game will flow. If a foul can bail out the offense, then it is good, because causing fouls to have teeth will force the defense to play in a more disciplined manner. If teams play cleanly, it makes it easier for me to make the basic calls (catch, no catch, 1st down, score, etc.).

Then, if you'll allow yourself to roam beyond the choices in that survey, why not propose increasing the penalties for all fouls against both offense & defense?

I think it's rare that "the defense" (or any team) "chooses to avoid a foul". Most fouls are not committed cunningly, calculatingly. (And that's true not only of football!) Athletes just mis-perform. The player who commits a foul is hardly ever aiming to, but is aiming elsewhere & missing. In most sports where danger is involved, choosing to commit such a foul results, or should result, in disqualif'n. Choosing to avoid such a foul isn't a considered choice, it's just the ordinary course of play, & sometimes still results in the foul's occurring because one's aim is off, literally -- a hand or a baseball or a vehicle winds up hitting a place it wasn't intended to hit.

That is what the unfair act provision exists for, as a catch-all for situations that are unfair, but not explicitly covered. An automatic first down is sufficient for personal fouls, unsportsmanlike conduct, and pass interference when said fouls are committed by the defense.

I don't think you & I are thinking about the same kinds of unfairness.

I guess so. To me, unfair = "illegal by the spirit of the rules". In this sense, strategic fouls = unfair, because they give an advantage not intended by rule to the fouling team, even though the team is punished by conceding yardage. Safety fouls and UNS are also unfair (in that sense, and in the conventional sense), because those fouls cause harm to the victims and/or provoke retaliation. This is why Automatic 1st Downs are assigned to fouls by B that fall into the "unfair" (illegal by spirit of the rules, unsafe, or unethical (UNS)) foul categories in NCAA and NFL rules.

Perhaps the inherent maturity, physical differences, unique objectives and tactical approach and capabilities of both players, and games, played under NCAA and NFL games, as applied to penalty concerns and administration is simply part of the logic and purpose of establishing a unique Rules code for Interscholastic level football.

Apparently, no one thought so initially, because NFHS did not gain a separate rules committee until the 1930s for football.

The fact that NFHS included proposals for an automatic first down on the annual rules questionnaire administered to coaches and officials after the 2017 season is proof that there is debate on the topic, and NFHS is trying to address it. Because automatic first downs are on the table in NFHS, I believe that the argument that automatic first downs are not appropriate in high school does not hold water.

I support adding an automatic first down to all 15 yard personal fouls, DPI, and Unsportsmanlike Conduct by B (the defense/kicking team prior to R gaining possession), because that will simplify enforcement of those penalties. Coaches at the HS level want an automatic first down called on personal fouls/DPI/USC by the defense because they see that at other levels, and officials have to constantly explain to them that this is not the high school rule. If an automatic first down is added to the high school rules for the above offenses , then this confusion will be reduced.

As you've stated, repeatedly, You "support adding an automatic first down to all 15 yard personal fouls, DPI, and Unsportsmanlike Conduct by B, because that will simplify enforcement of those penalties.". OK, got it.

No doubt, some number of, "Coaches at the HS level" may indeed agree with your observation, and the NFHS may well be considering this question, likely along with a lot of other "questions", as is their traditional, and appropriate, responsibility.

Equally, traditionally and appropriately, they will give this question the attention and merit it deserves, considering it's value and benefit specifically to the NFHS environment, rather than the specific, and often somewhat different, objectives of other levels.

It will be interesting to see, if any adjustments actually are deemed necessary.

For years the rule gave automatic first down for DPI and it was often seen as something they wanted to take off because they felt it was too harsh of a penalty (It was on surveys for years BTW). Then they finally changed it.

Again this is one of over 200 plus rules from college and nearly 300 to the NFL.

Peace

Actually, it was removed because the NFHS RC felt that the LOD provision for OPI was too severe. In order to keep the balance between offense and defense, they also removed the AFD penalty from DPI.

I'm aware of all of this, but the person I was responding to likely does not know the history of all of that conversation (nor was I trying to get into all of that). And does it really matter at this point? Not from where I am standing.

Peace

Well, it matters if you want to be accurate, rather than misleading.

Misleading what? This is a complicated issue and talking with a person that has bearly officiated.

Again, stop taking these discussions so damn seriously. Not everyone is going to know all the ins and outs of rules changes over the years. No one is trying to mislead something that they might not realize that even was discussed before.

Peace

You said:

That's misleading, because it's inaccurate.

The AFD provision was removed because the NFHS RC felt that the LOD provision for OPI was too severe. In order to keep the balance between offense and defense, they also removed the AFD penalty from DPI.

I have not idea why the NF decided to actually change the rule and most here do not either. They did and that is all that matters. And whatever the reason it is, I can argue that it created no balance between the offense and defense. Because if the defense keeps causing a PI penalty, they can keep doing it and still benefit from the penalty if they are close enough to the end zone. There is not much incentive for the offense to do the same over and over again. Either way, it was dumb to do and not other level has such an allowance for this penalty to be continued without given a first down.

Peace

I can affirm removing the AFD provision for DPI was definitely a compromise by members of the committee to remove the LOD for OPI. It was the only way they could get it passed after attempts for several years. Their logic was to maintain balance between offense and defense. I believe the public documentation about the rule change mentioned that part as well. I still think it's a dumb idea and very poor justification, but that is WHY the rules committee did what they did.

You should, since you've been told by two posters that do know.
Now we've found something to agree on!

Apparently, this doesn't happen frequently enough for coaches to get sufficiently riled to reinstate the AFD provision. After all, most of the DPI walkoffs result in a FD regardless of the AFD provision.

And let's be realistic: How many HS coaches are going to spend their valuable practice time teaching their players to intentionally foul in a situation that may never happen in a season?

There was an official statement from the NF about the issue or statement from posters on this site? There is a huge difference. Sorry, I take statements from the NF as actual reasoning more official than some person commenting on what they think or what conversation they might have had with someone else. The NF does not appear to go into all their reasoning in their rules changes, they just change the rule and explain how it should be enforced. I do not remember any specific reasoning given at the time, nor is it relevant to this discussion honestly. The individual I was talking to has not officiated that long.


I do not know the answer to that last question and honestly do not go around worrying about that. All I know is that the logic that you claim to be true still is silly and should have never been changed. And I have been in a game where we had to call several DPIs in one possession to continue a half. Not sure if it was done on purpose, but it was called and enforced without a first down.

Peace

I don't pretend to represent NFHS in any capacity. I do know several members of the football rules committee who have all confirmed what I have posted here.

You may think that their logic is silly, and in this instance I agree. The fact remains that they vote on the rules proposals presented to them, which originate mainly from coaches.

Again you are trying to have a conversation I was not commenting on or trying to have. I was commenting to a very specific individual for a very specific purpose. I really do not care to discuss what the NF did beyond my original comments where you decided to "set me straight." :D

Peace

I agree that the justification is dumb, because no level (NCAA has just 15 yards from the previous spot, NFL has 10 yards from the previous spot, NFHS eliminated the LOD provision in 2013) uses a loss of down to penalize OPI. Therefore, the "balance" argument does not make sense.

Because offensive penalties tend to kill drives (with or without loss of down provisions), no offense has an incentive to foul in the way that a defense would, to prevent a score. Therefore, it is entirely consistent in NCAA and NFL football for 15 yard penalties on the defense (pass interference*, personal fouls, unsportsmanlike conduct), and it would be consistent for NFHS to have similar enforcement provisions, without corresponding loss of down provisions on the offense.

* In NFL, pass interference is always enforced at the spot of the foul, except in the end zone, when the ball is moved to the 1 yard line. NCAA pass interference is enforced as a spot foul if the foul was under 15 yards from the line of scrimmage, as a 15 yard foul if the distance from the spot of the foul to the line of scrimmage was 15 yards or more, or with the ball being placed at the defense's 2 yard line, if the ball is snapped between the B17 and the B2, and the foul is on or inside the B2 (from the B2 to the end zone).

It may be worthwhile to consider, and remember, that Football is a game, of serious physical contact, enjoyed by participants between the ages of minors and senior citizens, with extraordinarily different levels of skill sets, maturity and overall objectives (from teaching interactive relationship skills to generating serious revenue objectives)

It seems neither surprising, nor illogical that these dramatically different objectives would contribute to minor rule differences related, and specific, to the inherent physical, emotional, strategy and profit objectives unique to each level.

Although consistency across levels is usually beneficial, and worthy of pursuit, consistency arbitrarily ignoring the unique performance and strategic capabilities and responsibilities of each level, for the sake of consistency alone, seems excessive, unnecessary and counterproductive.