Quote:
This is a great change. Why should it be a foul to have 6 on the line when there are only 4 backs? We're penalizing a team for not having enough players on the field -- that's madness that I'm glad is over. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We received an email about the readyref. It has two settings. If we had the old NFHS one we could send it in and get it reprogrammed for a fee plus return postage. If we were to buy a new one we were told to get the NCAA model. I was hoping that clocks would be put on the field, but that would cost a few thousand dollars for each school. I don't see that happening. |
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
|
Quote:
When there is only 6 men on the line, with 4 backs, it will hopefully still fall under positive "Preventive Officiating" practices to "highlight" the shortage before the snap to avoid an unnecessary foul, and penalty, (at the Interscholastic level) where possible. |
Quote:
There is no foul this year. There are 4 backs or fewer and at least 5 on the line. This is the rule change. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Illegal numbering is different than illegal formation. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro |
Quote:
The 4 backs can wear whatever number they want, but choosing numbers between 50-79, will restrict forward pass eligibility. The remaining 2 players can also wear whatever #s they want, risking the same FP eligibility restrictions. What has actually changed, other than who "WE" first count to verify and confirm formations are legal. WE still have to be aware if after we count 4 backs, there aren't MORE than 7 on the line, or if one of the remaining 7 lined up incorrectly as a back. |
Quote:
Anyway, in case you don't get what I'm complaining about, this change has fixed the situation where one of the ends is missing, but not the situation where a guard or tackle is missing. In that case, team A is still getting penalized for playing short. It would've been just as easy for the rule to be written to have a maximum # of eligible shirts, rather than a minimum # of ineligible ones, on the line. But noooo.... |
Quote:
:D Of course, the NCAA blocking-below-the-waist rules are slowly working their way toward the NFHS rules... so it goes both ways. But that's a discussion for another thread. |
The five refers to the linemen # 50-79. This is shorthand for the press release. It is not the rulebook.
If they have: 80 77 65 50 72 66 12 44 22 39 was formerly an illegal formation foul, now this is not a foul. If they have: 80 77 65 50 66 88 12 44 22 39 The foul would be for illegal numbering but not formation. If they have: 80 77 65 50 66 75 12 44 88 22 39 The foul would be illegal formation for having more than 4 in the back field. |
Quote:
The info in the press release is nice to know, but wait until the rule books are published before we start worrying about the semantics and what it all means. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:53pm. |