2019 Rules Changes

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Jimmie24

I like the new change. There will be some issues with the clock initially. Hopefully they get them ironed out before too long. One that I really liked was the change of illegal formation, where you need at least 5 on the line with no more than 4 back. I believe this will make it easier.

I don't see the point of requiring at least 5 on the line if there's a max of 4 in the backfield...unless there's also to be a change allowing positioning in "no man's land" -- which would be a dumb change! What else did they want to do -- cover cases where a team is playing with fewer than 9, and handicap them further??

Anybody know how many seasons running that tripping the runner had been legal in Fed? It wasn't long IIRC, for values of "long" that this old-timer's used to. Funny the order they choose to present rule changes in this article; maybe they want to live down the fact that legalizing tripping the runner had been a fairly recent change, so they bury the anmt of the change back. Hell, they chose to present some highly technical spec about the numbers on the uniforms above the tripping & horse collar changes!

[SE Minnestoa Re]

Without play clocks at any of the schools we work at, I think the back judge is going to have his hands full with two different lengths of clocks to keep. 40 seconds for typical plays--25 seconds for special plays. I don't think most watches keep two saved alarms.

A lot of coaches who want their quarterbacks to come to the sideline every play are going to be surprised how quick 40 seconds is from the end of the play.

[rriffle822]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I don't see the point of requiring at least 5 on the line if there's a max of 4 in the backfield...unless there's also to be a change allowing positioning in "no man's land" -- which would be a dumb change! What else did they want to do -- cover cases where a team is playing with fewer than 9, and handicap them further??

Anybody know how many seasons running that tripping the runner had been legal in Fed? It wasn't long IIRC, for values of "long" that this old-timer's used to. Funny the order they choose to present rule changes in this article; maybe they want to live down the fact that legalizing tripping the runner had been a fairly recent change, so they bury the anmt of the change back. Hell, they chose to present some highly technical spec about the numbers on the uniforms above the tripping & horse collar changes!

I assume the reason for 5 on the line has to do with the requirement to have 5 players number 50-79 on the line. Therefore there has to be 5 on the line.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by rriffle822

I assume the reason for 5 on the line has to do with the requirement to have 5 players number 50-79 on the line. Therefore there has to be 5 on the line.

I assume so too, but why have it? Why fix the problem of playing short if it's an end missing from the line, but not if an interior line player is?

[ajmc]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Usually, a series of football plays requires play begins with a "Scrimmage Down formation". Without a minimal formation requirement definition, there would be chaos.

This "revision" seems a, basically immaterial, attempt to pacify those whining for a, somewhat, meaningless semantics change, that should clarify the retention of a requirement for 5 players numbered between 50-79 and no more than 4 players, satisfying the requirements of being a "back".(both of which that have clearly existed, and was universally understood, for decades)

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Usually, a series of football plays requires play begins with a "Scrimmage Down formation". Without a minimal formation requirement definition, there would be chaos.

This "revision" seems a, basically immaterial, attempt to pacify those whining for a, somewhat, meaningless semantics change, that should clarify the retention of a requirement for 5 players numbered between 50-79 and no more than 4 players, satisfying the requirements of being a "back".(both of which that have clearly existed, and was universally understood, for decades)

It's not meaningless when you've seen teams get penalized for illegal formation because they had 10 on the field.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Usually, a series of football plays requires play begins with a "Scrimmage Down formation". Without a minimal formation requirement definition, there would be chaos.

This "revision" seems a, basically immaterial, attempt to pacify those whining for a, somewhat, meaningless semantics change, that should clarify the retention of a requirement for 5 players numbered between 50-79 and no more than 4 players, satisfying the requirements of being a "back".(both of which that have clearly existed, and was universally understood, for decades)

We had 2 Friday night punts last year where the kicking team had 10 players and only 4 in the backfield. Both times R made us go back and rekick.

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.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Rich

We had 2 Friday night punts last year where the kicking team had 10 players and only 4 in the backfield. Both times R made us go back and rekick.

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.

I agree, but why the need to add the "5 on the line" part? Why not just use the NCAA wording of "no more than 4 backs" and be done with it?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

I agree, but why the need to add the "5 on the line" part? Why not just use the NCAA wording of "no more than 4 backs" and be done with it?

Exactly. They were overthinking this and could have just used the wording of the NCAA, but we know the NF is pained to take anything directly from the NCAA level and just go with it from there. They had to require something that would kind of be impossible. The only way you could have 5 on the line and 4 in the backfield is if you have 9 players on the field and that would cause other issues on a scrimmage kick for the kicking team.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

I agree, but why the need to add the "5 on the line" part? Why not just use the NCAA wording of "no more than 4 backs" and be done with it?

Haven't you noticed this pattern in recent yrs.? Fed never wants to admit NCAA got one right before them.

[Jimmie24]

Originally Posted by Rich

We had 2 Friday night punts last year where the kicking team had 10 players and only 4 in the backfield. Both times R made us go back and rekick.

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.

This is why I like it. There were numerous times in the past few years where we had 10 players on the field, but in the back field. Because of the way the rule was previously written, it was an illegal formation. Now we can play the down. Reading the rule, it also said it was easier for the officials. The wings can now look and see 4 in the backfield and move on.

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Rich

We had 2 Friday night punts last year where the kicking team had 10 players and only 4 in the backfield. Both times R made us go back and rekick.

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.

LAST YEAR, NFHS:7-2-5b defined & required 7 men on the LOS, so your R was correct (assuming R accepted the penalty).

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

LAST YEAR, NFHS:7-2-5b defined & required 7 men on the LOS, so your R was correct (assuming R accepted the penalty).

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.

I am the R. Yes, we flagged this.

There is no foul this year. There are 4 backs or fewer and at least 5 on the line. This is the rule change.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I don't see the point of requiring at least 5 on the line if there's a max of 4 in the backfield...unless there's also to be a change allowing positioning in "no man's land" -- which would be a dumb change! What else did they want to do -- cover cases where a team is playing with fewer than 9, and handicap them further??

Anybody know how many seasons running that tripping the runner had been legal in Fed? It wasn't long IIRC, for values of "long" that this old-timer's used to. Funny the order they choose to present rule changes in this article; maybe they want to live down the fact that legalizing tripping the runner had been a fairly recent change, so they bury the anmt of the change back. Hell, they chose to present some highly technical spec about the numbers on the uniforms above the tripping & horse collar changes!

Practically, there is no "no man's land." A player is either on or off and it can be a blade of grass that's the difference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro