2019 Rules Changes

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

But only if the "missing players" from the line are those who would've had eligible receiver #s. Otherwise still an illegal formation. Why couldn't they fix that too?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But only if the "missing players" from the line are those who would've had eligible receiver #s. Otherwise still an illegal formation. Why couldn't they fix that too?

Illegal numbering is different than illegal formation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But only if the "missing players" from the line are those who would've had eligible receiver #s. Otherwise still an illegal formation. Why couldn't they fix that too?

I'm getting confused, the new rule indicates a formation may have (no more than) 4 Backs and must have (at least) 5 linemen, presumably still numbered between 50-79.

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I'm getting confused, the new rule indicates a formation may have (no more than) 4 Backs and must have (at least) 5 linemen, presumably still numbered between 50-79.

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.

In that case, wouldn't you count 5 backs?

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....

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

I work under both rulesets... I'm very aware of this fact.



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.

[HLin NC]

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.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

This is shorthand for the press release. It is not the rulebook.

This. Don't get too hung up on how the press release reads. The rule book will be worded completely different and possibly contrary to the press release.

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

If they have:

80 77 65 50 66 88
12 44

22 39

The foul would be for illegal numbering but not formation.

I understand that, but why should that be a foul? Why do they require a minimum # of 50-79 instead of a maximum # of 1-49 & 80-99? If they changed from a min. on the line to a max in the backfield, wouldn't it make sense to make the same type of change to the numbering requirements?