The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 12:14pm
TODO: creative title here
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 12:26pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by jTheUmp View Post
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 02:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by jTheUmp View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 10:27pm
TODO: creative title here
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 11:30pm
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,648
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 14, 2019, 11:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by HLin NC View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 14, 2019, 01:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by HLin NC View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 15, 2019, 08:00am
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
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?
I believe it’s to allow the defense to easily identify the eligible receivers.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 15, 2019, 10:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT1 View Post
I believe it’s to allow the defense to easily identify the eligible receivers.
The eligible receivers would have eligible receiver #s either way, so what difference would it make to them whether there were a maximum limit of them rather than a minimum limit of ineligible ones?

I'll go farther than that. Actually it would make a difference to the defense in some cases identifying eligible receivers -- an improvement. What happens if team A lines up in an 8-player front, with both the ends & an interior lineman wearing eligible nos.? The receiver would be eligible by #, ineligible by position, which is a headache for both the officials & the defense. Putting a max on the no. of eligible #s on the OL would preclude that scenario, making it illegal to snap in that formation. It wouldn't preclude all scenarios like that, because they can still line up "end over" or in some other ways having one of the eligible #s interior, sacrificing an eligible receiver, but it would at least take away this one case.

Last edited by Robert Goodman; Fri Feb 15, 2019 at 10:51am.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 03, 2019, 12:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,193
Been working NCAA rules my entire career -- never worked a game under Fed rules. I'm shocked it took Fed so long to catch up to the 40 second clock. In fact, I think Fed rules in football are obsolete, but that's a different topic for a different time.

I've worked now a couple of hundred or so games under the 40 second clock including subvarsity (HS and jr. high) and on fields without play clocks. For most of our subvarsity, we don't enforce a strict play clock. unless the game situation calls for it (team ahead late has ball, etc.). In fact, we don't even turn on the clock for games on fields where there is a clock.

I always work SV games with a belt timer so I can easily from any position work the 40 by using the hand up (10 seconds) and side count (5 seconds and lower) mechanic. We've used this in varsity games as well on fields that don't have a clock. If (SV) teams are running a good pace, I don't worry about it -- I just time timeouts. For varsity games we do enforce the clock rules and even in situations where there isn't a visible clock, we don't have very many complaints. I can't even remember one, honestly, on a legit delay of game foul. Maybe a question but after we told them when we started it and why, they accept it.

The only times the 40 will really come into play on normal situations are long plays and deep pass incompletions. Good ball mechanics with 4-5 officials SHOULD keep things working OK. If not, just reset and blow the ready. Its no big deal. As a varsity R, not having the blow the ready every play leaves me free to concentrate on other things like substitutions, numbering, and communicating with my crew. Just get your clock guys to understand that they start the clock at the END of each play -- no exceptions. They can always turn off the play clock and reset if there's a penalty enforcement or other issue. For some reason, we've had experienced Referees running play clocks recently still not work the play clock correctly.

Have a good pregame with the clock guys the first 3-4 weeks of the season, inform the coaches of where issues might arise in scrimmages, and you should have a smooth transition. After that, you'll wonder why they ever had it any other way.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 03, 2019, 12:49am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,193
Quote:
Ball boys even at the college level are often bad. We just have a procedure there to make it work a little better and we also have 7 officials as well to make it work. We have 5 right now at the high school level and unless that changes, ball boys would be a luxury and a problem at the same time.
Obviously, everyone's experience is different. I can't speak for your area but all my college games have had 2 college aged ball boys PER TEAM on each sideline. Some have been better than others but I couldn't call any of them bad. Perhaps I've just been lucky.

In HS, we often have jr. high kids -- sometimes only 1 or 2 per sideline and always the same as that team. No crossover. We struggle sometimes but we still get it done. It just takes some effort with the wing officials. It is obviously easier with 7 officials but you can do it with 5. I can't recall a single HS game where the ball boys caused a significant 40 second clock snag during the game. I mean, yeah, there were times it may have happened and maybe my guys were good enough to cover up for it, but I can think of smaller school games where we had chain crew issues (team fans/adults) more than ball boy issues. Maybe I'm just used to it or again, maybe just lucky. We've worked a lot of 7 man the last 2 years in HS but most of my 40 second clock varsity games in HS have been 5 man.

We've walked into locker rooms after games with my wing guys commenting on ball boys but I don't recall thinking, "yeah, they really hampered us tonight in a big way."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2019-2020 POE's bas2456 Basketball 32 Sat Feb 09, 2019 08:12pm
2019 nfhs agr8zebra Softball 3 Sun Feb 03, 2019 01:22pm
2019 USA Umpire Exam Tru_in_Blu Softball 2 Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:11pm
USA Softball Rule Changes for 2019 IRISHMAFIA Softball 17 Wed Dec 12, 2018 04:21pm
FED Rules Changes for 2019 CT1 Baseball 3 Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:26am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1