![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Haven't you noticed this pattern in recent yrs.? Fed never wants to admit NCAA got one right before them.
|
|
|||
Quote:
![]() 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. |
|
|||
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?
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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." |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |