The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 11:30am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (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
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 12:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 96
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 12:26pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
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
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 02:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
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
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 02:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 02:40pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 06:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 06:14pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 08:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 08:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
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....
Reply With Quote
  #27 (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
  #28 (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
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 14, 2019, 11:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 780
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
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 14, 2019, 01:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
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
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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 03:25pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1