2019 Rules Changes

[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....