|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
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:
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. |
|
||||
Quote:
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?
|
|
||||
Quote:
Illegal numbering is different than illegal formation. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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.... |
|
|||
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?
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
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 |