2019 Rules Changes

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

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?

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by CT1

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.

[ajmc]

How much endless nit-picking and pure speculation do we need to endure to satisfy EVERY imaginative possibility that this rule adjustments amounts to, "Much ado about nothing".

Unfortunately, it's likely that those inclined to find some unique niche, that they think will give them some creative advantage, will keep searching, creating situations that will depend on the common sense and "spirit of good sportsmanship" of Referees to resolve.

Thankfully, NFHS 1-1-6 remains intact and unchanged.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

How much endless nit-picking and pure speculation do we need to endure to satisfy EVERY imaginative possibility that this rule adjustments amounts to, "Much ado about nothing".



Unfortunately, it's likely that those inclined to find some unique niche, that they think will give them some creative advantage, will keep searching, creating situations that will depend on the common sense and "spirit of good sportsmanship" of Referees to resolve.



Thankfully, NFHS 1-1-6 remains intact and unchanged.

You are wrong.

(1) Wings only need to count backs. No need to see if there are 10 or 12 on the field.

(2) When there are 10, there will be fewer penalties that did nothing but hurt an already shorthanded team and interrupted the game.

This is a big change, but not worth agonizing over. There I'll agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Rich

You are wrong.

(1) Wings only need to count backs. No need to see if there are 10 or 12 on the field.

(2) When there are 10, there will be fewer penalties that did nothing but hurt an already shorthanded team and interrupted the game.

This is a big change, but not worth agonizing over. There I'll agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I’m hoping you meant “10 or 11”.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CT1

I’m hoping you meant “10 or 11”.

I meant 12. R and U count the offense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Texas Aggie]

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.

[Texas Aggie]

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."

[Texas Aggie]

I thought the 7 on the line rule was dead a long time ago. Wow. I don't even remember when the NCAA changed that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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.

I am just saying if we are having issues at the small college level, we are likely to have more problems with more teams and more games. There are always exceptions and people that know their job and do it properly, but we have enough problems with chain crews and now we do not have an easy remedy to this situation. Just saying it might work much of the time, but that is not what causes controversy if they have not thought of all the angles to this rule. Nothing wrong with the rule unless you cover the other aspects of the rule application.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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 are lucky if we get a single ball boy and again it is from the team's sideline with only their football. So if the play ends on the other sideline, no help from the other team with their opponent's football.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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."

Heck, I do not say that during college games when they are bad. Just saying that this rule has pitfalls. It is not the end of the world. I am not going to be the one complaining when no one gets the ball on the track and time is of the essence.

Peace

[Texas Aggie]

So if the play ends on the other sideline, no help from the other team with their opponent's football.

Our ball boys go and get all balls. We've never had an issue there. In the case you speak of (and it occurs in any clock situation) the wing on the offensive team's sideline turns around and gets a new ball, and the old ball gets thrown back over at some point -- usually within a play or two. The biggest issue we have is that coaches are paranoid sometimes about their balls being on the other team's sideline and will ask us about it if we don't get it back to them but that's after a few plays.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Our ball boys go and get all balls. We've never had an issue there.

I do not think you understand. We do not have 4 footballs per team. We have one. We have one that is used the entire game unless there is bad weather. They are often the coach's son or a manager or even a hurt player. They are not chasing or even paying attention to what is actually going on. We have a hard enough time getting them to get us a ball during a change of possession. So how are we going to all of a sudden get a system in place to make ball change easier? I am sure you live in a place that values on the ball boy and how football exchanges are done. But I live in a place where if they get us the football in the first place is a challenge, because they give that responsiblity to some kid that would rather be talking to others than paying attention to the game.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

In the case you speak of (and it occurs in any clock situation) the wing on the offensive team's sideline turns around and gets a new ball, and the old ball gets thrown back over at some point -- usually within a play or two. The biggest issue we have is that coaches are paranoid sometimes about their balls being on the other team's sideline and will ask us about it if we don't get it back to them but that's after a few plays.

Actually the bigger issue is the plays in-between the drive, not the change of possession. Change of possessions can be annoying, but it does not influence the game, just when we put might be delayed. The issue I have is the long run or the sideline play where we do not get the ball back at all and we are either chasing the ball or waiting for the ball to come back to us. Easier with two deep wings and 2 ball boys with each team's footballs on each sideline. Not so much in our case.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think you understand. We do not have 4 footballs per team. We have one. We have one that is used the entire game unless there is bad weather. They are often the coach's son or a manager or even a hurt player. They are not chasing or even paying attention to what is actually going on. We have a hard enough time getting them to get us a ball during a change of possession. So how are we going to all of a sudden get a system in place to make ball change easier? I am sure you live in a place that values on the ball boy and how football exchanges are done. But I live in a place where if they get us the football in the first place is a challenge, because they give that responsiblity to some kid that would rather be talking to others than paying attention to the game.



Actually the bigger issue is the plays in-between the drive, not the change of possession. Change of possessions can be annoying, but it does not influence the game, just when we put might be delayed. The issue I have is the long run or the sideline play where we do not get the ball back at all and we are either chasing the ball or waiting for the ball to come back to us. Easier with two deep wings and 2 ball boys with each team's footballs on each sideline. Not so much in our case.

Peace

This rule change exposes a major issue you have in your area with ball mechanics. The state should address that. The teams have multiple footballs so the only reason they aren't providing more is because they aren't being asked. That ask may need to come from the state and not the officials to be effective. It doesn't take more than 2 or 3 to be effective but 4 is common for us. Good luck!