2019 Rules Changes

[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

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I still have questions. Is this a case where the NF took on a college rule without the actual guidance of all the little things that come up with this rule. Like what is going to happen if we cannot put the ball in play at a certain time? What signals do we give if we are resetting the shot clock? Are there going to be ball boy strategies for this newer policy?

Even at the small college level, we have problems with this being done right. I see this even more so at the high school level as well.

Peace

I've been using a 40-second play clock for most of my college career (11 years) and the last 3 years as an experimental state. We have very few problems with the play clock because it's a 40/25 clock rather than a 25 clock. Issues are only with an incompetent clock operator. I've found the 40/25 to be easier because the play clock guy generally only has to start it at the end of a play. With a 25 he has to find the R and follow him for when he somewhat randomly will start it. I would venture to guess we've had fewer issues starting the 40 than the 20. Like NCAA there will be provisions for resetting the play clock if it falls below a certain point. That's generally unncessary because whether we have the ball ready at 35 or 18 has no impact on the offense doing their subs or play calling. It may affect how FAST they can go, but they aren't worried about the back end of the play clock anyway if they are trying to go fast. I can probably count on one hand the number of times we've had to reset the play clock during a season in either level. For the most part just use common sense if we've caused a delay (including delays by the ball boys) that could negative impact the offense's ability to get a play off before the play clock expires.

Our experiment allowed us to request balls for both teams on both sides to be help with ball mechanics. Our crew did that every week unless the coach protested. That happened once or twice each season. It messed us up only because we had a much better rhythm the other way. But we still didn't have any issues getting a ball ready in plenty of time. It was just more running for the U back and forth between some plays. I know some states don't allow ANY changing of balls during a drive and chase down every incomplete pass. I would recommend that mechanic change if you are doing that.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Thanks.

You'd think the article might've summarized the "thorough discussion" that led up to the 40 sec. Seems to me that if 25 secs. (or any specified amount of time) from the RFP is good for the situations it's going to be used in, it should be good for all situations. I'd like to know what the argument is for the variation, which seems just one more chance to goof.

I'm guessing the effect on the game, other than making its administr'n a tiny bit harder, will be a slight one allowing the team on offense to take a little more tiime off the period clock, since if it ever took significantly more than 15 sec. to ready the ball for play, the officials would take a time out, so it'll never reduce the time available to play the ball.

Several states have been experimenting with this for 2-3 years and many HS officials also work college where this is very similar. There is actually one LESS chance for a goof with the 40 second play clock because the R doesn't have to start it any longer between most plays. It's already running. Now he can worry about other dead ball officiating responsibilities.

The key benefit to this rule is the CONSISTENCY from dead ball to delay of game. If you actually timed it, the normal range was probably 12-15 seconds but for various reasons it could vary from 7 seconds to 25 seconds. That meant some plays the offense had 32 seconds to get their next play called and run and other times it was 50 seconds. Even with a good crew and a consistent pace it probably varied 5-8 seconds throughout the game. With a 40-second play clock that is one.

The situations where you still use 25 seconds, it's because you are administering something that normally takes an extended period of time (i.e. penalty administration, team time out, injury, change of possession) so even if you did start a 40 it would run out before you were done with any of that.

This doesn't affect the length much at all. If you had a crew that took forever to start the play clock when the game clock is stopped (thus extending the amount of time it takes to complete the game) you will have as many times where they killed more time for the same reason. We haven't found the length of games to be much different. The only possible impact is at the end of blowouts when you are milking as much clock before the RFP is blown you may extend a game 3-5 minutes. We often tell our play clock operators to wait a couple extra seconds before starting the 40 also. If you don't have visible play clocks you have more flexibility keeping it on the field. Nobody is going to care if you are allowing 40 or 60 seconds in that situation.

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

Without play clocks at any of the schools we work at, I think the back judge is going to have his hands full with two different lengths of clocks to keep. 40 seconds for typical plays--25 seconds for special plays. I don't think most watches keep two saved alarms.

A lot of coaches who want their quarterbacks to come to the sideline every play are going to be surprised how quick 40 seconds is from the end of the play.

Colorado is one of the states that experimented with visible play clocks and it was a big success there as well. It's not as big an issue as many expect.

As for getting used to a "faster" pace, if the crew was doing a good job and being consistent the timing was probably 38-42 seconds already so it won't be that big of an adjustment. I heard we had referees that would allow the QB to go to the sideline, get the play, return to the huddle, call the play and then start the RFP when the huddle broke. If you had crews doing that, then yes there will be adjustment. We still have QBs going to the sideline to get plays and having no issues getting the ball snapped. 40 seconds is still a lot of time to do all that if that's how you want to run your offense.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

I had the opportunity to speak with a rules committee person before the meeting and they mentioned the proposal included the "at least 5 on the line." I told them that was unnecessary since there is already a rule requiring that and it will only cause confusion. They kept it there so everyone would remember that even though they are removing the requirement for 7 that you still had a requirement of 5. Since it's been announced there has been a ton of confusion as I expected.

Don't make this any more complicated than it is. The rule now just matches the way most of us have officiated it. It's hard for wings to see if they have 7 linemen (or 3 on their side of the snapper) because they are lined up in a straight line from their view. Since I started nearly 20 years ago, we've been taught to look for 4 in the backfield assuming there were 11 on the field. If the R/U signaled there were only 10 then we would make sure there were only 3 in the backfield. Now they don't have to worry at all how many are on the field. As long as there are fewer than 5 in the backfield they are good with formation. The U will still verify the 5 linemen numbered 50-79.

Teams very rarely sub out interior linemen during a series so the missing player is not often a lineman. They maybe are in a scrimmage kick formation but there exceptions at play there already.

This was a long overdo rule change that simply syncs up with what most crews have been doing for decades and removes what was a silly foul when it had to be called.

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

As I stated above I would argue it's really a change at all. It's just matching up the way most crews have been determining it for years. If you were an area still doing the multiple signals for balanced/unbalanced line you are going to look back during the season and wonder, "why the hell were we still doing that? This is so much more logical."

This is definitely the best set of rule changes we've had in years. They are all common changes that make our jobs easier and help with the flow of the game. Other than the confusion over the minimum of 5 on the line being included unnecessarily I think they did a great job!

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Rich

I meant 12. R and U count the offense.

Not here. Wing always counts “his” team, whether O or D. R counts O, BJ counts D, U counts 50-79.