The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   2019 Rules Changes (https://forum.officiating.com/football/104372-2019-rules-changes.html)

kenref1 Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:54am

2019 Rules Changes
 
http://www.nfhs.org/articles/40-seco...tball-changes/

Rich Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:39pm

Hooray. The only thing I would've added is to start the game clock on runs OOB outside of 2 minutes in each half.

JRutledge Mon Feb 11, 2019 02:31pm

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

Rich Mon Feb 11, 2019 02:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1030094)
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

My guess is the R will have the latitude to stop the play clock and start a 25. All just a guess right now, though.

JRutledge Mon Feb 11, 2019 03:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1030095)
My guess is the R will have the latitude to stop the play clock and start a 25. All just a guess right now, though.

I would hope so, but if I do that on my own, am I going to have people claim that is not my job or responsibility? Will I have other officials claiming I should not do things that way? All I would like is a standard. But with the NF's track record, we might be in the middle of the season before this is clarified. And we might start doing one thing and have to change in the middle because no one considered the possibilities of the potential problems.

Peace

Jimmie24 Mon Feb 11, 2019 04:32pm

I like the new change. There will be some issues with the clock initially. Hopefully they get them ironed out before too long. One that I really liked was the change of illegal formation, where you need at least 5 on the line with no more than 4 back. I believe this will make it easier.

OKREF Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:18pm

You could never have more than 4 in the backfield.

It just eliminated those times when the offense had only 10 players on the field with 6 on the line and 4 in the backfield. That was previously an illegal formation

Robert Goodman Tue Feb 12, 2019 09:09am

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenref1 (Post 1030086)

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.

Robert Goodman Tue Feb 12, 2019 09:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmie24 (Post 1030104)
I like the new change. There will be some issues with the clock initially. Hopefully they get them ironed out before too long. One that I really liked was the change of illegal formation, where you need at least 5 on the line with no more than 4 back. I believe this will make it easier.

I don't see the point of requiring at least 5 on the line if there's a max of 4 in the backfield...unless there's also to be a change allowing positioning in "no man's land" -- which would be a dumb change! What else did they want to do -- cover cases where a team is playing with fewer than 9, and handicap them further??

Anybody know how many seasons running that tripping the runner had been legal in Fed? It wasn't long IIRC, for values of "long" that this old-timer's used to. Funny the order they choose to present rule changes in this article; maybe they want to live down the fact that legalizing tripping the runner had been a fairly recent change, so they bury the anmt of the change back. Hell, they chose to present some highly technical spec about the numbers on the uniforms above the tripping & horse collar changes!

SE Minnestoa Re Tue Feb 12, 2019 02:53pm

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.

rriffle822 Tue Feb 12, 2019 05:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1030133)
I don't see the point of requiring at least 5 on the line if there's a max of 4 in the backfield...unless there's also to be a change allowing positioning in "no man's land" -- which would be a dumb change! What else did they want to do -- cover cases where a team is playing with fewer than 9, and handicap them further??

Anybody know how many seasons running that tripping the runner had been legal in Fed? It wasn't long IIRC, for values of "long" that this old-timer's used to. Funny the order they choose to present rule changes in this article; maybe they want to live down the fact that legalizing tripping the runner had been a fairly recent change, so they bury the anmt of the change back. Hell, they chose to present some highly technical spec about the numbers on the uniforms above the tripping & horse collar changes!

I assume the reason for 5 on the line has to do with the requirement to have 5 players number 50-79 on the line. Therefore there has to be 5 on the line.

Rich Tue Feb 12, 2019 07:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1030133)
I don't see the point of requiring at least 5 on the line if there's a max of 4 in the backfield...unless there's also to be a change allowing positioning in "no man's land" -- which would be a dumb change! What else did they want to do -- cover cases where a team is playing with fewer than 9, and handicap them further??

Anybody know how many seasons running that tripping the runner had been legal in Fed? It wasn't long IIRC, for values of "long" that this old-timer's used to. Funny the order they choose to present rule changes in this article; maybe they want to live down the fact that legalizing tripping the runner had been a fairly recent change, so they bury the anmt of the change back. Hell, they chose to present some highly technical spec about the numbers on the uniforms above the tripping & horse collar changes!



Practically, there is no "no man's land." A player is either on or off and it can be a blade of grass that's the difference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Robert Goodman Tue Feb 12, 2019 07:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rriffle822 (Post 1030187)
I assume the reason for 5 on the line has to do with the requirement to have 5 players number 50-79 on the line. Therefore there has to be 5 on the line.

I assume so too, but why have it? Why fix the problem of playing short if it's an end missing from the line, but not if an interior line player is?

ajmc Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:34am

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)

Robert Goodman Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmc (Post 1030219)
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)

It's not meaningless when you've seen teams get penalized for illegal formation because they had 10 on the field.

Rich Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:30am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmc (Post 1030219)
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.

jTheUmp Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1030224)
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?

Jimmie24 Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1030224)
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.

JRutledge Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jTheUmp (Post 1030228)
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

Robert Goodman Wed Feb 13, 2019 02:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jTheUmp (Post 1030228)
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.

ajmc Wed Feb 13, 2019 02:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1030224)
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 Wed Feb 13, 2019 02:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmc (Post 1030248)
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 Wed Feb 13, 2019 06:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1030249)
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 Wed Feb 13, 2019 06:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1030267)
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 Wed Feb 13, 2019 08:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1030267)
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 Wed Feb 13, 2019 08:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmc (Post 1030270)
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....

jTheUmp Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1030245)
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.

:D

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.

HLin NC Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:30pm

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.

Altor Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by HLin NC (Post 1030275)
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.

Robert Goodman Thu Feb 14, 2019 01:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by HLin NC (Post 1030275)
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 Fri Feb 15, 2019 08:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1030296)
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 its to allow the defense to easily identify the eligible receivers.

Robert Goodman Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CT1 (Post 1030323)
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 Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:01pm

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 Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajmc (Post 1030333)
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 Sat Feb 16, 2019 08:08am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1030334)
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

Im hoping you meant 10 or 11.

Rich Sat Feb 16, 2019 09:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CT1 (Post 1030381)
Im hoping you meant 10 or 11.



I meant 12. R and U count the offense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

bisonlj Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1030094)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1030130)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re (Post 1030175)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1030233)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1030334)
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!

JRutledge Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:39am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bisonlj (Post 1030387)
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.

I have worked college for a rather long time as well and I work Deep Wing or Back Judge most of the time. And very familiar with the procedures used at that level. But we have to struggle a lot with the clock and it is visible on the field. We have almost every week have someone or during the game we either have the wrong time put up or they start it improperly or not at all. All I am saying is that is just when we have it visible, what is going to happen when it is not visible?

I also did not say we had problems getting the ball in play. I said that we do not have ball boys like college. So when there is a deep incomplete pass, they do not have people in place to get another ball and chase the other ball. I can ask them to do this and they would look at us with 5 heads because if the ball goes to the other sideline, are they getting the ball? Nope. We often have a little kid that is bringing out the ball and yes they do not bring out the ball all the time when requested. Even at the college level we have terrible ball boys where we are having to constantly talk to them about when to get us a ball properly.

The bottom line is it is one thing to take on a rule that has all the other procedures in place to make this transition smooth, it is another when you have many procedures missing. That is the concern. I am the crew chief on our crew and I set the tone. Nothing I say is going to automatically make this easier because I ask the teams to do something when they are not prepared to accommodate or they have never heard what I am asking. And most of all I cannot make any school put up a play clock on the field because I said so. I was a two-time State Final Back Judge as well, we often had issues with teams getting read before the clock when we would never have a single game other than the State Finals with a play clock. I did not say issues as a crew, my mechanics or routine was the same, but there were still teams not aware of how quickly that time runs.

Peace

bisonlj Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1030388)
I have worked college for a rather long time as well and I work Deep Wing or Back Judge most of the time. And very familiar with the procedures used at that level. But we have to struggle a lot with the clock and it is visible on the field. We have almost every week have someone or during the game we either have the wrong time put up or they start it improperly or not at all. All I am saying is that is just when we have it visible, what is going to happen when it is not visible?

I also did not say we had problems getting the ball in play. I said that we do not have ball boys like college. So when there is a deep incomplete pass, they do not have people in place to get another ball and chase the other ball. I can ask them to do this and they would look at us with 5 heads because if the ball goes to the other sideline, are they getting the ball? Nope. We often have a little kid that is bringing out the ball and yes they do not bring out the ball all the time when requested. Even at the college level we have terrible ball boys where we are having to constantly talk to them about when to get us a ball properly.

The bottom line is it is one thing to take on a rule that has all the other procedures in place to make this transition smooth, it is another when you have many procedures missing. That is the concern. I am the crew chief on our crew and I set the tone. Nothing I say is going to automatically make this easier because I ask the teams to do something when they are not prepared to accommodate or they have never heard what I am asking. And most of all I cannot make any school put up a play clock on the field because I said so. I was a two-time State Final Back Judge as well, we often had issues with teams getting read before the clock when we would never have a single game other than the State Finals with a play clock. I did not say issues as a crew, my mechanics or routine was the same, but there were still teams not aware of how quickly that time runs.

Peace

Those are all issues that have nothing to do with either play clock rule. Sounds like you have issues no matter what you do. This rule changes makes them no worse and may help you make them better. Use the rule as a reason to get them to do fairly standard ball mechanics or find someone else to do it. This really isn't that difficult.

CT1 Sun Feb 17, 2019 08:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1030386)
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.

Rich Sun Feb 17, 2019 08:24am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CT1 (Post 1030407)
Not here. Wing always counts his team, whether O or D. R counts O, BJ counts D, U counts 50-79.


Where I'm from:

R and U count offense. Both look for numbering issues.
B and L count defense.
H helps count defense, but primarily deals with the chains.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

JRutledge Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bisonlj (Post 1030403)
Those are all issues that have nothing to do with either play clock rule. Sounds like you have issues no matter what you do. This rule changes makes them no worse and may help you make them better. Use the rule as a reason to get them to do fairly standard ball mechanics or find someone else to do it. This really isn't that difficult.

Again, not sure what you are saying here. What problem that I am having? I did not realize my position was about me personally.

I said that we do not have a ball boy system like college or there is no requirement in this area (and I have worked all over the state) where there are ball boys to facilitate bringing the ball into the game like they do at the NCAA level. We have issues at times with wet ball mechanics when we tell the teams they can bring in a new ball every single play because they give that responsibility to some kid (sometimes a very little kid) that is not paying attention. I have worked on the biggest stage in the state and we had the same "one ball" system used in those games too, but at least we do not start the RFP or play clock until we set the ball down for the next play. Now if the ball is passed onto the track and way out of bounds or in the stands, we either had to get that ball that was thrown there back on the field or we have no one prepared to bring in a new ball like you would in a college or pro game. So unless we have a different rule than the NCAA rule, incomplete passes still have a 40-second clock after the play is over. It is pretty easy to get the next ball on the field when we have ball boys on each sidelines with both teams balls in their hand. Not the case in this state or region of the state I normally work. It might take more than 20 seconds to get the ball in play on long incomplete passes in some cases along with the back judge or other officials trying to case down the ball instead of consentrating on where the play clock is at the time. Coaches get upset about all kinds of stupid things, this will cause conflict if there is no play clock visable to everyone, especially near the end of a half. And when you do not have a visible clock or it takes time to get the ball down because of this reality, it might cause some issues if coaches and players are not aware of where the clock is at during those plays. If we have those issues during a 25-second clock that was not visible, you think this might be a problem during the current rule? Yes, I think that could be a problem at certain times during a game. When we had malfunctions or clock started at the wrong time in a college game, it was so that everyone could see the clock on some level. Now we do not have many fields with visible play clocks on the field. It is a problem here when officials keep the game clock on the field and there are complaining about the time of games, so why would the play clock not be an issue? And again, I am not talking about me having the issue, I am talking about the situation. That is why I do not like to work lower level games without a game clock because it eliminates the debating over what can be seen.

When everybody gets a visible play clock at their fields, many of these issues will go away other than the possible mistakes made by the person running the clock. But until then, I think this has some situations we will have to deal with every game. We have to deal with play clock issues when there are NCAA games, so why is this going to be utopia?

As a basketball official where we have a shot clock, that is an issue at the NCAA or NAIA level, so not sure why we think this rule change will not have any issues for a while if other levels have issues with who is running those devices. NCAA Men's basketball changes even a few rules about when, and where the clock is set a few years ago and we are constantly having to make corrections to make sure the rule is followed. It is better a few years out, but when the rules changed, it was constant issues or debate.

Peace

HLin NC Sun Feb 17, 2019 02:27pm

For those of you who claim to have some all-powerful ball boy policy where they are all over the age of 18, work both sides of the field, attentive, and work like demons to keep a new, dry ball in play- I raise my glass to you.

For those of us dealing with 10 year old sons of the coaches, who would rather be hanging with their buds at the c-stand, who look at me like I'm an alien being when I ask if they brought a towel, who when I call "BALL, please" either ignore me or chuck it 10 yards over my head- I'll lay good money down that there are more of us than there are of you.

ajmc Sun Feb 17, 2019 07:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by HLin NC (Post 1030429)
For those of us dealing with 10 year old sons of the coaches, who would rather be hanging with their buds at the c-stand, who look at me like I'm an alien being when I ask if they brought a towel, who when I call "BALL, please" either ignore me or chuck it 10 yards over my head- I'll lay good money down that there are more of us than there are of you.

AMEN, "Reality" is often a lot more cumbersome than, the way we'd like things to be.

bisonlj Mon Feb 18, 2019 02:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1030420)
Again, not sure what you are saying here. What problem that I am having? I did not realize my position was about me personally.

I said that we do not have a ball boy system like college or there is no requirement in this area (and I have worked all over the state) where there are ball boys to facilitate bringing the ball into the game like they do at the NCAA level. We have issues at times with wet ball mechanics when we tell the teams they can bring in a new ball every single play because they give that responsibility to some kid (sometimes a very little kid) that is not paying attention. I have worked on the biggest stage in the state and we had the same "one ball" system used in those games too, but at least we do not start the RFP or play clock until we set the ball down for the next play. Now if the ball is passed onto the track and way out of bounds or in the stands, we either had to get that ball that was thrown there back on the field or we have no one prepared to bring in a new ball like you would in a college or pro game. So unless we have a different rule than the NCAA rule, incomplete passes still have a 40-second clock after the play is over. It is pretty easy to get the next ball on the field when we have ball boys on each sidelines with both teams balls in their hand. Not the case in this state or region of the state I normally work. It might take more than 20 seconds to get the ball in play on long incomplete passes in some cases along with the back judge or other officials trying to case down the ball instead of consentrating on where the play clock is at the time. Coaches get upset about all kinds of stupid things, this will cause conflict if there is no play clock visable to everyone, especially near the end of a half. And when you do not have a visible clock or it takes time to get the ball down because of this reality, it might cause some issues if coaches and players are not aware of where the clock is at during those plays. If we have those issues during a 25-second clock that was not visible, you think this might be a problem during the current rule? Yes, I think that could be a problem at certain times during a game. When we had malfunctions or clock started at the wrong time in a college game, it was so that everyone could see the clock on some level. Now we do not have many fields with visible play clocks on the field. It is a problem here when officials keep the game clock on the field and there are complaining about the time of games, so why would the play clock not be an issue? And again, I am not talking about me having the issue, I am talking about the situation. That is why I do not like to work lower level games without a game clock because it eliminates the debating over what can be seen.

When everybody gets a visible play clock at their fields, many of these issues will go away other than the possible mistakes made by the person running the clock. But until then, I think this has some situations we will have to deal with every game. We have to deal with play clock issues when there are NCAA games, so why is this going to be utopia?

As a basketball official where we have a shot clock, that is an issue at the NCAA or NAIA level, so not sure why we think this rule change will not have any issues for a while if other levels have issues with who is running those devices. NCAA Men's basketball changes even a few rules about when, and where the clock is set a few years ago and we are constantly having to make corrections to make sure the rule is followed. It is better a few years out, but when the rules changed, it was constant issues or debate.

Peace

I'm sorry JRut. I wasn't saying YOU were having a problem here. I'm saying the problem is not related to either play clock. It's related to how you area apparently has to do ball mechanics. It's very possible you can't influence that at all, but I would be surprised if you or the state can't.

Our ball boys are also often 10-14 year old boys who are sons of the coaches. I'm sure there are variations in expectations from crew to crew, but the ball boys we work with generally are on the ball. Any delay in getting a ball may result in the new ball being placed with 22 seconds rather than 28 seconds, but none of that affects the ability of the offense to do their subs, call their plays and get it snapped in 40 seconds. Yes it affects the team who wants to go fast because they are waiting for the ball to get spotted, but they aren't going to worry about the end of the play clock because they want to snap the ball ASAP. And they have to wait just as long regardless of 40 or 25.

Hopefully you get support from the state or your associations for having ball boys to be alert. If not work with the ball boys as best as you can and encourage them to be alert. Often there is an assistant coach who is responsible for the ball boys so work with him. Worst case your back judge will likely be helping to fetch the incomplete pass and he can get that ball to you. If the play clock has run down too far then reset it to 25. That happens to us once or twice a year.

Good luck!

JRutledge Mon Feb 18, 2019 04:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bisonlj (Post 1030450)
I'm sorry JRut. I wasn't saying YOU were having a problem here. I'm saying the problem is not related to either play clock. It's related to how you area apparently has to do ball mechanics. It's very possible you can't influence that at all, but I would be surprised if you or the state can't.

Our ball boys are also often 10-14 year old boys who are sons of the coaches. I'm sure there are variations in expectations from crew to crew, but the ball boys we work with generally are on the ball. Any delay in getting a ball may result in the new ball being placed with 22 seconds rather than 28 seconds, but none of that affects the ability of the offense to do their subs, call their plays and get it snapped in 40 seconds. Yes it affects the team who wants to go fast because they are waiting for the ball to get spotted, but they aren't going to worry about the end of the play clock because they want to snap the ball ASAP. And they have to wait just as long regardless of 40 or 25.

Hopefully you get support from the state or your associations for having ball boys to be alert. If not work with the ball boys as best as you can and encourage them to be alert. Often there is an assistant coach who is responsible for the ball boys so work with him. Worst case your back judge will likely be helping to fetch the incomplete pass and he can get that ball to you. If the play clock has run down too far then reset it to 25. That happens to us once or twice a year.

Good luck!

I do not think this is just a state issue, it is a conference issue, an area issue. They could suggest they have ball boys but not have the people available (their claim) to do what they are being asked. We have issues during the postseason to get procedures followed to a letter.

Here is my thing, I really do not care either way. It is what it is. 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. Either way, the NF had to know this when they put in the rule that many states do not have visible clocks and certainly does not have ball boys. I will be waiting as I did during before this current basketball season to figure out if they did not consider all the challenges that will occur with a new rule. We will see what happens when everything comes out for real.

Peace

bisonlj Mon Feb 18, 2019 04:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1030453)
I do not think this is just a state issue, it is a conference issue, an area issue. They could suggest they have ball boys but not have the people available (their claim) to do what they are being asked. We have issues during the postseason to get procedures followed to a letter.

Here is my thing, I really do not care either way. It is what it is. 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. Either way, the NF had to know this when they put in the rule that many states do not have visible clocks and certainly does not have ball boys. I will be waiting as I did during before this current basketball season to figure out if they did not consider all the challenges that will occur with a new rule. We will see what happens when everything comes out for real.

Peace

I think it was ultimately 7 states that did this as an experiment last year and a few of us for 2-3 years. There was a mix of states with and without visible play clocks and various levels of ball boys. None of the states I talked with who did it mentioned any issues with ball boys so it worked.

It was such a glowing success the states who did experiment were very concerned they would have to go back. I'm not sure if we would have given up our seat on the rules committee, but it would have definitely been a consideration. I did not speak with one coach or official who didn't love the change. And until our commissioner proposed the experiment 3 years ago I don't believe there was a huge demand for it.

I have a hard time believing your ball boys are that incompetent they can't figure this out. I know several HS and small college officials in Illinois and none of them have raised the concerns you have at either level so I don't expect it to be an issue in your area. I think you will be just fine.

JRutledge Mon Feb 18, 2019 05:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bisonlj (Post 1030455)
I think it was ultimately 7 states that did this as an experiment last year and a few of us for 2-3 years. There was a mix of states with and without visible play clocks and various levels of ball boys. None of the states I talked with who did it mentioned any issues with ball boys so it worked.

It was such a glowing success the states who did experiment were very concerned they would have to go back. I'm not sure if we would have given up our seat on the rules committee, but it would have definitely been a consideration. I did not speak with one coach or official who didn't love the change. And until our commissioner proposed the experiment 3 years ago I don't believe there was a huge demand for it.

If you have figured me out by now, I do not care what other states do. Great, they had no issue with the ball boys. I was just stating it might be a problem in my world or state or where I work games. It is not a tragedy and we will still have to deal with it, but it is just something I noticed with the rule. Again, we have no specifics or if they will take on even most of the NCAA procedures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bisonlj (Post 1030455)
I have a hard time believing your ball boys are that incompetent they can't figure this out. I know several HS and small college officials in Illinois and none of them have raised the concerns you have at either level so I don't expect it to be an issue in your area. I think you will be just fine.

You obviously did not really digest what I was saying to you. If all we have is one ball for the entire team for the entire game and we have a long incomplete pass that is nearly at the fence or past the track, we do not have anyone that typically brings us that football and then goes and gets the ball that was just used. It is one thing to have 4 people in the game that are carrying the footballs of both teams and on both sidelines, comparing that to maybe one "kid" that has to bring the footballs during a change or possession. We have had teams that took time to just give us the ball during a normal change of possession and we had a kid that often was not paying attention to the game or did not have the ball in the first place. Often we have the QB or player bring us the ball because the "ball boys" are not affective in doing their job and that is just on change of possessions. :rolleyes:

The rule just came out. So I am not so sure you know everyone that might have raised this issue or talked to everyone that implemented the rule. It is a conversation at this point. It does not mean the world is coming to an end. We are months away from any regular meetings about the topic in most areas so I would suspect many people are doing other sports and probably not fixated on football to even raise some issues. It might be nothing in the end. But I have been doing this awhile and rules like the Horsecollar foul or adding PSK or even putting in how fouls are administered after a score, all had issues when the rule came out and took some tweaking to get to where they are today. We have a rules interpreter that tells us every year, "It takes the NF 3 years to get a rule change right." And part of that statement is the frustration of how a rule is added but does not cover the little things that make it run smoothly and either our state or the NF has to come back to clarify something that was not covered properly.

Honestly, I do not think it was necessary. We play fewer minutes in a game and they could have gone back to other rules they once had to speed up the game, like running the clock after a change of possession. We already have mercy rules that speed up games that are out of hand. It is the rule now, but was it so great of a change? No, not to me.

Peace

HLin NC Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:29am

Considering the :40 sec clock is going to affect the offense the most and it's the offense whose ball has most likely gone out of play to the track or fence, it will be incumbent on them to insure that their ball person(s) are doing their utmost to retrieve it or get another one in play.

I imagine that if there is some inordinate delay, the Referee has the ability to blow it dead and re-set to the :25.

Certainly would seem to be an item that needs to be covered by state offices at the coaches clinics this summer.

bisonlj Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by HLin NC (Post 1030475)
Considering the :40 sec clock is going to affect the offense the most and it's the offense whose ball has most likely gone out of play to the track or fence, it will be incumbent on them to insure that their ball person(s) are doing their utmost to retrieve it or get another one in play.

I imagine that if there is some inordinate delay, the Referee has the ability to blow it dead and re-set to the :25.

Certainly would seem to be an item that needs to be covered by state offices at the coaches clinics this summer.

That's the way I believe all of the experimental states dealt with it. In 3 years I think I think we reset the play clock maybe 3 or 4 times total. And it was usually some egregious issue or discussion that caused it. An inattentive ball boy maybe delayed us 4 or 5 seconds, but it just meant we got the ball placed with 24 seconds rather than 29 seconds. The offense was still huddled or trying to figure out their formation so it really didn't affect them much. But I'd be shocked if you didn't have the option to pump it back to 25 if you felt you inconvenienced the offense enough they could potentially have a delay of game due to the officials.

JRutledge Tue Feb 19, 2019 02:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bisonlj (Post 1030484)
That's the way I believe all of the experimental states dealt with it. In 3 years I think I think we reset the play clock maybe 3 or 4 times total.

In college games, I remember way more times we had to do this than just 3 or 4 times total and they ran the clock after scores. And again we had ball boys on both sidelines. So let us not make it sound like there is no possibility for issues.

We will just have to deal with the issue. Heck I am good as when these become problems, likely the teams helped cause them.

Peace

Texas Aggie Fri May 03, 2019 12:34am

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 Fri May 03, 2019 12:49am

Quote:

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 Fri May 03, 2019 12:59am

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.

sj Tue May 07, 2019 02:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1030453)
I do not think this is just a state issue, it is a conference issue, an area issue. They could suggest they have ball boys but not have the people available (their claim) to do what they are being asked. We have issues during the postseason to get procedures followed to a letter.

Here is my thing, I really do not care either way. It is what it is. 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. Either way, the NF had to know this when they put in the rule that many states do not have visible clocks and certainly does not have ball boys. I will be waiting as I did during before this current basketball season to figure out if they did not consider all the challenges that will occur with a new rule. We will see what happens when everything comes out for real.

Peace

Overall women softball/basketball players make the best ball boys.

JRutledge Tue May 07, 2019 03:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie (Post 1032629)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie (Post 1032629)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie (Post 1032629)
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 Tue May 07, 2019 08:43pm

Quote:

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 Wed May 08, 2019 12:05am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie (Post 1032693)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie (Post 1032693)
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 Wed May 08, 2019 11:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1032695)
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!

JRutledge Wed May 08, 2019 02:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bisonlj (Post 1032697)
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!

Not worried at all honestly. If it matters to them they will change it. If not then provide the proper help. It was like when I worked baseball and the teams wanted me to give another ball. If you do not go chase the foul balls we are using what I have got. Had that happen one time and it was funny how upset the home coach got even with me warning them how few baseballs I had left in the bag. Then we got down to zero and the coach wanted a ball change after a foul ball in the wet grass. This is going to hurt them more than it hurt us. Just like when a team runs a hurry-up offense but does not get the ball back to the officials to help them run at a certain tempo.

Peace

Texas Aggie Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:05pm

Quote:

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.
What I'm not understanding is how this will be any different for you than it is now? How many plays do you have that the ball ends up incomplete on the other team's sideline? A few, right? So, now, you go get the ball, reset, and blow the ready. Under the new rule you do the same thing.

What's the issue?

The 40 second clock doesn't solve every problem but it also doesn't create a problem where none existed. You'll see the benefits on plays other than the ones you described.

JRutledge Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie (Post 1033269)
What I'm not understanding is how this will be any different for you than it is now? How many plays do you have that the ball ends up incomplete on the other team's sideline? A few, right? So, now, you go get the ball, reset, and blow the ready. Under the new rule you do the same thing.

What's the issue?

I do not see what is so special about the 40-second clock, but I digress. Since you asked, there is a possibility that it will take longer than 20 seconds or so to get the ball in play on certain kinds of plays. These are high school kids, they are not always very well taught or even instructed what to do with the ball well after a play. Combined with the fact that we will not likely have a clock on the field or visible to judge. I see many stoppages or resets to make this right multiple times during a game. If we have to do that at the small college level where we actually have ball boys and multiple football from each team on each sideline, we have issues there. At least with the old rule we are not rushing because the clock is running to get the ball in play. Now we have that as an issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie (Post 1033269)
The 40 second clock doesn't solve every problem but it also doesn't create a problem where none existed. You'll see the benefits on plays other than the ones you described.

I did not say is solved any issues, to me, it created one (or two). Again, not seeing how I will see anything differently if we have issues at the higher levels that have an entire system or policies to make things run smoothly and we still have issues with things in place. This is like when people try to advocate for a shot clock in basketball at the high school level, but do not seem to realize how many times we have to correct things at the college level with the shot clock. To me this just created issues that were not there before. Again you do not have to agree, been doing this for some time to have an opinion on what works and what does not. As a white hat, I know what issues we sometimes have to get the ball in play before. This rule does not automatically solve anything.

Peace

bisonlj Fri Jun 07, 2019 09:39am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1033274)
I do not see what is so special about the 40-second clock, but I digress. Since you asked, there is a possibility that it will take longer than 20 seconds or so to get the ball in play on certain kinds of plays. These are high school kids, they are not always very well taught or even instructed what to do with the ball well after a play. Combined with the fact that we will not likely have a clock on the field or visible to judge. I see many stoppages or resets to make this right multiple times during a game. If we have to do that at the small college level where we actually have ball boys and multiple football from each team on each sideline, we have issues there. At least with the old rule we are not rushing because the clock is running to get the ball in play. Now we have that as an issue.



I did not say is solved any issues, to me, it created one (or two). Again, not seeing how I will see anything differently if we have issues at the higher levels that have an entire system or policies to make things run smoothly and we still have issues with things in place. This is like when people try to advocate for a shot clock in basketball at the high school level, but do not seem to realize how many times we have to correct things at the college level with the shot clock. To me this just created issues that were not there before. Again you do not have to agree, been doing this for some time to have an opinion on what works and what does not. As a white hat, I know what issues we sometimes have to get the ball in play before. This rule does not automatically solve anything.

Peace

I know several people who work in the D3 league where you work so I asked them about this. They have a vastly different experience on having to reset the play clock. Like our D3 conference it happens once or twice per season at most.

JRutledge Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bisonlj (Post 1033289)
I know several people who work in the D3 league where you work so I asked them about this. They have a vastly different experience on having to reset the play clock. Like our D3 conference it happens once or twice per season at most.

I am glad you asked people what has happened in my games, but last year we had several times a game to reset the clock on after plays or change the clock after plays (they set it to 25 instead as an example). It is a constant thing at the D3 level. I am a person that often talks to the people that run the clock and we constantly have to fix, change or alter the clock in those games. Once or twice a season is laughable. It is not unusual to have someone that it is their first time ever to run the play clock as well at that level. It is such a discusssion on crews that we know the places that struggle and we have to address how we will handle those situations.

And none of this matters because the rules at the NCAA has built-in remedies for issues for the play clock, where the NF rule at this time does not at this time. Every NCAA game we have a visible play clock and I know we will not have that at the high schools I will work this coming season. Two completely different concerns and that is not going to make me say this was a great change. I see nothing that makes this better. HS we play a shorter game anyway and not unusual to have a running clock during games.

Peace

Rich Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:31pm

We typically have 2 balls on each sideline and I can't remember a single time we'd have had to stop the play clock (with the 40) and reset.

This is a non-issue if officials know when to get the second ball from the ball boy.

And if you only have one ball in a game.....I don't know what to say. We don't work freshman games where there's only one football per team.

JRutledge Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1033295)
And if you only have one ball in a game.....I don't know what to say. We don't work freshman games where there's only one football per team.

Well, we do. The only time might be if we have weather issues and teams want to use multiple balls. But again, they have some coach's kid or some injured player that is bringing in the ball. Recognize I said, some coach's kid. That is not an adult or in many cases, not someone that is paying attention to the actual game. Also it is often when they do not even have the football and they have to go looking for it just during a change of possession (where it happens most of the time BTW) And it has been like that my entire 20 plus year career at the high school level no matter the kind of game, 1st through semifinal and even the State Finals. All games have the same basic situation.

Peace

bisonlj Fri Jun 07, 2019 04:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1033296)
Well, we do. The only time might be if we have weather issues and teams want to use multiple balls. But again, they have some coach's kid or some injured player that is bringing in the ball. Recognize I said, some coach's kid. That is not an adult or in many cases, not someone that is paying attention to the actual game. Also it is often when they do not even have the football and they have to go looking for it just during a change of possession (where it happens most of the time BTW) And it has been like that my entire 20 plus year career at the high school level no matter the kind of game, 1st through semifinal and even the State Finals. All games have the same basic situation.

Peace

Also interesting because those are the same people serving as ball boys in our HS games (usually the 10-14 year old son of a coach and his buddies) and they don't have major issues doing it. They are far from perfect and we sometimes have to yell at them because they aren't where they are supposed to be or paying attention but they generally do an adequate job to keep the game flowing.

We almost always check at least 3-4 balls from each team. I know your schools have them if needed. They just need someone (IHSA would be better than the officials) to request multiple balls checked so ball mechanics can be done efficiently. You could live with 2 but 3 or 4 is definitely better. It's not rocket science and most other states seem to do it that way. I know this one is beyond your control.

JRutledge Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:43am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bisonlj (Post 1033304)
Also interesting because those are the same people serving as ball boys in our HS games (usually the 10-14 year old son of a coach and his buddies) and they don't have major issues doing it. They are far from perfect and we sometimes have to yell at them because they aren't where they are supposed to be or paying attention but they generally do an adequate job to keep the game flowing.

All I am saying is the rule will be a little more difficult if we do not have a system in place to get more help in this area. Coaches will complain, but I will tell them the truth. That truth is that we need more than one football at times to get the ball set and ready to go consistently. And we do not have a field clock and you will have to keep that in mind. A couple of penalties will make that overall point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bisonlj (Post 1033304)
We almost always check at least 3-4 balls from each team. I know your schools have them if needed. They just need someone (IHSA would be better than the officials) to request multiple balls checked so ball mechanics can be done efficiently. You could live with 2 but 3 or 4 is definitely better. It's not rocket science and most other states seem to do it that way. I know this one is beyond your control.

You are given more footballs than we are given. Usually, 1 and sometimes 2 when they try to tell us "This is the kicking ball." Otherwise, they have one they use or we use what they bring to us when they come to the field. As I said my issue is not that they have more football, the issue is what is the system to allow us to put the ball in play in adequate time. If you are using one football and we have a long gain or the ball is on the track, then are we set up for some failure to apply this rule consistently? I just do not see how this rule makes things "better." It is an opinion. I might change my mind down the road, but I see nothing that changes the game for the better because we have a 40-second clock. And as I have said before, I bet there will be holes in what we do, unlike the NCAA that has all kinds of procedures to apply the rule. The NF love to take one part of a rule and not make it clear how we apply it in specific situations.

Peace

Robert Goodman Sun Jun 09, 2019 09:05pm

Remember where this method of starting the play clock began? It was in the WLAF in 1991, which means the NFL was using it to experiment with.

What was the problem they were seeking to address? Variation of the amount of time a team that wanted to exhaust the period clock would have, due to variation in the amount of time officials took to ready the ball after a running play -- which for pro football wasn't much variation.

The amount of time a team that wanted to bleed off the clock could would differ only between plays that ended with a ballcarrier's going down bounds. When the period clock was running, the team on defense could delay the RFP a little by being slightly uncooperative to a degree the officials would not stop the clock. But if the offense wanted to hurry up, having a fixed amount of time between downs with the clock running did not help against such tactics by the defense. It helped only if the team on offense wanted to consume time and the officials were slow, and only when the preceding play left the clock running.

The amount of time the WLAF used at first for this, 35 seconds, produced a pace that was slightly faster than even Canadian football's and was difficult for offenses to use any plays where they had to get a good pre-snap look at the defense or to signal anything complicated, so the NFL never adopted that short a time; when they finally did adopt such a procedure, they made it 45 seconds, which proved in a few years to be a lavish amount of time for them.

bisonlj Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1033321)
Remember where this method of starting the play clock began? It was in the WLAF in 1991, which means the NFL was using it to experiment with.

What was the problem they were seeking to address? Variation of the amount of time a team that wanted to exhaust the period clock would have, due to variation in the amount of time officials took to ready the ball after a running play -- which for pro football wasn't much variation.

The amount of time a team that wanted to bleed off the clock could would differ only between plays that ended with a ballcarrier's going down bounds. When the period clock was running, the team on defense could delay the RFP a little by being slightly uncooperative to a degree the officials would not stop the clock. But if the offense wanted to hurry up, having a fixed amount of time between downs with the clock running did not help against such tactics by the defense. It helped only if the team on offense wanted to consume time and the officials were slow, and only when the preceding play left the clock running.

The amount of time the WLAF used at first for this, 35 seconds, produced a pace that was slightly faster than even Canadian football's and was difficult for offenses to use any plays where they had to get a good pre-snap look at the defense or to signal anything complicated, so the NFL never adopted that short a time; when they finally did adopt such a procedure, they made it 45 seconds, which proved in a few years to be a lavish amount of time for them.

This is definitely a positive impact of the rule change. We saw it in NCAA when we implemented it and in our NFHS experiment. The other factor is plays where the run ended near the umpire and he spots it quickly. This could result in a dead ball period of less than 40 seconds. Plus it nearly guarantees consistent crew to crew and play to play within games.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:34am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1