The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 11, 2019, 11:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Philo, IL "Center of the Universe"
Posts: 127
2019 Rules Changes

http://www.nfhs.org/articles/40-seco...tball-changes/
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 11, 2019, 12:39pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,632
Hooray. The only thing I would've added is to start the game clock on runs OOB outside of 2 minutes in each half.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 11, 2019, 02:31pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,803
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 11, 2019, 02:33pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 11, 2019, 03:13pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 11, 2019, 04:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 96
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 11, 2019, 11:18pm
NFHS Official
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,732
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
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2019, 09:09am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenref1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2019, 09:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmie24 View Post
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!

Last edited by Robert Goodman; Tue Feb 12, 2019 at 09:31am.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2019, 02:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 265
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2019, 05:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2019, 07:08pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2019, 07:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by rriffle822 View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 10:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,546
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)
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2019, 11:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2019-2020 POE's bas2456 Basketball 32 Sat Feb 09, 2019 08:12pm
2019 nfhs agr8zebra Softball 3 Sun Feb 03, 2019 01:22pm
2019 USA Umpire Exam Tru_in_Blu Softball 2 Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:11pm
USA Softball Rule Changes for 2019 IRISHMAFIA Softball 17 Wed Dec 12, 2018 04:21pm
FED Rules Changes for 2019 CT1 Baseball 3 Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:26am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:09pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1