The Official Forum - RuleChanges/Points of Emphasis for 2004

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)

- - RuleChanges/Points of Emphasis for 2004 (https://forum.officiating.com/football/11107-rulechanges-points-emphasis-2004-a.html)

A Christmas Present for SWFLguy

Quote:

Originally posted by SWFLguy
The Federation could do us all a huge favor and give officials
a lot of lattitude in flagging those "trick plays" with 3rd or 4th
and short yardage that are obviously designed to draw the
defense into an encroachment penalty for a cheap 1st down.
We have to make a lot of judgement calls out there during a game.
Why not clearly write a rule that gives us the right to flag
ANY actions in those situations--- then back it up in the
points of emphasis, and have state associations be crystal
clear to the coaches that such "trick" plays will not be
part of the game.If I could have one wish this Christmas--
that would be it !

NFHS Rule 7-1-7b
Any act is clearly intended to cause B to encroach.

A simple interpretation; If A commits any of the acts (we have all seen them) AND it causes B to encroach, Flag it! Flase start on the offense. Problem solved.

Case book play 7.1.7 SITUATION A
While it would be nice if the NFHS would add a couple of more common examples, I believe the intent of theif message is clear AND they add the comments at the end which state: These are acts interpreted to cause an opponent to encroach and, therefore, are infractions. It is the intent of the rules to prohibit such acts. Whether or not the action by A1 draws B into the neutral zone should not be a determining factor in ruling a false-start foul.

SWFLguy, I don't think you can get much clearer than that!
They further clarify they don't even care if it draws B or not. They want it called!
Hence I believe you have all the support you need already.

PS: Merry Christmas SWFLguy

My point is that if it's on the line, he's a limeman, not a linebacker.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by cowbyfan1
[B]

Quote:

Originally posted by Snake~eyes

That's not true, cowboy. Once he's on the same parallel yardline, and is obviously moving away from the defender, he is no longer a potential blocker. That's also what the NCAA rule states. Even if he may again become a blocker during the down, you can't continue to contact him after he's at this point. It's illegal use of hands.

Also, ABoselli is correct about BBTW. Offensive linemen can certainly block high abd then go for the legs. The only thing that matters is initial contact.

Then they need to make it illegal. I saw a kid get hurt with this type of block. They also need to make the rule book consistant as 99% of the time the ball is gone from the FBZ and the rule book clearly states there will be no BBTW at that point.

[Edited by cowbyfan1 on Dec 16th, 2003 at 05:11 AM]

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
My point is that if it's on the line, he's a limeman, not a linebacker.

Limeman eh? :p

He meant limebacker.

I'm an official, not a typist.