Okay, so the season has come is coming to a close. With that in mind I'm wondering what type of Rule Changes and/or points of emphasis you'd like to see(or think you will see) for the 2004 season?

I want this interception in the endzone, ball fumbled out of the endzone mess cleaned up. :D

REPLY: And clean up all the PSK language so it's consistent with the standing interpretations (e.g. NF 10-2-2,).

Offensive PI was a point of emphasis in 2003. I'd like to see some similar emphasis placed on the defensive folks, specifically what is allowable by a defender when a receiver is trying to run a route, making no attempt to block the defender, and the defender continues to make contact. I think the rule is pretty clear, but there appears to be a number of coaches out there that think their DB can keep contacting the receiver until the ball is in the air.

On a rule-related note, I've had a number of people (non officials) ask me why kicks breaking the plane of the goal line are automatic touchbacks. I don't know the history of this rule. What was the original intent?

I agree with continuing to clarify the PSK language.

Can you tell me the rule that says the DB can't bump the reciever downfield? Once the ball is in the air he cannot, nor can he hold the receiver but last time I checked Fed ball is not played on Sundays. "Coach, you want that 5 yard chuck rule called, get a job in the pros."

I also would like them to clean up PSK. Also I would like the to specify the block below the belt in terms of shotgun formation as well as "continuation blocks". I had a coach say that if they engage a block high, then his player can "slide" down and cut the opposing player below the knees. A simple case book example would probably suffice saying it is a no-no.

REPLY: kentref, here's a summary of pass interference that was put together after a study by the NFL. It applies to the NCAA and Federation as well:

************************************************** **********************
<b>Pass Interference</b>

The NFL did exhaustive research into PI and the various types. They boiled it all down to these fundamental things:

1. There are two indicators that make a player 'suspect' for PI:
· <b>Bite</b> - when a player 'bites' on a move and then has to try to recover, such as when a receiver does a hook 'n' go - if he bites on the hook, he will frequently try to recover by grabbing the receiver as he goes by, etc., which will probably constitute defensive holding and can turn into PI if a pass is subsequently thrown.
· <b>Chase</b> - when a player is chasing an opponent, either by design or because he is beaten, he may tend to commit PI.

2. There six categories of PI:
· <b>Arm Bar</b> - an arm across the body restricting the opponent from moving where he wants to go and, maybe more importantly, keeping him from raising his arms to make the catch. An arm across the body is not enough - there must be a restriction of movement.
· <b>Hold</b> - actually grasping an opponent, particularly the arm, restricting him from being able to reach a pass. Classically, grabbing an arm, keeping the opponent from raising it to catch the pass.
· <b>Not playing the ball</b> - the player is not making a bona fide effort to reach the pass (usually not looking back for the ball), and contacts the opponent (usually body to body) restricting the opponent from moving where he wants to go, or knocking the opponent off his path to the ball.
· <b>Playing through the back</b> - even if making an effort to touch the pass, contacting an opponent through the back, restricting his ability to catch the pass.
· <b>Hook and twist</b> - hooking the arm around the waist or shoulders, AND twisting the opponent, restricting him from his effort to touch the pass. An arm around the body is not enough - there must be a twist or turn. The offender is usually reaching around the receiver’s body attempting to knock the ball away with his other hand. Watch the outside shoulder of the restricted player. If it moves away from the ball, chances are good that you have a foul.
· <b>Cutoff</b> - even if looking back for the ball, a player cannot position himself and contact an opponent to restrict or prevent an him from moving toward a pass.

There is usually contact to have PI, but contact alone does not indicate PI. There must be a real 'restriction' for PI to occur. A Federation interpretation also classifies “face guarding,” i.e. waving the hands in front of a receiver’s eyes, as pass interference. (Note: There is no Federation definition of face-guarding. It’s an accepted term used for restricting an opponent’s vision without contact.) In NCAA rules, there must be contact in order to have PI, and catchability is a factor in determining whether or not PI has occurred.

Note that two players both making an effort to reach the ball might 'bang arms' -- no foul!

PI is almost always going to occur from the waist up. Players running side by side or in tandem (NFL calls this a "snuggle") who get their feet tangled with no OBVIOUS intent to impede - no foul as long as both are playing the ball, i.e. making a bona fide attempt to move toward or catch the pass.
************************************************** **********************

Bob, I don't think he's wanting description of PI. I think he wants to have a point of emphasis be about how it is illegal for defensive players to bump recievers downfield when it is clear they are no longer potential blockers while the ball is not in the air.


Cowbyfan1,

9-2-3d
A defensive player shall not contact an eligible receiver who is no longer a potential blocker.

I'd like to see the loss-of-down provision taken out of offensive pass interference.

Fifteen yards and loss of down is just too stiff a penalty, especially since we also call it when an ineligible receiver touches a forward pass beyond the neutral zone, which can be an easy mistake for a young or inexperienced player to make. Make it a repeat-the-down foul instead.

Succeeding spot
 

If I had to change one rule, it would be the enforcement of penalties on the defending side on a scoring play. Enforcing on the try (1 1/2 yds) doesn't seem like much of an enforcement to me. True, it may come into play in rare circumstances. I would like to see the offense have the choice of enforcing on the try or kickoff.

PSK should also be cleaned up, but I'm sure that the Federation is aware of this by now.

<i>I had a coach say that if they engage a block high, then his player can "slide" down and cut the opposing player below the knees. </i>

That is the case. Legal.

The whole shotgun blocking thing is a bit muddled, though. I see no reason that they can't go low on the initial charge if the intent of the rule is safety.

In reply to jfurdell, NFHS has had Ohio experment with no LOD on OPI the last 2 years. I liked it for the reason you gave of being such a harsh penalty. I only had 1 fan yell from the stands it should have been LOD but all the coaches knew it. Maybe NF will add it to all sometime soon.

ok, nice rule but think about it. In reality and per the rule book, the only time that happens is when a forward pass is thrown that goes over the line of scrimmage (7-5-7 and 8). At any other point the receiver is a potential blocker.

2-3-7 - blocking below the waist is making INITIAL contact below the waist from the front or side against an opponent other than a runner. It applies only when the opponent has one or both feet on the ground.
10-3-2 - A player shall not block below the waist except: a. in the free block zone when the contact meets the requirements in 2-17.
b. to tackle a runner or player pretending to be a runner.
2-17 in summary talks about what the free block zone is and that all blocking below the waist stops when the ball has left the zone.

Now where is these rules does it say that a continuation block makes it leagal and 2. where in the rule book is continuation block even mentioned? It sure is not under the blocking definitions

I think you answered your own question. The initial contact is above the waist so it's not considered a block below the waist. The key is the INITIAL contact.

There's a good description of what to look for in the Case Book. 9.2.3 Situation A.

There's no requirement that a pass be thrown (it's illegal use of the hands- Rule 9-2, not a pass interference call- Rule 7).

The reciever is not a potential block when hes 15 yards down field running a route. It's basically the same rule as the NFL except theres no set yardage.

Bob M. and snake-eyes:
Thanks for the info. The 9-2-3d rule probably gets to what I'm mainly concerned about. I flagged several defensive backs this past season for continuing to contact the receiver when it was clear to me that the receiver was trying to run a pass route and not block. In all cases I talked to the DB after the first time I saw it, then if he kept doing it he got a flag. In one game the same DB got flagged on two consecutive plays.

In games that I've observed (some very well-coached teams in my opinion), I've seen a number of DBs using the technique of continuing to contact the receiver when the receiver is making no attempt to block. In some of those games I've also noticed that the wing official is talking to the DB after the play, most likely warning them about the contact, but that's only a guess.

kentref

Tundra ref is correct----
scoring team should have the option
of enforcing the penalty on the try
or on the following kick-off.

I would also like to see them add it so it specifically says in the rulebook that says verbage designed to confuse the defense is illegal. This way we don't have to refer to the casebook when a coach asks why the trick play is illegal.

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 !

Just tell em you're envoking the unfair acts rule. When he says somthing award the other team 7 points. :D

I concur with the language being cleaned up some on PSK, however, be careful what you ask for. I would like to see it spelled out in the rule book that in order for a reciever to have possession, he must come down with at least one foot inbounds and have control of the football. No place in the rule book does it state a one foot requirement although that is how we all officiate it.

No, the INITIAL contact must be BELOW the waist if the player is going to cut like that. If they go high, they cannot go low.
Offensive lines are continually told that they cannot stand up like they are going to pass block and then dive down so they should not be allowed to actually block high and then cut.

You might want to read the definition of a catch in rule 2. Even tho it does not specify, the fact the player needs to be inbounds when he catches the pass makes it 1 foot. If he needed 2 then they would specify as that being the minimum requirement of being inbounds.

<i>No, the INITIAL contact must be BELOW the waist if the player is going to cut like that. If they go high, they cannot go low. </i>

That's incorrect.

If an offensive player engages a defensive player outside the FBZ, or when the zone has desintegrated, that player may engage above the waist and slide down if he so chooses. If he were to engage below the waist initially, that would be illegal. If he tries to go low, but meets the defenders hands first, it is not considered a BBLW.

I don't want to put words in the mouths of the Fed Committee, but their primary reason for the rule is safety. The danger is when a player initially goes for the legs of another player with some speed built up (e.g. outside the FBZ). If he has already engaged another player high, his sliding down doesn't give the dangerous force that a head on at-the-knees block would provide.

To recap - one can go high and slide down.

I think eventually, all BBTW will be outlawed. That seems to be the direction we're headed.

I agree with ABoselli. As long as the intial contact is high and in the front its legal to slide down.

But I do disagree that BBTW will be outlawed because it is an important aspect. It's one of the only things you can do when linebackers blitz you, cut em right in the legs, then they won't come at you again. Also important for pop pass.

-snake

Maybe they won't, but I wouldn't put it in the drawer marked "will never happen".

If those LB's didn't start on the LOS, the OL can't cut them. Just like the lead back can't cut the backer on a run up the gut. Or a D-end lined up outside the FBZ can't be cut by the TE or tackle.

I don't have a book nearby, but the only otherwise illegal block that doesn't require the blockee to be on the LOS is the BITB by an OL.

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.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Dec 15th, 2003 at 09:49 AM]

First, you can't cut blitzing linebackers. You can only cut defensvie linemen, defenders who are on the LOS and in the FBZ at the snap.

I agree with ABoselli. It's just a matter of time before all BBTW becomes illegal. It comes up every year in the rules meetings.

REPLY: Just remember that a defensive linebacker <u>might</u> just be on the line of scrimmage at the snap--especially if he's blitzing. That would make him fair game to a BBW as long as he's in the FBZ and all the other requirements are met. By NF definition, a defense player is on the line of scrimmage if he is within 1 yard of his LOS at the snap (see NF 2-24-3). I'm sure that's what BBR was suggesting, but I don't want anyone misunderstnding it.

A Christmas Present for SWFLguy
 

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]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]

Limeman eh? :p

He meant limebacker.

I'm an official, not a typist.