The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 08, 2003, 02:09am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,557
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 08, 2003, 07:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bloomington, IL
Posts: 1,319
I want this interception in the endzone, ball fumbled out of the endzone mess cleaned up.
__________________
Mike Sears
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 08, 2003, 02:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Clinton Township, NJ
Posts: 2,065
REPLY: And clean up all the PSK language so it's consistent with the standing interpretations (e.g. NF 10-2-2,).
__________________
Bob M.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 08, 2003, 09:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Posts: 260
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 09, 2003, 06:42am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 842
Send a message via AIM to cowbyfan1 Send a message via Yahoo to cowbyfan1
Quote:
Originally posted by kentref
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.
__________________
Jim

Need an out, get an out. Need a run, balk it in.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 09, 2003, 12:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Clinton Township, NJ
Posts: 2,065
Quote:
Originally posted by kentref
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.
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:

************************************************** **********************
Pass Interference

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:
· Bite - 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.
· Chase - 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:
· Arm Bar - 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.
· Hold - 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.
· Not playing the ball - 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.
· Playing through the back - even if making an effort to touch the pass, contacting an opponent through the back, restricting his ability to catch the pass.
· Hook and twist - 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.
· Cutoff - 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 M.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 09, 2003, 01:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,557
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 09, 2003, 02:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 125
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 09, 2003, 03:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 31
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.
__________________
"Football is a great deal like life in that it teaches that work, sacrifice, perseverance, competitive drive, selflessness and respect for authority. That is the price that each and every one of us must pay to achieve any goal that is worthwhile." - Vince Lombardi
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 09, 2003, 03:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 710
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.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 09, 2003, 10:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Upper West Chester
Posts: 162
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 10, 2003, 03:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 842
Send a message via AIM to cowbyfan1 Send a message via Yahoo to cowbyfan1
Quote:
Originally posted by Snake~eyes

Cowbyfan1,

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

Need an out, get an out. Need a run, balk it in.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 10, 2003, 03:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 842
Send a message via AIM to cowbyfan1 Send a message via Yahoo to cowbyfan1
Quote:
Originally posted by ABoselli
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.

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.
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
__________________
Jim

Need an out, get an out. Need a run, balk it in.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 10, 2003, 10:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 379
Quote:
Originally posted by cowbyfan1
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 10, 2003, 10:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 379
Quote:
Originally posted by cowbyfan1
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.
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).
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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1