SO guys what do you think? http://www.nfhs.org/Sports/football_rules_change.htm

There's a lot of bad hype about the coach calling timeout but I don't think its that bad.
http://www.nfhs.org/Current_News/Vie...ns.asp?pid=619

Hey, if it can be done in basketball, it can easily be done in football.

I figured Helmet Contact would be a POE, I was hoping defensive contact down field would be too, thats too bad. And its a helluva lot easier to identify a coach in football compared to basketball.

As a matter of fact I think that it is much easier to administer in football. How many times as a wing have you heard the coach and had to either tell him to have a player call it or pick a player on the field and attribute it to them...

REPLY: No new rule book wording yet, so it's tough to comment. But some of my thoughts:

<b>Coach allowed to request timeout</b> -- Previously, if his players couldn't hear him screaming for a TO, they would get the grief. Now, if you don't hear him, <u>you're</u> going to get the grief! And, if you as a wing official hear the call, you need to turn away from the action to verify that it is indeed the head coach before you grant the TO. If that occurs right when the snap is imminent, you might miss something.

<b>Any number of players/subs/coaches in TO near sideline</b> -- Probably OK.

<b>Momentum exception extended to team A after a change of possession</b> -- Good addition. Why don't they go all the way and extend it to recoveries as well??<img src=http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/gojerry.gif>

<b>Foul during the last timed down of period</b> -- Last year's change was horrible. It did nothing but allow them to remove the statement that if any of those things occurred during the untimed down, another untimed down would be played. Yeah...but it had some unintended consequences that confused the issue. (Note: I had a friend who is the state interpreter from New Hampshire solicit Diehl to change this back, so I guess this means I might be responsible for a rule change !<img src=http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/lol.gif>)

<b>PSK changes</b> -- Even though the new wording isn't there yet, the ideas are good: opening the PSK window at the snap, like the NCAA, is a much better alternative than waiting till it crosses the ENZ (no one could properly officiate that rule!), and a successful FG is exempt from any PSK consideration probably needed to be spelled out.

<b>Muffs by kickers on free and scrimmage kicks</b> -- good change; poor wording in the table on the Fed's website. What do you expect?

<b>Clarification on last year's 8-2-2 enforcement exception</b> -- only fouls after change of possession can have enforcement carried over to succeeding spot. Sounds good to me.

We have this in basketball too, and I handle it this way. If you hear the request when it would be appropriate to grant it, then turn to verify that the head coach is who requested it, grant it because the "request" came when it was appropriate, so technically nothing happened because there was a time out before the play.

In basketball, you're never very far away from either coach. If we're running a play from inside the 5 yard lines (let's say the 1 yard line with 4th and goal and 3 seconds left in the game) and one of the coaches is screaming for a TO, either the play goes off and somebody is unhappy because their TO wasn't granted, or somebody has to avert their eyes from their area of responsibility to see who is calling a time out. If the coach feels he has to run out of the team box to get an official's attention, what then?

I don't recall any groundswell of support for such a change so it is curious to me as to why it popped up now. Was this something that had been on the table for years and now had some traction? Anybody in the know, please advise.

Well if he comes out of the box then ya just throw your flag up. The rules state that the coach must be visible and if he calls a timeout and I can't hear him tough!

Also you say when the coach calls a timeout you'll have to turn away, its not like anything is happening because if the ball is live then just ignore any request, otherwsie flip around real quick. I would have preferred to keep it the way it was but not a big issue there. ;)

ABoselli, yep we aren't far away. The difference however is that in basketball they can call TO during live ball periods..so we do have to avert our eyes during live ball action. One explanation in the differences in our opinion is this, I don't work in any location where you can't hear a coach yell if you are on the 5 yard line. I can see this being a problem in the more urban areas, but here in Wyoming we can hear the Howler Monkeys from anywhere on the field, unfortunately sometimes LOL...

REPLY: While I believe that most of the changes are good, one--at least in the way it's been worded in the Rule Changes Table on the Fed's website--perplexes me.<img src=http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/gojerry.gif>

Leave it up to the Fed to screw up the wording of a new rule. I know this is not the wording in the actual rules, but I hope they fix this one before they publish it.

<b>6-1-5, 6-2-4:</b><i> "During a free kick, should the kicking team muff the ball into a receiver, the action shall be ignored. During scrimmage kick, a ball legally batted or muffed by the kicking team into a receiver shall be ignored." </i>

I'm sure they're intending to say that <b>the touching by R</b> is to be ignored in both the free kick and scrimmage kick situations. But the way they say it here, it seems to imply that the muff should be ignored in the free kick situation, and the ball (huh???) should be ignored in the scrimmage kick situation.

I know I'm anal about the way things are worded in the rules, but I negotiate and write contracts for a living! Sorry. And for those of you who have already read this comment on the other board, sorry again!

Maybe I am misunderstanding, or just missing it period. I don't understand the need for this addition at all. The free kick is a live ball, so it doesn't have to touch anyone before it can be recovered by K anyway KCI rules not withstanding. In a scrimmmage kick situation, it would be first touching and R could have the ball there anyway, PSK and fouls after possesion not withstanding. This one seems to be overkill to me, but if someone sees the logic more clearly than I do please show me the money er I mean show me the light....

<i>I don't work in any location where you can't hear a coach yell if you are on the 5 yard line</i>

If there are more than 50 people at the game (usually 500 - 1500), and you've got the players all talking, and its a crucial part of the game, and you don't know who is yelling (it could be the coach, I guess), then it may be a problem.

I would tell a coach in the pre-game conference that he's gonna have to have his player call it in those situations, for the reasons already stated.

Personally, at the Varsity level I don't like this as I have not really had a problem in the past with the teams (especially the team captains) calling timeouts when directed to by the coaching staff.
Varsity head-coaches usually plan ahead on situations where an immediate timeout at the end of the next play will be called and their captain knows this.
I really wonder what drove this to approval

Where I know this will be a good thing are for those JV and Modified level games where player/coach communication on this aspect of the game if no where near as good.

How are you supposed to regonize the coach ? Specially in lower leagues. Or does the coach has to legitimaze himself in High School?

And does the rule only apply to the Headcoach or to any Coach or person who claims to be one on the sideline?

Just curious, as in Germany anybody on the sideline may call himself coach.

ares

Only the HEAD coach can call a timeout. If the headcoach is in the booth, then only players on the field would beable to call a timeout. The head coach must be visible. And you should know the head coach because you have to talk to him right before the game.