Oregon has been approved by the NFHS to experiment (and tweek) this rule during the 2004 and 2005 football seasons. We have purposly written it differently than the NCAA rule as the philosopy of the NFHS is that "no foul goes unpunished!" Therefore, the NCAA blanket "the penalty is declined by rule" for all fouls occuring after a change of possession would not work for NFHS purposes. Rather, under the Oregon rule,<b> all fouls occuring after a change of possession are enforced on the succeeding spot.</b>

There are roughly 20 NFHS rules effected by the change, however the bottom line is this:
1) All fouls occuring before any change of possession are enforced the same as they were in 2003.
2) All fouls occuring after any change of possession are enforced on the succeeding spot.
3) If acceptance of a foul results in a safety, the offended team is awarded 1 point with no yardage assessment.
4) If a double foul occurs the try is repeated. However if both teams foul <u>and B has gained possession with "clean hands,"</u> B may accept the A foul (creating a double foul) and replay the TRY (with A putting the ball in play) OR, B may decline the A foul and the B foul will be enforced on the succeeding spot.

Read it, digest it, comment on it. There are 23 case plays for your reading enjoyment.
We welcome any and all comments as you are looking at a working draft.
Thank you in advance for your comments!

This link will take you to a PDF version that is printable.

http://www.osaa.org/broadcast/fbexp.pdf








[Edited by KWH on Jul 2nd, 2004 at 02:00 PM]

The first thing that comes to mind is that you could go an entire high school season without this rule coming into effect. Think how about it!

#1 - How many high school gmaes go into OT? I think the answer is probably 5% or less.

#2 - Out of those, how many times will the defense get a turnover and score? I would guess much much less than 1%.

#3 - So if it happens 2 or 3 teams during an entire season, how can the experiment be properly analyzed?

Just a something to think about.

Thanks for sharing this!
 

My understanding is that these experimental rules for Oregon will apply during the entire game, not just the overtime periods.

I sure hope that the NFHS will implement these rules over the next few years. It would sure add some excitement to tries especially in a close game.

BBR -
You may have misread the information. For clarification:

<b>1. This experimental rule is in effect on ALL TRYS be it in regulation or OT.

2. The experimental rule <u>is not in effect</u> during regular scrimmage plays in OT. </b>

I hope this helps

My bad! There was simliar talk here about an experiemtnal rule for OT, not only allowing the defense to score on a try but any other OT play. Just didn't read thoroughly enough and assumed your sitch was the same.

I read the doucment rather quickly, (since it really will not apply for me at this time), but I am curious as to just what the words:
"A period is not extended for a foul occurring during a try" really are intended to mean?

You can explain if you want.

Maybe I missed further details, but I am also wondering why the people who defined this change did not give Team-B an option to end the game without a mandatory TRY down? As perscribed by NCAA, a TRY is required unless the team behind in the score leaves the field.
In some cases, this is a very good thing to have. Last thing anyone wants is to have a fight on a play that in 99.9% of the time will not change the outcome.


I can live with a change like this, but I think a change to allow defensive offside to be a live ball foul would have been a better experiment to have.

Reply...
 

I would love to explain.
It is an ad lib version of what the impending 2004 Rule Book would say, (since the 2004 Rule Book was not out at the time that sentence was written!) The 2004 Rule book version of the same statement is as follows: <b><u>
Rule 3-3-3 NOTE:</u> - <i>The period shall not be extended further when the defense fouls during a successful try/field goal and the offended team accepts the results of the play with enforcment of the penalty from the succeeding spot.</b></i>
And, since the current experimental rule document is a "working draft" I will see to it that the wording is updated in the next revision.

Theisey, NFHS rules <u>DO NOT</u> require a <b>"mandatory TRY down</b>" as you suggest. AND,
The Oregon experimental rule did not alter <b><u>NFHS Rule 8-3-1 EXCEPTION:</b></u> Which states...
<i> If a touchdown is scored during the last down of the fourth period, the try <u>shall not be attempted </u>unless the point(s) would affect the outcome of the game or playoff qualifying.</i>

<u>HOWEVER, </u>The interpretation of 8-3-1 EXCEPTION has changed:
For example, if A scores a touchdown (on a play in which time in the 4th quarter expires) to make the score A22 - B 20,<u> the extra point must be attempted as the outcome is still in doubt.</u> (While common sense would suggest the A QB would take a knee during the TRY, we all know stranger things have happened.) We did not see a need to either a), alter the existing NFHS rule, nor b), deny B the opportunity to tie the game.
<u>I agree with you 110%.</u>
The current "encroachment" rule enforcment interupts the flow of the game far too often. All one has to do to recieve approval for an experimental rule is get your state association to request permission from the NFHS. That's all we did! If Oregon can do it so can you!
Be careful of what you ask for as you might just get it. And he who asks (in the eyes of the NFHS) is responsible for writing the experimental rule and the experimental caseplays!

I hope this helped answer your questions...

OK, but what would one do then if Team-B, which just lost by 1 or 2 points with no time on the left on the clock and their coach has decided that they were not going to go back out and play the TRY down?
That's all I'm asking.

I also didn't, at least I did not think I did imply a TRY was mandatory under currrent NFHS rules, I thought that's what I read into the experimental rule when I saw the word "must" be attempt. You've clarified that.

FWIW, I'm going into my 11th NCAA season and not seen one case in any of my games where Team-B had the chance to score. I think the main reason is that the kickers are too good.
This is season 19 for NFHS and I think maybe Team-B might have had the chance a dozen times. It's really hard to say since on blocked kicks, the played is ended rather quickly.
I suspect that situation will yeild a few points for either team.

Reply...
 

I would answer you question this way.
First I would make every effort possible to make sure the coach understands the situation (that he has the possibliity of winning or tying the game.) I would (because of my personalality) have him acknowledge that he is forfeiting his opportunity to win or tie the game. If these attempts failed (and I highly doubt they would) I would delay for a few minutes giving him every opportunity. I would then hold the ball in the air ending the game. (I would NEVER allow what I saw in an NFL game once. In the NFL game Team B left the field, and A was allowed to run a try with no B team on the field. (The kicker ran it in for 2) That was a travesty in my opinion!)

While my actions are not specifically supported in the NFHS Rule Book that is how "I" would handle the situation.

FWIW, Our suspicions are that it (some type of extended play on try's) will be seen more often at the NFHS level than is currently seen at the NCAA level simply because the lower level NFHS kickers are not that good. Also, traditionally there are many more 2-point attempts at the NFHS level than at the NCAA level. But these are just crystal ball assumptions. We have the experimental rule to work with with for (at least) two years, and time will tell.

As a positive sidebar...
If nothing else comes of it, the end of an era has arrived for officials that insist on blowing the whistle (on try's) as soon as the ball is kicked! Since the ball now contiues to be live on try's this may assist those very same officials from blowing an IW on blocked Field Goal attempts. I am quite sure that some of you can relate!

[Edited by KWH on Jul 3rd, 2004 at 12:40 PM]

I really think there may not be as many IWs as some who might be following this experiment envision.

My reasoning is this and while I can't be 100% sure we apply it unilaterally out my way at all levels, the only offical blowing his whistle on a kick try is the Referee.
I'll repeat that point, the Ref is the one killing a kick try whether is was good, no good or blocked.
Running plays, bad snap plays or passing plays on a try are a different animal. There's where an IW may bite you.

Who blow's the whistle?
 

I understand your point and our rules committee has discussed this situation at length. I have been a White Hat for many years. For just as many years I had the only whistle on trys by kick. Prior to this year I also blew the whistle (albiet some would say early) once the ball was airborne or blocked and apparent the try by kick would not score.

Now we have an experimental rule and with it comes an experimental mechanic. Our rules committee has decided we (at least in the Portland area) are going to treat a try by kick EXACTLY the same as a field goal. Therefore the new mechanic will be the BJ (LJ on 4-man crews) has the only whistle on a try by kick. Since the BJ has the only whistle on a FG the committee felt it would be consistant treating the try by kick the same as a Field Goal. The BJ (LJ on 4-man) having the only whistle is also consistant with the NFHS Officials Manual on Field Goals.
Of course if the kick is blocked we have a change of status. We still have a loose ball play which "may or may not" develop into a running play, and in either case the covering official would have the whistle.
Additionally, 2 point trys have not changed, the covering official has the whistle.

While I am sure not all will agree that was our thinking by committee decision and be it right, wrong, or indifferent that is our experimental mechanic for our experimental rule 2004!