NFHS Survey up

[ODJ]

The survey is wanting our opinions about adding NCAA rules; the 'horse collar' penalty, a visible play clock, a 40/25 clock, no LoD on OPI, ending A-11, no free kick after fair catch, B can earn a 2-pt. conversion on A's turnover during PAT, fouls by offense enforced at PS.

Apparently, helmets coming off the runner is a big problem. Who knew.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by ODJ

The survey is wanting our opinions about adding NCAA rules; the 'horse collar' penalty, a visible play clock, a 40/25 clock, no LoD on OPI, ending A-11, no free kick after fair catch, B can earn a 2-pt. conversion on A's turnover during PAT, fouls by offense enforced at PS.

Okay, sure, would be great but expensive, whatever you want, what is LoD?, fine, please don't, why bother? and okay, fine.

There. Sorted.

[mikesears]

Originally Posted by ODJ

The survey is wanting our opinions about ... B can earn a 2-pt. conversion on A's turnover during PAT,

I think the question was about allowing A to pick up a blocked PAT kick and run it in for 2 points. I don't think they are wanting to go the college route on this (yet)

[ajmc]

Let's hope not. That has to be the most convoluted of all differences between the codes. Consider than the concept of a PAT is that the team that has scored a TD (only a TD) is rewarded with the opportunity to "try" and add another point, by meeting certain conditions.

The defense has not earned any reward opportunity, other than the fact they have the opportunity to prevent the scoring team from adding these bonus point(s). Why should the team that has allowed their opponent to score a TD be afforded any opportunity to score themselves?

[TXMike]

Just playing devil's advocate since I work under NCAA rules only but...

The extra point is danged near automatic now. So it is almost a gimmee. Why not make the offense be somewhat concerned that an error on their part could result in a score by B?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Just playing devil's advocate since I work under NCAA rules only but...

The extra point is danged near automatic now. So it is almost a gimmee. Why not make the offense be somewhat concerned that an error on their part could result in a score by B?

Thast's an argument for abolishing the try, not glorifying it.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Let's hope not. That has to be the most convoluted of all differences between the codes. Consider than the concept of a PAT is that the team that has scored a TD (only a TD) is rewarded with the opportunity to "try" and add another point, by meeting certain conditions.

The defense has not earned any reward opportunity, other than the fact they have the opportunity to prevent the scoring team from adding these bonus point(s). Why should the team that has allowed their opponent to score a TD be afforded any opportunity to score themselves?

I agree for the same reasons, and beyond that I'd like to see the try abolished. 2-way scoring is going in the exact wrong direction.

Eliminating the try would considerably shorten the rule book, simplify scoring, shorten games, and finally get rid of something that was on an asymptotic trend toward elimination until it was reversed 50 years ago. The try is a way to decide games via a fluke. No other major game (unless it's a relative -- rugby) provides an opp'ty for a minor score following a major score.

Robert

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Eliminating the try would considerably shorten the rule book, simplify scoring, shorten games, and finally get rid of something that was on an asymptotic trend toward elimination until it was reversed 50 years ago. The try is a way to decide games via a fluke. No other major game (unless it's a relative -- rugby) provides an opp'ty for a minor score following a major score.

Robert

Where do you get the info from re the trend towards eliminating the try. I do not read it that way in Nelson's book. The try has been in since the game's inception (I suspect owing to the game's spinning off from rugby). I see where there were many discussions and changes related to where try would be attempted from and point values but nothing related to the elimination of the try.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Where do you get the info from re the trend towards eliminating the try. I do not read it that way in Nelson's book. The try has been in since the game's inception (I suspect owing to the game's spinning off from rugby). I see where there were many discussions and changes related to where try would be attempted from and point values but nothing related to the elimination of the try.

The try originally started as a continuation from a punt-out (and potentially a series of punt-ons), so abolishing that (which was done earlier in Rugby Union than in American or Canadian football) reduced the try to a much simpler and less time consuming affair. I call that a step toward elimination.

Then, the fact that the try became a kind of digression from the game, rather than a link in a scoring effort, reduced its importance, so I call that another step toward elimination.

The reduction in scoring value of the try vs. the touchdown that caused it to be awarded, I call a step toward elimination. From the time an unconverted try first got a scoring value, until the 2 point conversion was introduced, that ratio had declined from 2:1 to 1:6 -- a factor of 12 -- so is it much of a stretch to project that trend down to 0?

Robert

[ODJ]

Originally Posted by mikesears

I think the question was about allowing A to pick up a blocked PAT kick and run it in for 2 points. I don't think they are wanting to go the college route on this (yet)

Oregon and another state had this rule an experiment. Happened a few times.

I do think A should be able to pick up a blocked PAT and score. Mechanically tough with 5 (and less.)

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ODJ

The survey is wanting our opinions about adding NCAA rules; the 'horse collar' penalty, a visible play clock, a 40/25 clock, no LoD on OPI, ending A-11, no free kick after fair catch, B can earn a 2-pt. conversion on A's turnover during PAT, fouls by offense enforced at PS.

Apparently, helmets coming off the runner is a big problem. Who knew.

1) Horse collar...fine by me, it is a safety thing.
2) Play clock...the coaches around here don't even want the BJ visible count. Most schools don't have the money.
3) 40/25 clock...the clock operators we have get confused enough as it is, no thank you please.
4) No LoD on OPI...either that or make the yardage penalty less, maybe like illegal touching.
5) Ending A-11...by all that is holy, yes.
6) No free kick after fair catch...who cares, I mean really?
7) B scores on a try...no.
8) Fouls by offense behind the LoS...besides the occasional holding call, is this really a big deal?

I'm surprised the ability to bring a kick out of the EZ vs it being an auto-TB is not up for consideration.

[ajmc]

The offense has earned the opportunity to "try" for a bonus point. The defense has earned nothing, but is given a fair opportunity to prevent the offense from earning their bonus.

Why would you want to reward the defense for allowing their opponent to score a TD?

[TXMike]

The NCAA rule was changed in 1988 as there was thought that the extra point was too much in favor of the offense and the change was needed to restore some balance. They also hoped to reduce the number of PAT kicks. They achieved the 1st goal but did not do much on the 2d.

[KurtBryan]

Dear Officials:

Two great pieces coming out this month: a) ESPN Magazine - should be a great piece,

and b) the NY Times called today, and the A-11 Offense will be featured as one of great inventions in the Country in 2008 in their annual issue.

* That is great news for: the kids, the coaches, the Refs, the fans and the NFHS and CIF...plus all of the other teams, coaches, players and states who ramped up the A-11 in 2008.

[JRutledge]

I guess if you call an invention that cannot be used the following year great.

Peace