Possible rules changes for 2009

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

They only reason they're "able to figure it out" is that nobody has attempted the A-11 there.

Maybe because it's been figured out at the NCAA level what "obvious" means so the a-11 offense is known to be illegal except in said obvious kicking situation so they obviously have not even attempted it. I would think this to be quite obvious.

obvious - easily discovered, seen, or understood

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by LDUB

I'm not sure if the information on this website is correct but it has rule changes going back to 1960.

NF Football Rules Changes - pre-1981 - Football.Refs.Org

Thanks. So the answer is 1975 for when encroachment became a dead ball foul with no exception.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Maybe because it's been figured out at the NCAA level what "obvious" means so the a-11 offense is known to be illegal except in said obvious kicking situation so they obviously have not even attempted it. I would think this to be quite obvious.

obvious - easily discovered, seen, or understood

Obvious that a kick may be attempted? When is it not? It's obvious to me that a kick of some kind may be attempted starting on any down, anywhere. I don't think their wording had anything to do with A-11's not being attempted; it wasn't in Fed either until very recently, and with fewer teams playing NCAA rules, it's obvious to me that the chances of anything new appearing first under NCAA rules is less than under Fed rules.

Robert

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Obvious that a kick may be attempted? When is it not? It's obvious to me that a kick of some kind may be attempted starting on any down, anywhere.

But in actual practice, it's not, is it?

If you say "obvious that a kick will be attempted," you're stuck there, too, aren't you?

Some things are, and by rights should be, left to the wise judgment of the experienced football official, IMHO. Else they can just get monkeys to do this.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

But in actual practice, it's not, is it?

If you say "obvious that a kick will be attempted," you're stuck there, too, aren't you?

Of course.

Some things are, and by rights should be, left to the wise judgment of the experienced football official.

Not this "thing". Otherwise both NCAA & Fed could've defined "scrimmage kick formation" in such a way, leaving it up to the official's judgement.

Think about it. You're not asking the officials to judge what play will be run, which could be worked out by some kind of signal from the captain if you had to, but what kind of play is to some degree likely, before the ball is snapped. It's not even like the judgement about likelihood of a kick during play, which you make to determine whether the kicker gets protection. Before the ball is snapped, that's just a crazy judgement for an official to have to make. Regardless of what play the offense winds up running, who's to say if you were right or wrong?

It seems you want to allow pass plays from such formations even with the numbering exception, just not too often! How are you going to decide that?

Much better to have a clearcut line such as I suggest, whereby the team that uses the numbering exception has to, in effect, decide between kicking and passing threats. Or any number of other clearcut lines that could be drawn, like allowing it only on 4th down. But basing it on "likely" -- which is what you really want, and which no combination of "obvious" and "may" can produce -- is really asking for trouble. I'm surprised anyone would wish for such a judgement call.

Robert

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by Mike L

The guys up in NCAA seem to be able to figure it out. Maybe us HS guys are just too stupid in your book.

So every time a team has a back at least 7 yds from the line of scrimmage it's obvious that it's a kicking situation? Or, do we have to look at down and distance...or...time of the game...or... time left in the half...or... if they have passed in this situation earlier in the game...or...if they have used the fake punt before...or...

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Forksref

So every time a team has a back at least 7 yds from the line of scrimmage it's obvious that it's a kicking situation? Or, do we have to look at down and distance...or...time of the game...or... time left in the half...or... if they have passed in this situation earlier in the game...or...if they have used the fake punt before...or...

Is it just me? I'm always aware of all of those things when I'm on the field.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by daggo66

Is it just me? I'm always aware of all of those things when I'm on the field.

It's not just you. It's just some people insist on making a simple observation impossible to comprehend.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Forksref

So every time a team has a back at least 7 yds from the line of scrimmage it's obvious that it's a kicking situation? Or, do we have to look at down and distance...or...time of the game...or... time left in the half...or... if they have passed in this situation earlier in the game...or...if they have used the fake punt before...or...

So in your games you're often caught off-guard when the holder places the block on the ground an kneels next to it, or when the punter lines up 15 yards deep as if in punt formation? I don't ever remember a situation where a team lined up as if to kick and I thought to myself, "What are they doing?"

Obvious is obvious, and it's obvious some guys just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

[Robert Goodman]

OK, you want to leave the judgement in this call? At least take it out of the officials' heads. Call it a scrimmage kick formation based on whether team B has someone deep to receive. Won't work for all scrimmage kick situations, of course, as when a short field goal is anticipated, but then you could say the numbering exception isn't needed when team A doesn't have much ground to cover afer the kick.

How about it? Leave it to team B instead of team A? You drop a deep receiver back, you allow the other team the numbering exception.

The rule would have to tolerate situations where team B shifted to draw an illegal formation foul on A, by giving team A a pass in such situations. You'd have to allow a late substitution by A when B showed their scrimmage kick formation, so they could get their eligible numbers in, and then they'd still be allowed if B shifted out of it before play began or was prevented. So there'd be a bit of a special substitution procedure.

Robert

[daggo66]

That wouldn't work. Sometimes B won't drop anyone back in an all out attempt to block the kick. Hey wait a minute, that would mean it's obvious that A is going to kick.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by daggo66

That wouldn't work. Sometimes B won't drop anyone back in an all out attempt to block the kick. Hey wait a minute, that would mean it's obvious that A is going to kick.

that's good stuff !!

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by asdf

that's good stuff !!

I'm here until Thursday, try the veal!

[Niner]

I know that the Illinois rep to the NF rules comm.will request that the wording on the exception read that it applies only on 4th down.

I officiated two varsity games this year where the A-11 was attempted for most of the game. To me, it reminded me of when I played HS football and you were eligible only by position---numbering was not a part of the rules then. Then football was "modernize" to follow the college numbering rules on eligibility. When I played, the defense had to understand the positioning and had to adapt on every play and the offense had to be clearly in an eligible position not this tight positioning, close to the LOS by backs that we see now. But, football was modernize, eligible numbering was brought in and I assume the committee will feel there should be no going back by taking advantage of an exception that was really brought in to eliminate the need to change jerseys or put on aprons with ineligible numbers. Remember when players used to slip on aprons over their regular jerseys so they could go in in place of a big heavy for punt coverage? That is why the exception was put in.

[Mike L]

Maybe all this worrying by some over officials ability to grasp a simple concept of "obvious" can be relieved if the rule is changed to read that the numbering exception is allowed in a SKC when a kick may be obvious "or a legal kick does occur". Then all this concern about SK's in those extremely rare situations that we might all see 2 or 3 times in our careers will not be penalized because a kick actually happened. I would think it would be obvious that no flag would be dropped if a kick was made no matter what, but apparently some have to have everything friggin spelled out to them.