Possible rules changes for 2009

[Robert Goodman]

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.

If they're not dropping anyone back, then team A doesn't need the speedy guys in coverage, hence no numbering exception. What's wrong with that?

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

If they're not dropping anyone back, then team A doesn't need the speedy guys in coverage, hence no numbering exception. What's wrong with that?

2 things. Who is long snapping and A is going to want to be the first on the ball to down it as deeply down the field as possible.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

If they're not dropping anyone back, then team A doesn't need the speedy guys in coverage, hence no numbering exception. What's wrong with that?

2 reasons have already been given, but how can what B does determine if A is fouling or not?

A sends substitutes on 4th down to punt. B doesn't "drop anyone back" to cause A to foul.

B thinks that A may fake the punt so they stay in their normal defense and doesn't "drop anyone back". Is that a foul?

What constitutes "dropping back"?

You have to realize that when it is everyone against you (and that everyone includes the NCAA) that maybe you are wrong. This is easy to officiate. Teams never punt on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd down. If a team is going to kick a field goal then a holder will be kneeling on the ground. No one ever drop kicks. Everyone knows when it is a kicking situation. Don't pretend that you can't determine if the team is going to attempt a kick or not.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by LDUB

2 reasons have already been given, but how can what B does determine if A is fouling or not?

A sends substitutes on 4th down to punt. B doesn't "drop anyone back" to cause A to foul.

B thinks that A may fake the punt so they stay in their normal defense and doesn't "drop anyone back". Is that a foul?

Then team A would not have followed the special substitutionprocedure provided for these cases, and would not have subbed in players 1-49 & 80-99, so no foul.

What constitutes "dropping back"?

It would be an arbitrary distance. I suggest 25 yards because there's a defense that plays a 20 yard deep safety.

You have to realize that when it is everyone against you (and that everyone includes the NCAA) that maybe you are wrong. This is easy to officiate. Teams never punt on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd down.

That just means I've seen a lot more football than you.

BTW, I saw one HS game on TV in the NYC area where one team ran a good deal of its offense from a long punt formation, either shifting into it or coming out in it straight from the huddle. Sometimes they even punted from it, and not always on 4th down.

If a team is going to kick a field goal then a holder will be kneeling on the ground.

So, you want to allow the numbering exception as long as one player is kneeling in position to take the snap? I'm sure A-11 would still work just fine. They have 2 players 7+ yards deep in position to take the snap.

No one ever drop kicks.

I don't see how it would affect any of this if they did.

Robert

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by daggo66

2 things. Who is long snapping and A is going to want to be the first on the ball to down it as deeply down the field as possible.

If they line up at least one end numbered 50-79, the long snapper can have an eligible number even without the exception. So they sacrifice an eligible receiver; that doesn't seem to be a problem for you guys who just know that they're not going to pass.

And as far as kick coverage goes when the defense is rushing everybody, even the slow players will beat the defense peeling back if they don't block the kick. As soon as you lose your block, you release. They're still running one way while you're running the other.

Robert

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Then team A would not have followed the special substitutionprocedure provided for these cases, and would not have subbed in players 1-49 & 80-99, so no foul.

So A can't use the exception unless B sends someone deep. Do you want A to just yell out and ask B if they are sending someone deep? First off B isn't going to line up in a punt return formation until A lines up in a punt return formation (or has the punt team coming on the field). How would it be possible for A to substitute after B is set?

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

It would be an arbitrary distance. I suggest 25 yards because there's a defense that plays a 20 yard deep safety.

So it's 4th & 15. A sees that B is sending someone deep so they remove the 5 players 50-79. Then before the snap the deep B player moves up to 24 yards deep. How can what B does dictate if A fouls?

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

BTW, I saw one HS game on TV in the NYC area where one team ran a good deal of its offense from a long punt formation, either shifting into it or coming out in it straight from the huddle. Sometimes they even punted from it, and not always on 4th down.

So of all the hundreds of thousands of football games everyone on this board has seen we have 1 example of a team that uses a SKF for their normal offense. I don't see how that is relevant.

Also if a team want to line up in a punt formation all the time it is fine, but the numbering exception will not be in effect.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So, you want to allow the numbering exception as long as one player is kneeling in position to take the snap? I'm sure A-11 would still work just fine. They have 2 players 7+ yards deep in position to take the snap.

I didn't say that. The A-11 has the players spread across the field. No team is dumb enough to attempt a place kick field goal from that formation, blockers are needed to prevent B from blocking the kick. It is obvious when a team is setting up for a field goal.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

That just means I've seen a lot more football than you.

As far as I know teams who punt not on 4th down like it to be a surprise and therefore line up in a normal offensive formation therefore the numbering exception has nothing to do with this.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I don't see how it would affect any of this if they did.

Yes, drop kicks matter. A isn't going to punt on 1st down on B's 10 yard line. They could say that the QB was going to drop kick and therefore they were not in a field goal formation.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

If they line up at least one end numbered 50-79, the long snapper can have an eligible number even without the exception.

Do you understand the reason there is a numbering exception? It is so that teams do not have to do stuff like that.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So they sacrifice an eligible receiver; that doesn't seem to be a problem for you guys who just know that they're not going to pass.

This has nothing to do with a knowing a team won't pass. You saying that just proves you really don't understand this at all. The numbering exception is used for kicking situations. It has nothing to do with saying a team must kick.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

And as far as kick coverage goes when the defense is rushing everybody, even the slow players will beat the defense peeling back if they don't block the kick. As soon as you lose your block, you release. They're still running one way while you're running the other.

That just means I've seen a lot more football than you.

Many times a team will kick the ball and try to get it to stop near B's goal line. Having fast players on the field means they are better able to run down there and stop the ball before it bounces into the end zone.

To sum this up:

1. The current NCAA wording works perfectly. You should be smart enough to know it is a kicking situation.

2. You're idea about allowing the numbering exception only if B sends a guy deep is extremely stupid due to the many flaws in it.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by LDUB

So A can't use the exception unless B sends someone deep. Do you want A to just yell out and ask B if they are sending someone deep? First off B isn't going to line up in a punt return formation until A lines up in a punt return formation (or has the punt team coming on the field). How would it be possible for A to substitute after B is set?

You didn't read what I wrote in the thread above (or maybe it was fully described in the other thread)? A would look to see if B had someone deep, and if so the officials would allow time for A to sub in numbers outside of 50-79. Team A would be allowed to use the numbering exception until the ball was put in play or play was prevented, even if B shifted out of their scrimmage kick formation.

So it's 4th & 15. A sees that B is sending someone deep so they remove the 5 players 50-79. Then before the snap the deep B player moves up to 24 yards deep. How can what B does dictate if A fouls?

As above, as long as B showed scrimmage kick formation, those players would be allowed to remain in and use the numbering exception.

So of all the hundreds of thousands of football games everyone on this board has seen we have 1 example of a team that uses a SKF for their normal offense. I don't see how that is relevant.

Surely from my sampling there'd be other examples in a world this size. How many teams use A-11? You insist on writing the rules to take account of this minuscule number of teams, yet you blithely would sweep aside other minorities of systems that may be out there now or in the future.

Also if a team want to line up in a punt formation all the time it is fine, but the numbering exception will not be in effect.

Well, then, why not write a rule that draws such a line that doesn't rely on officials' judgement of the play situation? Why not write it like the pass interference rules, or roughing the passer, which don't require you to assess whether you think it's a passing situation?

I didn't say that. The A-11 has the players spread across the field. No team is dumb enough to attempt a place kick field goal from that formation, blockers are needed to prevent B from blocking the kick. It is obvious when a team is setting up for a field goal.

And so you would make that part of the official's judgement too? Would it surprise you to learn that I've seen an unusual place kicking formation too? Or that some teams are using the place kick for filed position instead of punting? Go figure, but there are some coaches that advocate it, even though I think they're nuts. But the rules should accommodate the plans even of those coaches I think are nuts.

As far as I know teams who punt not on 4th down like it to be a surprise and therefore line up in a normal offensive formation therefore the numbering exception has nothing to do with this.

Then I guess I know more about football than you do. Teams will punt from regular punt formation short of 4th down when they have poor field position (especially combined with poor ball control conditions) or little hope of making the line to gain. It's done because the threat of a run or pass in such a situation is greater than on last down, so there's less pressure on the kicker and coverage is easier. One game I saw the L.A. Rams (yes, they used to be in Los Angeles) line up in punt formation 4 times on 3rd down, and they punted on 3 of those 4 occasions and ran on the other.

Yes, drop kicks matter. A isn't going to punt on 1st down on B's 10 yard line. They could say that the QB was going to drop kick and therefore they were not in a field goal formation.

So explain how that makes it easier for you to tell it's a scrimmage kick situation.

Do you understand the reason there is a numbering exception? It is so that teams do not have to do stuff like that.

This has nothing to do with a knowing a team won't pass. You saying that just proves you really don't understand this at all. The numbering exception is used for kicking situations. It has nothing to do with saying a team must kick.

You're so solicitous of team A's being able to throw to any receiver even from scrimmage kick formation that you wouldn't want them to sacrifice even one eligible receiver to get a special snapper in at center, yet you deny them the use of the numbering exception to hide eligible receivers unless you deem it by pure judgement a kicking situation? Why is it so important to preserve up to 6 eligible receivers if you think a kick is likely anyway?

Robert

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

You didn't read what I wrote in the thread above (or maybe it was fully described in the other thread)? A would look to see if B had someone deep, and if so the officials would allow time for A to sub in numbers outside of 50-79. Team A would be allowed to use the numbering exception until the ball was put in play or play was prevented, even if B shifted out of their scrimmage kick formation.


Robert

This would never work. I don't care how many games you have officiated or worked, the game of football is not played that way. A makes the decision of whether or not to punt independently of B's formation. It all depends on down and distance, time, and situation. B would never send someone deep just to allow A to sub. They wouldn't want the "good" snapper in the game. They would wait until the last second then drop someone back. That has got to be one of the wackiest things anyone has come up with on this forum (and that alone says alot!) Furthermore you state, "the officials would allow time for A to sub in numbers outside of 50-79." WTF?

Robert, your much researched knowledge of the game and it's rules is usually impressive and interesting. Your practical knowledge and application often appears to be from another planet.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by daggo66

This would never work. I don't care how many games you have officiated or worked, the game of football is not played that way. A makes the decision of whether or not to punt independently of B's formation. It all depends on down and distance, time, and situation. B would never send someone deep just to allow A to sub. They wouldn't want the "good" snapper in the game. They would wait until the last second then drop someone back. That has got to be one of the wackiest things anyone has come up with on this forum (and that alone says alot!) Furthermore you state, "the officials would allow time for A to sub in numbers outside of 50-79." WTF?

I mean exactly that. If the formation rules were amended to go along with what I described here, there would have to be a compesnating change in the substitution and delay-of-game provisions. If at any time the ball was ready for play team B assumed scrimmage kick formation (already described), then the officials would stop the play clock, announce the availability of the numbering exception, and allow subs to enter for team A provided they were wearing 1-49 and/or 80-99. A would be allowed time to re-huddle before the play clock was restarted.

This takes all the judgement of the likelihood of a scrimmage kick out of the officials' hands and makes it team B's responsibility. Team B can play vs. kick coverage if they want to, depending on their formation. Because outside of the narrow world of this forum, nobody is proposing a rule hinging on whether a kicking play is likely, any more than they would want to set pass interference rules on whether a pass play was likely. I guarantee you that making it a judgement call would never even be considered by any football rules committee. NCAA's language, which combines "obvious" naively with "may", would be completely ineffectual if anyone attempted to run A-11. If anyone tried A-11 in any circuit playing NCAA rules, it would take an explicit ruling from the organiz'n (such as Texas HSAA) that it was illegal.

Robert

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by daggo66

This would never work. I don't care how many games you have officiated or worked, the game of football is not played that way. A makes the decision of whether or not to punt independently of B's formation. It all depends on down and distance, time, and situation. B would never send someone deep just to allow A to sub. They wouldn't want the "good" snapper in the game.

I was going to say the same thing. If A only has 1 snapper who wears #44 then B can never drop anyone back and try to block every kick. With all the bad snaps B will surely have a good shot at blocking them.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

You're so solicitous of team A's being able to throw to any receiver even from scrimmage kick formation that you wouldn't want them to sacrifice even one eligible receiver to get a special snapper in at center

Many teams will have only 1, maybe 0 linemen 50-79 for punts. I don't think you understand the numbering exception. It is so teams can put in whoever they want and not have to worry about having 5 numbered 50-79.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

yet you deny them the use of the numbering exception to hide eligible receivers unless you deem it by pure judgement a kicking situation? Why is it so important to preserve up to 6 eligible receivers if you think a kick is likely anyway?

Ummm....the numbering exception is not supposed to be used to "hide eligible revievers". That is basically the reason why everyone on here hates the A-11. You claim to be some sort of person who understands football but you can't see why teams need their ends to be elgible recievers. Teams run fake punts and pass the ball to an end.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Surely from my sampling there'd be other examples in a world this size. How many teams use A-11? You insist on writing the rules to take account of this minuscule number of teams, yet you blithely would sweep aside other minorities of systems that may be out there now or in the future.

Yep that is correct. I am against any system which abuses the numbering exception.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

If at any time the ball was ready for play team B assumed scrimmage kick formation (already described), then the officials would stop the play clock, announce the availability of the numbering exception, and allow subs to enter for team A provided they were wearing 1-49 and/or 80-99. A would be allowed time to re-huddle before the play clock was restarted.

A scores a touchdown. They want to bring in players under the numbering exception for the field goal on the try. There is only 13 yards of the field that B can be on. How exactly to they line up in a SKF (25 yards deep) when only 13 yards are available? What about when A is on the 30 yards line and are attempting a field goal and B wants all their players on the line to block the kick? Having B determine what players A can have in the game has to be about the dumbest idea ever; it just doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

NCAA's language, which combines "obvious" naively with "may", would be completely ineffectual if anyone attempted to run A-11. If anyone tried A-11 in any circuit playing NCAA rules, it would take an explicit ruling from the organiz'n (such as Texas HSAA) that it was illegal.

So you're saying that if in the BCS championship game A has the ball 1st and 10 on B's 17 yard line. They line up in the A-11, all players elgible numbers, QB 7 yards deep, and you believe that it would not have been a foul?

You really don't seem to understand the numbering exception, let alone the game of football. The NCAA wording is perfect. The word may is needed because no one is ever sure that a team will kick. Teams run fakes all the time. The word obvious is needed because the team may kick on any down but the exception is only used in obvious kicking situations. The play I posted above is not an obvious kicking situation. A is not going to punt on 1st down inside of B's 20 yard line.

[ajmc]

"The NCAA wording is perfect". Sorry, nothing is ever "perfect", which may be part of the reason the NFHS rule makers are struggling to announce their decision regarding this situation.

I'm sure if they wanted to be perfect, they could craft language to cover all possible variations and interpretations (both gramatical as well as practical) that could possibly be considered. The problem is such a solution might make the exception larger than the rest of the rule book, and God only knows how many other rules might be unexpectedly affected by the revised wording. Getting rid of the bath water ALONE, is the general objective.

A simpler remedy might be, to add an exception to NF 7.2.6 providing that; "Whenever the SKF numbering exception (NF: 7.2.5.b) is applied, after a huddle or shift all 11 players of A shall come to an absolute stop and remain stationary simultaneously without movement of hands, feet, head or body for at least 3 seconds before the snap." (As opposed to the current 1 second requirement)

Of course the stationary time requirement could be whatever is deemed necessary to eliminate any perceived unfair advantage "A" might be gaining by manipulating the numbering exception to confuse the defense by preventing them from understanding or reacting to "A's" formation.

Anytime "A" elected to use a SK formation, they would be required to remain stationary for that "extended" time frame, which would also require that they be in formation quicker so as to avoid conflicting with the existing DOG parameters.

This would allow: (1) the numbering exception, and all it is intended to accomplish to remain unchanged,
(2)deminish the perceived advantage of unfairly confusing B and depriving them them sufficient time to digest the A formation and identify eligibles,
(3) Allow the essence of the A-11 offense to continue (still subject to rigid enforcement of formation, shift and motion rules),
(4) establish a consistent pattern to enable field officials to recognize eligible receivers
(5) Avoid a whole lot of additional unnecessary (rule related) confusion.

[jaybird]

Guys, we're making this way more complicated than it has to be. The phrase "... it is obvious that a kick may be attempted.. " is sufficiant to cover the situation. All that is needed then are officials with good football sense to use their judgement based on the factors that pertain to how the game is played.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Sorry, nothing is ever "perfect", which may be part of the reason the NFHS rule makers are struggling to announce their decision regarding this situation.

Why would they make a decision when they have yet to meet?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by ajmc

"The NCAA wording is perfect". Sorry, nothing is ever "perfect", which may be part of the reason the NFHS rule makers are struggling to announce their decision regarding this situation.

Last year the changes were announced on February 12. What makes you think they are struggling to announce anything?

Originally Posted by ajmc

A simpler remedy might be, to add an exception to NF 7.2.6 providing that; "Whenever the SKF numbering exception (NF: 7.2.5.b) is applied, after a huddle or shift all 11 players of A shall come to an absolute stop and remain stationary simultaneously without movement of hands, feet, head or body for at least 3 seconds before the snap." (As opposed to the current 1 second requirement)

That doesn't solve the problem of teams not having anyone numbered 50-79 on the field.

I don't see what the big deal is. If it is obvious that a kick may be attempted then the numbering exception may be used. It really isn't that hard to recognize kicking situations when they come up. I've never asked myself "what is this team doing?" when a team lined up in a SKF.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by LDUB

The NCAA wording is perfect. The word may is needed because no one is ever sure that a team will kick. Teams run fakes all the time. The word obvious is needed because the team may kick on any down but the exception is only used in obvious kicking situations.

So when it's obvious that something may happen, that's not saying the same thing as that it's obvious that the event is not impossible, not forbidden? Meanwhile, whenever I see the word "obvious" it means the person to whom it's obvious is sure. If you're not sure, it ain't obvious. But it's always obvious that a kick may occur, unless "may" has also taken on a new meaning.

Robert