Possible rules changes for 2009

[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

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

ART. 2 . . . A scrimmage-kick formation is a formation with at least one player 7 yards or more behind the neutral zone and in position to receive the long snap. No player may be in position to receive a hand-to-hand snap from between the snapper’s legs and it is obvious that a kick may be attempted.

Rationale: This would eliminate the use of the numbering exception rule on scrimmage downs unless it is obvious that a kick may be attempted (i.e. 4th & 10 not 1st & 10). Football has been and always will be a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formation and creative plays.

That language solves nothing. When is it never obvious that a kick may be attempted? A kick may be attempted on 1st & 10. I've seen kicks on 1st down a few times, but even if it'd never been done, it may be done.

If they wanted to, they could formulate definite criteria, like proposal 15, but they should not stick their head into this "may be" mess even if NCAA's been there already.

I see the long march of the hash marks inward across the codes is proposed to continue.

Do any of you think the proposal for the chop block revision woule make it easier to administer? Looks to me that it might be harder, because there must be some (unstated) time limit on what constitutes a combination block.

Robert

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

That language solves nothing. When is it never obvious that a kick may be attempted? A kick may be attempted on 1st & 10. I've seen kicks on 1st down a few times, but even if it'd never been done, it may be done.

I think it gives us an out and they're relying on our judgment as experienced officials. It's basically to keep you from using it as your base offense. You're not going to punt every time you get the football, are you?

If you want iron-clad language, write some iron-clad language. I'd be fine with the language as written above to back up a call I'd make in an A-11 circumstance. As in, "You're obviously not punting coach, give me a break."

It's a 'spirit of the rules' thing, right? Much of the discussion here about A-11 is that, while it technically follows the rule as written, it violates the spirit of why the numbering exception exists. So people are up in arms.

So if they put in some language to give us a leg to stand on (if you want "obvious punting situation" or "in the referee's judgment" or whatever, knock yourself out), you'd have to have the same opinion about the "spirit" in which it's intended, right?

If team A sends out the 5-8 soccer player and a holder on 4th and 7 from the 10 yard line, they may run a fake, but if I'm the correct-side wing in a four-man game, I'm going under the goalpost because that looks to me like they're going to kick a field goal. I don't need iron-clad language to tell me that.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

...

If you want iron-clad language, write some iron-clad language. I'd be fine with the language as written above to back up a call I'd make in an A-11 circumstance. As in, "You're obviously not punting coach, give me a break."

It's a 'spirit of the rules' thing, right? Much of the discussion here about A-11 is that, while it technically follows the rule as written, it violates the spirit of why the numbering exception exists. So people are up in arms.

So if they put in some language to give us a leg to stand on (if you want "obvious punting situation" or "in the referee's judgment" or whatever, knock yourself out), you'd have to have the same opinion about the "spirit" in which it's intended, right?

...

Unless the Rules Committee removes the numbering exception completely it is going to rely on interpretation.

Rule writing is an art especially when you consider there are those who seek to exploit

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Unless the Rules Committee removes the numbering exception completely it is going to rely on interpretation.

Rule writing is an art

As is officiating itself, n'est-ce pas?