Possible rules changes for 2009

[Mike L]

A number of these are "who really cares" kind of changes for me, but for those that I think matter...

#6 visible play clock req'd, good luck getting schools to blow the money on this.
#10 so now those sweat bands can be anywhere? Up on the biceps, on the legs, etc. Is this what they really want?
#11 they really think all of this communication stuff is low cost? Going to end up with the "haves" getting an advantage over the "have nots" schools.
#13 eliminates the need for "timing" component on chop blocks. Ought to include low-low blocks as well.
#14 initial contact determines catch, so what's the definition of "initial contact"? On a diving catch where the foot comes down first and then the body lands jarring the ball out. Is the foot the initial contact which makes it a catch or is it the entire process of landing which maybe makes it not?
#15 just makes the A-11 QB be 10 yds back instead of 7. Worthless.
#16 the scrimmage kick formation now requires it to be obvious a kick may occur, would be enough to kill A-11.
#18 no hitting "defenseless opponents", so when does "in the act of kicking the ball" begin? Does this mean no contact in the steps before the kick and before he actually kicks it? And "passer who is in the act of throwing the ball"? Really?!? So if the QB has his arm in motion but has not yet released the ball you can't hit him? And what if B is already in contact with him and then he begins to throw? Does B have to release or what? This is really well thought out, NOT.
#19 fouls by A behind the NZ have enforcement spot at previous spot, ok. But what about intentional grounding? A could potentially lose a lot less yards by IGing the ball. Better establish which fouls apply and which don't, NCAA here we come.
#24 establishing a 35/25 clock like NCAA's 40/25 clock. Is that what this tries to do? Spend more money on play clocks and in a fashion that will confuse already confused CO's. Yeah, that's a good idea.
#25 punter now sorta like the kick holder as far as being down and receiving the snap. Ok.
#26 comparing the runners helmet coming off to an IW? Just stupid.
#27 create mad scrambles for blocked try's? Just stupid.
#29, #30, #31 an attempt to kill the A-11 by requiring a kick or just eliminating the numbering exception? Just stupid.
#32 eliminates a loop-hole on extended time after a loss of down type foul to either team. Ok.
#33 eliminates loss of down on OPI & keeps 15yd penalty. I'd rather see OPI become 5 yds & loss of down like all the other LOD penalties that can happen against A.
#34 dead ball fouls after the TD can now be carried over to the KO. Good.
#35 no contact on receiver who has reached same yard line as defender. If we really need to change this rule, I'd rather see it as receiver is beyond the defender just because some seal blocks are done at the same yard line.
#38 horse collar tackle now a foul. Good.
#39 1st down depending on where a foul happens on the field? Just stupid.
#40 no more inadvertent face masks. Ok.
#42 limiting access in the 2 yd box, too vague as to who it applies to especially when you have.....
#43 nobody allowed in the 2 yd box during live ball. Great.
#44 B foul on running play that ends behind the NZ, enforce spot is previous spot. Just stupid.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by Mike L

A number of these are "who really cares" kind of changes for me, but for those that I think matter...

#14 initial contact determines catch, so what's the definition of "initial contact"? On a diving catch where the foot comes down first and then the body lands jarring the ball out. Is the foot the initial contact which makes it a catch or is it the entire process of landing which maybe makes it not?

As one who has never officiated but tries to explain rules on the radio (and thus educating myself on them as best I can) I never could understand the rationale of the ground not being able to cause a fumble, but it could cause an incompletion.

Also, I disagree with #17, doing away with the free kick after the fair catch. Is the drop kick also not allowed in NFHS?

Finally, states can accept, reject or tweak these any way they want, correct?

[HLin NC]

This list has already appeared on another forum. Its not even close to what will actually be considered in Feb. Some of the proposals listed are way too far out there.

I don't forsee things like requiring a play clock or going to a 40/25 type clock. We can't get play clock ops to run them right NOW. Getting them to choose correctly between the two is a logistical nightmare beyond comprehension. Sometimes its hard enough to get a competent GAME clock operator.

The modifying of the scrimmage kick numbering exception a la NCAA is one I CAN see passing. I worry we'll drop the 5 yard facemask foul and go back to the same problems, unless the Fed adopts the NFL/NCAA philosophy, which I find difficult to believe considering we've added the 5 yarder in the last decade.
OPI is one I could see getting changed.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mike L

#39 1st down depending on where a foul happens on the field? Just stupid.

I don't think it says this -- I think ANY PF or 15 yard FM would be an AFD.

I get the rationale. Last season we had a 2nd and goal from the 8 and the quarterback was sacked by his face mask. Essentially all they got for their trouble was a repeat of the down and nobody on either sideline understood the enforcement. It makes sense to award an AFD for serious penalties and I'm surprised it hadn't been added sooner.

I would also like to see the all but one eliminated on offensive fouls behind the line with us going to the previous spot. And the LOD eliminated on OPI.

I still dream that someday that live ball offside on the defense will be added (with the team allowed to get back) as well as kicks being live into the end zone.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I still dream that someday that live ball offside on the defense will be added (with the team allowed to get back) as well as kicks being live into the end zone.

These would not be additions to Fed but restorations. From before your time.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

These would not be additions to Fed but restorations. From before your time.

I've scrubbed a lot of bad rules and mechanics out of my mind. You have a date for these little goodies?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I've scrubbed a lot of bad rules and mechanics out of my mind. You have a date for these little goodies?

Not precisely. Fed changed the encroachment rule in 2 stages. During the 1960s (starting i don't know when) it actually depended on how quickly you could whistle! Encroachment killed the ball except when it was put in play before the official could whistle it; probably led to some slow whistles, and it probably meant that on a free kick offside was almost always an option rather than dead ball enforcement. By the early 1970s that exception was gone. But when they deviated originally from NCAA in that regard I don't know; wouldn't surprise me if it was from Fed's major revisions in the 1940s, such as allowing more than one forward pass per down.

The automatic touchback I'd just have to guess at. Probably between 1945 & 1965. During that period Fed had the philosophy of looking for any excuse to kill the ball, because the players are safer when they're not running around.

I believe there was a still earlier period of automatic touchbacks, pre-1912, which was before Fed existed. But before that period, the ball was live.

The specific rationale given for killing the ball with encroachment was that to practically abolish judgement of dual fouls in scrimmage situations, where one team's player going offside drew an opponent into the neutral zone or induced a false start, or when the player in the neutral zone blocked the view opponents had of the ball and so caused them to go offside that way. Free kicks were made the same way just in the interest of keeping the rules simple, I guess.

Robert

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I've scrubbed a lot of bad rules and mechanics out of my mind. You have a date for these little goodies?

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

[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.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't think it says this -- I think ANY PF or 15 yard FM would be an AFD.

I get the rationale.

I don't get the rationale though, because their reasoning for this is because inside the 30, it's supposedly not that bad of a penalty, which I think can be argued. Also, all the wording says, "automatic first down". So I guess the assumption is only B commits these types of fouls? What happens if it's A that commits the foul? Do they get a pass on the supposed severity of the foul like the "worry" about the current OPI making it just to hard for the poor offense to overcome a major screw up on their part or does this become a loss of down foul too to make it equitable?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mike L

I don't get the rationale though, because their reasoning for this is because inside the 30, it's supposedly not that bad of a penalty, which I think can be argued. Also, all the wording says, "automatic first down". So I guess the assumption is only B commits these types of fouls? What happens if it's A that commits the foul? Do they get a pass on the supposed severity of the foul like the "worry" about the current OPI making it just to hard for the poor offense to overcome a major screw up on their part or does this become a loss of down foul too to make it equitable?

I don't get this, either. NCAA and NFL football have been awarding an AFD on PFs forever. If the offense commits one during a play, they replay the down (or the defense can decline it). If it's after the play, the down counts. No big deal.

I do think that the deck is stacked a bit against the offense -- the AB1 exception with a hold that's 5 yards behind the line takes it from 1st and 10 to 1st and 25. Also, a PF or 15yd FM is severe enough to warrant an AFD as a penalty, IMO.

The rationale may be flawed a bit, but the change would be a positive one, at least that's how I see it.

[Mike L]

So a PF foul by B is severe enough to be 15 yds plus a new series but the same foul by A is only severe enough for the 15 yds? Just arguing the other side of the coin here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mike L

So a PF foul by B is severe enough to be 15 yds plus a new series but the same foul by A is only severe enough for the 15 yds? Just arguing the other side of the coin here.

I have never had a problem with a LOD provision for the offense on things like OPI. The offense knows what they are doing; the defense does not know what the offense is doing. It is very possible that the defense commits a foul and it was purely a mistake. The offense knows the play, where they are going and why they are going to get there. The offense deserves to lose a down for some of their actions.

Peace

[daggo66]

I could see the AFD for a face mask. I could also see the LOD for A. They really have no business anywhere near the face mask making it more likely it was done on purpose.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't get this, either. NCAA and NFL football have been awarding an AFD on PFs forever. If the offense commits one during a play, they replay the down (or the defense can decline it). If it's after the play, the down counts. No big deal.

I know we have different horizons about "forever", but NFL's had the AFD a lot longer than NCAA for PFs. I don't remember when NCAA adopted it, but ISTR it's 20 yrs. ago or less.

Waaay back, there was a period of AFD for any penalty against either team! A penalty was deemed to interrupt the continuity of downs, necessitating a new series. I read somewhere in Spalding's that for a while there was confusion on that point, with some officials administering what today would be repeat-the-down following enforcement, and others starting a new series for the team in possession, because the line-to-gain rules didn't specify what constituted the "series" of downs. But that's ancient hx.

I do think that the deck is stacked a bit against the offense -- the AB1 exception with a hold that's 5 yards behind the line takes it from 1st and 10 to 1st and 25. Also, a PF or 15yd FM is severe enough to warrant an AFD as a penalty, IMO.

The rationale may be flawed a bit, but the change would be a positive one, at least that's how I see it.

The trouble with AFD for fouls by the defense isn't its severity, but its inconsistency. A team that gives up an AFD on 4th down is hurt a lot more than one that gives it up on 1st down. The later the down, the more severe AFD is in practice, yet it's for the same type of foul.

If anything, the rationale is stronger in favor of AFD for the situation given in the proposal, where half the distance appears to be an insufficient penalty. IIRC in Canadian football certain enforcements become AFD within certain distances of the offending team's GL.

BTW, did you know that for quite a while (at least into the 1930s, maybe 1940s), for certain major enforcements the line-to-gain was moved along with the spot? The idea was to penalize field position while not affecting down-&-distance, when the foul was not a tactical one.

Robert