Possible rules changes for 2009

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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

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

.

"Struggling" may have been stronger than necessary and a little presumptious, perhaps "hoping" they announce something might be more accurate. Does that make any difference?

Have no idea where you're coming from regarding, "That doesn't solve the problem of teams not having anyone numbered 50-79 on the field.", I thought that issue was settled by the current numbering exception. The suggestion about simply lengthening the time frame "A" players would have to be set, limited to when they choose to avail themselves of the numbering exception doesn't affect the suggested purpose of the numbering exception at all, or any other rules for that matter.

Maybe even better yet, would be a simple Case Book interpretation that would clarify whether an A-11 type approach violates the rule. Unfortunately, the A-11 offense may have let a nasty genie out of the bottle, and getting it back in, without creating a bunch of other unintentional problems, may not be so simple. Hopefully, we'll all be advised soon if any adjustments will be made.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by ajmc

"Struggling" may have been stronger than necessary and a little presumptious, perhaps "hoping" they announce something might be more accurate. Does that make any difference?

They don't even meet until the end of January.

Why would they announce a decision on something that has not even been discussed????