Possible rules changes for 2009
 

PDF file of proposed NFHS rules changes for 2009, which, obviously, have to go through the whole process.

#16 on Page 4 stands out to me:

Rule number 2-14-2 on page 32

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.

Seems to me that would put a certain offense that starts with an A and ends with an 11 out of business, no?

I (among with many, many others I'm sure) asked for the wording to be changed to exactly what you see here. And, my personal rationale was to do away w/ A-11. I'm one in probably 10,000 officials who specifically asked for this. Every year our chapter gives us an opportunity to write up what rules changes we believe should take place. This was one of them and I wasn't the only one from my chapter to ask for this change. They submitted a request to our state representative to present this change. And, I'm sure we weren't the only chapter nor the only state to ask for this.

I think the A-11 is pretty interesting (and very clever) but I think it will lead to to many officiating mistakes which why I think it makes sense to change the rule. But, I'm sure there are other (and perhaps better) arguments to keep it. This is just my opinion. I realize that a few may get upset with this opinion but it is what it is.

So now you can't punt on 1D/10? Seems like the NFHS wants to dictate strategy, rather than letting coaches do it.

I don't believe so. No one says you can't punt. It's just the numbering exception that's changed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this pretty closely mimics the NCAA rule.

2nd and 8 from B's 22 with 4 seconds left in the half? Yeah, I'm pretty sure a kick may be attempted.

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.

I would think that if a kick actually does happen, you are not going to drop a flag and allow the SKF. Besides, any coach that tries the 1st & 10 quick kick usually does not send in his SKF team because that kinda defeats the purpose of the surprise portion of the play, right?

So then are certain players restricted from playing a spot that they want to play?

I guess what I'm saying is this:

In Canadian rules, yes we have numbering rules, but ultimately, any player can play anywhere but they may need to report to the R (who tells B or tells the U to tell B).

Does the same freedom exist in Fed?

Perhaps. For one play, certainly some players can be taught a second position.

and it is obvious that a kick may be attempted.



Someone explain how it is obvious. I guess we are supposed to be mind-readers.

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?

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.

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

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.

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