Federation Quarterly FB POE's
 

We're getting chided by the Federation boys- set phasers to stun.

Lightning Policy- 30 sec. flash to bang standard is gone. "Once thunder is heard, play is to be suspended, stands evacuated and the field cleared." 30 min. clock is reset after every boom or flash.

Illegal Personal Contact- "the committee desires to remind coaches that they need to teach proper techniques and officials that they need to enforce the rules as written." "Trailing officials should especially be vigilant..."

Blocking/Illegal Blocks - defensive players wedge-busting on running plays and hits above the shoulders
"The old idea of 'hitting until the whistle' is passe'.....the play kills itself."

Helmet and Face Mask - "The committee is very concerned about the growing inconsistency on face mask related fouls."

Incidental- grasping
Personal foul- grasping and twisting, turning, or pulling of the mask, opening, or now-the chin strap. "Any movement of the head or neck should be a 15 yard walk-off."

Further concern by the committee- "officials who are judging fouls according to their own individual interpretation..." "Officiating groups are asked....to reinforce ....philosophies as they apply to the rules."

Uniforms- more than just the umpire's responsibility, crews must be consistent from game to game

Not properly worn: jerseys too short or not tucked in, pants must cover the knee, 4 pt. chin straps required, proper mouth guard - no completely clear or white and not cut down

Illegal Adornments: tinted shields, tape being used to create stripes on belts, pants, or helmets, belts too long- cut or tuck in, sweatbands- off the upper arms, towels- plain white only, play cards- worn on wrist-not belt
Shoe spats- illegal, tape ok around shoe and ankle, Knee braces- hard surfaces properly covered?, Rib & back protectors- jersey must cover

Sportsmanship- diving into the EZ with no defender around, excessive face painting, inappropriate words & gestures, team rituals should note demean or embarass opponent

I guess I'm a stickler but this is stuff we should be chided for. :(

FM and late hit fouls are ridiculous. And it's not just us, it's the big boys on TV too. Too many officials don't have the balls to enforce the 15 yard penalty.

Very few crews check uniforms properly. And because they don't, it makes it hard for those that do.

Oh well, it'll be forgotten after the first couple of weeks.

I've never met an official who likes the idea of being the "Fashion Police", but that is totally a problem that is not of our making. We may be the only participants who understand the rules of the game, but we're not the only people who are responsible to abide by them. POEs are intended to help EVERYONE understand the intent of the rules by singling out some for added focus.

The rule makers have tried hard to reduce these "Fashion" issues to basic "yes-no" decisions. There's not a lot of "maybe", and that which is tried, is usually brought into the game by players, coaches and sometimes parents.

What part of "NO" is confusing? The imagination of student athletes is unending, which is likely why the wall of resistance has been reduced to a simple, "NO" which does not require a debate or convincing.

What is a shoe spat?

If anyone has a problem being reminded to officiate the safety rules i.e. illegal blocks, face masks, etc. they need to find a new hobby.

If you don't like enforcing uniform rules - get better - move up - have a new rule code - and then complain about enforcing those uniform rules.

Sorry, touches a nerve, I get annoyed by officials who don't enforce the rules.

Is there another kind?

http://images.quickblogcast.com/7274...2650_Spats.jpg

Is it just me, or is Fed legislating on some strange subjects in the area of:

Was it making it hard to tell the teams apart? Was it coming loose & strangling people? Did it look like the stripes on the ball?

How is that a problem? Players getting an unfair advantage by getting an opponent to laugh at their clown faces?

Robert in the Bronx

I've always wondered about the tape around the belt and sad to say but I've let that one go. Now the other stuff, the excessive face paint, writing on arms, arm bands, leg bands, etc. I've enforced. I would really like to print off or photo copy the POE's that describe what's acceptable and what's not and give it to coaches during the pregame meeting. Guess that's why I am not a R.

A "shoe spat" is usually made of fabric of some kind and are used to cover up the ankles and shoes. They usually match the team's colors and really serve no purpose.

Robert, in addition to safety and fair play, the NFHS also considers sportsmanship to be an important tenet of high school athletics. Their rules in all sports relfect this thinking.

Spats
 

football cleat spats,athletic spats,soccer cleat spats,cleat covers,cleat taping, TeamSpats
http://a712.g.akamai.net/7/712/225/2...id=300&hei=300

What has face painting or stripes on a belt or arm to do with sportsmanship? Why's it "sporting" to have designs created by stitching, but not tape or makeup? How about tattoos? I've seen stickers on helmets.

Robert in the Bronx

If its in the rule book it has a reason to be there. im sure the committee doesn't sit around and make rules just to be making them. It is the job of the officials to enforce those rules whether we agree with them or not.

Brandon, you're new here.

What NFHS is telling us is some officials are not doing their job for whatever reason. I personally know a group of officials that pretty much let everything go because to enforce the rules might mean they don't get a playoff game.

You'll see:)

You're going to have to ask the Federation about why they consider those things to be sportsmanship issues, I'm simply conveying their reasoning for prohibiting those things.

I'm sure you're talking about the guy last week, as in "The guy last week said it was okay."

You know him!?

And I've told the guys on my crew - we don't want to be the crew in, "The crew last week said it was okay."

I have NEVER met that guy. Can't find him for the life of me!

I know the guy. He lives around here, has some teeth missing, brews his own liquor, showers sparingly, and last touched a rule book in 1974.

The problem is really not somone trying to fake you out with an updated version of a basic excuse we've all used, in one form or another, since early childhood. The problem is being dumb enough tho buy into this transparent nonsense.

"He said it was legal/illegal last week" is right up there with, "the dog ate my homework" or, "the devil made me do it".

In western chicago suburbs we used to get game films for training purposes.

We had a local meeting one Wednesday and watched some film from the previous week. I paid close attention because we had one of those 2 teams the following Saturday. We talked at length about an illegal formation they used and got flagged for.

Sure enough it happened:
Saturday, we flagged their illegal formation. I was on their sideline. Coach was screaming it was legal last week. Our R walked over and said, "Coach, I saw the game film from last week, Bob Smith, flagged it then and we're going to flag it tonight."

So you're guessing that they're matters of sportsmanship, but you can't see why they would be?

One poster said they don't just sit around and cook these rules up from nothing, but sometimes I wonder! Usually something like this comes up from state ***'ns. Were there some state ***'ns that had regulations on taped belts and face paint that Fed looked at and decided to adopt as rules? Could it have been a way of banning certain gang insignia without appearing discriminatory (at the cost of appearing weird & inscrutable)?

Robert in the Bronx

No I'm not guessing, I'm taking the Federation at their word based upon POEs, case book plays, etc.

You mean they say somewhere, "...because this is a matter of sportsmanship."?

Is anyone else the least bit curious about these provisions? Seems like there must be a story there.

Robert in the Bronx

Nothing more than a personal opinion (of questionable value at best), but it seems like when given the choice of opening a door, and then dealing with a never ending possibility of what might develop behind that door, or keeping it shut, NFHS decisions often fall on the side of keeping the door closed. Which keeps things a lot simpler.

I suspect opening the door behind, "uniform adornments" could generate a discussion that would never get close to ending, whereas currently written the rules prohibit ANYTHING/EVERYTHING other than a 4" x 12" to
12" x 18" white, absorbent towel and an absorbent "sweatband worn beginning at the base of the thumb and extending no more than 3 inches below the elbow."

That makes our job that much easier.

Actually I think it makes it harder. The only part about it that's easier is that effectively they've made a bunch of things mandatory to wear (relatively easy to check), a very few things optional (ditto), and are saying anything else worn or even painted on is illegal (the hard part), which means they've taken the judgement out of it. OK, so if you find something in the latter category (not listed, so must be adornment), it's easy to determine that it's illegal. But the hard part is detecting it, when it could be literally anything, anywhere! You have to determine whether a stripe is stitched on (legal) or stuck on (illegal). A tattoo I'm guessing is legal because it's not worn, but the same design painted on would be illegal. Tape over a cut I'm sure would be legal, but if the skin under it is already healed or wasn't hurt to begin with, illegal.

So if this wasn't a response to a specific problem, seems to me Fed just uselessly complicated your job. If you find an item of "adornment" that isn't dangerous, you have the ready excuse that it's automatically illegal, but the problem is that you'll surely find some and not find others, which isn't going to make anybody happy. And to make it a point of emphasis on top of all that, I've got to wonder what's going on.

Although Fed football rules are used by other leagues, they were primarily devised for high school students, and so they're inextricably entangled in the wider setting of adult administrators (teachers, coaches, officials, others) over adolescents in schools. We've heard of all sorts of ridiculous "zero tolerance" rules in schools that were adopted originally because of situations that called for some kind of rule, but then were written in a CYA type way that attempted to take all judgement out of the hands of teachers, etc. to avoid charges of "discrimination". Could this not be such a case, where some football players adopted gang insignia or something else that could not be proven to have a certain nasty meaning, but which could be taken as such? So that rules were adopted and sent up the line (in this case to NFSHSA) that operated to outlaw any kind of "message" being sent by such means? Except of course whatever "message" might be embedded in the official uniform adopted by the school, but then it's the adults' fault!

So maybe Fed expects you to get the word locally to watch out for certain insignia, but they can't just come out and say so.

Robert in the Bronx

Forgive me Robert, but even idle nitpicking can be extended "too far".