2009 NFHS Football Questionnaire

[JRutledge]

At least in football, basketball and baseball, it is common to see a rule that was once adopted by the higher levels to come down to the NF or high school levels. These questions a perfect example but takes place in all those sports I mentioned. I am sure if I knew anything about Volleyball, Soccer and Track and Field there would be similar examples.

Peace

[Rich]

I would eliminate the "double whammy" on scoring plays on some/most fouls by the defense. There's no reason that DPI (for example) should be applied on the kickoff if a TD is scored anyway. Keep it for personal fouls and USC, sure.

I would also extend the fouls that give an automatic first down. All 15 yard fouls by the defense would. OPI would not be a loss of down. All fouls would be enforced from the previous spot, rather than all-but-one. A hold can be a drive killer in a HS game when we go from 2nd and 10 to 2nd and 27.

It doesn't appear that anything I've written was on the survey, though -- matter of fact, it appears there will be little change for 2010.

[Sonofanump]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

A hold can be a drive killer in a HS game when we go from 2nd and 10 to 2nd and 27.

For some reason, our high school referee's holding flag always ends up close to the line of scrimmage.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I would eliminate the "double whammy" on scoring plays on some/most fouls by the defense. There's no reason that DPI (for example) should be applied on the kickoff if a TD is scored anyway. Keep it for personal fouls and USC, sure.

I would also extend the fouls that give an automatic first down. All 15 yard fouls by the defense would. OPI would not be a loss of down. All fouls would be enforced from the previous spot, rather than all-but-one. A hold can be a drive killer in a HS game when we go from 2nd and 10 to 2nd and 27.

It doesn't appear that anything I've written was on the survey, though -- matter of fact, it appears there will be little change for 2010.

Things look a little different from a defensive perspective, "All-but-one", especially behind the LOS, is just rewards from a defensive point of view. Why give the offense something back it failed to earn? 2nd & 27 is like dating the prom queen to most linebackers, it may not happen very often, but when it does, it's sweet.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: "1. Double fouls when the ball is dead would offset as opposed to separate and in order." Amazing (maybe not so) that the Fed would word this question the way they have. By definition, a double foul is a pair (at least) of live ball fouls. There can be no such thing as "Double fouls when the ball is dead."

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Things look a little different from a defensive perspective, "All-but-one", especially behind the LOS, is just rewards from a defensive point of view. Why give the offense something back it failed to earn? 2nd & 27 is like dating the prom queen to most linebackers, it may not happen very often, but when it does, it's sweet.

And it can easily happen the other way, when the spot of the foul is beyond the previous spot. Enforcing all penalties from the previous spot sure would make it simple, and I think it was the rule in the NAGWS flag football rules I just dug out from ~30 yrs. ago, but it's one of those oversimplifications that would cause the game to suffer too greatly, i.e. by wiping out all the legal action that took place during a down before a foul for which the penalty was accepted. It'd be akin to making all scores 1 pt. to simplify the math, or making the ball a sphere to simplify equipment mfr. Hey...wait a minute! (Honestly, I did not intend that as a joke about soccer when I thought of those 2 things; "Hey...wait a minute!" really was a slow dawn on my part.)

Girls' & women's flag football is a clearer example of the principle I stated before on why certain governing bodies would make easier-to-remember rules a higher priority. I don't think there's likely to be much money to entice potential officials to study the rules for NAGWS flag football.

Ack! So much for trusting my memory. The NAGWS rules for flag football June 1980-June 1982 (published and distributed by AAHPERD) specified 5 yards from "SDD" (Spot Declared Dead) and AFD for certain fouls, a penalty from SIP (Spot of Illegal Pass), and several from SOF (spot of foul), although previous spot enforcements (by various names) are most prevalent. So even NAGWS thought universal live ball foul penalty enforcement was an oversimplification.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I would also extend the fouls that give an automatic first down. All 15 yard fouls by the defense would. OPI would not be a loss of down. All fouls would be enforced from the previous spot, rather than all-but-one. A hold can be a drive killer in a HS game when we go from 2nd and 10 to 2nd and 27.

But the down is replayed so it doesn't hurt A that much. If A75 didn't hold 7 yards in the backfield then B64 could have gotten past him and tackled the QB for a 10 yard loss....it could have been 2nd and 20. If A75 holds then it ends up 1st and 20 since the down is replayed. Either way it the line to gain is 20 yards away but if A fouls it will be 1st down and with no foul it is 2nd down. So by A fouling they gained a down.

The problem of excessively penalizing the offense for holding was eliminated when the penalty was reduced to 10 yards.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Cobra

But the down is replayed so it doesn't hurt A that much. If A75 didn't hold 7 yards in the backfield then B64 could have gotten past him and tackled the QB for a 10 yard loss....it could have been 2nd and 20. If A75 holds then it ends up 1st and 20 since the down is replayed. Either way it the line to gain is 20 yards away but if A fouls it will be 1st down and with no foul it is 2nd down. So by A fouling they gained a down.

The problem of excessively penalizing the offense for holding was eliminated when the penalty was reduced to 10 yards.

I missed one: End of the run enforcement on a defensive foul. Tackle a guy illegally (with a face mask) and benefit from the yardage lost by that illegal tackle. Same thing with a defensive holding foul -- the passer has no open receivers and is sacked due to such a foul and it's 10 yards from the end of the run.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Cobra

The problem of excessively penalizing the offense for holding was eliminated when the penalty was reduced to 10 yards.

Which makes one wonder why they increased it from 10 to 15 to begin with. AFAICT it was intended as a simplifying move -- to have only 5 & 15 yard penalties -- and that's the way it stayed for decades in all American codes. NFL broke that pattern. Canadian football meanwhile stuck with a 10 yard penalty for illegal use of hands.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I missed one: End of the run enforcement on a defensive foul. Tackle a guy illegally (with a face mask) and benefit from the yardage lost by that illegal tackle. Same thing with a defensive holding foul -- the passer has no open receivers and is sacked due to such a foul and it's 10 yards from the end of the run.

Somewhere along the line you have to consider the defense. Tackle a guy by the face mask and you're going to pay an additional 15 yards from where you fouled. If he breaks free and gains another 10 yards on his own, you're still going to tack on 15 yards for the facemask from where he wound up.

If that passer can get rid of the ball, the foul is enforced from the previous spot.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If that passer can get rid of the ball, the foul is enforced from the previous spot.

Right, but the objection is that he didn't throw the ball because while potential passer A2 wasn't looking in potential receiver A1's direction (it being a good idea of course to "look off the route"), B1 tackled A1, and A2 didn't notice the flag or know what it was for. Someone on the bench could've yelled "free pass" to help, though.

The comeback to that is that even though no ineligibles went downfield, how do we know it was even intended to be a pass play?

[DoubleD]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Thanks to the 5A state final in Indiana, this one may very well be considered in the very near future. The team that lost likely has several NFHS staff members living within their city limits!

I saw the clip of that play online. I'm more concerned with the 2 apparent non-calls on the play: Offense used an illegal formation (snapper doesn't fit the definition of lineman nor back with those turned shoulders); the snapper appears to be covered, wearing an eligible number, and then goes downfield illegally.

Let's give the official his judgment on the TD; it's his. Let's ask the entire crew about the formation, the snapper, etc. and how it was missed.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Which makes one wonder why they increased it from 10 to 15 to begin with. AFAICT it was intended as a simplifying move -- to have only 5 & 15 yard penalties -- and that's the way it stayed for decades in all American codes. NFL broke that pattern. Canadian football meanwhile stuck with a 10 yard penalty for illegal use of hands.

The NFHS has made it fairly easy on us in that there are only a few 10 yard penalties -- and only 3 we'll see on a regular basis -- holding, IBB, and IUH.

Everything else is either 5 or 15 and it's easy to classify those.

[bossman72]

Here are the questions from the 2009 NFHS Football Questionnaire:
PART II — OBSERVATIONS – ARE THESE ITEMS A MAJOR PROBLEM IN YOUR AREA?
1. Bands playing after the ready-for-play signal.
Not a problem
2. Inappropriate or excessive face painting.
not a problem

3. Number or location of bands being worn on the arms more than three inches from the base of the thumb.
4. Uniform pants and knee pads not covering the knees at the snap or free kick.
i think we should adopt the NCAA mechanic and do a pre-game walk through their warmups and give the coach a list of players who have uniform violations.
5. Inconsistent enforcement of the restricted area on sidelines.
very inconsistent
6. The number of players on either side of the kicker on a free kick.
...why would we care under current NFHS rules?
7. The questionable use of electronic equipment by teams during contests (i.e., coach communication from video location, Internet use in the press box, etc.).
Not a problem
8. Football helmet coming off during live play.
Not a problem

PART III — ABOUT RULES FOR 2010 – WOULD YOU FAVOR?
1. Double fouls when the ball is dead would offset as opposed to separate and in order.
I actually kinda like the NFHS way of doing it, oddly enough.

2. Changing the definition of a chop block to eliminate the requirement that the low block be delayed to be illegal.
3. Changing the definition of a chop block to only restrict the high/low combination (low/low would be legal).
yes, chop blocks should be any combination of high/low block simultaneous or not. low-low should be legal. i think the current rule is asinine and obviously made by people that never played defensive line. haha

4. Changing the kickoff to the 35-yard line.
NOOOO!!!! There are rarely any touchbacks. You also have to think of the JV games and youth games and how bad they would suffer from it.

5. Allowing corporate advertising to be on the field of play if in compliance with other Rule 1-2 restrictions.
got no problem with it.

6. Removing the restriction that football jerseys have to be tucked in if longer than the top of the pant.
Might as well... it's not like we enforce that strictly. I have things to worry about during a dead ball. I can't be fashion police.

7. Requiring a minimum number of players on either side of the kicker on a free kick.
I actually like the current rule of no restriction.

8. Further clarifying the use of electronic equipment during a contest.
ok...

9. Eliminating the five-yard face-mask foul.
Won't bother me if they do or don't.

10. Removing the penalty-marker colored restrictions on football gloves and pads.
I've yet to see one

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bossman72

PART III — ABOUT RULES FOR 2010 – WOULD YOU FAVOR?

2. Changing the definition of a chop block to eliminate the requirement that the low block be delayed to be illegal.
3. Changing the definition of a chop block to only restrict the high/low combination (low/low would be legal).
yes, chop blocks should be any combination of high/low block simultaneous or not. low-low should be legal. i think the current rule is asinine and obviously made by people that never played defensive line. haha

No, it's not that, just an attempt to get at the mechanics of those hits likeliest to injure knees. The belief is that while a player is engaged in contact, one or both legs are pushing against the ground, loading the associated knee ligaments in such a way as to make them vulnerable to rapid displacement of the leg or thigh.