2009 NFHS Football Questionnaire

[Robert Goodman]

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.

That would require definition of the interval enclosing the separate fouls of a dead ball double foul. After the first foul, I could see various possible times to draw the line where an opposing foul could offset it, but some of them would be fuzzy and all would depend to some degree on how quickly they were administered. And would it work like live ball double fouls, such that the distance penalty for any number of fouls by one team would be canceled by one foul on the other?

So what the change would do would be eliminate the tough call of a bang-bang pair of dead ball fouls with a spot close to a goal line (as to which occurred first), at the cost of possibly introducing another tough call when the fouls are separated more in time.

[bigjohn]

Yeah, why not just go 100% NCAA!!!!!!!!!

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Yeah, why not just go 100% NCAA!!!!!!!!!

Sure seems to be the way Fed is trending isn't it?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Sure seems to be the way Fed is trending isn't it?

Just a personal observation, but the flexibility and reliance on individual judgment adapting to circumstance, inherent to the NFHS code, seems more adaptable to the general skill level and execution capability of the middle and high school general population.

As much as some would like to believe, the 12-18 year old athlete is simply not as mature as the 18-24 year old athlete who should be able to master a different level of complexity and the higher requirements and ammenities of actual competition at the collegiate level.

Having rules codes designed specifically for these different levels, with their different capabilities, generally makes sense and has worked pretty well for multiple generations of student athletes. The current system certainly "ain't broke".

[Welpe]

I don't necessarily disagree though Texas and Massachusetts have both adapted NCAA rules for their middle school and high school football programs and it seems to work fine for them.

I was simply making an observation that NFHS rule changes seem to be trending towards the NCAA rules lately.

[whitehat]

Change enforcement of live ball fouls by A behind the previous spot to previous spot enforcement...like NCAA

Change and clarify that a reciever must come down in bounds for a completetion to occur (regardless of opponent pushing him OOB while he is in the air.)

I'm sure there are a few others that need tweaking.

May the blessings of Christ be on you all this Christmas season!!

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by whitehat

Change enforcement of live ball fouls by A behind the previous spot to previous spot enforcement...like NCAA

Change and clarify that a reciever must come down in bounds for a completetion to occur (regardless of opponent pushing him OOB while he is in the air.)

I'm sure there are a few others that need tweaking.

May the blessings of Christ be on you all this Christmas season!!

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!

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Sure seems to be the way Fed is trending isn't it?

Over what period of time?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Just a personal observation, but the flexibility and reliance on individual judgment adapting to circumstance, inherent to the NFHS code, seems more adaptable to the general skill level and execution capability of the middle and high school general population....

Having rules codes designed specifically for these different levels, with their different capabilities, generally makes sense and has worked pretty well for multiple generations of student athletes. The current system certainly "ain't broke".

True, but many of the differences between Fed & NCAA came about just thru separate judgments of what each thought was good for football in general, rather than because of the players' maturity. (And sometimes there've been other considerations, like cost.) Penalty enforcement differences, for instance -- Fed has been most conservative -- have nothing to do that I can tell with the player skill or maturity levels, thought they might have a little to do with the mental burden on the greater number of officials.

Originally Posted by Welpe

I don't necessarily disagree though Texas and Massachusetts have both adapted NCAA rules for their middle school and high school football programs and it seems to work fine for them.

Texas always has. Mass. was the last state HSA to join Fed for football, and later left.

Various state HSAAs and local leagues had started to make separate adaptations of NCAA rules before Fed developed their own adaptation of same. So it was really a matter of developing 2 codes in widespread use rather than many more in narrower use.

For years Fed & NCAA had a liaison committee for football, yet they didn't achieve a significant net reduction in their rules differences. Not that they were necessarily trying for that; it was more like, let's look over these things together.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

True, but many of the differences between Fed & NCAA came about just thru separate judgments of what each thought was good for football in general, rather than because of the players' maturity. (And sometimes there've been other considerations, like cost.) Penalty enforcement differences, for instance -- Fed has been most conservative -- have nothing to do that I can tell with the player skill or maturity levels, thought they might have a little to do with the mental burden on the greater number of officials.

It's doubtful, Robert, that concern for "mental burden" of officials had any significant impact with most rule decisions made by the NFHS. Although, "mental burden" was a significant part of what I meant by the lack of maturity in the 12-18 year old student athlete and the ability of that athlete to fully cope with being, "able to master a different level of complexity and the higher requirements and ammenities of actual competition at the collegiate level" which includes activities both on and off the athletic field.

Considering the overall audience, which includes student athletes, coaches, administrators and spectators there seems to be an understandable objective in keeping rules of the game in more of a Yes-No, On-Off, Black-White situation, with fewer exceptions and nuances.

There is (at least supposedly) more of an emphasis on overall academics at the HS level. With some glaring exceptions in some areas and specific schools, the majority of HS Coaches, and their staffs, have additional teaching requirements apart from athletics and are unable, although many valiantly try, to devote their full attention, effort and focus to the same level common to the collegiate level.

I think it safe to suggest, in general, HS athletic programs have access to less funding, ammenities, facilities and flexibility than would be fairly standard at the collegiate level. It seems concern over reducing complexity and, considering recent technological advancements directed towards, microscopic precision as related to officiating decisions is much more a concern at the more advanced levels of the game (excluding spectators and amateur experts).

Many of the accoutrements the general public has become so accustomed to at the higher levels of the game (24 second clocks, Instant Replay, Winning is everything, losing is unacceptable, absence of real sportsmanship, individuality over team and the necessity to deflect any personal responsibility for lack of success) simply aren’t intended to be significant at the HS level, reducing the necessity of many of these "trappings".

Actually, any real concern over how difficult, or not, rule construction is on officiating, at the HS level, seems pretty far down on the priority list, which in the overall picture probably isn’t such a bad thing, or that big a deal (generally).

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by ajmc

It's doubtful, Robert, that concern for "mental burden" of officials had any significant impact with most rule decisions made by the NFHS.

The NFHS baseball rulebook specifically states that "ease of administration" is a factor in creating rules.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Considering the overall audience, which includes student athletes, coaches, administrators and spectators there seems to be an understandable objective in keeping rules of the game in more of a Yes-No, On-Off, Black-White situation, with fewer exceptions and nuances.

You left off officials. The NFHS knows that many officials are bad and don't know what they are doing.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Actually, any real concern over how difficult, or not, rule construction is on officiating, at the HS level, seems pretty far down on the priority list

Are you sure? How many different ways can pass interference be penalized in an NCAA game? Read it...

Pass interference by Team A: 15 yards from the previous
spot [S33].

Pass interference by Team B: Team A’s ball at the spot of the
foul, first down, if the foul occurs fewer than 15 yards beyond
the previous spot. If the foul occurs 15 or more yards beyond
the previous spot, Team A’s ball, first down, 15 yards from
the previous spot [S33].

When the ball is snapped on or inside the Team B 17-yard
line and outside the Team B two-yard line, and the spot of
the foul is on or inside the two-yard line, the penalty from
the previous spot shall place the ball at the two-yard line, first
down (A.R. 7-3-8-XVII).

No penalty enforced from outside the two-yard line may
place the ball inside the two-yard line (Exception: Rule 10-2-
5-b).

If the previous spot was on or inside the two-yard line, first
down halfway between the previous spot and the goal line
(Rule 10-2-6 Exception).

Now NFHS...

15 yards plus loss of down if by A – (S9) – if by B, it is first down for A.

With so many officials having problems with the rules why would the rules makers want to make things more complicated?