2009 NFHS Football Questionnaire

[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?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Cobra

The NFHS baseball rulebook specifically states that "ease of administration" is a factor in creating rules. You left off officials. The NFHS knows that many officials are bad and don't know what they are doing.

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?

I really can't tell, Cobra, whether you are agreeing wwith me or disagreeing? If your example of pass interference was trying to suggest NFHS rules are more complicated than NCAA, you might be more convincing with a different example.

I didn't "leave off officials" as a reason for keeping the rules simple, I just think the other examples are more important to rule design. I won't argue with your suggestion that not all HS football officials are as competent as they could be, but I'm afraid that is a recognized problem at the NCAA level as well, as is true with most professions. Improvement at both levels is an never ending, ongoing priority.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Cobra

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

Right, but so does NCAA w.r.t. football, and Fed says so re football too (albeit not always in the book itself). So they all have it as a criterion, and then what remains to explain is what should lead to differences. One could at least imagine Fed putting a greater priority than NCAA on ease of administration given that there are many more officials in any given week administrating at a HS game than a college game. Fed could reason that NCAA could use rules that are harder to administer because their participating organizations could be more selective about their officials.

Of course AJMC could say that even if they said that's what they were trying for doesn't mean they really mean it, or that even if they really mean it, they actually achieve it.

[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.

[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.

[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."