The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Dec 19, 2009, 11:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 20, 2009, 02:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 20, 2009, 04:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 20, 2009, 10:25pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,564
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 21, 2009, 08:29am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,794
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 21, 2009, 09:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 21, 2009, 09:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 21, 2009, 04:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 21, 2009, 09:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 21, 2009, 11:11pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 22, 2009, 12:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 22, 2009, 12:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sat Dec 26, 2009, 10:14am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 21, 2009, 09:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Clinton Township, NJ
Posts: 2,065
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."
__________________
Bob M.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2009-2010 Rules Changes NFHS Forksref Basketball 9 Tue Oct 13, 2009 09:57pm
2009-10 NFHS Rules Changes shishstripes Basketball 7 Mon May 11, 2009 01:17pm
2009 NFHS Rules Changes jaybird Football 0 Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:49pm
2009 Rule Changes NFHS 3SPORT Softball 36 Fri Jul 04, 2008 03:51pm
NEW - 2003 NFHS Football Rule Changes (as written by the NFHS Rules Committee) KWH Football 27 Tue Jan 21, 2003 11:30am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:07am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1