2009 NFHS Football Questionnaire
 

Here are the questions from the 2009 NFHS Football Questionnaire:

PART I — CHECKUP ON PRESENT 2009 NFHS FOOTBALL RULES ARE THESE CHANGES SATISFACTORY?
1. Requiring that all field markings must be clearly visible.
2. Clarifying that stripes located on the football must be adjacent to and perpendicular to the seam upon which the laces are stitched.
3. Clarifying that the definition of a scrimmage-kick formation to differentiate formations that have been used traditionally for attempting a field goal or kick try from those used for a punt and what can be done on first, second, third and fourth downs.
4. Stipulating that the mandatory three-minute warm-up period begins immediately following the conclusion of the halftime intermission.
5. Clarifying that if a penalty resulting in a safety occurs on the last timed down of a period, the period is not extended.
6. Three rules were refined and a new article created regarding penalty enforcement for dead-ball, non-player or unsportsmanlike fouls that occur during or after a touchdown scoring play.
7. Making it illegal to grasp the opponent’s chin strap.
8. Defining a horse-collar tackle and adding it to the list of illegal personal contact fouls, regardless of where it occurs on the field.
9. Clarifying that the kicking team cannot bat a scrimmage kick that has not yet been grounded unless it is toward its own goal line.
10. Defined a restricted area where a maximum of three coaches may communicate with players and substitutes during dead-ball situations.

PART II — OBSERVATIONS – ARE THESE ITEMS A MAJOR PROBLEM IN YOUR AREA?
1. Bands playing after the ready-for-play signal.
2. Inappropriate or excessive face painting.
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.
5. Inconsistent enforcement of the restricted area on sidelines.
6. The number of players on either side of the kicker on a free kick.
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.).
8. Football helmet coming off during live play.


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.
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).
4. Changing the kickoff to the 35-yard line.
5. Allowing corporate advertising to be on the field of play if in compliance with other Rule 1-2 restrictions.
6. Removing the restriction that football jerseys have to be tucked in if longer than the top of the pant.
7. Requiring a minimum number of players on either side of the kicker on a free kick.
8. Further clarifying the use of electronic equipment during a contest.
9. Eliminating the five-yard face-mask foul.
10. Removing the penalty-marker colored restrictions on football gloves and pads.

Closer and closer to NCAA we go.

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.

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

:)

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".

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.

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!

Over what period of time?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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: "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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.