2009 NFHS Football Questionnaire

[tjones1]

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.

[ODJ]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Here are the questions from the 2009 NFHS Football Questionnaire:


PART II — OBSERVATIONS – ARE THESE ITEMS A MAJOR PROBLEM IN YOUR AREA?

3. Number or location of bands being worn on the arms more than three inches from the base of the thumb. YES!

4. Uniform pants and knee pads not covering the knees at the snap or free kick. MORE and MORE.

5. Inconsistent enforcement of the restricted area on sidelines. NOT ON MY CREW, WE LIKE PLAYOFF ASSIGNMENTS.

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. SURE.

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).
ELIMINATE THE FREE BLOCKING ZONE and ALL BBWs.

4. Changing the kickoff to the 35-yard line. ONLY HAD 4 TBs THIS YEAR.

7. Requiring a minimum number of players on either side of the kicker on a free kick. NO.

9. Eliminating the five-yard face-mask foul. NO, BUT I WOULD LIKE A 5-YARD USC.

Closer and closer to NCAA we go.

[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.

[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.

[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.