PAT question
 

Our league, the TCYFL, uses IHSA/NFHS rules modified largely for safety and participation. We are one of the few Featherweight teams (9-10 year olds under 100 pounds) who kick PATs. It is an advantage since they award two points for the conversion. The TCYFL rule books states this:
My question is this: Is it legal for the defense to block the guards into the center in an attempt to collapse the middle and block the kick? I have seen this enforced a couple ways this season. One crew insists that the center is sacred, as he is not allowed to move and thus defend himself. Another contends that the defense can run through his gap as long as they attempt to engage the guard rather than the center (wink, wink).

I appreciate your interps, as this will help us defend the PAT properly from both sides of the ball. Thank you in advance!

The center, while a team is in scrimmage kick formation is afforded protection from a direct charge from the defense until a point in which the snapper has had an opportunity to defend himself. (ask the umpire when that happens)

Your league has put the center is a dangerous position by declaring that he cannot move but allowing all other activity to proceed as normal. Some coaches, apparently, have seen the loophole in the rule and are taking advantage of it by "not hitting the center".

I wonder how long it will be before a center's leg is broken because he's been told not to move?

Personally, given that the league rule mandates that the center cannot move, I would read that rule to consider the center untouchable - period. I would, however, ask your league to clarify --- if they do NOT read it this way, A) they need to say so and B) this is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

I think leagues like this need to stop making rules. This is why there is so much confusion and inconsistency when we try to work these leagues. The intent of the rule is good, but it makes the application difficult to decide what should be done in reality because the current rule has a clear purpose and this rule puts the player that is trying to be protected in a bad situation. I think only the league can answer what should be done as they are the ones that came up with this rule. We do not have NF direction with this one as the NF or NCAA has no such rule or philosophy.

Peace

As we often say in baseball, "Local rules are made by fools."

I agree with those who say you should hash this out and get an interpret'n locally. However, I'm interested in how teams have been playing this so far. Are "centers" (snappers) trying to "get skinny" and make the snap from as erect a posture as they can manage? Are they taking as wide a stance as possible, using their legs to claim the A gaps as their space? Or are they snapping from a normal snapper's posture?

You're seeing defenders slant inward on the Gs? How does that collapse the middle? Are they trying to throw one of them into the snapper to draw a foul?

You might want to keep in mind that the guards are allowed to lock legs with the snapper.

As someone who has worked over 600 games in the TCYFL in the last 5 years, I still can't wrap my head around why rushing by the defense is allowed at the featherweight level for some scrimmage kicks and not others.

That said, most of the guys I know and work with won't be overly technical here. Rarely does the center stay perfectly still (how unnatural is that?), so he's rarely in need of the complete hands-off protection the rule affords him. As long as you are not hitting the center with a direct charge or intentionally initiating malicious contact against him while he's perfectly still and defenseless (yourself or with an offensive player being blocked), you're probably not going to see many calls here. In fact, absent a direct charge the most likely initial outcome is a "talking to".

If I remember correctly, you coach a MAC/PAC team. You may be seeing some inconsistency here because you have two different groups of officials (assigned by different assignors) calling your games depending on the game site. I'm not saying that it is happening, but officials may be getting conflicting information on how this should be called by different assignment chairmen.

No, our ten year old snapper has a hard enough time making teh snap while looking upside down at the holder.

No, he is setting up in his normal stance. By normal, I mean the same he uses when trying a shotgun snap to our QB.


Yes, since we have two players back, they pile up the middle. By sending two defenders at the guards they collapse the pocket. Keep in mind that we have a ten year old snapper. He is not whipping the ball back.


Thanks. We teach them to do this just after the snap. A couple teams do this prior to getting set. When we pointed this out the crew said it is legal. I'm not complaining about the call or lack of, rather I just want clarification so we can better prepare our boys. Some day they will be playing in front of guys like you and I hope we can instruct them now so that we avoid problems later. Thank you!

Brett,
I sent the question to TCYFL through our liaison. We have had two home and two away games so far and are on the road again this week. The TCYFL crews have been pretty good this year. I would imagine that we see newer officials more than not and some of you would criticize the way they handle the game. All in all, the guys do a great job. All coaches can find fault with crews when things don't go their way. I have a unique perspective having worked baseball in our state for a couple decades plus. They will make mistakes and miss calls. My intent here is to make it easier for them by teaching our players EXACTLY what to do. Thanks again for working so hard for youth football in our area.

Mike

It will be interesting to see what you hear back, Mike. Next time you run a question up the proverbial flag pole, can you find out what the foul and penalty are for a center that does move after the snap on a FG/PAT in a featherweight game. :rolleyes:

I will echo ... local rules are made by fools. This one is not horrible, but even as simple as it is, anyone can see the problem it creates.

My favorite from a local league is "Linebackers cannot blitz". Multiple issues with that:

1) No official definition of "linebacker"
2) No rule stating how many linebackers there must be or a maximum on how many linemen there are.
3) What does CANNOT mean. Unable? No... unallowed - ok ...but there's no penalty listed. So what do the officials do? Say, "stop that?" and move on?
4) More importantly, define "blitz" - ask 10 people and you get 10 different answers as to what a "linebacker" may do (again... what's a linebacker ... by rule at least?)

So... undefined players are not allowed to, but not penalized for, doing something equally undefined.

Wow, here in WNC teams just go for two at that age. #@!!, most middle schools go for two.

Not a particularly well thought out local rule. What's wrong with the Fed rule?

In the league referenced, they flip the kicking and "going for it" points so you earn 2 for kicking.

At the level mentioned the center gets special "protection" on EVERY play in so that he cannot be contacted until the quarterback has had the opportunity to receive the ball. I think there are two competing interests at work here. First, the recognition that the majority of the centers at this age won't be able to long snap if they are worried about righting themselves for contact (no defensive rush is allowed on punts). Secondly, the league doesn't want teams to be able to score without a defense rush at this level. This rule is what they came up with...

Personally, I'd prefer that the use the same rules used at the level below this. No rushing on any scrimmage kicks. Kicker must kick from at least 5 yards behind the LOS. Offense and defense hold position until the ball is kicked.

Doesn't that just create a pile of bodies in the middle? I could see that opening up the B gaps, but certainly not the A gaps! Doesn't seem to me that your league rule makes any difference to that tactic. What am I missing?

I know of at least a couple leagues where you get 3 for a kick, 2 for a pass, and 1 for a run.

6 man football originated the 2 for a FG, 1 for a TD rule on the try. But 6 man also had 4 for a FG during general play, and a crossbar 9' off the ground and 25' wide.