Pet Peeves - Federation

[Bob M.]

OK you guys, the season's getting closer. While the discussion about Maori football, British colonialism, American democracy, sports as a mirror on society, and the relative military and athletic prowess of Americans, British, and the Maori is very interesting, it’s a diversion and is doing little to get us all ready. So…I’m doing my part to try and get us back to discussion about American football. Here’s the multiple part question:

What are your pet peeves with the current Federation code, i.e. what are the most misleading, confusing, or poorly constructed rules. And you get the chance to be a Federation Rules Editor: In your answer, cite the rule (Rule-Section-Article) and what you would do to fix the situation. I’ll be the first contributor…

Current
Rule 5-1-2a: A new series of downs is awarded:
a. After a first, second or third down, a new series of downs shall be awarded only after considering the effect of any act during the down and any dead ball foul.

I don’t believe this says what’s really intended. It should be reworded to say:

Proposed
Rule 5-1-2a: A new series of downs is awarded:
a. After a first, second or third down, a new series of downs shall be awarded only after considering the effect of any act during the down other than a nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul by A and any dead ball foul by B.

Rewording it this way would make it clear that if Team A gained a first down by virtue of their run or pass, but committed an unsportsmanlike or nonplayer foul during the down, or committed a dead ball foul after the down, they would still be awarded a first down with the penalty enforced from the succeeding spot.

My thanks to Steve Hall (New Hampshire Football Officials Association) for offering this new wording.

[James Neil]

Originally posted by Bob M.
OK you guys, the season's getting closer. While the discussion about Maori football, British colonialism, American democracy, sports as a mirror on society, and the relative military and athletic prowess of Americans, British, and the Maori is very interesting, it’s a diversion and is doing little to get us all ready. So…I’m doing my part to try and get us back to discussion about American football. Here’s the multiple part question:

What are your pet peeves with the current Federation code, i.e. what are the most misleading, confusing, or poorly constructed rules. And you get the chance to be a Federation Rules Editor: In your answer, cite the rule (Rule-Section-Article) and what you would do to fix the situation. I’ll be the first contributor…

Current
Rule 5-1-2a: A new series of downs is awarded:
a. After a first, second or third down, a new series of downs shall be awarded only after considering the effect of any act during the down and any dead ball foul.

I don’t believe this says what’s really intended. It should be reworded to say:

Proposed
Rule 5-1-2a: A new series of downs is awarded:
a. After a first, second or third down, a new series of downs shall be awarded only after considering the effect of any act during the down other than a nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul by A and any dead ball foul by B.

Rewording it this way would make it clear that if Team A gained a first down by virtue of their run or pass, but committed an unsportsmanlike or nonplayer foul during the down, or committed a dead ball foul after the down, they would still be awarded a first down with the penalty enforced from the succeeding spot.

My thanks to Steve Hall (New Hampshire Football Officials Association) for offering this new wording.

Capital Idea Bob! I’m with you whole hearted on this. And working with a pet-peeve format is a great way to get back on track. The wording in this rule that you’ve pointed out is definitely one that’s caused me much anxiety. I’m going to post up my biggest PP as soon as I can get to my “BOOK”. In the mean time. I’m going to take into account what I’m going to do for the rest of the day only after considering the effect of any act that may befall me before I go home

[mikesears]

Originally posted by Bob M.
OK you guys, the season's getting closer. While the discussion about Maori football, British colonialism, American democracy, sports as a mirror on society, and the relative military and athletic prowess of Americans, British, and the Maori is very interesting, it’s a diversion and is doing little to get us all ready. So…I’m doing my part to try and get us back to discussion about American football. Here’s the multiple part question:

What are your pet peeves with the current Federation code, i.e. what are the most misleading, confusing, or poorly constructed rules. And you get the chance to be a Federation Rules Editor: In your answer, cite the rule (Rule-Section-Article) and what you would do to fix the situation. I’ll be the first contributor…

Current
Rule 5-1-2a: A new series of downs is awarded:
a. After a first, second or third down, a new series of downs shall be awarded only after considering the effect of any act during the down and any dead ball foul.

I don’t believe this says what’s really intended. It should be reworded to say:

Proposed
Rule 5-1-2a: A new series of downs is awarded:
a. After a first, second or third down, a new series of downs shall be awarded only after considering the effect of any act during the down other than a nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul by A and any dead ball foul by B.

Rewording it this way would make it clear that if Team A gained a first down by virtue of their run or pass, but committed an unsportsmanlike or nonplayer foul during the down, or committed a dead ball foul after the down, they would still be awarded a first down with the penalty enforced from the succeeding spot.

My thanks to Steve Hall (New Hampshire Football Officials Association) for offering this new wording.

If I were an octopus with hands, I'd say eight thumbs up. The current NFHS rule doesn't seem to take into account a foul by the offense after a 1st down. I will post my pet-peave when I've had a chance to consider how to rewrite the rule.

[James Neil]

I’m late for work. Seems there’s just not enough hours in the day these days so I guess I’m going to have to do this in installments. I’ll post the rule now and try to follow up with my revision at a later time.

NF 3-4-2b ...The clock shall start with the ready for play signal for other then a free kick if the clock was stopped: (b). Because the ball has became dead following any foul provided in either (a) or (b)

This sounds innocent enough here when you read just that one line. But when I first read the whole of section 4 of this rule I would to get all confused with the referance to this (a) and (b). Anyone else have trouble with this one?

[Mike Simonds]

But seriously, sometimes you have to be either a lawyer or an English major to understand the wording in the Federation book...

I'm all in favor of combining the rule and the case book just like the NCAA does. It is much easier to read and study...

[shawn.wortman]

Agreed,

Having everything in one book does make for easier study.

[Tom Cook]

My pet peeve is having to call defensive encroachment as a dead-ball foul on extra point kicks. I have several times hac to through a flag for this and, almost every time, the kick is through the uprights, only to have to be repeated. This rewards the defense for fouling. I would like to see the Fed go to the NCAA neutral zone enforcement.

[Mike Simonds]

During our summer adult league season, we use NF rules modified with the NCAA defensive offside and kicks going into R's endzone rules. Both work well. The last game we had defensive offside at the snap on an extra point. Line judge throws his flag, withholds whistle, kick is good. Referee explains options to offensive team who declines the penalty and takes the points.

I believe the only reason why the NF has not changed the rule is because encroachment enforced as a dead ball foul is much easier to enforce. However, good officials can be easily retrained and its another positive move to bring the NF rules more in line with NCAA.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally posted by Mike Simonds
During our summer adult league season, we use NF rules modified with the NCAA defensive offside and kicks going into R's endzone rules. Both work well. The last game we had defensive offside at the snap on an extra point. Line judge throws his flag, withholds whistle, kick is good. Referee explains options to offensive team who declines the penalty and takes the points.

I believe the only reason why the NF has not changed the rule is because encroachment enforced as a dead ball foul is much easier to enforce. However, good officials can be easily retrained and its another positive move to bring the NF rules more in line with NCAA.

The reason NFHS has not changed and probably will not change the rule is a perceived matter of safety. The belief is letting a defensive player into the neutral zone before the zone invites a potential situation where he will have momentum that could cause an injury.

[cowbyfan1]

My pet peeve is that while players cannot wear the "non clear" face visors because we need to be able to see their eyes yet there is really nothing we can do about the cosmetic contact lenses the essentially do the same. I sent an email to my state director of officials about this but from what I have seen, this was not addressed or clairified.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1
My pet peeve is that while players cannot wear the "non clear" face visors because we need to be able to see their eyes yet there is really nothing we can do about the cosmetic contact lenses the essentially do the same. I sent an email to my state director of officials about this but from what I have seen, this was not addressed or clairified.

The truth is even when I can see the players eyes not being a doctor I don't know what to look for. My luck is my linesman is a certified EMT and the job of a referee is to delegate. So guess who is going to look in that players eyes?

[Tom Cook]

Good Point! On my adult Amateur crew the line judge is a State Policeman and he gets the nod when a kid needs to be looked at.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1
My pet peeve is that while players cannot wear the "non clear" face visors because we need to be able to see their eyes yet there is really nothing we can do about the cosmetic contact lenses the essentially do the same. I sent an email to my state director of officials about this but from what I have seen, this was not addressed or clairified.

Colored contacts are not going to prevent you from seeing a kid's pupils. If they did, he wouldn't be able to see.

[STEVED21]

Cowboyfan,

The purpose of the clear visor is so anyone, us or any medical personnel can see the players face when he is seriously injured without touching his helmet and his head. If you had a non-clear visor the doctor would have to remove the helmet to examine the player. As you well know, doctors today do not want to move anyone who is injured in the head or back area.

[Theisey]

No offical should have a problem with clear visors.
A number of years ago, I asked a high school player why he used the visor, He simply said, intimadation.. the other team can't see where I'm looking.
His usage had nothing to do with sun glare or lamp glare.