The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 11, 2003, 11:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Clinton Township, NJ
Posts: 2,065
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.
__________________
Bob M.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 11, 2003, 02:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 465
Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 11, 2003, 02:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bloomington, IL
Posts: 1,319
Quote:
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.




__________________
Mike Sears
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2003, 09:20am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 465
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 12, 2003, 03:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 489
Smile Lets kill all the lawyers...

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...
__________________
Mike Simonds
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 13, 2003, 12:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 30
Agreed,

Having everything in one book does make for easier study.

__________________
F. Shawn Wortman
aka BIG UMP
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 21, 2003, 06:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 156
Neutral Zone

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 21, 2003, 03:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 489
Thumbs up Agreed...

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.
__________________
Mike Simonds
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 22, 2003, 07:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,130
Re: Agreed...

Quote:
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.
__________________
Ed Hickland, MBA, CCP
[email protected]
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 26, 2003, 05:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 842
Send a message via AIM to cowbyfan1 Send a message via Yahoo to 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.
__________________
Jim

Need an out, get an out. Need a run, balk it in.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 26, 2003, 10:49am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
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?
__________________
Ed Hickland, MBA, CCP
[email protected]
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 01, 2003, 02:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 156
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 01, 2003, 11:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
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.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 02, 2003, 08:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 223
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.
__________________
Steve
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 02, 2003, 10:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,464
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1