The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Coaches make the rules? (https://forum.officiating.com/football/92809-coaches-make-rules.html)

Rich Wed Oct 31, 2012 08:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonlj (Post 860705)
There is more than 1 official on the rules committee. I don't believe it's a majority but it's enough to have input and influence. We are represented by our state sport commissioner who has officiating only as a small part of his role.

You must work in Texas if you are asking about the kickoff spot changing. That's an NCAA-only change. I'm sure it's had an affect on D1 games but I think we've only had 4 or 5 touchbacks the entire season in our D3 games. The 5-yard head start has probably had more of an impact at our level.

The only thing the helmet rule has done is create more whining from players who can't tighten their helmets that it's getting ripped off. We had 1 player lose his helmet 3 times in 1 quarter! Two of them were on back to back plays he was in. I think the penalty will need to be harsher because these players don't seem to get it. I thought it would eliminate the helmets popping off but the rate seems to be the same or higher.
We've had quite a few touchbacks in NCAA D3 games. We also haven't had a single kickoff returned past midfield.

Rich Wed Oct 31, 2012 08:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdoug (Post 860702)
We had a call in our game Friday that was a TD and a DPI. The DPI was assessed on the kickoff and the coach on my side (B at the time) went ballistic about A being able to take both the TD and penalty. I explained to him that it changed a couple of years ago and this is the way it's supposed to be enforced now. My R told him the same thing. I'm not sure if he believed us or not, but he at least didn't dwell on it after the KO.
The coach should know the rule, but it makes no sense to enforce this and allow the TD to stand. They could fix this quite easily -- personal fouls and dead ball fouls (and live enforced as dead) only, the rest are declined by rule. Easy enough.

cdoug Wed Oct 31, 2012 08:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 860708)
The coach should know the rule, but it makes no sense to enforce this and allow the TD to stand. They could fix this quite easily -- personal fouls and dead ball fouls (and live enforced as dead) only, the rest are declined by rule. Easy enough.
I totally agree on all accounts, but as written that's not the way it is. :(

Rich Wed Oct 31, 2012 08:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdoug (Post 860709)
I totally agree on all accounts, but as written that's not the way it is. :(
I know. That's what should be fixed.

When we had defensive holding on the TD, I signaled in this order.

Holding, defense. Touchdown. Penalty enforced on the kickoff.

The PA announcer said that the holding was declined. Well, that's not what I signaled.

So now I had 2 crew members coming to me assuming I had screwed up. Then I had the defensive coach livid when we enforced the holding on the kickoff. Fortunately, the H was able to talk him down off the ledge pretty quickly.

(Didn't matter in the end -- the kickoff went through the uprights, so it would've been a touchback anyway.)

JRutledge Wed Oct 31, 2012 08:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 860673)
And the NFHS would be well advised to simply point at the NCAA rulebook and say, "we're going to that." I can't think of anything (other than blocking below the waist, which is a disaster in NCAA) where the NFHS rule is better.

We had defensive holding against an eligible receiver on a touchdown play (where the ball was thrown to a different receiver). There's no good reason to allow the TD *and* penalize 10 yards on the kickoff. It makes no sense whatsoever.
I do not see the big deal. It is so rare and if you take your time usually you will not call the foul anyway. I would not want to go to NCAA rules for high school games for many reasons. Coaches have enough time understanding basic rules, add exceptions to a lot of stuff and we will have more issues. I am fine with the add on rule for scoring plays.

Peace

cdoug Wed Oct 31, 2012 08:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 860710)
I know. That's what should be fixed.
+ infinity!

Rich Wed Oct 31, 2012 09:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 860711)
I do not see the big deal. It is so rare and if you take your time usually you will not call the foul anyway.
#82 is tackled at the line of scrimmage when starting his route -- wing throws a flag. The pass is deep to a different receiver.

This is not one you can avoid by taking your time. It's a foul that must be called -- we don't know where the pass is going to go.

And we shouldn't have to pass on an obvious DPI flag because a receiver caught the football. What if there's an offensive penalty we could otherwise offset? Now we've penalized the offense unnecessarily.

maven Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 860723)
And we shouldn't have to pass on an obvious DPI flag because a receiver caught the football. What if there's an offensive penalty we could otherwise offset? Now we've penalized the offense unnecessarily.
Agree. Changing your call selection to adjust to a bad rule only compounds the problem. Fix the rule at the root of the problem.

APG Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 860711)
I do not see the big deal. It is so rare and if you take your time usually you will not call the foul anyway. I would not want to go to NCAA rules for high school games for many reasons. Coaches have enough time understanding basic rules, add exceptions to a lot of stuff and we will have more issues. I am fine with the add on rule for scoring plays.

Peace
Honestly, I feel like most coaches would know the NCAA exceptions better than most rules that NFHS is trotting out for football.

JRutledge Wed Oct 31, 2012 01:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 860723)
#82 is tackled at the line of scrimmage when starting his route -- wing throws a flag. The pass is deep to a different receiver.

This is not one you can avoid by taking your time. It's a foul that must be called -- we don't know where the pass is going to go.

And we shouldn't have to pass on an obvious DPI flag because a receiver caught the football. What if there's an offensive penalty we could otherwise offset? Now we've penalized the offense unnecessarily.
I did not say you can avoid all these situations, just stating that most of the time these are avoidable because the penalty is likely not going to be thrown if you wait. A hold depending on how bad is not going to result in a good play most of the time anyway. I have passed on a minor DPI before because the play was not affected. Then again, I am not in the camp this is a bad rule. Before the rules change coaches wanted to take the penalty on the try or kickoff anyway. I honestly do not care what coaches complain about in the first place. The rule is clear and most of the time you move anyway without much fanfare.

Peace

johnnyg08 Wed Oct 31, 2012 01:13pm
The only way to change bad rule is to enforce it.

jchamp Wed Oct 31, 2012 03:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 860708)
The coach should know the rule, but it makes no sense to enforce this and allow the TD to stand. They could fix this quite easily -- personal fouls and dead ball fouls (and live enforced as dead) only, the rest are declined by rule. Easy enough.
I can understand the philosophy behind this rule. The idea being to not allow a desparation foul on a potentially scoring play to benefit the defense. I could go either way with it, for the following case:

DPI but A receiver makes the catch, he is tackled at the B1. --> Decline DPI, A's ball at the B1.
DPI but A receiver makes the catch, he scores a touchdown. --> Accept DPI, enforce on try or kickoff.
You're penalizing B double for essentially "not fouling hard enough". My beef with it is that it encourages B to foul hard in all cases, to make sure there is no score. If he's gonna shove the receiver, he may as well maul him.

Rich Wed Oct 31, 2012 03:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jchamp (Post 860790)
I can understand the philosophy behind this rule. The idea being to not allow a desparation foul on a potentially scoring play to benefit the defense. I could go either way with it, for the following case:

DPI but A receiver makes the catch, he is tackled at the B1. --> Decline DPI, A's ball at the B1.
DPI but A receiver makes the catch, he scores a touchdown. --> Accept DPI, enforce on try or kickoff.
You're penalizing B double for essentially "not fouling hard enough". My beef with it is that it encourages B to foul hard in all cases, to make sure there is no score. If he's gonna shove the receiver, he may as well maul him.
If it rises to the level of a personal foul, then enforce it on the kickoff. DPI is not a safety foul and there's no need to enforce it when it is unsuccessful (and a touchdown is scored).

jchamp Wed Oct 31, 2012 03:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 860797)
If it rises to the level of a personal foul, then enforce it on the kickoff. DPI is not a safety foul and there's no need to enforce it when it is unsuccessful (and a touchdown is scored).
I can get behind this reasoning... and this is starting to sound like a very familiar conversation.

Maybe I've just been talking to myself again.

Forksref Wed Oct 31, 2012 08:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 860797)
DPI is not a safety foul and there's no need to enforce it when it is unsuccessful (and a touchdown is scored).
At last, a concise summary. Thanks.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:46am.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1