NFHS Additional Rules per helmeted players
 

INDIANAPOLIS, IN (February 7, 2013) — In an effort to continue minimizing the risk of injury in high school football, three additional rules will take effect next season to address helmets coming off players’ heads during games.

These three risk-minimization additions were among 10 rules changes approved by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Football Rules Committee at its January 18-20 meeting in Indianapolis. All rules changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

As a follow-up to last year’s rules change that requires players to sit out one play if their helmet comes off while the ball is live, the committee approved three additional rules that are extensions of last year’s change.

An illegal personal contact foul was added to Rule 9-4-3 to state that “no player or nonplayer shall initiate contact with an opposing player whose helmet has come completely off.”

In addition, a new listing in Rule 9-6-4 will state that it is illegal participation “for a player whose helmet comes completely off during a down to continue to participate beyond the immediate action in which the player is engaged.”

“With its continued focus on risk minimization, the committee determined that a helmet-less player shall not block, tackle or otherwise participate beyond the immediate action in which the player is engaged when the helmet came completely off,” said Bob Colgate, NFHS director of sports and sports medicine. “The penalty would be a live-ball, basic-spot foul.”

The committee also added language to Rule 3-5-10 to clarify that if the helmet comes completely off during the down or subsequent dead-ball action related to the down – and is not directly attributable to a foul by the opponent – the player must leave the game for at least one down, with the exception of halftime or overtime intermission. When this occurs, an official’s time-out shall be called.

“Player safety has been and will continue to be the top priority for members of the NFHS Football Rules Committee,” said Brad Garrett, chair of the NFHS Football Rules Committee and assistant executive director of the Oregon School Activities Association. “These rules changes regarding helmet-less players are more examples of the group’s commitment to minimize risk within the game.”

Perhaps the most significant rules change next season will be one that reduces the penalty for pass interference. While the 15-yard penalty will remain for both offensive and defensive pass interference, the loss of down has been removed for offensive pass interference and the automatic first down has been eliminated for defensive pass interference.

“Offensive and defensive pass interference and the penalty structure related to these fouls has been debated many times in recent years,” Garrett said. “Proposals that either deleted the loss of down or the automatic first down – but not both – failed to gain support among committee members. The proposal to eliminate both components, thus not upsetting the balance between offense and defense, was the key factor in the adoption of the new rule.”

Another change at high school football games next year will be the expanded use of communication devices. In specific situations, coaches, players and nonplayers will be allowed to use any form of communication technology.

This expansion of the rule allows the use of communication devices during authorized conferences outside the nine-yard marks, on the sidelines and during the halftime intermission. Use of communication devices by players except conferences outside the nine-yard mark continues to be prohibited.

In Rule 2-4-1, the committee clarified the rule approved last year regarding the definition of a catch, which stated that a receiver is required to establish possession of the ball and contact the ground inbounds while maintaining possession – regardless of the opponent’s action.

“The committee clarified the definition of a catch such that an airborne player who has forward progress stopped inbounds and is carried out of bounds by an opponent before contacting the ground is awarded a catch at the spot of forward progress,” Colgate said.

In Rule 9-3-8, the committee added another provision to the rule enacted last year regarding contact by the kicking team against members of the receiving team. The new provision stipulates that the kicking team may initiate contact once the receiving team has initiated a block within the neutral zone.

The committee also approved the addition of a 15-yard penalty to the existing option of accepting an awarded fair catch for kick-catch interference.

Finally, in Rule 8-3-3, the committee clarified that the touchdown scoring team is the only team that can score on a try, and in Rule 1-5-3 the committee modified the rule regarding the wearing of towels.

Football is the No. 1 participatory sport for boys at the high school level with 1,121,744 participants in the 2011-12 school year, according to the High School Athletics Participation Survey conducted by the NFHS through its member state associations. In addition, the survey indicated there were 1,805 girls who played football in 2011-12.

Not an automatic first down on Defensive PI is pretty crazy. Did I read that correctly?

Holy cow! The Fed threw the baby out with the bath water.

That rule change just doesn't make any sense.

Where is that located? I don't see it posted on the NFHS website nor the Arbiter?

Tim C always gets the information first. It's probably not on the website yet.

Our state training director emailed it out this morning as well. The release is dated today so it may just not have gotten posted to the site yet.

Meanwhile...is anyone else thinking the NFHS has bumped their collective head and may need one of those sideline concussion test things?

The PI issue was discussed on the other officiating board over the last several days. Apparently the rumors were out about a week ago.
Personally I think its dumb but it is what it is. The only issues will be the head coaches screaming for the AFD on DPI who either 1) forgot, 2) didn't read a rule update/go to a clinic, 3) want to play head games with the crew.

It seems to me that many coaches didn't know that LOD came with OPI.

As to the helmetless player participating, its a trickle down from NCAA that I think most everyone figured would be coming.

I take it the no legal BBW unless hand to hand snap didn't pass?

Amazing. Sometimes I feel the NFHS can't get out of its own way.

I figured that over time the NFHS would increase the number of penalties that include an AFD, not reduce the number. Of course, now we can say this:

"Coach, if the foul doesn't include the word roughing, there's no automatic first down."

That is just nuts.

Excellent. Now, if we need the clock to stop and are out of timeouts, we just make sure someone's helmet comes off. GREAT idea.

That is already the case in NCAA...besides you're here in Texas. :)

I should say I'm surprised, but this IS NFHS we're talking about...

I think DPIs will go up. Why not, not much consequence for this action anymore. Stupid change.

Peace

Dare I say we see the intentional PI enter its heyday now? <shudder thingy>

We just might. Make the officials call it.

Peace

I don't believe they'll go up significantly since most DPI's will still result in an AFD. Obviously the only time they won't is if the LTG is more than 15 yards or half the distance leaves them short or they are in a goal-to-go situation. I think any increase will come in those goal-to-go situation where a defender realizes he either gives up the TD or commits PI (especially on 3rd or 4th down). They'll get to replay the down but at least they'll have another chance to stop them. Even if you called intentional PI the down would still be replayed and you would only add another half the distance.

I do not like this change at all and hope it is still changed in editorial review.

I am not saying they will go up significantly, but I could see a coach or two teaching to foul when the down and distance is over 15 yards. And certainly do it in situations where the yardage is going to be a non-factor or even when the game is near the end. And we may actually see some situations where the intentional portion of that rule will be in play because HS kids often do not execute doing things on purpose without making it look like it was on purpose.

Peace

I would if I were a coach.

If the defense persists, when would 10-9-2 come into effect?

Law of unintended consequenses.

You mean they'll result in a first down. By rule, starting next year, they will NOT result in an AFD.

I dunno. I guess I expect DPI to be a more common tactic on 3rd-and-a-mile. No flag, D wins. Flag, it's still 3rd and long. Why wouldn't teams coach this?

"Don't let him catch it!"

It was happening anyway. An official's TO was used to get a sub in the game, same as an injury (or faked injury).

They will coach it. We were coached it...since it's not a spot foul if you're going to give up a TD, tackle the receiver, good coaching IMO

But overall it favors the offense. 15 yds. will usually produce a 1st down anyway, and if I'm 2nd & 16, I'd rather repeat the down and get 2nd & 1. Where it'll mostly matter is against the defense in a half-the-distance enforcement -- which actually is where you needed the AFD the most.

This will likely be a major issue around the goal line. No doubt.

Maybe in a yr. or 2 they'll add a special enforcement near B's end zone.

In Fed's football rules committee archives, in the 1940s (or maybe it was the late '30s) the sec'y or chairman wrote that he thought NCAA's failure to automatically award a TD on DPI in B's end zone was outdated, owing to a time when TDs had been scarcer, and advocated and expected Fed to make it a TD. That was one of the changes that was never adopted.

My understanding is that the loss of the AFD provision was a compromise to get the LOD out of the enforcement. I suspect that AFD will be reinstated in a couple of years after some rules committee members have rotated off.

+1

4th and goal at the 9. Team will teach if you get beat, interfere with the player. The worst than can happen is 4th and goal at the 2 1/4.

Bad move by the Rules Committee :mad:

I'm really surprised by this number, especially if Texas isn't included.

Mine too, and it struck me as quite odd. Compromise with whom? The defensive coordinator lobby?

I sincerely hope it doesn't take NFHS longer than one season to figure out how bad deleting AFD is. :(

I have a feeling that some states might still make this an AFD anyway.

Peace

That would be unusual and not an area where NFHS rules permit state "adoption."

But I might suggest it to my state interpreter anyway!

Actually states make adoptions more than you realize. And since the penalty would be more harsh than the current rule, it is allowed. For example my state has a completely different rule application to the uniform rule in basketball to make that rule more accommodating and the Board of Directors made that decision in the middle of the season. So it can be done if a state wanted to for a couple of reasons.

Peace

PENALTY: . If the pass interference by either player is intentional, his
team shall be penalized an additional 15 yards (S27).

This should be a POE then!!!!:)

Don't hold your breath.

And it would not change the issues taking away the AFD provision of the rule. You still could have a situation where no first down is awarded.

Peace

Exactly, and in some instances, only half yard additional penalty.

If you flagged intentional interference, it might be two half-yard penalties. :)

Or even if it is 3rd and goal from the 10 and a DPI happens in the end zone, it will be 3rd and goal from the 5 no matter how the DPI took place. :rolleyes:

Peace

The rules committee considers it two separate penalties (I know that violates the fundamental) so it would be 3rd and goal from 2.5. Still not a huge difference and still 3rd down.

You are right, but it is still 3rd down. Instead of 1st down and 4 downs to score. Why would I not teach as a coach to do whatever to prevent a TD or a big play in similar situations?

Peace

Exactly...well worth the risk because the penalty is better the result (TD) without it. I am not a fan of this change.

when can you invoke this rule?

ART. 2 . . . No team shall repeatedly commit fouls which halve the distance to
the goal line

PENALTY: Unfair act – the referee enforces any penalty he considers equitable,
including the award of a score

Don't know, Fed has never defined repeatedly that I know of. I'd venture they expect it to be called very conservatively. I can think of numerous times I have called consecutive encroachments, particularly on a try, and we've never invoked the repeatedly cause. In fact K normally declines the penalty on a try anyway.

I brought this point up earlier in the thread. Its probably extreme but I can see DPI being committed on every pass play in a goal to go situation. I would imagine the repeatedly scenario would be invoked after the ball could no longer be moved for penalty enforcement, which is strictly my own opinion.

It would boil down a game of chicken between A and B's head coaches. At some point A is probably going to flinch and call a run play.

I forsee the AFD coming back very, very soon.

That's excellent. Consider it adopted for my crew. :)