NFHS Survey
 

NFHS | NFHS Sport Questionnaires

Discussion starts with the next post! :D

They should have just said "Should we adopt X% of the NCAA rulebook as our own?"

:D

Wondering why they didn't ask about defensive fouls behind the LOS as well as offensive.

I was thinking the same thing.

To bad nothing addressed NFHS recommended mechanics...

BAHAHAHAHA! :D

I agree! :)

Hopefully they don't adopt any of them except I did say yes to eliminating face guarding.

I hope they adopt *all* of them.

Not that it matters to me too much, but I think more states should go NCAA. The Fed football rules are just bizarre in too many areas. States have all the ability they want to make their own modifications, unlike when using Fed.

States can, and do, modify NFHS rules as well.

There are some things I like about NFHS rules, including the simplicity of blocking below the waist. That's a jumbled mess in NCAA and doesn't seem it will be really fixed any time soon.

They have that "ability" because they can't be members of the NCAA!

By the same token, they have the ability to make their own modif'ns on Fed rules too. I know plenty of organiz'ns that do so. They just aren't members of the Federation.

Out of curiosity, do TX (and MA) allow blocking below the waist as NCAA does (obviously before a COP, not back toward the LOS, etc)? Or are there modifications to the NCAA ruleset?

I think one of the biggest barriers to states switching from Fed to NCAA is the blocking changes. There is already significant focus and emphasis on injuries (chop blocks have been heavily emphasized over the last several years). And the questions in the survey hint at this. Notice the question about "the free blocking zone and making blocking below the waist, clipping and blocking in the back illegal anywhere on the field".

Except for some administrative uniform things, timing and where to kick off from, the rules in Texas are exactly the same as NCAA. We are about 99% pure NCAA.

I wonder if there has been any study on injuries in TX/MA vs Fed states. If the Fed is considering eliminating the free blocking zone and focusing on other types of blocks, I would think they are doing it for safety reasons. And if they are concerned about illegal blocking (including blocks below the waist), then they must have a reason to consider it dangerous. And one would hope they have data to support such a conclusion.

It's been my experience (multiple sports) that rules designed to prevent injuries are not supported by data as much as they are supported by one-off anecdotal stories or "what-if" fears.

Is that by weight or volume?
:D

Volume...we are much louder here. :D