New Fed rules up

[BoBo]

The plays that will be hot zone plays will be change of possession and kick/punt returns. That special team kid or defensive looking for that big hit ESPN top ten hit.

From watching games as a parent this season after 18 yrs as an official I can say I saw about 4-6 plays that were definitely "targeting" plays. About 4 plays on punt returns and two on pass interceptions. 3 of the punt returns were on the team i would be cheering for. As an active college official today I would have flagged all of them.

I hope that at least with the foul being highlighted that kids and coaches both teach themselves to get away from the play.

I am glad to a point there is no ejection with the targeting in high school for the reason I am not sure all officials will be qualified enough to get it right in game speed.

As a Div III official with out the aide of replay like Division I and some D-II schools i can attest there some very very tough calls.

[Reffing Rev.]

Is this a case like the horse-collar fiasco, instead of just adopting the NCAA wording we will take 3 seasons to get it right? I am unclear from the Press Release, is NFHS targeting connected to the definition of a defenseless player?

The definition says "opponent" which makes it illegal to contact any opponent above the shoulders (which has been a part of illegal contact before). Colgate mentions an exception for tackling, blocking, and playing the ball, but the definition quoted did not. Personally, I'm all for flagging a high tackle or block, but is that going to be the rule or do we have to substitute intent from the press release for where it applies based on the definition?

What is the purpose of the definition for defenseless player if it is not connected to targeting, or anywhere else?

The kickoff rule change isn't surprising, I was surprised we didn't see it last year, and I'm surprised we didn't see the KCI /opportunity to make a fair catch extended to a ball that has bounced once. I wouldn't be surprised if the kickoff wasn't extinct in 10 years.

Did they say that all illegal personal contact fouls will be an AFD or only when committed against a passer? That wasn't clear to me.

Biggest surprise though: DPI...no change?

[KnoxOfficial]

I'm still surprised that they have not changed the standard for illegal formation to mean more than 5 in the backfield rather than the current less than 7 on the line. There is no advantage gained by the offensive by having fewer men on the field but still having 4 in the backfield. In addition, this would makes the wings work easier by only having to count the players in the backfield.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by KnoxOfficial

I'm still surprised that they have not changed the standard for illegal formation to mean more than 5 in the backfield rather than the current less than 7 on the line. There is no advantage gained by the offensive by having fewer men on the field but still having 4 in the backfield. In addition, this would makes the wings work easier by only having to count the players in the backfield.

It still works to only count the backfield. As long as the R/U are signaling 11 you are good. If they have 10 or fewer their signal is usually more prolonged and obvious. I agree changing the rule would make a lot of sense.

[Texas Aggie]

The NCAA rule change several years ago regarding 7 on the line was a Godsend. Yes, in many games you have the R/U counting, but in some subvarsity games, we only have 3 guys. No U and the HL trying to get kids to keep the box and chains straight. Had a game years ago where I didn't see the offense didn't have a guard and the formation was illegal.

As I've said before, I think Fed football rules are useless. The states should adopt NCAA rules and make exceptions where they see fit. Fed rules make sense in other sports, particularly hoops, where teams play out of state tournaments. In football, that doesn't happen much and when teams play Texas teams HERE, they have to adjust anyway.

[SE Minnestoa Re]

Originally Posted by Rich

And yet they don't pick the parts they should:

(1) Eliminating 6 on the line as a foul and replacing it with 5 in the backfield.

(2) Timing rules. Games have gotten LONGER and LONGER and LONGER, even with the fastest pace WH in the midwest (ME!).

You can't be much faster than I am and I can't get a game finished under 2 hours.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

You can't be much faster than I am and I can't get a game finished under 2 hours.

I'll wind the clock on a first down if the chains are in the same zip code.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Fed rules make sense in other sports, particularly hoops, where teams play out of state tournaments.

There are probably a lot less cross-state games (in terms of actual number of individual games) in football compared to BB, VB, etc. But it happens quite often where I am. I looked at my game sheet from last season, and counting less than varsity games, I did 8 games last season across the WA/ID border, and one WA/OR game. And this is pretty common.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

In football, that doesn't happen much and when teams play Texas teams HERE, they have to adjust anyway.

Well, what do TX teams do when they go to OK? Or LA? They have to adjust that way as well.

While I'm a fan of going to NCAA rules for some things (esp timing), I'm not for others (blocking below the waist). But as you say, each state can make exceptions. But since TX/MA are the minority of states, it doesn't make sense for the other states to cater to them. If other states are going to switch to NCAA rules, the "Well, TX uses NCAA rules" isn't really an argument.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Suudy

If other states are going to switch to NCAA rules, the "Well, TX uses NCAA rules" isn't really an argument.

Don't tell people from Texas that.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Suudy

If other states are going to switch to NCAA rules, the "Well, TX uses NCAA rules" isn't really an argument.

What are you talking about, that's a fantastic argument.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

There is no replay in NFHS. So this will be interesting to see how everyone...officials, coaches and players...adjust to this new rule. And how many broadcasters get it wrong.

There's not really a new rule, just a new definition. This type of play was already illegal. They just gave it a name.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by BoBo

I am glad to a point there is no ejection with the targeting in high school for the reason I am not sure all officials will be qualified enough to get it right in game speed.

Actually, when coupled with the NFHS definition of "Flagrant"
(NFHS: 2-16-2c) "Flagrant: a foul so severe or extreme that it places an opponent in danger of serious injury, and/or imvolves violationsthat are extremely or persistentlyvulgar or abusive conduct.", NFHS game officials will continue to be considered qualified to exercise their judgment to determine behavior meriting player disqualification, associated with the new circumstance of "Targeting" currently reported as being defined, “Targeting is an act of taking aim and initiating contact to an opponent above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders.”

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Actually, when coupled with the NFHS definition of "Flagrant"
(NFHS: 2-16-2c) "Flagrant: a foul so severe or extreme that it places an opponent in danger of serious injury, and/or imvolves violationsthat are extremely or persistentlyvulgar or abusive conduct.", NFHS game officials will continue to be considered qualified to exercise their judgment to determine behavior meriting player disqualification, associated with the new circumstance of "Targeting" currently reported as being defined, “Targeting is an act of taking aim and initiating contact to an opponent above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders.”

All this just seems like so much diddling -- diddling that's been going on for decades at least.

In football, is it ever necessary or even helpful to contact an opponent in such a manner? I could imagine a circumstance in which it would be necessary: the opponent's presenting that part of the body in such a way that one cannot hit him without hitting it. OK, so once you've eliminated all necessary cases, the remainder must be unnecessary, right? So why isn't it by definition unnecessary roughness? Why are the rules makers overspecifying, and losing the point? They're never going to take the judgment out of it, only replace one judgment with another, possibly even more hair-splitting.

[bigjohn]

So, a stiffarm is now targeting??


“Taking aim with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders to initiate contact above the shoulders, which goes beyond making a legal tackle, a legal block or playing the ball, will be prohibited,” Colgate said.

[HLin NC]

If you haul off and deliver a blow, yes, I guess it would be. But then again, it is illegal to do that now.