No. :rolleyes:

Peace

This got touched on in another forum and I recalled I hadn't been back to this thread.

There isn't any need to cater to anyone. If Fed rules made more sense, then I'd be in favor of Texas adopting them. They won't, and Texas never will. My point is not to benefit Texas but to benefit all states. And officials. Got a game on Friday and then a college game on Saturday? Here, its easy. Someone else is running the game clock (one difference), and the conference takes care of those ejected for fighting (another difference). Small college supervisors want Texas guys spread among their crews so they can make sure that Fed rules and penalty enforcements are not injected in the college game.

I can appreciate the idea that in smaller states there are more teams crossing state lines to play games (interesting fact: Texas HS playoff game was once played in New Mexico -- obviously involving only Texas teams, but the NM location was best for both). But those states can easily get together and adopt similar exceptions to the NCAA rules. Are you really going to argue that 2 states playing modified NCAA rules are going to have more differences than what NCAA and Fed football rules have now? Whether its teams coming to Texas (or Mass) to play or vice versa, the current differences are a bigger pain in the ass than what would happen in going all NCAA. In fact, there would probably be a "model" HS football rules exception code that most states would adopt with perhaps a few changes.

What football rules exceptions does Fed allow states to make now? Also, is there a specific 8 man football book, or are there exceptions in the Fed book for 8 man? What about 6 man? What if a state wanted to go coed and have rules differences?

NCAA already writes suggested rules for HS play, has done so since before Fed existed, and I suspect the Football Rules Committee started doing so slightly before the NCAA existed.

OTOH, at one time Fed organized an Alliance that wrote football rules for them, NAIA, and NJCAA.
The only thing a state's HSAA "gets" in return for following Fed rules strictly in a sport is official input to the rules committee for that sport. BFD...why does a SHSAA care about what rules the other SHSAAs play by, unless they play a lot of their schedule across state lines?

My HS wasn't even a member of the state's HSAA. They had their own league rules for football. That didn't stop them from playing occasional games out of league with teams that normally played by Fed rules. They played by their league's rules when they were the home team, and by the home team's when they were away.

Heck, there are leagues in Canada playing by US or partially US rules.

AFAICT, this is a problem only for officials who might work a HS league, children's, college, and/or adult minor league football during the same season. And it's a significant problem only as to actions that kill a play or alter timing, because other errors are easily reversible.

How's this for an idea for when you work some games where encroachment kills the ball and others where it doesn't?: Wear something colored on your hand that carries the whistle to remind you. When you see it coming into your field of view, it'll tell you if you shouldn't blow.

Assuming you are referring to the term, "Stiffarm" as a technique usually deployed by a runner, It would seem that's covered by NFHS: 2-4-a which advises; "An offensive player may also use his hands or arms: (a) When he is a runner (NFHS: 2;32;13); to ward off or push any player."

But it says that in context of distinguishing between legal and illegal use of hands & arms generally. It is not iicense to commit a personal foul with the hand or arm! Unfortunately Fed went wrong when they started phrasing parts of their definitions as if they were substantive rules, so the above quoted sentence is inherently confusing, because taken literally and out of context it would imply the runner could make any kind of contact he wanted with the hand (Or fist!) in warding off or pushing a player.

We had a discussion here a year or 2 ago re use of the hands above the shoulders in blocking. The consensus seemed to be that you could draw an illegal use of hands for inadvertently allowing a hand to siip too high during blocking, to the opponent's neck or face, but that deliberate hands to the neck or head would be a personal foul ("unnecessary and tends to invite roughness") -- indeed that the cases of 10 yard penalty would be few, with most either being a non-foul (maybe a warning) or a personal foul.

I see no reason to think the runner's use of hands above an opponent's shoulders would be treated any differently, except that the intermediate area of a 10-yard penalty does not exist in that case. Therefore it seems to me that this "targeting" business makes no practical difference at all -- a deliberate hand to an opponent's face was a personal foul both before and after the rule change. A stiff arm at or below the shoulders would similarly be just as legal before and after.

Well Robert, this is where common sense comes in. The NF has addressed what a runner can do in many literature. And until they start saying a stiff arm is illegal, then we will worry about calling them.

Peace

C'mon Robert,Now you're just being silly. I'd be surprised if ANYBODY wants, or thinks, a legitimate "straightarm" should start drawing flags.

How'm I being silly? A legitimate straightarm is just as legitimate as before, and an illegitimate one just as illegitimate as before.

Again, if you can show us a rule or some statement that any blow by a ball handler with their arm is not legal, then maybe I might consider your opinion. Runners have been throwing blows for years and never have I seen anything suggested outside of spearing that these plays are illegal. Now again, show us one interpretation that implies a stiff arm is a foul by the ball carrier and maybe we can talk about that possibility. But until then you are being completely silly.

Peace

Are you saying that every blow by a ball handler's arm is supposed to be legal? Deliberately landing it on the neck or head? If a deliberate hit there is not generally illegal, how about more specifically a punch to the jaw, forearm or elbow to the chops, poke in the eye, or grabbing the neck?

First of all you keep talking about something that has not been made illegal. All hits to the head are not illegal. And a stiff arm has never been seen to be illegal or lowering a shoulder as the ball carrier is not seen as illegal either.

Now again, if you want to show an interpretation anywhere (including NCAA) where a stiff arm is seen as illegal, just because the head is involved, I am still waiting.

And no one (but you) is talking about poking someone on the eye for God's sake. Stop it with that nonsense. :rolleyes:

The next thing you are going to suggest that blocking below the waist is illegal too, even with the fact that rules allow it to take place under the right circumstances.

Peace

Sorry Robert, but you are being silly, and arguing for the sake of arguing. If an official (at any level) doesn't understand and can't tell the difference beteween "delivering a blow (any blow) and a legitimate "straightarm", he's not likely to officiating very long.

The difference is based on common sense, an understanding of the intent of the rule and the inherent courage to "call it as you see it". Without the inherent skills necessary to make a solid and reasonable judgment, officiating is not a wise career choice.

No one has suggested that any blow thrown as apart of a runner holding the ball and advancing, other than a spear has never been considered illegal. I guess if a runner jumps up in the air and kicks the potential tackler like Billy Simms did with Detroit back in the day, I can see that being a foul. But not a forearm like Neal Anderson did in the Super Bowl where he threw his arm up and hit a potential tackler in the upper part of his body should not be considered illegal unless you want to totally change the game.

Peace

You mean, "Not all hits to the head are illegal." But neither are they all legal. And I don't see how the "targeting" provision changes a thing in that regard. It doesn't make all contact with an opponent's head illegal, and it makes no difference as to contact with an opponent's head that was already illegal.

Of course those actions are not per se illegal. But what we're considering are not stiff arms in general or blows with the shoulder in general. What we're discussing is blows to the head or neck, by whatever technique, that are gratuitous. That is, they could've been avoided, and if they serve a valid tactical purpose (such as fending off a tackler), they could've been served as well by contact at or below the opponent's shoulder. But that was the same under the previous unnecessary roughness provision.

Who needs one specifically about a stiff arm? Wouldn't you say it's unnecessary roughness any time any player lands a blow that's gratuitous (by the above criteria) to an opponent's head or neck deliberately? Does the wording of the new targeting provision, applied literally, change that to any degree?

We realize that because players are allowed certain uses of their hands on opponents, that sometimes their aim will be off. We also know that a tackler or blocker will sometimes present a head first, making it hard to avoid. But don't you also see -- or can't you at least imagine -- cases where it's clear that was no mere slip, and that the player deliberately put that hand or arm somewhere it shouldn't've gone, endangering an opponent's neck? In those cases, does it make any difference to you whether the player was legally allowed some use of the hand or arm in contacting the opponent?

When the rules were revised so that the hands no longer had to be kept close to the body in blocking, was it the intention of the rules makers to change any hits that would've previously been personal fouls into legal actions? (Yes, I know holding used to be penalized 15 yds., but it was not a PF.) Did you think the ballcarrier had any greater privilege in not being flagged for a PF?

But I have a point, which is that the "targeting" provision is superfluous.

I just happened to go from here to Huey's, where someone had started a thread on the action highlighted by the player in this YouTube. Suppose the offensive left tackle in question had possession of the ball; would his action have been legal? Would the targeting provision have made any difference as to your answer or to the penalty, whether he had the ball or not?