New Fed rules up

[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.

[Texas Aggie]

But since TX/MA are the minority of states, it doesn't make sense for the other states to cater to them.

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?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

In fact, there would probably be a "model" HS football rules exception code that most states would adopt with perhaps a few changes.

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.

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?

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

So, a stiffarm is now targeting??

No.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by 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.

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."

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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