New Fed rules up
 

“Targeting” Defined in High School Football in Effort to Reduce Risk of Injury


In an effort to reduce contact above the shoulders and lessen the risk of injury in high school football, the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Football Rules Committee developed a definition for “targeting,” which will be penalized as illegal personal contact.

The definition of targeting and its related penalty were two of 10 rules changes approved by the rules committee at its January 24-26 meeting in Indianapolis. All rules changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

Effective with the 2014 high school season, new Rule 2-43 will read as follows: “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.”

Bob Colgate, NFHS director of sports and sports medicine and liaison to the Football Rules Committee, said the committee determined – in its continued effort to minimize risk of injury in high school football – that it was important to separate and draw specific attention to this illegal act.

“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.

A new definition for a “defenseless player” was also added to Rule 2 for risk-minimization purposes. Rule 2-32-16 will read as follows: “A defenseless player is a player who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration, is especially vulnerable to injury.”

In an effort to reduce the risk of injury on kickoffs, the rules committee approved two new requirements in Rule 6-1-3 for the kicking team. First, at least four members of the kicking team must be on each side of the kicker, and, second, other than the kicker, no members of the kicking team may be more than five yards behind the kicking team’s free-kick line.

Rule 6-1-3 also notes that if one player is more than five yards behind the restraining line and any other player kicks the ball, it is a foul. In addition to balancing the kicking team’s formation, the change limits the maximum distance of the run-up for the kicking team.

“The Football Rules Committee’s actions this year reinforce a continued emphasis on minimizing risk within all phases of the game,” said Brad Garrett, assistant executive director of the Oregon School Activities Association and chair of the Football Rules Committee.

In other changes, new language was added to Rule 8-5-1 and states that “the accidental touching of a loose ball by a player who was blocked into the ball is ignored and does not constitute a new force.” In addition, roughing the passer fouls now include all illegal personal contact fouls listed in Rule 9-4-3, which result in automatic first down in addition to a 15-yard penalty.

The remaining changes approved by the Football Rules Committee are as follows:

Rule 1-1-7: Provides state associations authority to require game officials to be on the field more than 30 minutes prior to game time.

Rule 2-24-9: The intent of an illegal kick was clarified. Now, when an illegal kick occurs, the loose ball retains the same status that it had prior to the illegal kick.

Rules 3-3-3 and 3-3-4: With this change, in order to extend or not extend a period with an untimed down, time must expire during the down.

Football is the No. 1 participatory sport for boys at the high school level with 1,115,208 participants in the 2012-13 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 1,660 girls who played football in 2012-13.

and so it continues
 

the steady march towards the NCAA rule book continues....

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!).

What difference would #1 make?

If there's 10 on the field and 4 in the backfield, it's currently a foul in NFHS football, but NOT in NCAA.

Why should A/K be penalized for not having enough players on the field?

Besides, NCAA rules makes the wings' job easier. They count the backfield. They don't need to know there are 11 on the field in order to know whether the formation is legal.

agreed
 

yep I agree the 4 in the backfield thing is much easier.. I also wish they would go more to NCAA penalty enforcement spots, in that fouls that occur behind the LOS holding etc are enforced from the previous spot...as it stands now, a hold in the backfield can end up being a 20 yard penalty..

So they have defined "targeting" and say its a foul, what is the penalty??

I do not see what and how it will be enforced.

I will assume 15 yards, will there be a disqualification as well?

It was in my list of 5 changes I wanted to see. Not surprised it didn't make the cut. Disappointed, sure, not surprised.

First Paragraph

In an effort to reduce contact above the shoulders and lessen the risk of injury in high school football, the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Football Rules Committee developed a definition for “targeting,” which will be penalized as illegal personal contact.

So basically a personal foul 15 yards. Nothing like the NCAA rule with an additional penalty.

I would be willing many officials were already calling a small majority of these fouls in the past as personal fouls, UNR.

And the NCAA is backing off that additional penalty by all accounts that I have heard and read about.

Yes, but the rule did not make it clear to the participants this should be called. Then again coaches would complain about this and it was not a specific rule. Then again I do not see many "targeting" type plays at the HS level. I did not see any last year in any game.

Peace

Based on what I read earlier today: Only if the foul is overturned by replay and only if there's not another associated foul (like roughing the passer with a targeting element). If it's not a foul, there's no reason to keep the 15 yard penalty. I think that's a *good* change.

The thing is, how many ejections were overturned due to replay? This season in NCAA, if the change is implemented, the 15 yard penalty will also be overturned by replay.

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. :o

Presumably there's a substantive rule regarding contact with defenseless players.

Does this definition clarify, or muddy the water? For one thing, it would seem that this makes a player who leads with his head down a defenseless player. In general it would seem "especially vulnerable to injury" is a judgment game officials should not have to make. It would've been a bit of an improvement to leave out the words "to injury", though I still don't like it. Just using the term "defenseless player" without a definition, leaving it up to ordinary understanding of the phrase, would probably have been better.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Don't tell people from Texas that. :D

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?

Huh?

Again, show me anywhere that a stiff arm is considered illegal? One reference please, just one.


You do not officiate. And right or wrong, the fact that you do not officiate comes out in these kinds of discussions. No rules body, not the NCAA that uses a lot of video to make points or the NFL or the NF has said anything about a stiff arm being illegal even if the contact is with the head. As a matter of fact the NCAA and the NFL have tried to use terms like "defenseless player" or other classifications to allow even contact to the head. And the NF is starting to use the term and if they adopt the NCAA's language, a runner that lowers their head and a tackler that lowers their head will not be considered for a foul if contact inadvertently happens with the head area. Never but on this site have I heard anyone suggest otherwise about a stiff arm being illegal.


Targeting in other codes usually involves a defenseless player as apart of the action. And if they give and example of a stiff arm, then maybe we can have that debate. The problem is no such example has been given.

No I cannot. Never seen such an action as you suggest in just my years of officiating that would be over the top or not a football related action. There was always a provision in the rules to penalize a player for a spear if they had the ball, but even that is very rare.


OK, what does that have to do with this situation? A BIB used to also be a clip too. What does that have to do with what we are talking about in relationship to a stiff arm?

Peace

A stiff arm is not illegal. Gratuitously hitting an opponent in the head is illegal.

Do you expect the term "stiff arm" to automatically refer to a head hit? To me it just means fending off an opponent by contact using an open palm and a locked elbow.

It has to do with the fact that the rules committee has never allowed types of contact by some players that would be unnecessary roughness if done by other players.

Well if you can show me a ball carrier that can do that without trying to score, that will be a first.

No, but it usually takes a free hand to ward off a tackler as a ball carrier has to hold the ball with at least one of their arms. Disabilities aside of course.


Maybe you are right, but I cannot image an situation where what you are describing is even possible. For one if you are so preoccupied trying to hit someone in the head, the defenders would be trying to strip the ball. And considering that in the game of football the ball is so important, I do not see anything over the top. I have been watching players like Earl Campbell or Walter Payton and other than a spear, I cannot think of a single action they did that i would ever call on a runner. And those were about as punishing a runner as anyone that every played the game.

Peace

Seems to me that's exactly equivalent to:
...which is why I think the new verbiage is superfluous--whether applied to a runner's stiff arm, a tackler's action, or the motions of players blocking or beating blocks. In the past century (conservatively), when has it ever been legal to bring such a blow under the circumstances where you weren't legitimately trying to play the ball or an opponent pursuant to the object of the game? That's why the question, "Does this outlaw a straight arm?" is so easily answered; it doesn't change the legality of any already legal technique. Nor does it change the penalty. So what did it accomplish? Used to be they knew how to write a POE and instruct everyone down the line on it; now it seems they have to act like they're altering the rules.

:rolleyes: I meant the palm on the same extremity as the locked elbow.

The ballcarrier is not as likely to lay a gratuitous hit as players in position where their action will be inconsequential to play and where it's less likely officials' eyes will be on them, but it's not like it never happens, and it's much more likely to happen with Joe Schmoe in a game where the players outnumber the spectators than it is with an Earl Campbell or Walter Payton. And it's not the stiff arm to the head that a dirty player will attempt, but an uppercut once they're already in close quarters. It looks very natural. The player is running with the ball in one arm and swinging the other, and an opponent is tackling him on the ball side, and the ballcarrier swings that other arm up. He may have already made a fist, but you never noted that because it's natural for players to tense up all their flexors, so it's common for someone running hard to have hands in fists.

Forgive me, but I was unable to discern anything about the left guard from the 12 second U-tube you reference.

Respondint to your question, if the left guard, or any player, had possession of the ball he would be a "runner" (NFHS: 2-32-13) and subject to any and all restrictions and/or allowances of any other player meeting the requirements of a "runner".

Well, gee, thanks, Tautology Man. Should we get confirmation from the Commissioner of the Obvious?

Sometimes the most appropriate answer to a silly question, is a silly answer

And honestly, all of this discussion is silly when you are trying to create a situation to be illegal that has never been addressed as a problem (by any level).

But welcome to the world of the internet.

Peace

The ignore list function is a wonderful tool.

I think what Robert is trying to describe (and is potentially demonstrated by the LT in the YouTube video) is a punch and that has always been illegal. A punch and targeting are two very different things. If the action by the runner is not a punch or facemask then it's not a foul. I thoroughly expect the rule/philosophy of the NFHS targeting will be very similar to the NCAA rule.

What I meant to describe includes punches, but is not encompassed by them. I meant any sort of hit that is outside what is useful to producing tactical football advantage. The way the quoted person describes "targeting" upthread looks like exactly the same concept. But that concept has always been there, as long as there's been a rule against unnecessary roughness. It goes way back to before Fed & NCAA had their own rules.

This is all in your mind. This is not as difficult as you want to make it.

Peace