New Fed rules up

[HLin NC]

NFHS | ?Targeting? Defined in High School Football in Effort to Reduce Risk of Injury

[BktBallRef]

“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.

[cmathews]

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by cmathews

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!).

[Adam]

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!).

What difference would #1 make?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

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.”

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.