Comments on the 2014 football rules changes

[HLin NC]

http://www.nfhs.org/Workarea/Downloa....aspx?id=10624

http://www.nfhs.org/Workarea/Downloa....aspx?id=10623

[JRutledge]

So far I love the wording for targeting. Tired of this helmet to helmet mess we keep using to justify an illegal hit. We will see if the rulebook reflects these comments better.

Peace

[Reffing Rev.]

How do I determine intent?

[HLin NC]

The National Federation of High Schools has approved the use of wider zebra stripes for high school football officials. The current shirt can still be worn for 2014 and ’15, as long as everyone on a given crew is wearing the same stripes. All officials must switch to the wider stripes by 2016 (big thanks to Joe Schmeltzer). …

Uni Watch » To Tuck or Not to Tuck: That Is the Question

Maybe wearing 2" stripes will give you that super-power?!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

How do I determine intent?

The same way you determine other things when certain language is used or other illegal acts that would be influenced by intent. If the hit is to punish someone rather than make a tackle, I would think that would be more obvious to an official. I also think that the NF does not want to penalize all head contact, but only when it is clear the hit was deliberate under this definition. I am sure we can still call spearing and other safety issues that are not associated with intent, but targeting will be subjected to that kind of action. In other words a player that ducks to be ready for contact and gets hit in the head as a result is probably going to not be encouraged for us to call a foul (just a guess at this point). We will just have to see how it is interpreted.

Peace

[HLin NC]

I have a clip we were reviewing last night on a sideline hit from a game last season. One of the group asked if we thought that the hit we observed would be considered targeting. I will try to upload to a host and link later this evening.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

I have a clip we were reviewing last night on a sideline hit from a game last season. One of the group asked if we thought that the hit we observed would be considered targeting. I will try to upload to a host and link later this evening.

There are circumstances where the view on film carries a much clearer picture of what may have occurred than may be seen from the angle of
on-field officials, but there are also circumstances where the view, from the on-field official clearly observes details not visible from a camera angle.

From the descriptions available, thus far, it appears "targeting" is going to be a purely judgment call, and as such, "One size will NEVER fit all".

[HLin NC]

The play appears to be a late hit out of bounds that was not flagged. B6 appears to take aim and lower his right shoulder to strike A20 at the head.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Uni Watch » To Tuck or Not to Tuck: That Is the Question

Maybe wearing 2" stripes will give you that super-power?!

I haven't seen this anywhere. Wonder if this is a state adopting this.

[SE Minnestoa Re]

The difficulty in determining targeting is that college and the NFL have deep wing officials who have a pretty good angle. In high school, we work with 5 and don't have the two extra pair of eyes on the play.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

The play appears to be a late hit out of bounds that was not flagged. B6 appears to take aim and lower his right shoulder to strike A20 at the head.

The trailing side official appears to be RIGHT ON TOP of the play in position to observe the contact from a much closer vantage than the film provides, what makes you doubt his decision?

[JRutledge]

If he missed something, he is right there.

Peace

[HLin NC]

Being RIGHT ON TOP of the play doesn't mean you don't/can't miss something.
A player was down and
out of bounds when B player hit him and it was avoidable.

I've got another from same field, different game where the LJ flags a hold to spring the runner but then misses the spearing on the runner after he's down. He was right on top of it too.

[JRutledge]

It does not look "obvious" to say one way or another. I even think he hits the player on shoulder or part of the back. So that is why the location of the official would matter. Maybe they clearly saw the contact. We are looking at angles across the field and not down the sideline. That is why being on top of the play would matter. But that does not mean there was a miss by the official. I just have nothing to say they were wrong at this time.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Being RIGHT ON TOP of the play doesn't mean you don't/can't miss something.
A player was down and
out of bounds when B player hit him and it was avoidable.

I've got another from same field, different game where the LJ flags a hold to spring the runner but then misses the spearing on the runner after he's down. He was right on top of it too.

As technology continues to improve, perhaps by the time we get to having an 8th official assigned to HS games, that new position will be an official hovering above the field of play, with the capability to slow the view of all the action down, but until then we're going to have to suffer with just 5, 6 or maybe 7 people watching 22 players, in the best position possible.

Earlier on, the question was raised, "How do you judge intent?", and I would submit, as difficult as that may be, it's a lot more likely to discern at ground level, relatively close to the play, than it is from up high looking down on the action. "Intent" will always be a judgment call, and always depend on knowledge, experience common sense and the courage to act on what those factors provide.