Yep.

There was a very good reason why this was changed.

One was to remove the need to determine if it was a straight kick or an immediate grounder. The other was the situation at the other end was equally as dangerous to the receiving team player trying to catch/recover it. It's very logical. We don't see that kind of kick often at the HS level, but the rule change would acceptable. No different than adding the illegal blocks by the kicking team, 5-yard restriction, or 4-on-a-side rule changes.

Interesting that the danger aspect is apparently considered tolerable in Canadian football, where the typical onside kickoff attempt is a rugby-style chip to the side, where on the receiving team's side of their restraining line both teams have equal rights to the ball even in the air, although the kicking team does have to play the ball rather than the opponent seeking to play it. (The receiving team players are allowed to block opponents rather than playing the ball.)

This is the land of hockey and lacrosse as national sports and where a moose is very likely to decapitate an unlucky driver. Not to mention the good chance of freezing to death.

I think they quantify their risk a little differently than we do. ;)

Not at all, Mr. Reddings words referenced, and were apprently intended for NCAA level rules, which generally apply to a higher skill set, presenting different challenges, than those experienced at the NFHS level.

Replacing random bolding with random commas doesn't really help.

Your point (as I tried to understand) was that a trained official should be able to easily distinguish a immediate kick into the air and an immediate kick into the ground. If the NCAA recognized with their higher trained officials it's not easy or discernible then how would our much larger population of high school officials (who have a much broader range of experience) be more qualified to do it?

Far be it from me to try and discern the NCAA's concerns about, "their higher trained officials", but even a struggling, not quite as effectively trained HS official, standing on K's free kick line, observing the ball as it's kicked (without sacrificing other pre-kick requirements) is capable to clearly see whether a ball is kicked directly into the ground, as opposed to up into the air.

If, and only if, a flag is thrown related to the catch downfield, and when the up official (usually the HL) has observed that the kick, did in fact, be driven into the ground initially, the up official can consult with the calling official, inform him of the kick's trajectory to assist in determining whether that has a bearing on his call.

If not, "no harm, no foul". It's not rocket science, and sometimes 4 or 5 man crew members simply have to multitask, despite their limited "range of experience" and "qualifications".

Apologies for confusing you, Mike. Actually the bolding of certain words is not "intended" to be random, rather to call attention to specifics related to the subject. Perhaps if you considered those highlighted words, as significantto the process discussed, comprehension of the intent would be clearer.

To be completely honest with you, since you decided to respond this way...

I very rarely get messages from people about other people's posts. Maybe 2 a week. I got 4 in an hour remarking on how annoying it was that you bolded 6 words out of 14, and/or how it was hard to read. So I addressed it.

I think the bigger issue is that four people took the time to bother you with a non-issue.