Onside kick rule question

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

This is another reason Rogers gave for treating the immediate high bouncer and an airborne kick the same. It's not always easy to tell the difference since it happens so quickly.

Which is EXACTLY whay it is important that a specific "Up" official should be DESIGNATED to observe EACH/EVERY kick.

When there may be confusion on the deeper end resulting in an inaccurate assessment, that "Up" official is responsible to add the proper information to the discussion and final assessment.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Which is EXACTLY whay it is important that a specific "Up" official should be DESIGNATED to observe EACH/EVERY kick.

When there may be confusion on the deeper end resulting in an inaccurate assessment, that "Up" official is responsible to add the proper information to the discussion and final assessment.

But even the experienced D1 "up" official can't always tell if the ball went straight up or straight into the ground. It happens so fast. This took away the need to worry about that.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

But even the experienced D1 "up" official can't always tell if the ball went straight up or straight into the ground. It happens so fast. This took away the need to worry about that.

The skill required to properly execute a free kick immediately into the ground, so that it subsequently bounces over the R restraining line players (which under NFHS Rules satisfies both requirements for making recovery and possession of the kick by either team legal), is a relatively NEW SKILL that is progressing and spreading, quickly.

To eliminate the confusion you seem concerned about, either of the "up" officials (usually the HL) is ASSIGNED the RESPONSIBILITY of DETERMINING whether EACH kick is first DRIVEN into the ground, or not and is subsequently shared with any "down field" officials who may have observed perceived violations, that would properly be DISCOUNTED due to the initial GROUNDING of the kick.

This Mechanics adjustment, thus far, seems to have effectively eliminated enforcement confusions in NFHS contests.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The skill required to properly execute a free kick immediately into the ground, so that it subsequently bounces over the R restraining line players (which under NFHS Rules satisfies both requirements for making recovery and possession of the kick by either team legal), is a relatively NEW SKILL that is progressing and spreading, quickly.

To eliminate the confusion you seem concerned about, either of the "up" officials (usually the HL) is ASSIGNED the RESPONSIBILITY of DETERMINING whether EACH kick is first DRIVEN into the ground, or not and is subsequently shared with any "down field" officials who may have observed perceived violations, that would properly be DISCOUNTED due to the initial GROUNDING of the kick.

This Mechanics adjustment, thus far, seems to have effectively eliminated enforcement confusions in NFHS contests.

I guess this means you are smarter than Rogers Redding. His words not mine.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I guess this means you are smarter than Rogers Redding. His words not mine.

Yep.

There was a very good reason why this was changed.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

[Robert Goodman]

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.)

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I guess this means you are smarter than Rogers Redding. His words not mine.

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.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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".

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The skill required to properly execute a free kick immediately into the ground, so that it subsequently bounces over the R restraining line players (which under NFHS Rules satisfies both requirements for making recovery and possession of the kick by either team legal), is a relatively NEW SKILL that is progressing and spreading, quickly.

To eliminate the confusion you seem concerned about, either of the "up" officials (usually the HL) is ASSIGNED the RESPONSIBILITY of DETERMINING whether EACH kick is first DRIVEN into the ground, or not and is subsequently shared with any "down field" officials who may have observed perceived violations, that would properly be DISCOUNTED due to the initial GROUNDING of the kick.

This Mechanics adjustment, thus far, seems to have effectively eliminated enforcement confusions in NFHS contests.

The UNNECESSARY and seemingly RANDOM bolding of words makes it rATHer diffiCULT To read your posts.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The UNNECESSARY and seemingly RANDOM bolding of words makes it rATHer diffiCULT To read your posts.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.