New Rules for 2015

[JRutledge]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

High School Football Rules Changes
Continue Focus on Risk Minimization


INDIANAPOLIS, IN (February 13, 2015) — In its ongoing effort to minimize the risk of injury in high school football, the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Football Rules Committee expanded the provisions of unnecessary roughness to include contact with a defenseless player.

This revision in Rule 9-4-3g was one of six rules changes recommended by the Football Rules Committee at its January 23-25 meeting in Indianapolis. These changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.
The revised rule now reads, “No player or non-player shall make any contact with an opponent, including a defenseless player, which is deemed unnecessary or excessive and which incites roughness.”

Bob Colgate, director of sports and sports medicine at the NFHS and editor of the NFHS football rules, noted that an example would be when a defensive player who is not in the vicinity of the ball is “blindsided” by a blocker on the offensive team.

Another change with a focus on risk minimization is a revision of the spearing rule – one of several examples of illegal helmet contact listed in Rule 2-20. Spearing is now defined as “an act by any player who initiates contact against an opponent at the shoulders or below with the crown (top portion) of his helmet.”

With “targeting” now defined as contact to an opponent above the shoulders, the committee more clearly defined “spearing” as contact to an opponent at the shoulders or below. Colgate said the implementation of the first spearing rule in 1971 has played a significant role in reducing injury in high school football.

“The committee spent considerable time discussing and clarifying expectations related to contact involving any player that is deemed excessive or unnecessary – including spearing – that may occur during play,” said Brad Garrett, chair of the NFHS Football Rules Committee and assistant executive director of the Oregon School Activities Association. “Minimizing risks to players involved in these situations must remain at the forefront of the game.”

In other changes, the rules committee revised the 2014 rule change regarding free-kick formations. A new Rule 6-1-4 was added to state that the timing of the foul for not having at least four players on each side of the kicker now occurs when the ball is kicked.

A change also was made in the listing of penalties in Rule 9-4, Illegal Personal Contact. Beginning next season, an automatic first down will not be awarded for a 5-yard incidental face mask penalty against the passer. Previously, this violation was included in the penalty for roughing the passer, which calls for a 15-yard penalty and an automatic first down.

The rules committee also approved new language in Rule 10-2-5 regarding the enforcement of dead-ball fouls. The distance penalty for unsportsmanlike, non-player or dead-ball personal fouls committed by teams can offset. Equal numbers of 15-yard penalties by both teams will cancel and remaining penalties may be enforced.

The final change approved by the Football Rules Committee related to a series of downs. A new Rule 5-1-1b will read as follows: “The referee shall have authority to correct the number of the next down prior to a new series of downs being awarded.”

A complete listing of all rules changes is available on the NFHS website at www.nfhs.org. Click on “Activities & Sports” at the top of the home page, and select “Football.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The revised rule now reads, “No player or non-player shall make any contact with an opponent, including a defenseless player, which is deemed unnecessary or excessive and which incites roughness.”

Bob Colgate, director of sports and sports medicine at the NFHS and editor of the NFHS football rules, noted that an example would be when a defensive player who is not in the vicinity of the ball is “blindsided” by a blocker on the offensive team.

How is that a change? Hasn't that been illegal, with the same penalty, for a long, long time? All this diddling about "defenseless" players adds nothing to an understanding of long standing.

A new Rule 6-1-4 was added to state that the timing of the foul for not having at least four players on each side of the kicker now occurs when the ball is kicked.

Whew! I was afraid for a while they were too enamored of their cleverness in devising a different rule from NCAA's to change that. You'd think someone would catch on, though, to the opp'ty to eliminate the inequity if a team is short a player, by specifying a maximum of 6 on either side rather than a minimum of 4.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rules committee also approved new language in Rule 10-2-5 regarding the enforcement of dead-ball fouls. The distance penalty for unsportsmanlike, non-player or dead-ball personal fouls committed by teams can offset. Equal numbers of 15-yard penalties by both teams will cancel and remaining penalties may be enforced.

Long overdue.

[Welpe]

I wish they had gone a step further and emulated NCAA by offsetting all dead ball fouls regardless if they match up or not. A good change though.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I wish they had gone a step further and emulated NCAA by offsetting all dead ball fouls regardless if they match up or not. A good change though.

This is one of the areas where I actually prefer the FED enforcement, personally. If Team A commits 3 separate dead-ball fouls, and Team B only commits 1, why shouldn't Team A be penalized?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

This is one of the areas where I actually prefer the FED enforcement, personally. If Team A commits 3 separate dead-ball fouls, and Team B only commits 1, why shouldn't Team A be penalized?

What would you think of ignoring 5-yarders, and counting only 15-yard penalties, when a combination of fouls penalizable by 5- and 15-yd. penalties is committed by one or both teams in a dead ball interval?

Also, making the interval during which fouls could occur and then be offset as beginning with the 1st 15-yarder and ending as soon as the net distance is walked off (or indicated as 0)?

[mtn335]

The only 5-yard fouls I can think of when the ball is dead are either pre-snap (think false start) or substitution. To me, those all fall in a completely different category from any of the UNS, non-player, or dead-ball personal foul type things.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mtn335

The only 5-yard fouls I can think of when the ball is dead are either pre-snap (think false start) or substitution.

Encroachment, equipment, elopement, or excitement. (By "elopement" I mean substitution, by "excitement", I mean false starting.)

To me, those all fall in a completely different category from any of the UNS, non-player, or dead-ball personal foul type things.

Same for me, and that's why I wonder if you'd go for changing the rules to ignore such violations if followed by a personal foul or UC.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Same for me, and that's why I wonder if you'd go for changing the rules to ignore such violations if followed by a personal foul or UC.

I don't see where they're offsetting 15's with 5's:
"Equal numbers of 15-yard penalties by both teams will cancel and remaining penalties may be enforced."

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by CT1

I don't see where they're offsetting 15's with 5's:
"Equal numbers of 15-yard penalties by both teams will cancel and remaining penalties may be enforced."

Nobody here said they were. They're adding them algebraically. I'm just wondering if it'd be better to ignore 5 yarders when the same or opposing team commits one or more 15 yarders in the same interval.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

This is one of the areas where I actually prefer the FED enforcement, personally. If Team A commits 3 separate dead-ball fouls, and Team B only commits 1, why shouldn't Team A be penalized?

I only prefer NCAA's way because it is more straight forward. Both teams screwed up, nobody benefits.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I only prefer NCAA's way because it is more straight forward. Both teams screwed up, nobody benefits.

I agree. Plus if there is some kind of skirmish and 4 guys from one team are involved and 2 from the other, are we going to have 6 flags down because of the inequity?

This very rarely happens anyway so I'm not that worried about it. I just didn't see the need for the extra complexity of offsetting equal numbers. If one team commits 3 live ball balls and other commits 1 they are offset entirely.

[KWH]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

This is one of the areas where I actually prefer the FED enforcement, personally. If Team A commits 3 separate dead-ball fouls, and Team B only commits 1, why shouldn't Team A be penalized?

+1
The NFHS still believes no foul should go unpunished.
(Yes, I realize their are situations where a foul does go unpunished so go ahead and save your list of examples.)
In my opinion, this re-write cleans up what many felt created an "Inside the 30" imbalance.

Additionally, while the NCAA logic of "lets just offset everything and get out of this mess" works for the NCAA, it is NOT a part of NFHS Football.
For this reason only even numbered dead ball fouls shall offset in NFHS

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Nobody here said they were.

Then why would you advocate ignoring the 5-yarders?

PLAY: Player A-68 commits a false start, after which B-79 and A-55 each commit DBPFs. RULING: ??

Even though the DBPFs now offset, why ignore the FS?

[Rich]

I could see the ignore the 5 mentality on live ball fouls -- a 5 yard facemask shouldn't offset a chop block, for instance. Doesn't the NFL have such a provision?