|
|
Post by mdunham on Sept 19, 2019 18:19:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Sept 19, 2019 21:48:12 GMT -6
The issue doesn't make sense. Fed rules allow games to be played in less than 12 minute periods, just as NCAA rules allow periods of less than 15. In fact that's common practice in freshman games played under Federation rules. So this is entirely puzzling.
These Massachusetts coaches sure complain a lot about all these changes. Serves them right for switching their football rules from NCAA to Fed 50 years ago, then back to NCAA about 20 years ago, now back to Fed again. But I guess that's their administrators who maybe don't listen to the coaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Sept 20, 2019 4:52:02 GMT -6
So an extra 8 minutes of clock time once a week is dangerous?
If these schools are so concerned about that extra 8 minutes, how about just adjusting the practice schedule during the week? I mean, Monday-Thursday, they can just finish up 2 minutes early... 😆
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Sept 20, 2019 6:33:11 GMT -6
This situation seems completely weird to me. First of all, as a player or coach, I don't remember ever even seeing a varsity game played with less than 12 minute quarters. Secondly, I've never seen a league adopt their own playing rules that are different from the state association's.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdunham on Sept 20, 2019 10:26:26 GMT -6
The rule book change was controversial because coaches and refs associations were not consulted and not given a say - majority would’ve stayed NCAA.
Before move to 12min quarters this year the standard was 11min, and state title games at Gillette were played with 10min quarters to ensure all games got fit into the 1 day available. That change wasn’t as big a deal as the 40 sec play clock starting immediately. We had refs before who’d take their time getting ball in play and clock would run on.
|
|
klaby
Junior Member
Posts: 389
|
Post by klaby on Sept 20, 2019 10:59:12 GMT -6
This is some whiny crapola...why is 8 extra minutes 'unsafe"? I coach at small school, we play 12 minutes it's not unsafe. every time some whiny person wants something they claim "its unsafe" thats BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Sept 20, 2019 11:50:51 GMT -6
So what is actually going on? As I wrote above, both national codes allow for 10-minute quarters. So if 12 minutes is being imposed, this must be a new thing by MIAA that has nothing to do with choice of NCAA or Federation rules. So somebody along the line has gotten mixed up about this. Is it a matter of MIAA's refusing to continue to sanction varsity games at less than 48 minutes, and someone's saying falsely that they're forbidden to do so by Fed rules?
If a certain circuit in Massachusetts wants to play by anything other than MIAA rules for football or anything else, what's stopping them? How would they suffer by simply not playing MIAA varsity football, and playing by their own rules instead? Would the MIAA refuse to assign them officials? That doesn't seem to stop sports officials from working other games in independent leagues elsewhere; do they have some non-compete clause in their contract?
What's stopping a school from saying, we don't play MIAA football; we play a game very much like MIAA football, but it's not exactly MIAA football; it's a sport not sanctioned by MIAA. Surely the MIAA couldn't stop two schools from playing interscholastic touch football against each other -- or Gaelic football, or rugby, or whatever? I don't think it's a matter of the schools not wanting to give up a shot at a MIAA championship, because it doesn't seem these schools are contenders anyway. Seems to me there are enough of these schools to form their own conference, so it's not like they need to play others that want 48 minute games.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Sept 20, 2019 11:58:07 GMT -6
So what is actually going on? As I wrote above, both national codes allow for 10-minute quarters. So if 12 minutes is being imposed, this must be a new thing by MIAA that has nothing to do with choice of NCAA or Federation rules. So somebody along the line has gotten mixed up about this. Is it a matter of MIAA's refusing to continue to sanction varsity games at less than 48 minutes, and someone's saying falsely that they're forbidden to do so by Fed rules? If a certain circuit in Massachusetts wants to play by anything other than MIAA rules for football or anything else, what's stopping them? How would they suffer by simply not playing MIAA varsity football, and playing by their own rules instead? Would the MIAA refuse to assign them officials? That doesn't seem to stop sports officials from working other games in independent leagues elsewhere; do they have some non-compete clause in their contract? What's stopping a school from saying, we don't play MIAA football; we play a game very much like MIAA football, but it's not exactly MIAA football; it's a sport not sanctioned by MIAA. Surely the MIAA couldn't stop two schools from playing interscholastic touch football against each other -- or Gaelic football, or rugby, or whatever? I don't think it's a matter of the schools not wanting to give up a shot at a MIAA championship, because it doesn't seem these schools are contenders anyway. Seems to me there are enough of these schools to form their own conference, so it's not like they need to play others that want 48 minute games. That might work if football was the only sport. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Sept 20, 2019 12:02:20 GMT -6
I've never seen a league adopt their own playing rules that are different from the state association's. My school's did for football (at least). This was the Ivy Prep League in New York, 50 years ago. There was sometimes a little confusion when a visiting PSAL team played by our rules when they were used to Federation; it came up over advancing an opponent's muffed lateral pass off the ground. It may be that at that time, penetration of the state associations into private school leagues (maybe even public school leagues) wasn't as great as it is now. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Sept 20, 2019 12:03:39 GMT -6
So what is actually going on? As I wrote above, both national codes allow for 10-minute quarters. So if 12 minutes is being imposed, this must be a new thing by MIAA that has nothing to do with choice of NCAA or Federation rules. So somebody along the line has gotten mixed up about this. Is it a matter of MIAA's refusing to continue to sanction varsity games at less than 48 minutes, and someone's saying falsely that they're forbidden to do so by Fed rules? If a certain circuit in Massachusetts wants to play by anything other than MIAA rules for football or anything else, what's stopping them? How would they suffer by simply not playing MIAA varsity football, and playing by their own rules instead? Would the MIAA refuse to assign them officials? That doesn't seem to stop sports officials from working other games in independent leagues elsewhere; do they have some non-compete clause in their contract? What's stopping a school from saying, we don't play MIAA football; we play a game very much like MIAA football, but it's not exactly MIAA football; it's a sport not sanctioned by MIAA. Surely the MIAA couldn't stop two schools from playing interscholastic touch football against each other -- or Gaelic football, or rugby, or whatever? I don't think it's a matter of the schools not wanting to give up a shot at a MIAA championship, because it doesn't seem these schools are contenders anyway. Seems to me there are enough of these schools to form their own conference, so it's not like they need to play others that want 48 minute games. That might work if football was the only sport. Does MIAA make them field entries in some minimum number of MIAA varsity sports if they want to play any? Like, don't they have some schools that have varsity soccer but not football, or vice versa? |
|
|
|
Post by mdunham on Sept 20, 2019 17:09:53 GMT -6
So what is actually going on? As I wrote above, both national codes allow for 10-minute quarters. So if 12 minutes is being imposed, this must be a new thing by MIAA that has nothing to do with choice of NCAA or Federation rules. So somebody along the line has gotten mixed up about this. Is it a matter of MIAA's refusing to continue to sanction varsity games at less than 48 minutes, and someone's saying falsely that they're forbidden to do so by Fed rules? If a certain circuit in Massachusetts wants to play by anything other than MIAA rules for football or anything else, what's stopping them? How would they suffer by simply not playing MIAA varsity football, and playing by their own rules instead? Would the MIAA refuse to assign them officials? That doesn't seem to stop sports officials from working other games in independent leagues elsewhere; do they have some non-compete clause in their contract? What's stopping a school from saying, we don't play MIAA football; we play a game very much like MIAA football, but it's not exactly MIAA football; it's a sport not sanctioned by MIAA. Surely the MIAA couldn't stop two schools from playing interscholastic touch football against each other -- or Gaelic football, or rugby, or whatever? I don't think it's a matter of the schools not wanting to give up a shot at a MIAA championship, because it doesn't seem these schools are contenders anyway. Seems to me there are enough of these schools to form their own conference, so it's not like they need to play others that want 48 minute games. Teams are afraid that by agreeing to play these small schools 10min that it may affect postseason eligibility or other sanctions. We're fine with 12, did our summer/pre season conditioning. We make sure guys get some plays off as needed for a few. 1 (or 2) ins extra per quarter with the 40sec play clock is 3 plays per quarter if you run it down, 12 per game. Not terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Sept 21, 2019 8:06:01 GMT -6
So what is actually going on? As I wrote above, both national codes allow for 10-minute quarters. So if 12 minutes is being imposed, this must be a new thing by MIAA that has nothing to do with choice of NCAA or Federation rules. So somebody along the line has gotten mixed up about this. Is it a matter of MIAA's refusing to continue to sanction varsity games at less than 48 minutes, and someone's saying falsely that they're forbidden to do so by Fed rules? If a certain circuit in Massachusetts wants to play by anything other than MIAA rules for football or anything else, what's stopping them? How would they suffer by simply not playing MIAA varsity football, and playing by their own rules instead? Would the MIAA refuse to assign them officials? That doesn't seem to stop sports officials from working other games in independent leagues elsewhere; do they have some non-compete clause in their contract? What's stopping a school from saying, we don't play MIAA football; we play a game very much like MIAA football, but it's not exactly MIAA football; it's a sport not sanctioned by MIAA. Surely the MIAA couldn't stop two schools from playing interscholastic touch football against each other -- or Gaelic football, or rugby, or whatever? I don't think it's a matter of the schools not wanting to give up a shot at a MIAA championship, because it doesn't seem these schools are contenders anyway. Seems to me there are enough of these schools to form their own conference, so it's not like they need to play others that want 48 minute games. Teams are afraid that by agreeing to play these small schools 10min that it may affect postseason eligibility or other sanctions. So the small schools want to play the big schools, but only by the small schools' rules? Asking a bit much, huh? I'm sorry, but if you're asking to play with the schools who are using the state's standard rules, you'd better play by their rules. If you're the bigger school and are afraid that will incur other sanctions, you've got to decide how badly you want to play this opponent by their rules. Which school cares the most about these games? And if you're the small school playing only those games at 48 minutes, and the games in your own league at 40, the amount of play time you're adding to your season is even more trivial. The changeover from NCAA to Fed is a smokescreen. I don't see what it has to do with this question except that someone's using it to cover up. |
|
|
|
Post by bleefb on Sept 21, 2019 8:35:48 GMT -6
"Teams are afraid that by agreeing to play these small schools 10min that it may affect postseason eligibility or other sanctions. We're fine with 12, did our summer/pre season conditioning. We make sure guys get some plays off as needed for a few. 1 (or 2) ins extra per quarter with the 40sec play clock is 3 plays per quarter if you run it down, 12 per game. Not terrible."
This happened to our Girls Basketball team several years ago. They went to a tournament where they played shortened quarters so they could squeeze more games in and got slapped down by the Section and told that none of those games would count.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Sept 21, 2019 10:22:20 GMT -6
i got curious so I looked up both schools. They're not THAT small. WB has an enrollment of 600 7-12. SS has 600 9-12. I've seen much smaller schools that play 12 minute quarters. In fact, I played at one.
This isn't about safety at all. This is about schools resisting change.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Sept 21, 2019 12:35:08 GMT -6
"Teams are afraid that by agreeing to play these small schools 10min that it may affect postseason eligibility or other sanctions. We're fine with 12, did our summer/pre season conditioning. We make sure guys get some plays off as needed for a few. 1 (or 2) ins extra per quarter with the 40sec play clock is 3 plays per quarter if you run it down, 12 per game. Not terrible."
This happened to our Girls Basketball team several years ago. They went to a tournament where they played shortened quarters so they could squeeze more games in and got slapped down by the Section and told that none of those games would count.
Why would games played in a tournament count in sectional standings anyway? I know, these things can be weird. I remember my school's soccer varsity played in one game that counted as both an Ivy League game and a Westchester League championship. The game ended tied after overtime, but counted for one of those two standings as a win on corner kicks and the other as a tie. |
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Sept 21, 2019 15:09:15 GMT -6
i got curious so I looked up both schools. They're not THAT small. WB has an enrollment of 600 7-12. SS has 600 9-12. I've seen much smaller schools that play 12 minute quarters. In fact, I played at one. This isn't about safety at all. This is about schools resisting change. That school would be the second-largest high school in our tri-county area. And EVERYONE here plays 12-minute quarters.   |
|
|
|
Post by freezeoption on Sept 22, 2019 6:46:57 GMT -6
Every body here has been 12 for many years. 10 is for jv here. 8 man to 11 man same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdunham on Sept 22, 2019 18:16:43 GMT -6
i got curious so I looked up both schools. They're not THAT small. WB has an enrollment of 600 7-12. SS has 600 9-12. I've seen much smaller schools that play 12 minute quarters. In fact, I played at one. This isn't about safety at all. This is about schools resisting change. I agree - if they really wanted a game they could've played and I'm sure if "safety" became a concern a running clock could've been agreed on at some stage or whatever. As our HC said when he saw it, we're here to play football we're gonna pad up and play football. Weird that it's ok to play 12 in non league but suddenly not ok in a league game? And the no contest team isn't terrible they had a shut out win week 1... |
|
