|
Post by sls on Feb 11, 2008 10:06:38 GMT -6
-- Eliminate loss of down portion of the penalty for offensive pass interference
-- Allowing Team B to score on change of possession during a Team A try after TD
-- Requiring coaches to leave the coach's box and retreat to the team box when the snap is imminent (implemented in 2007 in Florida on an experimental basis)
-- Fixing all of the gaps in last year's 8-2-2 change (opponent fouls on TD and try can both carry over to spot where ball is next put in play following the try, i.e. not just succeeding kickoff; dead ball fouls by opponent after TD, but before the ball is ready for play on the try can carry over to spot where ball is next put in play following the try; rules will apply to situations spanning 2nd and third quarters, and 4th quarter and OT)
-- Expand the limits of coaches and team boxes from goal line to goal line instead of between 25s (I can't believe this made it to a vote!)
--Limit legal blocking below the waist in the free blocking zone to only situations where QB is in position to take hand-to-hand snap (i.e., no shotgun blocking below the waist)
-- Allow the receiving team to catch/recover kicks in their endzone and have the option of advancing
-- Outlaw the "horse collar" tackle
-- Expand roughing the snapper coverage to all situations where QB is not in position to take hand-to-hand snap
-- Have unsportsmanlike conduct foul by player scoring a TD (e.g. taunting) to be penalized according to all-but-one rather than as a dead ball foul, i.e., if the taunting occurs before the TD, you take away the TD and penalize from the spot of the foul and if it occurs after the score, penalize from the goal line.
-- Have penalties committed by offense enforced from previous spot when running play ends behind the neutral zone, e.g., QB sack (this is the currrent NCAA rule)
-- Allow ball to remain live when runner momentarily touches a knee to the ground while catching/recovering a kick or snap
-- Allow 'field' coach to call timeouts if for any reason the head coach is in the press box
-- There was also, proposed as an 'editorial' change even though it's more substantive than editorial and should probably be proposed under 'rules' changes: Under rule 10-2-2, allowing the team not last in possession to accept or decline the penalty for its opponent's foul(s) after the team last in possession has made its choice of penalty options (currently, this is the only place under the rules where a team does not have the option to decline the penalty for an opponent's foul, other than double (offsetting) fouls).
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Feb 11, 2008 10:25:39 GMT -6
sls, do you have a link to where you found these proposals? If so, please post it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by sls on Feb 11, 2008 10:31:38 GMT -6
No official link, the president of the Indiana Football Officials posted it on the gridirondigest.com, an IN board.
|
|
|
Post by sls on Feb 11, 2008 10:32:39 GMT -6
-- --Limit legal blocking below the waist in the free blocking zone to only situations where QB is in position to take hand-to-hand snap (i.e., no shotgun blocking below the waist) . As a gun guy, this is pretty huge.
|
|
|
Post by sls on Feb 11, 2008 10:33:58 GMT -6
-- -- Expand roughing the snapper coverage to all situations where QB is not in position to take hand-to-hand snap . As a gun guy, this one is pretty huge!
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Feb 11, 2008 10:36:28 GMT -6
[quote author=sls board=general thread=1202745998 post=1202745998
-- Allowing Team B to score on change of possession during a Team A try after TD
-- Fixing all of the gaps in last year's 8-2-2 change (opponent fouls on TD and try can both carry over to spot where ball is next put in play following the try, i.e. not just succeeding kickoff; dead ball fouls by opponent after TD, but before the ball is ready for play on the try can carry over to spot where ball is next put in play following the try; rules will apply to situations spanning 2nd and third quarters, and 4th quarter and OT)
-- Expand the limits of coaches and team boxes from goal line to goal line instead of between 25s (I can't believe this made it to a vote!)
--Limit legal blocking below the waist in the free blocking zone to only situations where QB is in position to take hand-to-hand snap (i.e., no shotgun blocking below the waist)
-- Allow the receiving team to catch/recover kicks in their endzone and have the option of advancing
-- Outlaw the "horse collar" tackle
-- Have unsportsmanlike conduct foul by player scoring a TD (e.g. taunting) to be penalized according to all-but-one rather than as a dead ball foul, i.e., if the taunting occurs before the TD, you take away the TD and penalize from the spot of the foul and if it occurs after the score, penalize from the goal line.
-- Have penalties committed by offense enforced from previous spot when running play ends behind the neutral zone, e.g., QB sack (this is the currrent NCAA rule)
-- Allow 'field' coach to call timeouts if for any reason the head coach is in the press box
-- There was also, proposed as an 'editorial' change even though it's more substantive than editorial and should probably be proposed under 'rules' changes: Under rule 10-2-2, allowing the team not last in possession to accept or decline the penalty for its opponent's foul(s) after the team last in possession has made its choice of penalty options (currently, this is the only place under the rules where a team does not have the option to decline the penalty for an opponent's foul, other than double (offsetting) fouls).[/quote]
I can live with the above.
|
|
|
Post by amikell on Feb 11, 2008 10:41:23 GMT -6
--Limit legal blocking below the waist in the free blocking zone to only situations where QB is in position to take hand-to-hand snap (i.e., no shotgun blocking below the waist) -- Expand roughing the snapper coverage to all situations where QB is not in position to take hand-to-hand snap #1: ok that's fine w/ me, but not a huge fan. #2: that's crap. if I am reading and thinking about this the right way, this will essentially eliminate a nose guard v. a shotgun. AM i reading this correctly?
|
|
|
Post by sls on Feb 11, 2008 10:54:58 GMT -6
--Limit legal blocking below the waist in the free blocking zone to only situations where QB is in position to take hand-to-hand snap (i.e., no shotgun blocking below the waist) -- Expand roughing the snapper coverage to all situations where QB is not in position to take hand-to-hand snap #1: ok that's fine w/ me, but not a huge fan. #2: that's crap. if I am reading and thinking about this the right way, this will essentially eliminate a nose guard v. a shotgun. AM i reading this correctly? I believe that you are correct.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Feb 11, 2008 11:18:08 GMT -6
-- Eliminate loss of down portion of the penalty for offensive pass interference I don't love this one. I can live with it, though. -- Allowing Team B to score on change of possession during a Team A try after TD I also don't love this one but it has made some exciting moments in college games. -- Requiring coaches to leave the coach's box and retreat to the team box when the snap is imminent (implemented in 2007 in Florida on an experimental basis) Is that really one of the biggest problems that we have? -- Fixing all of the gaps in last year's 8-2-2 change (opponent fouls on TD and try can both carry over to spot where ball is next put in play following the try, i.e. not just succeeding kickoff; dead ball fouls by opponent after TD, but before the ball is ready for play on the try can carry over to spot where ball is next put in play following the try; rules will apply to situations spanning 2nd and third quarters, and 4th quarter and OT) -- Expand the limits of coaches and team boxes from goal line to goal line instead of between 25s (I can't believe this made it to a vote!) I can see why schools that have stands that are close to the field may have problems fitting people into the present box. --Limit legal blocking below the waist in the free blocking zone to only situations where QB is in position to take hand-to-hand snap (i.e., no shotgun blocking below the waist) Don't like it at all but I would if they're going to protect centers in the gun. -- Allow the receiving team to catch/recover kicks in their endzone and have the option of advancing -- Outlaw the "horse collar" tackle -- Expand roughing the snapper coverage to all situations where QB is not in position to take hand-to-hand snap Hate it. I understand the rule for kicks but the coach put the center in that situation by choosing to line up in the gun. -- Have unsportsmanlike conduct foul by player scoring a TD (e.g. taunting) to be penalized according to all-but-one rather than as a dead ball foul, i.e., if the taunting occurs before the TD, you take away the TD and penalize from the spot of the foul and if it occurs after the score, penalize from the goal line. -- Have penalties committed by offense enforced from previous spot when running play ends behind the neutral zone, e.g., QB sack (this is the currrent NCAA rule) -- Allow ball to remain live when runner momentarily touches a knee to the ground while catching/recovering a kick or snap Ridiculous. So a coverage player has to decide what "momentary" is? -- Allow 'field' coach to call timeouts if for any reason the head coach is in the press box -- There was also, proposed as an 'editorial' change even though it's more substantive than editorial and should probably be proposed under 'rules' changes: Under rule 10-2-2, allowing the team not last in possession to accept or decline the penalty for its opponent's foul(s) after the team last in possession has made its choice of penalty options (currently, this is the only place under the rules where a team does not have the option to decline the penalty for an opponent's foul, other than double (offsetting) fouls).
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Feb 11, 2008 11:58:10 GMT -6
On one hand, I like this.
Problem is..."taunting" is such a subjective call. I saw a video earlier this year where a kid dove into the endzone to keep from getting tackled at the one...and a flag came out for taunting.
Or a situation where a kid is going in for a game winning TD, and excitement overwhelms him...and he pumps his fist once before going in. I dunno, probably puts WAY to much power in the hands of the ref.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Feb 11, 2008 12:08:57 GMT -6
On one hand, I like this. Problem is..."taunting" is such a subjective call. I saw a video earlier this year where a kid dove into the endzone to keep from getting tackled at the one...and a flag came out for taunting. Or a situation where a kid is going in for a game winning TD, and excitement overwhelms him...and he pumps his fist once before going in. I dunno, probably puts WAY to much power in the hands of the ref. I feel the same way that you do about it. Last year we had a similar situation. Thankfully the ref didn't throw the flag but he told us he almost did. There was a state championship game here in Virginia that was decided by a similar call a couple of years ago.
|
|
|
Post by pegleg on Feb 11, 2008 15:12:01 GMT -6
-- Eliminate loss of down portion of the penalty for offensive pass interference good-- Allowing Team B to score on change of possession during a Team A try after TD good-- Requiring coaches to leave the coach's box and retreat to the team box when the snap is imminent (implemented in 2007 in Florida on an experimental basis) incredibly stupid-- Fixing all of the gaps in last year's 8-2-2 change (opponent fouls on TD and try can both carry over to spot where ball is next put in play following the try, i.e. not just succeeding kickoff; dead ball fouls by opponent after TD, but before the ball is ready for play on the try can carry over to spot where ball is next put in play following the try; rules will apply to situations spanning 2nd and third quarters, and 4th quarter and OT) not 1st quarter? stupid.-- Expand the limits of coaches and team boxes from goal line to goal line instead of between 25s (I can't believe this made it to a vote!) stupid--Limit legal blocking below the waist in the free blocking zone to only situations where QB is in position to take hand-to-hand snap (i.e., no shotgun blocking below the waist) cut blocking should always be legal, stupid-- Allow the receiving team to catch/recover kicks in their endzone and have the option of advancing good, old rule was stupid-- Outlaw the "horse collar" tackle stupid, i hate the nfl-- Expand roughing the snapper coverage to all situations where QB is not in position to take hand-to-hand snap might be stupidest thing ever, why would you not always be in the gun now?-- Have unsportsmanlike conduct foul by player scoring a TD (e.g. taunting) to be penalized according to all-but-one rather than as a dead ball foul, i.e., if the taunting occurs before the TD, you take away the TD and penalize from the spot of the foul and if it occurs after the score, penalize from the goal line. good and bad, assess on kick off if after the td not on xp-- Have penalties committed by offense enforced from previous spot when running play ends behind the neutral zone, e.g., QB sack (this is the currrent NCAA rule) good-- Allow ball to remain live when runner momentarily touches a knee to the ground while catching/recovering a kick or snap not great, but not bad-- Allow 'field' coach to call timeouts if for any reason the head coach is in the press box good-- There was also, proposed as an 'editorial' change even though it's more substantive than editorial and should probably be proposed under 'rules' changes: Under rule 10-2-2, allowing the team not last in possession to accept or decline the penalty for its opponent's foul(s) after the team last in possession has made its choice of penalty options (currently, this is the only place under the rules where a team does not have the option to decline the penalty for an opponent's foul, other than double (offsetting) fouls). huh? guess i'm stupid.the federation makes my head explode, glad i'm in texas and we play ncaa rules............
|
|
|
Post by ccscoach on Feb 11, 2008 16:03:49 GMT -6
these are only purposed rule changes nothing is official correct???
|
|
|
Post by sls on Feb 11, 2008 16:10:38 GMT -6
these are only purposed rule changes nothing is official correct??? That is correct, proposed. But I do believe that a lot of what makes it out of committee gets passed. I will email the guy who posted this on the gridirondigest.com and ask him.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 11, 2008 16:15:36 GMT -6
I am hoping some day they fed will adopt college or pro hash marks. some day soon.
not sure on the taunting. one mans(ref) taunting is another mans(ref) showing excitment.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Feb 11, 2008 17:23:25 GMT -6
The no blocking below the waist in shotgun is killer to me. The rule now states that you can cut as long as the ball is still in the box.. so as soon as it is snapped you can cut.. now they are even taking that away?
|
|
|
Post by ccscoach on Feb 11, 2008 17:33:42 GMT -6
--Limit legal blocking below the waist in the free blocking zone to only situations where QB is in position to take hand-to-hand snap (i.e., no shotgun blocking below the waist) -- Expand roughing the snapper coverage to all situations where QB is not in position to take hand-to-hand snap #1: ok that's fine w/ me, but not a huge fan. #2: that's crap. if I am reading and thinking about this the right way, this will essentially eliminate a nose guard v. a shotgun. AM i reading this correctly? I think the second one will be one that is not approved. Lets hope that these guys can see were this would be a problem. Is there anyone you can contact to try and stop this???
|
|
|
Post by tog on Feb 11, 2008 17:41:07 GMT -6
-- --Limit legal blocking below the waist in the free blocking zone to only situations where QB is in position to take hand-to-hand snap (i.e., no shotgun blocking below the waist) . As a gun guy, this is pretty huge. and extremely lame
|
|
|
Post by sls on Feb 11, 2008 17:48:43 GMT -6
I just sent an email to the NFHS asking who I should contact expressing concern about potential rule changes.
|
|
bigcroz
Junior Member
Go STAGS!!
Posts: 356
|
Post by bigcroz on Feb 11, 2008 18:15:52 GMT -6
-- Expand roughing the snapper coverage to all situations where QB is not in position to take hand-to-hand snap
This would make alot of people consider using the gun more as like was mentioned above it pretty much eliminates the use of a NG. Nothing like dictating exactly what D you will see!!!
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Feb 11, 2008 18:47:55 GMT -6
-- Expand roughing the snapper coverage to all situations where QB is not in position to take hand-to-hand snap This would make alot of people consider using the gun more as like was mentioned above it pretty much eliminates the use of a NG. Nothing like dictating exactly what D you will see!!! True, but you can still play a fify' you just have to slant the nose or take a gap. Not being able to cut in the gun is a bigger issue. I hate the taunting rule, POINT BLANK!
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 11, 2008 19:43:54 GMT -6
-- Expand roughing the snapper coverage to all situations where QB is not in position to take hand-to-hand snap This would make alot of people consider using the gun more as like was mentioned above it pretty much eliminates the use of a NG. Nothing like dictating exactly what D you will see!!! True, but you can still play a fify' you just have to slant the nose or take a gap. Not being able to cut in the gun is a bigger issue. I hate the taunting rule, POINT BLANK! I would disagree here. I think it is a MUCH bigger issue when you dictate alignment/responsibility, rather than block type. You can say "you can run a fifty", BUT without the threat of a bullrush or two gap, it not only limits what you can do, it REVEALS what you MUST do if you choose to align like that. You can still aggressively run block on 3 step, which is probably as effective as a cut block.
|
|
|
Post by deaux68 on Feb 11, 2008 20:04:42 GMT -6
No way the roughing the snapper penalty passes. It would make it a lot easier for us, but I just don't see it happening.
In Alabama we can cut block on passing plays, but it's enforced differently all over the state. We show pass set then cut. In B'ham that will get you 15. In North Alabama I have never seen it called. I'm not sure what they do down south. We had an official crew this past year that changed their mind in the middle of the game.
|
|
|
Post by casec11 on Feb 11, 2008 20:07:33 GMT -6
If the taunting rule gets passed it will cause problems. A game will be decided and a score taken away or not taken away, due to a judgment call. (Did he dive because he thought he was going to get tackled or did he dive in to show off?, Did he slow down and jog in because no one was near him or was he taunting?)
|
|
|
Post by morris on Feb 11, 2008 20:18:21 GMT -6
So if any of these were to pass when would they go into effect?
|
|
|
Post by coachdearborn on Feb 12, 2008 1:27:48 GMT -6
So if any of these were to pass when would they go into effect? These are proposed 08 rule changes and unless otherwise stated they would be for this year. Each state athletic associations that uses NF rules, has a representative. I suggest you contact your state association and find out who represents you. From there you can organize as a state.
|
|
|
Post by sls on Feb 12, 2008 9:25:23 GMT -6
Here is the reply I got from the NFHS. Makes it sound like they pass them and then let it up to the state to decide whether or not to institute it. "Each state high school association adopting NFHS sports rules is the sole and exclusive source of binding rules interpretations for contests involving its member schools. This is done to better serve our member state associations and to ensure consistent interpretations throughout your state. The NFHS in turn, will answer questions from state association staff when they need assistance. Therefore, you should contact the state high school association or its designated rules interpreter. Contact information for your state association can be found on our Web site, www.nfhs.org. Click at the top of the page on Member Associations and then on State Associations. NFHS"
|
|
|
Post by scoresomemore on Feb 12, 2008 10:21:50 GMT -6
can someone explain why cutting in the gun is such an issue with the federation?
If I am being naive, tell me, but whats the big deal?
I understand limiting blocks below the waist for kids safety, but why punish someone for being in the shotgun?
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Feb 12, 2008 10:26:47 GMT -6
can someone explain why cutting in the gun is such an issue with the federation? If I am being naive, tell me, but whats the big deal? I understand limiting blocks below the waist for kids safety, but why punish someone for being in the shotgun? It is actually already in the federation rules. Once the ball leaves the free blocking zone, the fbz disintegrates. Most shotgun QBs are outside of the zone, so when they receive the snap, the zone disintegrates.
|
|
|
Post by knight9299 on Feb 12, 2008 10:35:15 GMT -6
The team box thing is crazy. But protecting the center at all times in the gun? The current rule is fine. I sure wish Iowa would go to NCAA rules.
|
|