Bobref

What changed in the course of a week or two?

I know her. She works at IHOP.

??????

On the IHSAA Football Officials’ Facebook page, someone asked a question that came up in our observers’ video conference last evening with Asst. Commissioner Faulkens. If the passer legally grounds the ball under the new exception, can you still have a foul for ineligible downfield? The official IHSAA interpretation is that the enforcement of the rule relating to ineligibles downfield on a pass play applies even if the pass is legally grounded. The new exception has no affect on the rule prohibiting ineligible players from going downfield on a forward pass that reaches the neutral zone.

Great interview. There’s an awful lot to like about Coach Skinner. Seems to have his priorities in the proper order.

One of the 2022 Points of Emphasis is contact against a “defenseless player.” Because of differences in the rules at various levels the NFHS rules relating to defenseless players (DP) are often poorly understood by fans, coaches, players, and yes, even some officials. First, it’s important to know what qualifies a player as “defenseless.” A DP is one who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. The rulebook gives 8 examples of DPs, and that list is not exhaustive. A passer. A receiver attempting to catch a pass who has not had time to clearly become a runner. The intended receiver of a pass in the action during and immediately following an interception or potential interception. A runner already in the grasp of a tackler whose forward progress has been stopped. A kickoff or punt returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. A player on the ground including a runner who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet first. A player obviously out of the play or not in the immediate vicinity of the runner; and A player who receives a blindside block with forceful contact not initiated with open hands. A player contacting a DP is responsible for insuring that the contact is legal and not excessive. Whether contact is excessive is, of course, a judgment call. Whenever there is doubt as to whether the contact was excessive, it should be considered excessive and the flag should be thrown. Here is the guidance officials use to help determine whether contact against a DP is to be considered a foul: Any forcible contact against a runner in the grasp whose forward progress is stopped, or who is on the ground, or a player who receives a blindside block other than with open hands first, or who is obviously out of the play and not in the vicinity of the runner is deemed excessive. Forcible contact against the passer or a receiver attempting to catch a pass or field a kick is legal if it is unavoidable, not late, and otherwise in compliance with the rules, e.g., not targeting, spearing, or excessive under the circumstances. Targeting a DP, i.e., taking aim and initiating contact above the shoulders using the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder is not only a foul, but may be deemed flagrant, resulting in an ejection. Officials have been instructed to err on the side of ruling contact against a DP a foul. In order to avoid fouling a DP, players should avoid contact wherever possible, and insure that any unavoidable contact is not unnecessarily rough.

Really bizarre.

The rule says the pass must reach the neutral zone, not the LOS. The latter is marked by the foremost point of the football. The firmer is the space between the foremost point of the ball (the LOS) and the rearmost point of the ball. The ball can be up to 11-7/16” on its long axis. Thus the pass is legal if it reaches the rearmost point of the ball, which can be almost a foot short of the LOS. As they say, it’s a “game of inches.”

The NF made two changes affecting the play and game clocks in 2022. These changes were designed to close timing loopholes which, arguably, allowed teams to gain an advantage by fouling in late game scenarios. In one change, Rule 3-4-7 was modified to provide that any foul committed in the last 2 minutes of either half results in the offended team having the option to start the game clock on the snap, rather than as dictated by the result of the play. This prevents a team from fouling to gain an advantage when they’re trying to run out the clock. Here’s an example: Team B trails by 2 pts. in the last minute of the game. Team A has the ball deep in their own territory on 3rd and 10. A1 is sacked on the play, but A2 was flagged for being illegally in motion at the snap. Of course, B wants to decline the penalty since that would make it 4th down and A would have to punt. But by declining the penalty, the rule dictates that the game clock would run on the Referee’s ready signal, and A could run another 25 seconds off the game clock. Now, with this rule change, Team B can decline the penalty and exercise the option to have the game clock started on the snap. The second change is to the play clock. A new Exception 2 was added to Rule 3-6-1a(1)e. Previously, whenever the game clocked was stopped due to a penalty, the play clock was set to 25 sec. following administration. This allowed the defense, when trailing, to trade fouls for time by making the offense run its play in 25 sec., rather than 40. Under the new exception, if the clock is stopped for penalty administration of a defensive foul, the play clock will automatically reset to 40 sec., regardless of the result of the play. Here’s an illustration: Same scenario as the example above. As Team A is at the LOS, B1 encroaches. Because the clock was stopped as a result of a defensive penalty, the play clock will be reset to 40 sec. Team A, as the offended team, has the option of electing for the game clock to not start until the ball is snapped. Obviously, they won’t do that. Instead, the game clock will start on the ready signal, and A will be able to run off an “extra” 15 sec. due to B’s foul. Coaches need to understand these changes, since they may well affect end of half or game strategy and clock management. These changes also make it more important than ever for officials to (a) know and understand the nuances of the timing rules, and (b) communicate with crew members in these end of half or end of game scenarios.

Jack Swarbrick has been quoted as saying there are three factors that could cause Notre Dame to change its stance as an independent: “The loss of a committed broadcast partner, the loss of a fair route into the postseason, or such an adverse financial consequence that you had to reconsider.” An expanded playoff model would, in all likelihood, enhance ND’s chances of being in the playoff, so that’s probably not going to be a factor. But the money may be just too big to pass up. Right now, ND’s contract with NBC doesn’t expire until 2025. It pays ND “only” $15 million a year. The B1G rights grant expires in 2023, and the bidding war is expected to net the league a $1 billion TV contract. B1G schools already get more TV money than ND (IU makes more TV money than the Irish. Wrap your head around that one.). With their new deal, B1G schools will make 2-3 times that much. And NBC is in the running for that contract, although ESPN is the frontrunner. Bottom line: ND is leaving millions on the table if they stay independent through the remainder of the NBC contract. Of course, it’s not that simple. The B1G may take the view that they are not going to share the pie equally with a “newcomer.” That’s what they did with Nebraska, and what they’ll probably do with USC and UCLA, although ND arguably would add significant value to the contract … especially if NBC gets the contract. Or, if NBC doesn’t get the B1G contract, they may sweeten ND’s deal to keep them independent, which would keep NBC relevant in the college football world. Right now, the Irish are being patient, and standing pat. The B1G has said they won’t expand any more for now (waiting on ND’s decision). The next domino to fall will be the outcome of the B1G TV contract negotiations. Once it’s done, the payday may be just too big to pass up.

Probably the most publicized rules change in high school football this season is the new “exception” to the intentional grounding rule. This post will attempt to explain the new rule, and to offer some tips on how to properly officiate it. Under Rule 7-2-2d, it is a foul when a player intentionally throws a forward pass into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive receiver, or intentionally incompletes a pass to save loss of yardage or to conserve time. New in 2022 is Exception 7-2-2d(2), which provides “It is legal for a player to conserve yardage by intentionally throwing an incomplete forward pass if (a) the passer has been beyond the lateral boundary of the free blocking zone (FBZ) as established at the snap, and (b) the pass reaches the neutral zone, including its extension beyond the sideline. A few important things to keep in mind when officiating this rule, whether you’re officiating on the field, from the stands, or on TV or streaming video 😂. First, the lateral extent of the FBZ is 4 yds. on either side of the spot of the snap. Note that, while for blocking purposes an offensive player is considered to be within the FBZ if any part of his body is in the FBZ at the snap, that doesn’t matter for this rule. It’s 4 yds. and not an inch more. Second, the passer must go beyond the lateral extent of the FBZ at any time during the down for the exception to apply. Thus, the passer can go beyond the 4 yds., then circle back and be inside the 4 yd. lateral extent when he throws the pass, and the exception still applies. Finally, for the exception to apply, the forward pass must reach the neutral zone, including the neutral zone extended across the sideline, not the line of scrimmage. This means the pass can actually land almost a foot short of the LOS and the exception still applies. Officiating this play requires the Referee to know where that 4 yd. lateral extent ends. I say “Referee,” because that determination is solely the responsibility of the guy with the white hat. No one else can make that determination. Since the ball can be snapped anywhere between the hash marks, this determination can be difficult. Here are some tips that will help. 1. As a general “rule of thumb,” if the passer takes three full steps laterally, he has likely left the FBZ. 2. R can use landmarks on the field to help. The distance between a hash mark and the nearest goal post upright is 5 yards. The uprights are 23’4” apart, just a hair short of 4 yds. from the center of the field. If the ball is snapped from the center of the field, on an upright, or from either hash, R can use these landmarks to help gauge distances. Umpires take note. You can help your R by spotting the ball on these landmarks if possible. 3. Mechanically, R must add a step to his routine, pre-snap checklist. Not only must he now check clock status, down and distance, count the offense and signal the count, check substitutions and formation, but he must also establish in his own mind where the lateral extent of the FBZ is before every snap. 4. As for determining whether the pass reached the neutral zone, if it’s close, that’s going to be the call of the wing official. As before, if there’s no receiver in the area, he should report that to R at the conclusion of the play. Now, included in that report, he should also indicate whether the pass reached the neutral zone. This report should be given even if the ball reached the neutral zone. If that’s the case, and R is working with a field mike, R should announce “There is no foul for intentional grounding, as the passer went beyond the FBZ and the pass reached the neutral zone.” 5. The “when in doubt” has not changed. When in doubt, it is not intentional grounding. Thus if the determination cannot be made with high confidence, the passer has gone beyond the lateral extent of the FBZ and/or the pass did reach the neutral zone, or neutral zone extended. The Rules Committee added the exception after years of study, as consistent with the NF’s pervasive philosophy of “risk minimization. Got some questions about the new rule? Post them here.

I’ll bet it fits you.

Is your white sheet and hood back from the cleaners yet? 😂

I’m sure he or she will be much more progressive than his/her predecessors. 🤣😂

But it’s a longer drive. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

Yes, we definitely could use some more divisive influences in this country.

What makes you say that?

If so, that raises one question. Did Warren Central or Ben Davis ever have a bigger payday than when Carmel and CG came calling? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Don’t you have to get the hot girl, before you can dump her?

While they’re at it, they can track Indiana people crossing the border to buy weed at Illinois dispensaries.

Indiana has a population of less than 7 million. Michigan has almost half again as many.

Actually, the 1973 game was even better. I was a senior then. The crowd was unbelievable. First offensive play of the game, Pat Haden throws a flanker screen to Lynn Swann, and Luther Bradley bust through the screen and almost decapitates Swann. Knocked his helmet off and it rolled through the end zone. I thought the walls were coming down.

Now I really feel old. I had just been admitted to the bar then.

I’ll try this again. I made this post earlier this morning, and it looked fine. But when I looked at it 30 min. later, there was a completely different image clip attached to my post, and I have no idea how it got there. It was too late for me to edit it. So, I’m trying it again. Got some tickets yesterday to the Notre Dame - Cal game this September. Coach Freeman announced earlier this week that the Irish will wear green for that game. Made me think back to the very first “green jersey” game of the modern era, the 1977 USC game. I was there that day and it was one of the most electrifying moments I’ve experienced in that stadium … and there have been a lot of them. The Irish hammered #1 USC that day, 49-19, on their way to a national championship. What many people don’t remember is when the Irish came out of the tunnel they were preceded by a large “Trojan Horse,” and no one had any idea what that was about. The idea was actually Digger Phelps’ and Coach Devine embraced it. Probably his finest moment as ND Coach.

Got some tickets yesterday to the Notre Dame - Cal game this September. Coach Freeman announced earlier this week that the Irish will wear green for that game. Made me think back to the very first “green jersey” game of the modern era, the 1977 USC game. I was there that day and it was one of the most electrifying moments I’ve experienced in that stadium … and there have been a lot of them. The Irish hammered #1 USC that day, 49-19, on their way to a national championship. What many people don’t remember is when the Irish came out of the tunnel they were preceded by a large “Trojan Horse,” and no one had any idea what that was about. The idea was actually Digger Phelps’ and Coach Devine embraced it. Probably his finest moment as ND Coach.