Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target
  • 0

NFHS Rules Changes For 2024


Bobref

Question

In short, no rules changes this year worth talking about. There is a new Point of Emphasis on illegal formations. Depending on the guidance we get from the IHSAA on exactly what they want enforced, that could get sticky. Probably won’t know until shortly before the in-person rules meetings held with the coaches during the Summer.

https://www.nfhs.org/articles/home-team-uniform-requirements-clarified-in-high-school-football-rules/#:~:text=Language in the 2024 NFHS,that clearly contrasts with white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
On 2/9/2024 at 12:00 PM, Bobref said:

There is a new Point of Emphasis on illegal formations. Depending on the guidance we get from the IHSAA on exactly what they want enforced, that could get sticky.

From a coaches perspective....I'm honestly curious about this statement, and what things you think would be "sticky".  First thing that comes to my mind would be OL not lined up on the LOS...or too many WR off the LOS.  But that may not be what you are referring to...

Would love to hear you elaborate👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
7 hours ago, US31 said:

From a coaches perspective....I'm honestly curious about this statement, and what things you think would be "sticky".  First thing that comes to my mind would be OL not lined up on the LOS...or too many WR off the LOS.  But that may not be what you are referring to...

Would love to hear you elaborate👍

I’m referring to the common practice of lining a wingback up so that his position is neither on the line nor in the backfield. There are many implications that flow from lining up in that position … all of which are routinely ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
8 hours ago, Bobref said:

I’m referring to the common practice of lining a wingback up so that his position is neither on the line nor in the backfield. There are many implications that flow from lining up in that position … all of which are routinely ignored.

After the change in the requirements for lineman, I was under the impression if they weren’t on the line, they were in the backfield. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
31 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

After the change in the requirements for lineman, I was under the impression if they weren’t on the line, they were in the backfield. 

The definitions of a “lineman” and a “back” have not changed. Rule 2-32

“ART. 3 . . . A back is any A player who has no part of his body breaking the plane of an imaginary line drawn ­parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the nearest teammate who is legally on the line, except for the player under the snapper, who is also considered a back.”

“ART. 9 . . . A lineman is any A player who is facing his opponent’s goal line with the line of his shoulders approximately parallel thereto and with his head or foot breaking an imaginary plane drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the snapper when the ball is snapped.”

So, a player assuming a position where neither his head nor foot breaks the plane through the waist of the snapper, but who does have any part of his body breaking the plane of the waist of the nearest lineman teammate, is neither a back nor a lineman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
12 minutes ago, Bobref said:

The definitions of a “lineman” and a “back” have not changed. Rule 2-32

“ART. 3 . . . A back is any A player who has no part of his body breaking the plane of an imaginary line drawn ­parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the nearest teammate who is legally on the line, except for the player under the snapper, who is also considered a back.”

“ART. 9 . . . A lineman is any A player who is facing his opponent’s goal line with the line of his shoulders approximately parallel thereto and with his head or foot breaking an imaginary plane drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the snapper when the ball is snapped.”

So, a player assuming a position where neither his head nor foot breaks the plane through the waist of the snapper, but who does have any part of his body breaking the plane of the waist of the nearest lineman teammate, is neither a back nor a lineman.

The editor timed out before I finished.

A player who lines up and is neither a back nor a lineman, if he is not the QB, causes the formation to be illegal under 7-2-3. He can’t legally go downfield on a pass, he’s not an eligible receiver, he can’t legally touch a forward pass, and he can’t be in motion at the snap unless he fulfills the requirements of 7-2-7.

All of these are fouls. All routinely occur when the wingback lines up too close to the LOS. All are routinely ignored. Until now? Stay tuned.

@US31 does that answer your question?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Bob I specifically asked the question when the nomenclature was changed from “not enough guys on the line”, to “five guys in the backfield”, what we do with the slot in no man’s land. I was told if he’s not on the line he’s in the backfield. My point was exactly what you posted. I would LOVE to know specifically who and where it was addressed. 
 

Also along these same line, last year was somewhat eye opening for me, for the first time in many years I was no longer a crew chief. I was AMAZED at the drop off in the amount of pertinent information I no longer received from North Meridian in terms of rulings and the normal communications we receive. Now I totally understand when guys show up at meetings and say I never heard that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
2 hours ago, Bobref said:

The editor timed out before I finished.

A player who lines up and is neither a back nor a lineman, if he is not the QB, causes the formation to be illegal under 7-2-3. He can’t legally go downfield on a pass, he’s not an eligible receiver, he can’t legally touch a forward pass, and he can’t be in motion at the snap unless he fulfills the requirements of 7-2-7.

All of these are fouls. All routinely occur when the wingback lines up too close to the LOS. All are routinely ignored. Until now? Stay tuned.

@US31 does that answer your question?

Much appreciated!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
2 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Bob I specifically asked the question when the nomenclature was changed from “not enough guys on the line”, to “five guys in the backfield”, what we do with the slot in no man’s land. I was told if he’s not on the line he’s in the backfield. My point was exactly what you posted. I would LOVE to know specifically who and where it was addressed. 
 

Also along these same line, last year was somewhat eye opening for me, for the first time in many years I was no longer a crew chief. I was AMAZED at the drop off in the amount of pertinent information I no longer received from North Meridian in terms of rulings and the normal communications we receive. Now I totally understand when guys show up at meetings and say I never heard that. 

That answer would be the philosophy answer that Bob is referring to. Another way to look at it would be to put them where they are legal if possible. If the wing back would create a 5th back and he's close enough to the snapper, put him on. Then warn him after the play to be clearer on where he's supposed to be. But technically he's still not a back or lineman if he's in no-man's land. Nothing changed that with the rule change a couple years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 2/14/2024 at 7:48 AM, Bobref said:

The definitions of a “lineman” and a “back” have not changed. Rule 2-32

“ART. 3 . . . A back is any A player who has no part of his body breaking the plane of an imaginary line drawn ­parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the nearest teammate who is legally on the line, except for the player under the snapper, who is also considered a back.”

“ART. 9 . . . A lineman is any A player who is facing his opponent’s goal line with the line of his shoulders approximately parallel thereto and with his head or foot breaking an imaginary plane drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the snapper when the ball is snapped.”

So, a player assuming a position where neither his head nor foot breaks the plane through the waist of the snapper, but who does have any part of his body breaking the plane of the waist of the nearest lineman teammate, is neither a back nor a lineman.

Based on the definitions your example of a player that has a part of his body breaking the plane of the waist of the nearest lineman makes this player on the line, correct?

It would be less confusing if it was worded a little different and in order from lineman to back:

Center - Lineman- Always

Lineman - Any player who breaks plane of waist of center, including wideouts

QB - Back - Always

Back - ON the line if breaking plane of nearest lineman - OFF the line if not breaking plane of nearest lineman

How can there be a  "no man's land". You are either breaking the plane or you are not making you a back on the line or off the line.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
35 minutes ago, cloudofdust said:

Based on the definitions your example of a player that has a part of his body breaking the plane of the waist of the nearest lineman makes this player on the line, correct?

Not necessarily. He’s on the line if he’s breaking the plane through the waist of the snapper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 hours ago, Bobref said:

Not necessarily. He’s on the line if he’s breaking the plane through the waist of the snapper.

Correct, but in the example the player does not break the plane through the waist of the snapper, which makes him a back.

However, because he breaks plane of the nearest lineman that makes him a back that is on the line. 

Am I wrong? If so, hopefully this point of emphasis this year clears this gray area up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
44 minutes ago, cloudofdust said:

Correct, but in the example the player does not break the plane through the waist of the snapper, which makes him a back.

However, because he breaks plane of the nearest lineman that makes him a back that is on the line. 

Am I wrong? If so, hopefully this point of emphasis this year clears this gray area up.

 

Yes, you are wrong on several counts. You can’t have a back “on the line.” Your problem is that you feel compelled to classify a player as either a back or a lineman, and that is incorrect.

If any part of his body is breaking the plane of an imaginary line drawn ­parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the nearest teammate who is legally on the line, he cannot be a back. But if his head or foot is not breaking an imaginary plane drawn parallel to the line of scrimmage through the waist of the snapper when the ball is snapped, he cannot be a lineman, either. That is the issue. He’s neither “fish nor fowl,” and that is illegal under the rule as written. Yet, it happens all the time.

Picture a wingback, located just outside the tight end, and in a 3 pt. stance. His helmet breaks the plane through the waist of the tight end, but not the plane through the waist of the snapper. That is an illegal formation at the snap. 

Edited by Bobref
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The issue is he's using the term "back" as a player wearing an eligible number and referred to as a running back on the roster. Roster positions do not exist in the rule book though. All offensive players are defined as either a lineman or a back (unless they are in no-man's land). #68 is clearly a back if he's lined up behind the QB in front of the tailback. He's a lineman on the roster, but by rule on that play, he's a back. He's not eligible due to his number, but by definition he's a back. And the WR lined up on the line of scrimmage because he's breaking the waist of the snapper is by rule a lineman.

The other issue with the example cloudofdust is using is let's say the guard is breaking the waist of the snapper, he's a lineman. Then the tackle is breaking the waste of the guard but not the center, he's a lineman. Then the TE is breaking the waist of the T but not the snapper, he's also a lineman. If the LOS is the +20, you now have a TE lined up with his feet on the 16 but by his definition a legal formation. And the wideout on that side who needs to be a back is on or inside the 15. That's quite the V formation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
6 hours ago, JustRules said:

The issue is he's using the term "back" as a player wearing an eligible number and referred to as a running back on the roster.

It’s finally happened. I have lost the ability to communicate effectively to civilians. I can make myself understood only to other officials. 🙁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
33 minutes ago, Bobref said:

It’s finally happened. I have lost the ability to communicate effectively to civilians. I can make myself understood only to other officials. 🙁

I spent an entire 8th grade halftime trying explain to a MS coach why you can’t line both the slot and the end on the LOS and they’re both eligible. He kept telling his slot is always eligible, and I could not make him understand he was neither an end or a back. The struggle is real. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
34 minutes ago, Bobref said:

It’s finally happened. I have lost the ability to communicate effectively to civilians. I can make myself understood only to other officials. 🙁

Been following this forum for a good bit, enjoy reading your comments and always value your input. You are well respected but this comment deserves a flag.

I'm very well aware of the rules, and definitions. I'm just slinging mud. Keeping a communication line between everyone is nothing but beneficial if you allow it and seeing point of view from even lowly fans can't hurt. That's what is great about this forum.

I think it's been proven that the rule is cloudy. The definitions need improved or enforced on the field to deal with "no mans land".

Lineman must break plane of snapper...everyone else is a back. Similar to what Impartial_Observer stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
25 minutes ago, cloudofdust said:

everyone else is a back

Again, not true.7

 

25 minutes ago, cloudofdust said:

You are well respected but this comment deserves a flag.

It’s more of a knock against me than you. I clearly did not understand what you were trying to get across because I was thinking in rulebook language. Non-officials don’t do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
8 hours ago, JustRules said:

The issue is he's using the term "back" as a player wearing an eligible number and referred to as a running back on the roster. Roster positions do not exist in the rule book though. All offensive players are defined as either a lineman or a back (unless they are in no-man's land). #68 is clearly a back if he's lined up behind the QB in front of the tailback. He's a lineman on the roster, but by rule on that play, he's a back. He's not eligible due to his number, but by definition he's a back. And the WR lined up on the line of scrimmage because he's breaking the waist of the snapper is by rule a lineman.

The other issue with the example cloudofdust is using is let's say the guard is breaking the waist of the snapper, he's a lineman. Then the tackle is breaking the waste of the guard but not the center, he's a lineman. Then the TE is breaking the waist of the T but not the snapper, he's also a lineman. If the LOS is the +20, you now have a TE lined up with his feet on the 16 but by his definition a legal formation. And the wideout on that side who needs to be a back is on or inside the 15. That's quite the V formation.

If the TE is not breaking the waist of the snapper how is he still allowed to be classified as a lineman?

I know it happens all the time but by rule he is not a lineman.

Definition states lineman must break waist of the snapper. I cant find anything saying they just have to break waist of nearest lineman. Albeit my rule book is 2021 model...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
2 minutes ago, cloudofdust said:

If the TE is not breaking the waist of the snapper how is he still allowed to be classified as a lineman?

I know it happens all the time but by rule he is not a lineman.

Definition states lineman must break waist of the snapper. I cant find anything saying they just have to break waist of nearest lineman. Albeit my rule book is 2021 model...

That’s what I was trying to convey. In that scenario, the tight end is not on the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
5 hours ago, cloudofdust said:

If the TE is not breaking the waist of the snapper how is he still allowed to be classified as a lineman?

I know it happens all the time but by rule he is not a lineman.

Definition states lineman must break waist of the snapper. I cant find anything saying they just have to break waist of nearest lineman. Albeit my rule book is 2021 model...

Correct. But you were proposing if someone is breaking the waist of the nearest linemen, they should be a lineman. I was showing you why that doesn't work or what the result would be. The current rule works fine as it allows for the intent of the rule to be enforced. If 82 is on the end and breaking the waist of the snapper and the wideout or possibly a wing back is technically breaking the waist of the end but they are clearly in as a back then treat him as a back. Unless they are obviously on or obviously off, the official is going to put them where they are legal. This also most commonly done for two wideouts that are staggered. HS won't be as liberal as the "blade of grass" difference to make the formation legal, but if there is an obvious stagger between the two it's not something to be too technical with. The biggest issue is usually that T that cheats back too far or the teams who like to have the entire line as deep as possible. That's where warnings are usually given if they are close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...