JustRules

A common approach is teams are placed into sections, sectional, districts by the state just like Indiana. Your schedule is largely determined by those categorizations plus whatever non-section games you play. You play everyone in your section/sectional/district and seeding is based on record within that group. The idea of conferences and long-term scheduling contracts don't exist. Certain teams qualify for the post-season based on the records with common opponents. There is either a section/sectional/district tournament or sections/sectionals/district play each other. For example, #1 in District A hosts #4 in District B and so forth. Teams still get to play their geographic rivals either because they are in their section/sectional/district or they schedule them directly. This is easier in sports that play more games, maybe a little more difficult in football with only 9 or 10 games.

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.

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.

I agree. Random draw with all-in does still determine the ultimate champion. It's just a very odd way to do it. Nobody would ever come up with this system if they were creating a new system from scratch. We just have too many people who grew up in this system and feel it's the only logical way to do it. People are inherently resistant to change regardless of how crazy the current system is.

I think a lot of states do it that way. My home state does. There isn't much variability year to year in the districts like we may have in Indiana, but even then they probably wouldn't change much more than they do already. That is probably the the most logical approach though because then you have your schedule set for you most of the season and you are determine seeding entirely based on the results on the field. Some will argue against it because some sectionals will have travel issues, but that's only for a couple games each year and the road trips are fun for the students. They were some of my favorite memories competing in high school. Every conference road game for us was a 2-3 hour drive. I remember getting home from basketball games at 12:30am! That would be a much bigger change I think would be hard for people to accept, but there are many states that do it without thinking about it. And it still leaves 3-4 non-conference games for traditional rivals that aren't in your district.

I think the reason the all-in only works with a random draw is the teams at the bottom are very unlikely to be competitive in the first round. With a random draw they have the hope they'll draw another team at the bottom so they have a competitive game. That's what helps keep them motivated once they are out of conference title contention. The argument many make against a qualifier is once a team loses 3 or 4 early games they have nothing to play for. That's one of the key reasons I think there are some coaches opposed to seeding. They know they could always be that lower team praying for a lucky draw.

If you make it a qualifying tournament you add a 10th game so everyone is still guaranteed 10 games. Nobody loses a game. This does improve and promote Indiana HS football because as Bobref mention it creates a playoff atmosphere for more regular season games either because it involves earning a playoff spot or possibly seeding for hosting a playoff game. I've worked many week 8 or 9 games that feel more like an exhibition game or scrimmage because the result has no impact on conference championship or anything playoff related. The players still play hard and to win because that's their nature. But you can't deny a playoff atmosphere is different than a regular season. And the test I give is explain this process to anyone not familiar with it. 100% don't believe me when I explain it to them. They can't fathom anyone would have an all-in with random draw. Even as I try to explain why it works for people in Indiana they still think I'm making it up. They always ask, "why do you play a regular season?" This is the most illogical way to do a tournament that could ever be conceived, and there is a reason nobody else does this or considers this.

Not sure of the exact number of teams in each class in Illinois, but they do use a qualifier like every other state. If they have 32 teams in each class, that's the number that make the tournament. I also believe they don't set the class cutoffs until the qualified teams are determined. Then they split them into classes. Another very different approach. I personally like the playoff qualifier as it adds even more meaning to the regular season. People will argue teams that lose several games early will consider themselves out of the playoffs and not care any longer. In today's system they don't have to care either because they lose the rest of their games they still make the tournament so nothing changes for them. They are just hoping they get a lucky draw. If they don't their last game and their tournament game are no different.

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.

They trust them to rate the officials which determines how far a crew gets to advance. You think they know nothing about other teams in their sectional. They know even less about the crews and how good they are. But they ultimately determine crew ranking. It's often determined by a volume of votes rather than a quality of votes. So the more well known crews advance regardless of quality. Fortunately for the IHSAA the crews who know a lot of coaches are also pretty good, but that hasn't always been the case. It also prevents the really good crews who aren't as well known from advancing. The key factor for popularity? The crew chief is also a basketball official who has had advanced far in the basketball tournament.

The one I saw (don't remember helmet coming off or anyone getting bloodied) would have been a late hit and not roughing since it was a dead ball. No difference in enforcement so the same result. Based on where it happened I'm guessing nobody had a view of it. Just like when a player gets up from a pile and claims they got punched in the tenders at the bottom of the pile. I thank them for thinking I have amazing super powers to see through bodies. Seriously though...you seem to have an interest in understanding this better so I would encourage you to consider officiating. It really is a great avocation. You the team aspect of working with your crew mates and other officials. You are an important part of the game with a goal of applying consistent judgement of all calls throughout. Fine tuning your pre-snap routine, identifying and correctly reading your keys at the snap, progressing through the play both in movement and focus so you are looking at where you need to look, slowing down each play aa they happen to make sure you saw what you thought you saw, making many decisions during the play (legality at the snap, foul/no foul, in bounds/out of bounds, catch/no catch, fumble down, spot, and many others). Each play only lasts 5-7 seconds, but you may have made 10 different judgements in that time. Communication with players and coaches between plays. Communication with your crew mates. All factors going into the quality of your work. Forgetting the last play if you think you missed something. Being better on the next play. The camaraderie before and after the game with your crew. We often call each other on the way home to compare how our games go. Many officials meet at a local restaurant for dinner after the game as well.

I'm just saying the number of missed called you think you see and the number of missed calls that actually happen are very different numbers. If they weren't you would not be very critical of the work the NFL officials are doing. All your early justifications were based on the observations of coaches, players and announcers. I never said they didn't understand the rules. I'm saying they don't understand them nearly as well as they think they do. But they are the ones that fans take as Gospel so that misunderstanding gets taken as truth. And when an official then tries to explain the rules or a call they get dismissed because it's counter to what this coach or player or announcer said. Looking back at your initial comments on this topic you were more focused on the influence missed calls have on a game. They may to some extent and some will appear to have a bigger impact depending on the timing. But ultimately there are several things over the course of the game that have an impact and no one play or call determines the outcome of the game. The Lions didn't lose only because Coach Campbell decided to go for it twice on 4th down rather than kick FGs. The great catch off the defender's face mask and fumble on the subsequent drive also played pretty big roles. The receiver catches the pass on the 1st 4th down play and there may have been a very different outcome. But the article that started all this was how much Shawn Smith's crew favored the visiting team, and I pointed out the fallacy of that argument. But people seem to think the crew has any influence in the outcome of the game. There are so many things over the course of the game that do that.

I never said they were perfect. There are going to be a couple calls each game that could have or should have been called differently. There are 160-180 plays per game. If there are 2-3 plays with incorrect calls That's a 98% accuracy rate. That's pretty amazing! The one I saw was I believe was on the other game and Steratore was the rules expert. The QB had scrambled and tackled downfield in the middle of other players. The only view that could likely see that hit was the overhead camera they showed. I don't believe any official would have had a view of that hit. So while they get a downgrade for not calling it, there was nothing they could have done differently to see it. But trying to get replay involved in those kinds of plays would cause more problems than solve as proven by the PI experiment a couple years ago. There are certain types of calls we need to leave with the officials on the field and accept a 98% accuracy rate. None of this changes the original point of our discussion. As much as you think you understand the rules, you don't know them as well as you think you do. The same is true for coaches and players and TV analysts. They will never have a perfect game, but the number of errors is much smaller than you realize. Since you are a former player and coach I assume you aren't doing either now. I would strongly encourage you to contact some local officials and join us. You may find out how fun and challenging this avocation is. You'll also find out how little you previously understood the rules. They are more complex than you realize but not something you can't easily learn with time and experience. The latter part is critical though because it takes repetition and study to be able to see the nuance of each call. And this goes well beyond fouls and non-fouls. That's a small portion of what we are looking at and judging on every play.

So true! Knowing what you don't know is often more important than knowing what you do know. I may have some ideas of what i would do if I were a coach, but I know every coach knows more about coaching than I do.

I have so many coaches screaming for holding on plays where it is obviously not holding to know coaches don't understand holding as well as they do. Some of that is because at the high school level we also have officials who call very ticky tack holding. We have to do better there. No official is perfect so you aren't wrong there. But they are also right a lot more than you think. I know it sounds condescending or arrogant to say coaches and players don't know or understand rules, but it's the absolute truth. Everyone assumes because someone played they know the rules, but when I have in depth rules discussions with someone they realize how little actually know. Once I learned I didn't know the rules of football until I became an official I realized I don't know the rules of baseball or basketball as well as I thought I did. That's why I ask officials in those sports when I see something I think is wrong. I always learn something. I was on the board for a local youth league and a situation arose where a runner was not called out when a batted ball hit him as he was running from 2nd to 3rd. I always thought that was an out. Not only did I learn that's not always the case, but it's also different in the various rule sets. HS is different than Babe Ruth is different than Little League is different than American Legion. And baseball and softball have different rules about it. I had two siblings of one of the players get in my face and argue they have been playing X years and were current college players and had never seen that called. Then they called their dad who who had coached for 30 years, and he insisted the umpire was wrong. Guess what? Every baseball umpire I talked to asked me the same question when I presented the scenario. Had the ball passed an infielder when the ball hit the runner? That was a key factor in every rule set and none of the players or coaches arguing had any idea that was a factor. Here's another great example, there are no fouls for "over the back" or "reaching in" in basketball but you hear announcers use it all the time. But as fans we all believe those acts are fouls.