JustRules

Agreed! And kudos to the officials for knowing it as well. Hopefully they submit this for the IFOA training video.

The white area where the chain crew moves is NOT for coaches. They are allowed by rule to have 3 coaches in that area between plays, but that is NOT the coach's area. It's the official's area to work and the chain crew is part of the officiating crew. Many schools will have an extra 2-yard belt behind that for the coaches and they will put the players behind that. That is not a rule thing though. If coaches are going to come into the restricted area (the 2-yard white area along the sideline. they need do so without getting in the way of the chain crew. During this dead ball period though they would not get a flag for interference unless they blatantly and intentionally did something to the chain crew or other officials.

Youth leagues is where most new officials get their start. It's also where the most abuse happens from parents and coaches. It's also why we lose a lot of new officials. Cleaning that up will go a LONG way to addressing our shortage. The problem is the people doing the abusing don't see what they do as abusing. They feel they are in their right to yell at officials if they feel they are getting something wrong. Cheer for your kid and their team and buy them ice cream after. Leave the officials alone.

Definitely an idea worth pursuing. We would have a hard time finding 165 (or possibly 200+) that would be necessary to fill these spots. These officials would also need to work sub-varsity, middle school, and youth games. That's where we lose a lot of new officials. The behavior of parents and coaches at those levels are the worst. This is true in all youth sports and why most have shortages. Until that behavior changes we will have a hard time retaining new officials. Money will help some of them stick it out long enough, but most leave because it's not worth it. Something similar that would help would be getting these people to be on the chain crew and/or clock operators. That's something other states do with new or retired officials. The main issue will be finding the people to do it.

Two issues with this chart. It only applies for plays with no loss of player possession (even if recovered by A). Thus the "Succeeding Spot" references create a lot of confusion if the runner fumbles. Then the basic spot would be the end of the related run. For a regular running play with no loss of possession the end of the run and the succeeding spot are likely the same spot. The rules editor really made this much more complicated than it needed to be. The only real change is that for most fouls by the offense that occurred behind the LOS (exception for things like illegal forward pass, intentional grounding, illegal kick or bat) or any foul that occurs during a running play that ends behind the LOS, the enforcement spot is the previous spot. So holds by the offense behind the LOS and defensive holding or facemask on a running play where the run ends behind the LOS. Anything else is the same as last year.

The announcers say it was blown dead at the snap, but I'm not sure that's true. This would be the correct enforcement if he was down before the ball came out as well. I believe that's what the crew ruled. Based on the replay I saw it was very close and a judgement call by the officials. An illegal shift like this is a live ball foul at the snap that does not shut down the play.

Sometimes new officials not yet ready for varsity games or maybe someone interested in being an official. It could also be a retired or injured official helping out. The fact he had full gear on I would expect he was ready to go in case someone got hurt.

Could have been an observer, but they usually sit in the press box to get a broader view of the mechanics. More likely someone tagging along with the crew and tracking fouls.

The main reason they don't do it is there are enough coaches who want the chance to get an easy draw in the first round if they have a team that struggled. If they seed the top 4 in a sectional, they are assured of going on the road in the first round to a much better team. The current system the 2-7 team has a chance to draw the 1-8 team in the first round and get a tournament win. As long as enough coaches are of that mindsight, this will never be changed. A few internet posters and a small sampling of anonymous coaches is not a majority. The fans seem to care a lot more about this than coaches or players.

Purdue did a study several years ago and found there were more concussions from the repeated bashing of helmets from lineman than the big hits on runners and receivers. They latter group just gets more attention. Those players though also can get the repeated minor hits that could result in a concussion. I've always assumed those were the types of concussions the Guardian Caps were supposed to help prevent. The big hits to the head will happen no matter what you are wearing.

My son played tennis and they would have open courts throughout the summer but followed the same moratorium weeks. I've also known swimmers who did club swimming over the summer, but the high school coach couldn't be involved in any practices or meets during the moratorium weeks.

Did you complete the application? Did you receive your rule books and access the rules test? These are important steps to complete in the process. As Bob mentioned, we can help connect you with local officials that can help you get on the field for scrimmages this summer and with assigners for youth, middle school and sub-varsity games for the Fall.

I'm from one of the many states that uses co-ops for the small schools and they vary from sport to sport. The thought of potential conflict never crosses anyone's minds. Ultimately high school sports are about participation with a good dose of competition. Allowing the co-ops provides more opportunities for some students to participate.

First, the only impact to moving up or down is for the tournament. If a team would slip back after a top class, they aren't likely to compete in the current class either. A 2A school that bumps up to 3A could actually end up in an easier sectional than the 2A sectional depending on the make-up of the schools in that area. If they are good enough to a win a sectional in 2A the next, they may be competitive for a win or two in the 3A sectional. I'm good with a 4-year cycle as well, but then you open yourself up to a team winning 4-straight state titles. You have to be willing to accept that. If there is ever a change to regular season districts/sectional assignments with a qualifying tournament rather than this conference exhibition season, the impact to bumping up becomes much bigger. I think in that case you do probably need to have a 4-year cycle. Or consider other criteria. You would have regular season sectional records to factor in for example.

I was pointing out the absurdity of how the regular season has no bearing on how the post-season is done. When I tell people from other states about how Indiana does this, they think I am joking. They can't believe anyone would ever set up a system like this. We have a competitive 9-week exhibition season.

We did this a lot in high school for baseball. Our school was the only bigger school that played high school baseball (wasn't a big sport in my home state). Our varsity would travel to an out of state tournament and play area junior colleges. The JV and freshmen teams played varsity teams from small schools in the area. We had 2000 students and these small schools had like 40 or 50 students. They were SMALL!

Is that a bad thing? Many conferences have become unstable anyway. Many other states do this district structure. Many in Indiana will oppose it because it sets up perfectly for a qualifying tournament as well.

There is no connection to anything that happens in the regular season to what happens in the post season today. Why arbitrarily add this? I'm guessing there are years where Cathedral didn't play 5 IHSAA teams. Or possibly the Deaf School.

I was on my 7th grade team but didn't play much. Played a lot more backyard football with friends. You don't need to have played to be a good official. You have to be willing to learn and understand rules, philosophies, and mechanics and enjoy the game. There tend to be more who played that become officials, but it's definitely not a requirement for guys. It shouldn't be a requirement for women.

Recruiting is at best an educated guess trying to project how athletes will perform and develop at the next level. There are plenty of examples over the years where players go to levels below their ultimately performance and those who go P5 end up not working out. It doesn't mean the schools were wrong for missing someone. That's one of the reasons the transfer portal is so active. Players trying to find their best level now that they have experienced college football. It doesn't mean IU was wrong on the time. They just made the wrong educated guess on how players would turn out.

On the targeting call I've had several veteran college officials disagree on whether the contact was initiated with the crown or not. And they are all watching the same video. It's amazing how we can all watch the same thing and see different things. That's why even replay is not perfect.

The states that have implemented replay have generally kept it simple. They only use the line feed from the broadcast. And limit replays to scores and sidelines. Officials in the states who have done it have said it's not used often, but it has been helpful when it's been used.

If the covered TE puts 8 on the LOS and 3 backs and there is any gap between the wideout and TE, you put the wideout as a back. That's what is meant by not nit picking it. If the wideout is slightly back and the next guy in is the T then put him on. But if putting him in the backfield creates 5 in the backfield, you have a potential foul either way. Put him on to avoid the illegal formation foul, but then flag the TE for ineligible downfield if he goes downfield and there is a legal pass beyond the LOS. That's why I said you had two different situations. You were describing the first two situations. I was trying to get you to the third situation which would likely result in a foul if there is a legal forward pass beyond the LOS. I'll also add if it's obvious the 5th player is back (especially a T who has been warned they are too deep) or the wideout is closer to the LOS than the TE, you are not nitpicking. Contrary to popular belief, good officials don't look for reasons to throw flags. They let the obvious situations jump out at them.

You are bringing up two different situations and combining them into one. The general philosophy is "put them where they are supposed to be" if it's close and you can prevent a foul. If your options are to put the receiver as a back, but it results in an illegal formation (5 in the backfield) or put him on and it covers the TE (meaning you have an ineligible lineman on the other side or 8 on the LOS), you will put him on and then monitor the TE for going downfield. Teams that intentionally cover a TE are trying to pull coverage or go heavy on one side. Usually when you give the wideout the benefit of the doubt and rule him off, he's the 4th back.

Someone pointed out to me the umpire may have also been using the common mechanic to signal to the wing with his arm on his chest This is done to indicate to the wings you see the ball in the end zone. You don't know if the runner was down prior to crossing, but you know he's there now. I'm not a fan of this mechanic. Coaches are aware of it, and if they see it but the wing doesn't rule TD you now have a different form of conflicting signals. If this is what the crew was doing, and the U also thought the runner was in, you have 2 officials making a very incorrect decision. The wings need to hustle in as quickly as possible on plays like this because you have no idea where the ball is. The U should try to get to the runner ASAP and have them stay where they are so the wing can rule. Huge lesson for this crew, and I'm sure they are beating themselves for missing this one. He's not a terrible official who should never work again (I've seen that comment several times online). He made a huge mistake and has to learn from it. Some consequence is appropriate (i.e. no post season next year, no final the next time he's eligible).