Bobref

So, if I referred to you as”the southern end of a northbound horse,” could I later say I did not call you a horse’s a$$ because I didn’t use those exact words?

Oh, please. I’d rather argue about your I’ll-chosen use of the passive voice.

I beg to differ. Why would you say that when in 10 sec. I could retrieve your earlier post and show what you actually said. 😉The exact language was “Go back to FB.” If that doesn’t say you’re not welcome on the GID, I don’t know what does.

Call out his posts all you want. But telling him he’s not welcome is another thing entirely.

It’s counter-productive to try and chase people off the GID because you believe their opinions are unjustified. We need all the voices we can get. Difference of opinion is what makes the forum interesting. You should be thanking him, not trying to chase him away.

Thanks for that, @DT. It’s a great day to be an Eagle!

Actually, according to Sagarin last year there were 5 teams in 6A with easier schedules: Carroll, Homestead, Lafayette Jeff, Warsaw, and Indpls. Tech.

Where did that come from?

F Troop, a really underrated comedy. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/entertainment/larry-storch-obit/index.html.

Great interview with a great coach. One of the very best I ever worked for. Coach Smith taught me a lesson very early in my career, one which I carried with me and have tried to pass on to many younger officials. I was a very young Referee and we were working at Crown Point. I managed to mis-enforce the same penalty twice. CP won the game comfortably, and nobody said a thing, but something was nagging at me after the game. I went back over it in my head and realized my mistake. It just so happened we had Crown Point at Munster the very next week. When we came onto the field before the game I made a beeline for coach Smith. I admitted last week’s mistake, apologized, and told him it wouldn’t happen again. Without saying a word, he reached into his back pocket and pulled out a rule book. It was folded open to the rule describing the proper enforcement for the mistake I had made the week before, and that section had been highlighted. We enjoyed a great relationship from then to this day. I learned that by stepping up and admitting a mistake, you can gain more credibility than if you hadn’t made the mistake in the first place. A valuable lesson that stood me in good stead for the rest of my career.

New in 2022, the NF has changed the chop block rule in the interests of further risk minimization. Previously, a chop block was defined as a combination block where one of the blocks was at or below the knees. This was a further restriction on legal low blocking in the free blocking zone. New for 2022, the rule now defines a chop block as “a combination block by 2 or more teammates against an opponent other than the runner, with or without delay, where one of the blocks is below the waist and one of the blocks is above the waist.” So now, what was otherwise a legal block below the waist in the free blocking zone (against a lineman, by a lineman, immediately at the snap) is now illegal if done in combination with a teammate. The practical effect is that all double team blocks must now be above the waist.

Received another official interpretation relating to this rule. Here’s the example: Team A runs a “flea flicker,” where the ball is handed to a wingback who lined up outside the FBZ, received a handoff which resulted in him carrying the ball outside the lateral extent of the FBZ, and then he tosses a backward pass to the QB, who has remained inside the lateral extent of the FBZ. The QB then throws a forward pass into Row 6 of the stands, which is beyond the neutral zone extended through the sideline. The official IHSAA interpretation is that since the ball left the FBZ, the exception now applies regardless of the position of the passer when the forward pass is eventually thrown.

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? 😂