Jump to content

On field rule changes you would like to see


Recommended Posts

I think that if a game is tied at the close of regulation, the Referee should be able to award the W to the team that displayed the best sportsmanship during the game.

Change my mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You are welcome to take the test and give it a try yourself. Failing that, perhaps you could enlighten us all as to the “right” way to call - or not call - pass interference

INELIGIBLE MAN DOWNFIELD ACTUALLY CALLED AND PENALIZED!!! That is all...

I cannot imagine why. I would like to see fouls by the offense occurring behind the LOS enforced the way they are in NCAA, from the previous spot, rather than the spot of the foul.

Posted Images

On 3/13/2021 at 4:58 PM, CoachGallogly said:

Since picking of receivers is allowed by default 90% of the time, and since virtually all rules favor the offense and QB, I'd love to see DB's get 10 yards to excessively bump (except the face mask or horse collar)  let's level the playing field a bit.  That extra 5 yards levels it a lot the DL gets a real shot now at pressure.  

In a couple counties in Southwest Indiana it is legal to jump on the back of the receiver and use a horse whip on him as long as the ball isn't in the air.

Edited by Titan32
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I disagree, I’ve long felt HS has OT figured out. It’s beautifully simple, fair, and equitable for both teams. 

Several years ago, I heard the overtime rule discussed at the NFL level.  If I remember correctly, they did a study and the teams that played overtimes were much more likely to lose the next weekend.  (Wear and tear on the body)  They thought that allowing the game to end in a tie after one overtime was in the best interest of competitive balance.

If teams played until there was a winner, these HS teams could play almost another whole game in some scenarios.  Not sure that would be fair in the playoffs. 

 

So I agree, I like the current format.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm a fan of the HS OT model.  If people believe there should be discussion about whether the OT should start on the 10 yl or 15 or 20, maybe that is worth discussion.  But if the goal is short and simple, having OT start at the 10yl with line to gain being the GL...it can't get much simpler and quicker.  I don't think the vast majority of HS kickers are good enough to warrant moving back further to start an OT possession.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, US31 said:

 

I'm a fan of the HS OT model.  If people believe there should be discussion about whether the OT should start on the 10 yl or 15 or 20, maybe that is worth discussion.  But if the goal is short and simple, having OT start at the 10yl with line to gain being the GL...it can't get much simpler and quicker.  I don't think the vast majority of HS kickers are good enough to warrant moving back further to start an OT possession.

While we are on the topic of HS OT, can a team be awarded a first down by penalty?  For example, Team A lines up to kick an OT FG, but a Team B player roughs the kicker/holder.  Does half the distance and automatic first down for team A still apply?

@Impartial_Observer @Bobref 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2021 at 8:12 AM, Bobref said:

The 5 yd. contact rule is only in the NFL. In NF, a DB can freely contact a receiver anywhere on the field, as long as two conditions are met:

1. The ball is not yet in the air.

2. The receiver is in front of or even with the DB, so he's a potential blocker.

On a related note I would like to see the elusive defensive holding call made more often.  DBs hold a lot down here and get away with it, I'm not sure if that is an issue all over the state or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2021 at 8:24 AM, Gipper said:

Plays happen so fast and it can be hard to make the right call.

Generally not true. The more you officiate the more those plays really slow down. It's often more about angle and judgement. You also only have 3 officials trying to watch 5 eligible receivers in routes. You try to focus on the likely match ups and go back and forth in your area of responsibility.

2 hours ago, US31 said:

 

I'm a fan of the HS OT model.  If people believe there should be discussion about whether the OT should start on the 10 yl or 15 or 20, maybe that is worth discussion.  But if the goal is short and simple, having OT start at the 10yl with line to gain being the GL...it can't get much simpler and quicker.  I don't think the vast majority of HS kickers are good enough to warrant moving back further to start an OT possession.

The good news here is the IHSAA has full authority to modify OT rules. The NFHS publishes a recommended OT procedure that many states follow, but they are allowed to use whatever they want. I know of other states that start at the 20 or 25 instead. I believe some allow the defense to score on a turnover. I've never heard the IHSAA has seriously considered a change, but if the IFCA were to propose something I'm sure they would probably consider it.

57 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

While we are on the topic of HS OT, can a team be awarded a first down by penalty?  For example, Team A lines up to kick an OT FG, but a Team B player roughs the kicker/holder.  Does half the distance and automatic first down for team A still apply?

@Impartial_Observer @Bobref 

Yes, there are circumstances where the offense could be awarded a new first down and your example is one of them. Interestingly it will always be first and goal regardless of the situation. Let's say in your example the offense lost yardage through penalty or sack and were kicking a FG snapped from the B24 that results in roughing the kicker. The penalty would be half the distance to the B12 with an automatic first down. But it would still be first and goal and not first and 10.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious...why is OT a thing.  Games have ended in a tie since sports began.

It is necessary to have a winner.  I can see it if has to do with seeding a tournament or something like that.

I remember going to the last tie game at Notre Dame Stadium.  I still enjoyed the game.

Overtime is needed during the playoffs, but why during the season

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LaSalle Lions 1976 said:

I remember going to the last tie game at Notre Dame Stadium.  I still enjoyed the game.

As a fan, sure. But do the competitors feel differently? I know I would.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, US31 said:

 

I'm a fan of the HS OT model.  If people believe there should be discussion about whether the OT should start on the 10 yl or 15 or 20, maybe that is worth discussion.  But if the goal is short and simple, having OT start at the 10yl with line to gain being the GL...it can't get much simpler and quicker.  I don't think the vast majority of HS kickers are good enough to warrant moving back further to start an OT possession.

If you where to move it back I would say the 15.  If you do not gain a yard it would 32 FG I think most high school kickers can make that.  I think it would interesting to see what a coach would do at 4 and 1 at the 6, do you go for it or kick 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Titan32 said:

In a couple counties in Southwest Indiana it is legal to jump on the back of the receiver and use a horse whip on him as long as the ball isn't in the air.

 

8 hours ago, Titan32 said:

On a related note I would like to see the elusive defensive holding call made more often.  DBs hold a lot down here and get away with it, I'm not sure if that is an issue all over the state or not.

Maybe it is because the offense is allowed to have so many people running downfield - lineman included - the DB's can't decipher who is in fact running a pass route and who is blocking for a run play, so just grab them all and let the officials sort it out  !!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jets said:

 

Maybe it is because the offense is allowed to have so many people running downfield - lineman included - the DB's can't decipher who is in fact running a pass route and who is blocking for a run play, so just grab them all and let the officials sort it out  !!

I'll wager we see more illegal man downfield called that defensive holding by a factor of something more than 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2021 at 11:16 AM, Trojanmp52 said:

What are a few on field rules that would to change or altered?

1 pass interference i like to see it change to a spot foul.

2 international grounding I would like to see it called more like college and pro.  
 

3 on kickoffs let the kids if they choice to play it out of the endzone and this a bigger point to this if the receiving team touch the ball in trying to field it and it goes to the endzone it should be a live ball the kicking team should be able to recover it.

You nailed my top two in 1 and 2. I also would liked to see uncatchable be in the definition in high school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2021 at 8:41 AM, Bobref said:

I think that if a game is tied at the close of regulation, the Referee should be able to award the W to the team that displayed the best sportsmanship during the game.

Change my mind.

Noble idea. I don't want a game coming down to a judgement call if at all possible, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2021 at 8:06 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

I disagree, I’ve long felt HS has OT figured out. It’s beautifully simple, fair, and equitable for both teams. 

I completely agree with you. For the level of football, it's perfect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1st and Goal said:

Make Endzone cameras illegal

Care to explain this one @1st and Goal? I don't agree with banning endzone cameras at all. I'm curious if the argument is simply that it's an unfair advantage for those who have it vs. those who don't? If that's the case, then you'd have to outlaw Hudl Sidelines even if they're just using the press box view.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2021 at 8:58 PM, Bobref said:

Since intentional grounding is a Point of Emphasis this year, it seems unlikely there’s a rule change in the offing anytime soon.

I think the main thing the coaches want, is if the QB is out of the pocket let him throw it passed the LOS and no intentional grounding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Coach_K said:

I think the main thing the coaches want, is if the QB is out of the pocket let him throw it passed the LOS and no intentional grounding.

Philosophically, I have no problem with changing the rule to allow the offense to “give up” a play. After all, if a running back takes a knee to stay inbounds and keep the clock running, isn’t he “giving up” on the play? There are other examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2021 at 3:16 PM, LaSalle Lions 1976 said:

Just curious...why is OT a thing.  Games have ended in a tie since sports began.

It is necessary to have a winner.  I can see it if has to do with seeding a tournament or something like that.

I remember going to the last tie game at Notre Dame Stadium.  I still enjoyed the game.

Overtime is needed during the playoffs, but why during the season

Was it the 10-10 Michigan game?  I was there too....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bobref said:

Philosophically, I have no problem with changing the rule to allow the offense to “give up” a play. After all, if a running back takes a knee to stay inbounds and keep the clock running, isn’t he “giving up” on the play? There are other examples.

Yes, but that is different that "giving up" a play that would be a 6 yard loss (sack) by dumping the ball away for no loss.  Apples and Oranges.  In your example he is looking to gain an advantage (the clock running) by doing so, not avoid a loss.

Being unable to protect your QB, shouldn't be fixed by giving the offense and easy out.  You adjust your play calling or have your Q drop to a knee if you you're afraid for his life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, US31 said:

Yes, but that is different that "giving up" a play that would be a 6 yard loss (sack) by dumping the ball away for no loss.  Apples and Oranges.  In your example he is looking to gain an advantage (the clock running) by doing so, not avoid a loss.

Being unable to protect your QB, shouldn't be fixed by giving the offense and easy out.  You adjust your play calling or have your Q drop to a knee if you you're afraid for his life.

More like a distinction without a difference. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2021 at 7:21 AM, Gipper said:

Sudden death.

No. And no Mickey Mouse shootout like soccer.

Id play a 5th quarter, Gip. Just like basketball..  Recreate the final quarter and let both teams go at it. 

 

If the game is tied after the 5th quarter, let it end in a tie. Both sides earned it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not allow offensive players to stiff arm defensive players in the head.

If face masking is a violation for the defense because the 'strike' of the hand to the head isnt safe, then there's no way on earth a running back stiff arming a defender above the neck or punching him open-handed in the mask is safe.

 

This is one of those archaic rules of football that should have been changed long time ago. Ripping the other guys helmet off used to be legal, too. 🙁

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
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
Reply to this topic...

×   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...