AllSports12
Moderator
Depends on the type and severity of contact.
It could be illegal use of hands
It could be illegal personal contact
It could be nothing
It is not defensive pass interference. Your play is described in a rule change from 2005.
Ask The Ref?
- Thread starter Yappi
- Start date
It could be illegal use of hands
It could be illegal personal contact
It could be nothing
It is not defensive pass interference. Your play is described in a rule change from 2005.
If a qb fumbles the ball behind the LOS on a play from scrimmage, can a lineman pick it up and throw a forward pass? Yes??
AllSports12
Moderator
Yes
purplenova
Active member
Saw this Friday evening and need input please.
Scenario - QB gets tackled and loses his helmet.
QB - needs to leave the game for one play
The QB's Head coach promptly calls a time out
Does the time-out count as 1 play, allowing the QB to re-enter on the very next play?
Scenario - QB gets tackled and loses his helmet.
QB - needs to leave the game for one play
The QB's Head coach promptly calls a time out
Does the time-out count as 1 play, allowing the QB to re-enter on the very next play?
Last edited:
teach1coach2
Active member
If a player is ejected from a week 10 game, (assuming his team is in the playoffs and wins) does he sit out the first 2 playoff games or just the first playoff game?
AllSports12
Moderator
The football sport regulation prescirbes a one game suspension. If deemed to be guilty of fighting the regulations prescribes a 2 game suspension.
No matter the situation, the OHSAA office makes the call on the penalty, if any.
The OHSAA football regulations can be found at https://ohsaaweb.blob.core.windows.net/files/Sports/Football/FootballRegs.pdf. The bottom of page 3 on the PDF or page 115 if you are looking at the printed page numbers.
This is handled by the school involved and Columbus. No official on this forum will have an answer for your specific situation.
This is handled by the school involved and Columbus. No official on this forum will have an answer for your specific situation.
To commit illegal touching, the ineligible player must bat, muff, or catch a legal forward pass that has not yet been touched by B. In other words, the touching must be a purposeful attempt to play the ball and not just be in the path of the pass. Your description does not sound like it should have been a penalty, but I can't completely discount it either.
Illegal touching is 5 yards and loss of down from the basic spot. I have this as a loose ball play, making the basic spot the previous spot.
Illegal touching is 5 yards and loss of down from the basic spot. I have this as a loose ball play, making the basic spot the previous spot.
MahoningFan
Active member
Onside kick by K immediately takes a high hop (ball was driven into turf like most onside kicks - not a sky kick). Can R signal fair catch and be protected? Rule suggests the ball hitting the ground eliminates fair catch, but it is a unique situation where the ground is literally used here to generate height on the ball.
From 2018 rule changes:
Another significant risk-minimization change was elimination of a pop-up kick in new Rule 6-1-11. A new definition of a pop-up kick in Rule 2-24-10 is defined as “a free kick in which the kicker drives the ball immediately to the ground, the ball strikes the ground once and goes into the air in the manner of a ball kicked directly off the tee.”
The committee implemented this change in an effort to reduce risk of injury due to the increased use of the pop-up kick on onside kickoffs. Such kicks will be penalized as a dead-ball free-kick infraction, as noted with new Rule 6-1-11 PENALTY.
If most coaches had a rule book in their pocket and are well versed about rules all they need to do is ask for a conference with the official and explain what they think the rule is, if the coach is wrong nothing lost, but if you are right very good chance the call is corrected, had it happen many times!
"if the coach is wrong nothing lost" is not entirely correct. It costs a team timeout to request a conference and not have the ruling changed.
Ohio officials are supposed to have a rule book, a case book, and the gold book on the field. So, the coach shouldn't even need a rule book in their pocket.
Ohio officials are supposed to have a rule book, a case book, and the gold book on the field. So, the coach shouldn't even need a rule book in their pocket.
Mine was in Italian!
This is more of a request than question. Could you please post the rule(s) that cite what makes up a legal offensive formation?
At work today and Herbie was going on about how Florida had an illegal formation on offense bc they had 10 guys on the line. My co-worker was going on about it as well. I said the only requirement was to have someone to receive the snap behind the line of scrimmage. He’s goes to a highschool game every Friday, UC home games and a Bengals season tickets. Whoever the official was the corrected Herbstriet I thank him. My co-worker then said “I assumed you always had to have at least 4 in the backfield because teams always do and that’s how we ran our offense in high school”.
Thanks.
At work today and Herbie was going on about how Florida had an illegal formation on offense bc they had 10 guys on the line. My co-worker was going on about it as well. I said the only requirement was to have someone to receive the snap behind the line of scrimmage. He’s goes to a highschool game every Friday, UC home games and a Bengals season tickets. Whoever the official was the corrected Herbstriet I thank him. My co-worker then said “I assumed you always had to have at least 4 in the backfield because teams always do and that’s how we ran our offense in high school”.
Thanks.
Well, those rules are different for high school, UC, and the Bengals.
On Friday night, the offense can’t have more than 4 in the backfield and at least 5 of those on the line have to be numbered 50-79. Ten on the line would be perfectly acceptable. Of course, only three are eligible receivers (instead of the normal six…and that assumes those three have eligible numbers), but the formation is perfectly legal at the snap.
Herbie is correct on Sundays. The NFL has rules that a covered up receiver is an illegal formation that I don’t completely understand, and just take the officials word for it when it is called.
On Friday night, the offense can’t have more than 4 in the backfield and at least 5 of those on the line have to be numbered 50-79. Ten on the line would be perfectly acceptable. Of course, only three are eligible receivers (instead of the normal six…and that assumes those three have eligible numbers), but the formation is perfectly legal at the snap.
Herbie is correct on Sundays. The NFL has rules that a covered up receiver is an illegal formation that I don’t completely understand, and just take the officials word for it when it is called.
AllSports12
Moderator
The origin of the rule is the fact that the NFL rosters are such that it limits the availability of tight ends. While teams typically have three active, injury can hinder the play calling so the "tackle eligible" was necessary to maintain that availability (albeit, not the best solution for the offense)....... Then, the rule is tweaked to maintain the balance between offense and defense.
The end result is the requirement that one eligible receiver be on the line on each side of the ball and if a player with an ineligible number is one the end of the line..... he must report to the Referee before each play.
AllSports12
Moderator
Coaches and (unfortunately) officials also confuse the two days..... and sometimes three
(NCAA)Footballguy00005
Active member
Did the ref get this right? In the Avon versus Wadsworth game a huge delay happened during the game. Waders scored on a touchdown pass that had a defense holding call on it. Supposedly Wadsworth accepted the penalty and on the extra point try after they fall started and attempted the kick from the 7 yard line. On the kick off after the point after this is where the delay for about 10 minutes occurred Wadsworth was lined up to kick off at the normal kick off yard marker. Wadsworth Coach met with refs and the rulebook was eventually brought out after delay. The ball was moved up 10 yards which Wadsworth used to kick it out of the back the of the end zone was this the right call? I know in the NFL and in college you decline the penalty and the touchdown counts. In high school you can accept the penalty of the play and get the touchdown and add it to the kickoff?
Sounds like they got it right
AllSports12
Moderator
The scoring team has the option to have the penalty enforced on the try or on the kickoff
Only if it's enforced from the 10 yard line.
Unsportsmanlike are always enforced as dead ball penalties. So, if you have a live ball 10 yard penalty on one team and an UNS on the other, you don't offset them. They are both enforced and it will look like a 5 yard penalty if you don't understand what was signaled.
I have a question pertaining to pass interference and why in Ohio it is not an automatic first down? In a goal line situation an opposing team could interfere with basically no recourse on a passing team? Can someone more versed explain the theory behind this? This is not a penalty, but more so a reward if one gets beat in goal line pass defense?
Someone else can explain the theory, but it's not just Ohio. High schools in every state but Texas use National Federation rules.
AllSports12
Moderator
For 6-7 years prior to the rule change in 2013 (yes, it's been that long) coaches lobbied their state associations to remove the loss of down provision in addition to the 15yd penalty for Offensive Pass Interference. It didn't gain much traction with the committees in those years those years because of the imbalance between the two Pass Interference penalties.
In 2013 the committee agreed to remove the automatic first down provision for Defensive Pass Interference as long as the loss of down provision was eliminated for Offensive Pass Interference. The coaches agreed and 11 years later the fears that were brought forth when the rule was changed (the same fears you expressed) have largely been unwarranted......