Ask The Ref?

I'm going with 10-4-6
The basic spot is the 20-yard line for fouls by either team when the opponent of the team in possession at the time of the foul is responsible for forcing the ball across the goal line of the team in possession, and the related run ends in the end zone and is followed by a loose ball, regardless of where the loose ball becomes dead.

The penalty for the illegal block below the waist (9-3-2) is enforced from the B20, half the distance to the goal. 1st and 10 for B at the B10.
 
The Dock said:
This was posted elsewhere as a 'how well do you know the rulebook? You make the call. Answer will be posted later' by a ref. I'll post the text of their question, and their answer. I think their answer is actually wrong. If their answer is right, can someone explain the qualifier that makes their answer correct?





The part that I think they have wrong on this is it being a safety. Their original question said the penalty occurred outside of the endzone, on the 9-yard line. Is the basic spot for penalty enforcement not the 20 yard-line in this situation?

If the penalty occurred in the end zone, it'd be a safety, yeah?
Click to expand...
The result of the play is 1st & 10 on the 3 yard line for the defensive team. It is not a high school rule that the ball be returned to the spot of the fumble.

The basic spot for this penalty enforcement is the 20 yard line. (Rule 10.4.6) The penalty would be half the distance to the goalline. That will be declined and the ball will be spotted on the 3.

Case Book 10.4.6 Situation B is the same scenario, except the foul is a clip.
 
Last edited:
The NFHS did a poor job with the rule change regarding penalty enforcement. As a result there is conflict between the the Rule Book and the Case Book.

Yesterday they began taking steps to try to rectify the issues created by striking Rule 10-5-2 from the Rule Book....

Let's refrain for the time being from hashing over situations regarding penalty enforcements. (a simple review of the play presented a few days ago is proof that confusion exists as there are different rulings being presented) Once we get the final word(s) from the NFHS ans/or Bruce/Beau, then we can get correct answers out to these situations.

It should only be a couple of days.

Thanks.....
 
AllSports12 said:
The NFHS did a poor job with the rule change regarding penalty enforcement. As a result there is conflict between the the Rule Book and the Case Book.

Yesterday they began taking steps to try to rectify the issues created by striking Rule 10-5-2 from the Rule Book....

Let's refrain for the time being from hashing over situations regarding penalty enforcements. (a simple review of the play presented a few days ago is proof that confusion exists as there are different rulings being presented) Once we get the final word(s) from the NFHS ans/or Bruce/Beau, then we can get correct answers out to these situations.

It should only be a couple of days.

Thanks.....
Click to expand...
That eliminates a contradiction, but is is still an impossible mess.
 
Is the game management POE pointed act the host schools? IF so are the host schools failing that much across the country to make it a POE?
What's the idea behind Coach communication POE?
 
JackEd said:
Is the game management POE pointed act the host schools? IF so are the host schools failing that much across the country to make it a POE?
Click to expand...
Yes and Yes (that's why POE's come out...... someone (a group) is failing at their responsibilities)

JackEd said:
What's the idea behind Coach communication POE?
Click to expand...
More or less a "cool it" edict.

As more and more experienced officials leave the ranks it leaves a general game management void. Both sides need to do a better job in understanding the examples they are charged with setting.
 
I haven’t been paying attention during off season, sorry if this is a repeat….

But my referee and good friend just told me about the new rule that you cannot hit an unprotected receiver crossing the middle of the field. The only tools that defenders now have are their arms and hands.

This seems like a big move towards a “flag football” type of game. I am guessing, if they truly stick with this rule, which I understand is a Point of emphasis for the refs this year, it will greatly change offensive strategies and hamper defenses’ ability to stop offenses quite a bit.
 
tiger56dad said:
I haven’t been paying attention during off season, sorry if this is a repeat….

But my referee and good friend just told me about the new rule that you cannot hit an unprotected receiver crossing the middle of the field. The only tools that defenders now have are their arms and hands.

This seems like a big move towards a “flag football” type of game. I am guessing, if they truly stick with this rule, which I understand is a Point of emphasis for the refs this year, it will greatly change offensive strategies and hamper defenses’ ability to stop offenses quite a bit.
Click to expand...
No.

a. It has nothing to do with crossing the field.

b. You can still hit a defenseless receiver as hard as you can, but it has to be part of a legitimate attempt to tackle i.e., an attempt to wrap with one or both arm. Or you can shove him with open hands. Which near the sideline is good strategy.

c. Once the receiver establishes possession and becomes a runner you can still hit him as hard as you want to without trying to tackle him.

There are some who believe this is a tremendous change to the game. It is not. This will be an easier transition than blindside block was several years ago. In no way will it "greatly change offensive strategies and hamper defenses’ ability to stop offenses quite a bit."
 
chs1971 said:
No.

a. It has nothing to do with crossing the field.

b. You can still hit a defenseless receiver as hard as you can, but it has to be part of a legitimate attempt to tackle i.e., an attempt to wrap with one or both arm. Or you can shove him with open hands. Which near the sideline is good strategy.

c. Once the receiver establishes possession and becomes a runner you can still hit him as hard as you want to without trying to tackle him.

There are some who believe this is a tremendous change to the game. It is not. This will be an easier transition than blindside block was several years ago. In no way will it "greatly change offensive strategies and hamper defenses’ ability to stop offenses quite a bit."
Click to expand...
Let’s be honest. Changing the language to when in doubt it’s a foul now opens up a can of worms with defenseless receiver.
 
Bidenomics said:
Let’s be honest. Changing the language to when in doubt it’s a foul now opens up a can of worms with defenseless receiver.
Click to expand...
5. Scrimmages ONLY: If in doubt, throw your flag when it is close as to whether a foul has occurred regarding this new Rule. Why? This is an excellent teaching opportunity for players, coaches, & your fellow officials to discuss this new Rule.

We will not. We will not seek out DC's or secondary coaches either.
 
chs1971 said:
5. Scrimmages ONLY: If in doubt, throw your flag when it is close as to whether a foul has occurred regarding this new Rule. Why? This is an excellent teaching opportunity for players, coaches, & your fellow officials to discuss this new Rule.

We will not. We will not seek out DC's or secondary coaches either.
Click to expand...
“When in question, the player is defenseless.”
IMG_6085.png
 
chs1971 said:
No.

a. It has nothing to do with crossing the field.

b. You can still hit a defenseless receiver as hard as you can, but it has to be part of a legitimate attempt to tackle i.e., an attempt to wrap with one or both arm. Or you can shove him with open hands. Which near the sideline is good strategy.

c. Once the receiver establishes possession and becomes a runner you can still hit him as hard as you want to without trying to tackle him.

There are some who believe this is a tremendous change to the game. It is not. This will be an easier transition than blindside block was several years ago. In no way will it "greatly change offensive strategies and hamper defenses’ ability to stop offenses quite a bit."
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying. I’m gonna run this by my buddy…. See if I just misinterpreted or he needs more training!!!
 
QB team A moves to right of pocket and on the move, throws a forward pass that hit an oline man of team A in helmet. Flag is dropped, white hat confers with side judge and waves it off. After game, officials said the contact was not intentional, therefore no penalty. Is this new, wrong or what?
 
eagles73 said:
QB team A moves to right of pocket and on the move, throws a forward pass that hit an oline man of team A in helmet. Flag is dropped, white hat confers with side judge and waves it off. After game, officials said the contact was not intentional, therefore no penalty. Is this new, wrong or what?
Click to expand...
This was a correct wave off of the flag.

What the lineman does on this play determines whether or not illegal touching has occurred. If the touching is accidental, there is no foul.
 
Pretty simple scenario in a game I saw highlights of from last night...

In the 1st OT, Team A has 4th and 4 from the 14. It completes a pass down to the 6. WR that caught the pass is excited and when he got up, spiked the ball. Out come the flags for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Should it have been 1st and TEN from the 21 or 1st and GOAL from the 21???
 
Ericles said:
Pretty simple scenario in a game I saw highlights of from last night...

In the 1st OT, Team A has 4th and 4 from the 14. It completes a pass down to the 6. WR that caught the pass is excited and when he got up, spiked the ball. Out come the flags for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Should it have been 1st and TEN from the 21 or 1st and GOAL from the 21???
Click to expand...
1st and 10
 
Ericles said:
Pretty simple scenario in a game I saw highlights of from last night...

In the 1st OT, Team A has 4th and 4 from the 14. It completes a pass down to the 6. WR that caught the pass is excited and when he got up, spiked the ball. Out come the flags for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Should it have been 1st and TEN from the 21 or 1st and GOAL from the 21???
Click to expand...
There was a time it would have been 1st and goal, but they changed that a long time ago, maybe 20 years ago.
 
chs1971 said:
There was a time it would have been 1st and goal, but they changed that a long time ago, maybe 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
Under the current NFHS procedure (which does not apply in Ohio but does apply in many states) the line to gain in OT is always the goal line, so 1/G would be correct in those states.
 
zebrastripes said:
Under the current NFHS procedure (which does not apply in Ohio but does apply in many states) the line to gain in OT is always the goal line, so 1/G would be correct in those states.
Click to expand...
If we are going there, the OP would have been 4/G not 4/4 and so the series would have ended when the WR did not score. The game would either be over or the spike penalized on the succeeding spot from the 10.

probably best not to confuse people in an Ohio forum unless they specifically ask if it’s different elsewhere.
 
zebrastripes said:
Under the current NFHS procedure (which does not apply in Ohio but does apply in many states) the line to gain in OT is always the goal line, so 1/G would be correct in those states.
Click to expand...
To be specific, it's an example of a procedure. Nothing more, nothing less....

The rule book clearly states regarding said procedure.....

"This procedure may be accepted as written, amended, or rejected, in whole or part by each member state association."

Since this is an Ohio forum, let's stick to Ohio rules, regardless the fact that you, me, or anyone else doesn't care for them. The commentary from the talking heads associated with covering this game already have people confused because that commentary was dead wrong.
 
Team A has the ball and gains a 1st down at the 6 yd line. Runner gets up and spikes the ball. 15 yd penalty. Ball taken back to 21 yd line. Is it 1st and 10 or 1st and Goal?
 
Malabar10 said:
Team A has the ball and gains a 1st down at the 6 yd line. Runner gets up and spikes the ball. 15 yd penalty. Ball taken back to 21 yd line. Is it 1st and 10 or 1st and Goal?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing this is the same game as Eracles had, which has been answered already. But, just in case...
The new line-to-gain is set when the referee marks the ball for play. If he hasn't done that yet, then the penalty will result in 1st and 10. If he had marked the ball for play, it will remain 1st and goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top