WarTiger

Football Rules and Interpretations

Recommended Posts

On 11/12/2018 at 9:08 PM, AURex said:

So, here is an off-the-wall question. Can an offensive player with the ball be called for targeting?

In the South Carolina game, the SC RB intentionally lowered his head and launched himself forward (at the defensive played, thus initiating crown of helmet contact and launching himself. The play was reviewed, but I think it it was for *defensive* targeting.

Is there any circumstance in which a ball carrier can be called for targeting?

 

All penalties in the rule book apply equally to offense and defense.   The defense cannot legally block in the back either, yet you rare if ever see it called.  A RB lowering his head is in the same category.  While he's not a "defenseless" player in that situation initiating any contact with the crown of the helmet is illegal regardless of who on the field commits the infraction.   But, much like that block in the back on the defense, its rarely, if ever called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




When I saw that play, I was thinking it should be called. I saw so many plays like that way back in the day in high school games. But now I also see ball carriers lowering their head, launching themselves forward, trying to get the last inches of gain. I have never once seen a targeting call on an offensive player with the ball.

Similarly, I've never seen a facemask call on a player with the ball, even in cases where the ball carrier grabs the facemask of the defensive player and yanks his head around. Whatever the wording of the rules, thew enforcement seems to be entirely aimed at the D.

 

Edited by AURex
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, AURex said:

When I saw that play, I was thinking it should be called. I saw so many plays like that way back in the day in high school games. But now I also see ball carriers lowering their head, launching themselves forward, trying to get the last inches of gain. I have never once seen a targeting call on an offensive player with the ball.

Similarly, I've never seen a facemask call on a player with the ball, even in cases where the ball carrier grabs the facemask of the defensive player and yanks his head around. Whatever the wording of the rules, thew enforcement seems to be entirely aimed at the D.

 

I have and in fact, I've called it myself in a game.   I believe Auburn actually had a ball carrier get called for a facemask during a game earlier this season.   It may not have been on Auburn.  It could have been the opponent that got flagged.  I'd have to go back and look and quite frankly don't have the time or interest to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen offensive linemen called for facemask, but never a player running the ball. Not saying it never happens, because I don't see every game ever. Anyway, I was more interested in you sense of the way targeting gets called and whether a runner could be called for targeting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2018 at 12:45 PM, AURex said:

I've seen offensive linemen called for facemask, but never a player running the ball. Not saying it never happens, because I don't see every game ever. Anyway, I was more interested in you sense of the way targeting gets called and whether a runner could be called for targeting.

 

The rules apply equally to offense and defense but most of the examples of defenseless player are members of the offense or the kicking team.   For a ball carrier to get called for targeting he would have to not just lower his head but initiate contact using the crown of the helmet.  That's the only possible way he could be called for it.  A ball carrier isn't going to hit a player on the ground, or intentionally block a player and its not possible for him to hit someone obviously out of the play, so the chances are extremely slim it will ever be called.  Possible, absolutely.  Likely, probably not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot which game yesterday, but there was a pass play and a flag was thrown for illegal lineman downfield.  However the QB had "thrown the ball out of bounds legally intentionally grounding it.  So they waived off the illegal lineman downfield penalty.  Doesn't seem right.  If it was a pass to a player it would have stood as a penalty, but just because the QB legally threw it away, it doesn't apply?  Still a pass play either way right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, oracle79 said:

Forgot which game yesterday, but there was a pass play and a flag was thrown for illegal lineman downfield.  However the QB had "thrown the ball out of bounds legally intentionally grounding it.  So they waived off the illegal lineman downfield penalty.  Doesn't seem right.  If it was a pass to a player it would have stood as a penalty, but just because the QB legally threw it away, it doesn't apply?  Still a pass play either way right?

I was actually watching the game that this happened and heard the white hat announce the penalty but didn't see the play.  They were absolutely right. The player that recieves the snap can legally throw the ball away to avoid lost yardage, provided he is outside the tackle box and the ball is thrown past the line of scrimmage extended.  Remember this is a college rule NOT a high school rule.    If he throws it out of bounds to avoid lost yardage it negates the ineligible downfield.    

Take this a step further:   What happens if there's an ineligible player down field, pass is thrown, pass is TIPPED and either caught by the offense or defense or falls incomplete?   Well, by rule once the pass is tipped EVERYBODY is eligible, so there can no longer be an ineligible player downfield.   Flag would be picked up and waived off and the results of the play would stand.

 

Now, humor me a bit on something that is probably semantics and such, but it should be INELIGIBLE PLAYER down field.   There's no such thing as an Illegal player, illegal lineman.  They aren't illegal they are ineligible and its not just linemen.  I hear it by announcers too and it drives me crazy.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2018 at 2:55 PM, WarTiger said:

Once a fair catch is signaled by ANY player on the field, the recieving team forfeits their right to advance the ball.  It doesn't matter at all if the kick is caught, grounded or muffed.  Once the fair catch is called for the ball will be blown dead when in possession of the receiving  team.   If the kick is untouched but grounded the fair catch still negates the receiving teams ability to advance the ball  Advancing the ball after signaling for a fair catch is a delay of game penalty.   Easy call last week.

I saw this situation over the weekend and was able to provide more insight thanks to you!! lol

I might be wrong, but I don't believe they actually flagged the receiving team for a delay of game though. Otherwise, everything else was spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule change may be coming for targeting is needed in my opinion!

NCAA Division I Football Oversight Committee chairman Shane Lyons said the committee plans to consider changes to the targeting and overtime rules, though no recommendations have yet been made.

Lyons said a rule that would separate targeting into two categories is being discussed, per Andrea Adelson of ESPN. The alteration of the targeting rule, which has garnered support from the American Football Coaches Association, would see intentional and unintentional categories be created. "Hits without malicious intent" would result in a 15-yard penalty but no ejection. "More egregious hits" would result in both a 15-yard penalty and ejection.

"We would consider changes of how it's done from the officiating aspect of it, from the ejection aspect of it, but we think it needs more study," Lyons said. "It was a lengthy discussion. One of the biggest concerns is we don't want to go back and look like we're doing something that's not in the well-being, health and safety of the student-athlete, so if you back off the penalty, is it sending the message that this is OK and this is not?"

Lyons said the committee will have to look into the player safety implications before making any changes.

"We were supportive of a potential refinement, but to come out and say it needs to be this—we're going to put that in the hands of the so-called experts in the rules committee to take a look at it and see what's best," Lyons said. "The player safety is the most important thing. The numbers haven't changed; our hope is, 'How do you get the numbers to go lower?'"

Potential overtime changes are also being considered with player safety in mind. The committee is looking at ways to avoid situations where games go into extended overtime sessions, thus putting players in greater harm. There have been no formal proposals on what the committee may suggest.

"The question is: Are there things we can tweak in the overtime that could possibly shorten the length?" Lyons said. "Do you leave it the same? Do you automatically have to go for two even after your first touchdown for both teams? What are some things to potentially lessen the overtime?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should treat targeting like they do punting...15 for roughing and 5 for running into. 15 for intentional targeting and 5 for incidental targeting, except enforce the ejection on the more egregious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the rule changes for High School football for 2019.  The big one here is the play clock.  It will no longer always be a 25 second clock.  Now it will be the 40 second clock used in college.  Personally, as a long time official I HATE this rule change.  Absolutely HATE IT but the change was inevitable.  We all knew this would come sooner or lateer.  Most of these types of rules typically filter down.   The  name plate area included for the horse collar tackle is another one that has now filtered down to high school.

Football Rules Changes - 2019

By NFHS on February 18, 2019 

 

BY STATE ASSOCIATION ADOPTION, USE OF VIDEO REVIEW ALLOWED FOR STATE POST-SEASON CONTESTS [1-3-7 NOTE (NEW), TABLE 1-7 – 1-3-7 NOTE (NEW)]

Rationale: By state association adoption, instant replay may only be used during state postseason contests to review decisions by the on-field game officials. This adoption would allow state associations to develop protocols for use of video replay.

IMPROVED VISIBILITY OF NUMBERS [1-5-1c, 1-5-1c(6) (NEW)]
Rationale:
The purpose of numbers on jerseys is to provide clear identification of players. In order to enhance the ability to easily identify players, the committee has clarified the size requirements for jersey numbers through the 2023 season. The committee also added a new requirement that, effective in the 2024 season, jersey numbers must be a single solid color that clearly contrasts with the body color of the jersey.

REDEFINED REQUIREMENTS FOR A LEGAL SCRIMMAGE FORMATION [2-14-1, 7-2-5a]
Rationale: A legal scrimmage formation now requires at least five offensive players on their line of scrimmage with no more than four backs. This change will make it easier to identify legal and illegal offensive formations.

PROHIBITION ON TRIPPING THE RUNNER [2-45, 9-4-3o (NEW), 9-4-3o PENALTY (NEW)]
Rationale: In an effort to decrease risk, tripping the runner is now prohibited. It is now a foul to intentionally use the lower leg or foot to obstruct a runner below the knees.

40-SECOND PLAY CLOCK [2-35-1, 3-6-1, 3-6-2a, 7-2-1]
Rationale:
To have a more consistent time period between downs, the rules committee approved situations where 40 seconds will be placed on the play clock. The new rule defines when 40 seconds will be placed on the play clock and when 25 seconds will be placed on the play clock.

HORSE-COLLAR TACKLE ADDITION [9-4-3k]
Rationale:
Grabbing the name plate area of the jersey of the runner, directly below the back collar, and pulling the runner to the ground is now an illegal personal contact foul.

ILLEGAL KICKING AND BATTING PENALTY REDUCED [9-7 PENALTY]
Rationale:
The penalty for illegally kicking or batting the ball was reduced from 15 yards to 10 yards.

 

2019 EDITORIAL CHANGES
2-6-2b, 5-2-2, 5-2-4, 6-5-4, 7-2-5a, 8-5-2 EXCEPTION, 9-3-8 PENALTY, 10-4-2c EXCEPTION, 10-5-1j,

2019 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

  1. Proper Procedures for Weather Delays
  2. Expanded Neutral Zone as it Applies to Run or Pass Options
  3. Free-Blocking Zone and Legal Blocking
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 10:03 AM, WarTiger said:

REDEFINED REQUIREMENTS FOR A LEGAL SCRIMMAGE FORMATION [2-14-1, 7-2-5a]
Rationale: A legal scrimmage formation now requires at least five offensive players on their line of scrimmage with no more than four backs. This change will make it easier to identify legal and illegal offensive formations.

That math does not add up to 11 players.  Does this mean you can legally play offense with only 9 players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, triangletiger said:

That math does not add up to 11 players.  Does this mean you can legally play offense with only 9 players?

NO.  It's just changing the procedure the officials use to determine a legal formation.  In Federation rules we always counted 7 on the line of scrimmage.  Now, we are going to just be counting 4 in the backfield instead.  It's the way the college officials do it.  That's why when the white hat reports an illegal formation, he says too many players in the backfield instead of not enough on the line of scrimmage.    The requirement of having at least 5 offensive players on the line refers to numbering.  5 players on the line must be numbered 50-79.  The others on the line can be numbered anything 1-99 but if you are wearing 50-79 you are permanently ineligible to catch a forward pass (until the play makes it legal (ie tipped ball)). 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, WarTiger said:

NO.  It's just changing the procedure the officials use to determine a legal formation.  In Federation rules we always counted 7 on the line of scrimmage.  Now, we are going to just be counting 4 in the backfield instead.  It's the way the college officials do it.  That's why when the white hat reports an illegal formation, he says too many players in the backfield instead of not enough on the line of scrimmage.    The requirement of having at least 5 offensive players on the line refers to numbering.  5 players on the line must be numbered 50-79.  The others on the line can be numbered anything 1-99 but if you are wearing 50-79 you are permanently ineligible to catch a forward pass (until the play makes it legal (ie tipped ball)). 

Thanks for the clarification.  The bolded part is not clear in a plain reading of the way the rule is written.

Share this post


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.

Loading...