Football Rules and Interpretations

[WarTiger 3,896]

On 11/1/2021 at 5:30 PM, bigbird said:

The wr clearly used his hand/arm to push off and create separation. That's what was flagged, I believe.

He extended his arm for sure but how much contact there was there is debatable, IMO.  Also the guy fell down after that, so no advantage there either.   Really need to be on the field (IMO) for this one to see if there was an actual push or just an extended arm.   That's why I believe something else happened earlier in the route that drew the flag.   It absolutely could have been that extended arm and maybe he did push off, but I'm inclined to believe there was something more.   Again, this is just my opinion and just a good way to explain some of the finer points of the rules some may not know.  

[Grumps 3,693]

Many players wear hoodies now under their shoulder pads. Is there a rule about putting the ball in the hoodie? I assume that putting the ball under your jersey or inside of a hoodie would both be against the rules.

[WarTiger 3,896]

The National Federation has released (a while back) their rule changes for 2022.  There are a lot of (what I would consider minor changes) and one significant change.   Some of them are:  

1.  They redefined Chop Block.  A chop block (if you didn't know) is a combination block by 2 teammates against a single opponent where one block is low and the other is high.  In previous years the knee was the determining spot the low block had to be below to make it a chop block.  Now, they have redone this and now the low block only needs to start below the waist instead of the knee.   A Chop Block has ALWAYS been an illegal block, and they are hoping this definition change will make it an easier call to make.  

2. In the final 2 minutes of either half any foul committed will automatically result in the offended team's option to start the game clock on the snap instead of the ready for play.  Prior to this change, the offended team could not gain control of the game clock unless they accepted the penalty. 

THE BIG ONE:

Rule 7-5-2 EXCEPTION 2 now permits a player to purposefully throw an incomplete forward pass without warranting an intentional grounding penalty provided the passer is outside of the free blocking zone (defined in college as the tackle box) and the pass reaches the neutral zone or the estension of the neutral zone beyond the sideline.

One significant thing to note here.  There's a difference in the rule at the Federation (high school) level and the college level.  In the college game the player controlling the snap MUST maintain posession throughout the down to legally throw the ball away.  He cannot give the ball to another player and get it back (like a flee flicker or reverse) and then throw it away.   This restriction does not exist under Federation rules (based on what I've read so far)  

[WarTiger 3,896]

rule interpretation from a play in our game last night. 

I've seen it asked in other places why Koy Moore didn't just throw the ball away to avoid the loss yardage (or interception that happened) 

Well, the answer to that is he couldn't legally throw the ball away in that situation. If he had thrown it out of bounds it would have been a penalty for intentional grounding.  Why?  Because only the player that controls the snap can legally throw the ball away.  The player that controls the snap also has to maintain possession throughout the down.  If he gives up the ball and gets it back he can't legally throw the ball away either.  Here's the rule reference for it:

Rule 7-3-2 exception

[Exception: It is not a foul if the passer is or has been outside the tackle box
and throws the ball so that it crosses or lands beyond the neutral zone or
neutral zone extended (Rule 2-19-3) (A.R. 7-3-2-VIII-X). This applies only
to the player who controls the snap or the resulting backward pass and does
not relinquish possession to another player before throwing the forward
pass.]
PENALTY [f-h]—Loss of down at the spot of the foul [S36 and S9].

[LKEEL75 2,566]

Hey @WarTiger.  Its been a minute but a couple of calls in last couple of weekends have caused some questions for me.

1) Just this past weekend, I saw a call where a rugby style punter was run into.  It was not flagrant but could easily be called.  The ref threw the flag.  Then waved it off because he said punter was outside the box.  Is this accurate?  Can you rough a punter if he rolls out or is this a blown call?

 

2) A couple weeks back, during an onside kick attempt; the kicking team did recover after the 10 yards.  The strange thing was a flag was thrown for kick catch interference.  Apparently some player waved for fair catch and therefore recovery was overturned.  Is this legit?  If so then why wouldn't every team wave for fair catch on every obvious onside kick.  Or even if the deep returner sees it happening then start waving?

 

Thanks in advance and sorry if you already answered these prior to now.

[WarTiger 3,896]

2 hours ago, LKEEL75 said:

Hey @WarTiger.  Its been a minute but a couple of calls in last couple of weekends have caused some questions for me.

1) Just this past weekend, I saw a call where a rugby style punter was run into.  It was not flagrant but could easily be called.  The ref threw the flag.  Then waved it off because he said punter was outside the box.  Is this accurate?  Can you rough a punter if he rolls out or is this a blown call?

 

2) A couple weeks back, during an onside kick attempt; the kicking team did recover after the 10 yards.  The strange thing was a flag was thrown for kick catch interference.  Apparently some player waved for fair catch and therefore recovery was overturned.  Is this legit?  If so then why wouldn't every team wave for fair catch on every obvious onside kick.  Or even if the deep returner sees it happening then start waving?

 

Thanks in advance and sorry if you already answered these prior to now.

1. That is absolutely accurate.  Once the punter moves outside the tacklebox his protection goes away.

Roughing or Running Into Kicker or Holder
ARTICLE 16. a. When it is obvious that a scrimmage kick will be made, no
opponent shall run into or rough the kicker or the holder of a place kick (A.R.
9-1-16-I, III and VI).
1. Roughing is a live-ball personal foul that endangers the kicker or holder.
2. Running into the kicker or holder is a live-ball foul that occurs when
the kicker or holder is displaced from his kicking or holding position
but is not roughed (A.R. 9-1-16-II).
3. Incidental contact with a kicker or holder is not a foul.
4. The kicker’s protection under this rule ends (a)when he has had a
reasonable time to regain his balance(A.R. 9-1-16-IV); or (b)when he
carries the ball outside the tackle box (Rule 2-34) before kicking.

Hope that takes care of it. 

2.  I would love to see the entire play if you can find it.   There was a rule put in place a few years ago allowing the receiving team to call for a fair catch on a grounded kick (think single hop kick) but I can't seem to find it in the book anywhere.   I'll keep looking for it.  That could have been what was called.  Remember its also illegal for the kicking team to block before they can legally recover the kick so it could have been that too, except that would be a personal foul penalty.   If you can find the play, let me know. I would love to see it.

[LKEEL75 2,566]

Thank you for the updates. Here is that play.  

 

[WarTiger 3,896]

4 hours ago, LKEEL75 said:

Thank you for the updates. Here is that play.  

 

Call was spot on.  Thanks for posting the play.  I found the rule reference on it.  I knew it was put in several years ago. 

During a free kick a player of the receiving team in position to receive the
ball has the same kick-catch and fair-catch protection whether the ball is
kicked directly off the tee or is immediately driven to the ground, strikes
the ground once and goes into the air in the manner of the ball kicked
directly off the tee.

[LKEEL75 2,566]

On 11/5/2022 at 8:05 PM, WarTiger said:

Call was spot on.  Thanks for posting the play.  I found the rule reference on it.  I knew it was put in several years ago. 

During a free kick a player of the receiving team in position to receive the
ball has the same kick-catch and fair-catch protection whether the ball is
kicked directly off the tee or is immediately driven to the ground, strikes
the ground once and goes into the air in the manner of the ball kicked
directly off the tee.

So why wouldn't every team wave for fair catch before every obvious onside KO?

[WarTiger 3,896]

On 11/7/2022 at 3:09 PM, LKEEL75 said:

So why wouldn't every team wave for fair catch before every obvious onside KO?

Read my reference again.  It only applies to kicks directly off the Tee or kicks driven immediately into the ground with the single hop.   

A few years ago the National Federation (governs high school rules) actually put a rule in place that makes those kicks (National Federation refers to them as POP UP KICKS) illegal.  If a team does that, we are flagging it and killing the play and it's a 5 yard penalty for an illegal kick.

[TXaubie 566]

On 11/1/2021 at 5:17 PM, oracle79 said:

Pardon my ignorance (or NFL knowledge). So, are you saying you can jack up the receiver anywhere on the field before the pass is thrown as long as you aren't holding him?

Pretty much. In college, yes. Pro’s you cannot. Pros you Can only make contact in the first 5 “ish” yards. It may actually be less than 5 yards now a days.🤷‍♂️ But the over all rule has not changed!!
 

I think it makes it hard to tell how good a DB is gonna be at the next level. 

[WarTiger 3,896]

On 11/1/2021 at 5:17 PM, oracle79 said:

Pardon my ignorance (or NFL knowledge). So, are you saying you can jack up the receiver anywhere on the field before the pass is thrown as long as you aren't holding him?

somehow I missed this one.   Answer to your question:  Absolutely NOT.  Defender can't prevent the offensive player from running his route.   Even though it's not defensive pass interference (since the ball hasn't been thrown) its still not legal and would likely be a personal foul.

[WarTiger 3,896]

On 12/14/2022 at 9:25 PM, TXaubie said:

Pretty much. In college, yes. Pro’s you cannot. Pros you Can only make contact in the first 5 “ish” yards. It may actually be less than 5 yards now a days.🤷‍♂️ But the over all rule has not changed!!
 

I think it makes it hard to tell how good a DB is gonna be at the next level. 

Not accurate.   Rule 9-3-4d and E

d. Defensive players may not use hand and arms to tackle, hold or otherwise illegally obstruct an opponent other than a runner.

e. Densive players may ward off or legally block an eligible pass receiver until that player occupies the same yard line as the defender or until the opponent could not possibly block him.  Continuous contact is illegal (A.R. 9-3-5-I)

PENALTY: [c-e]- 10 or 15 yards.

[WarTiger 3,896]

 

From our game last night.  Most here already know why Cal didn't get the touchdown on the Thorne fumble.  But, just in case there are some that still don't clearly understand I thought I would break it down a bit and explain what the white hat could have done better after the review. 

So, Thorne is scrambling, gets near the sideline and the ball gets fumbled forward.  Thorne was clearly still in bounds when he lost possession and the Cal player was in bounds when he gained possession and never stepped out on the way to the endzone.  However, the linesman (official) on that sideline, saw thorne step out of bounds and stepped up behind him to mark the out of bounds spot.  He was looking directly into Thornes back and had no idea he had lost possession.    When they reviewed it they realized he did in fact fumble it and it was a free ball, but because the whistle had blown the play was dead there.  They can award the change of possession on the immediate recovery but not the advancement of the ball.  

When the white hat came back and reported the reversal after replay he never mentions the whistle being blown. He basically ignored that piece of information.  DRIVES ME CRAZY WHEN THEY IGNORE THAT and they do it ALL THE TIME.   It was, by rule, an inadvertent whistle. When that happens the play is over right then.   

So we have a fumble, inadvertent whistle (that wasn't acknowledged) and a clear recovery.

When the white hat came back after video review, he should have broken it down better than he did.  He should have said something like this:

After further video review, the runner was not out of bounds, lost possession, then we had a whistle blow, followed by an immediate recovery by the defense.  Since the whistle blew, we have an inadvertent whistle and the play is over at that point and the defense will take over 1st and 10 at the spot of recovering the fumble (give the yard line).  

Rule References:

Rule 4:

Live Ball Becomes Dead

ARTICLE 2. a. A live ball becomes a dead ball as provided in the rules or when an official sounds his whistle (even though inadvertently) or otherwise signals the ball dead (A.R. 4-2-1-II and A.R. 4-2-4-I).

2. If an official sounds his whistle inadvertently or otherwise signals the ball dead during a down (Rules 4-1-3-k, m and n) (A. R. 4-1-2-I-V):

   1. When the ball is in player possession, the team in possession may elect to put the ball in play where declared dead or repeat the down.

   2. When the ball is loose from a fumble, backward pass or illegal pass, the team in possession may elect to put the ball in play where possession was lost or repeat the down (Exception: Rule 12-3-3-d).

This is RULE 12-3-3-d EXCEPTION listed above in article 2.b.2 (Video Review)

Dead Ball and Loose Ball

ARTICLE 3. Reviewable plays involving potential dead balls and loose balls include:
a. Loose ball by a potential passer ruled a fumble.
b. Loose ball by a passer ruled incomplete forward pass when there is clear recovery or the ball goes out of bounds in the immediate continuing action after the loose ball.

1. If the replay official does not have indisputable video evidence as to which team recovers or the ball going out of bounds, the ruling of incomplete pass stands.

2. If the replay official rules fumble and the ball is recovered, the ball belongs to the recovering team at the spot of the recovery and any advance is nullified.

[Dwayne Pride 379]

@WarTiger

 

Can you review/explain the two point conversion that was originally waved off and then ruled complete at the end of the St. Michael/TR Miller game?   Last time I checked, there was no replay except in championship play and that was limited.  
 

I suspect that crew will be home for the holidays (playoffs). 
 

I have no dog in said fight.  Just curious.  

[WarTiger 3,896]

On 10/29/2023 at 9:03 PM, Dwayne Pride said:

@WarTiger

 

Can you review/explain the two point conversion that was originally waved off and then ruled complete at the end of the St. Michael/TR Miller game?   Last time I checked, there was no replay except in championship play and that was limited.  
 

I suspect that crew will be home for the holidays (playoffs). 
 

I have no dog in said fight.  Just curious.  

If you can provide me a video of the play, I would love to see it.   If no video break the play down for me and tell me what happened

[Dwayne Pride 379]

10 hours ago, WarTiger said:

If you can provide me a video of the play, I would love to see it.   If no video break the play down for me and tell me what happened

https://www.al.com/highschoolsports/2023/10/st-michael-downs-tr-miller-55-54-in-overtime-after-controversial-finish.html

 

@WarTiger

[WarTiger 3,896]

On 10/31/2023 at 5:41 PM, Dwayne Pride said:

https://www.al.com/highschoolsports/2023/10/st-michael-downs-tr-miller-55-54-in-overtime-after-controversial-finish.html

 

@WarTiger

Based on that video I would rule that INCOMPLETE every time.  It doesn't look to me like he ever had control of the ball and the official on the goal line had an unobstructed view of the play.  He's on the goal line where he should be and he punches back the backward pass which he should have done, and in my opinion he had the best view of that and he was closest to it.   He was clearly unsure because there was never a signal one way or the other, which is a really bad look.  Ultimately the white on the crew will make the final ruling when there's a situation like this but I will say them getting together after the initial ruling and changing the call is a really bad look.  

[Dwayne Pride 379]

On 11/2/2023 at 6:45 AM, WarTiger said:

Based on that video I would rule that INCOMPLETE every time.  It doesn't look to me like he ever had control of the ball and the official on the goal line had an unobstructed view of the play.  He's on the goal line where he should be and he punches back the backward pass which he should have done, and in my opinion he had the best view of that and he was closest to it.   He was clearly unsure because there was never a signal one way or the other, which is a really bad look.  Ultimately the white on the crew will make the final ruling when there's a situation like this but I will say them getting together after the initial ruling and changing the call is a really bad look.  

The spot in the video where I think it most likely hit the ground is a little obscured but whatever the official on the goal line saw should have been called with some semblance of authority and then the crew lives or dies with that.  
 

I officiate other sports and making a call in a reasonable amount of time (a few seconds) with emphasis on the call to sell it is crucial.  Would a no call, huddle and then ruling been the best course of action here?

[WarTiger 3,896]

40 minutes ago, Dwayne Pride said:

The spot in the video where I think it most likely hit the ground is a little obscured but whatever the official on the goal line saw should have been called with some semblance of authority and then the crew lives or dies with that.  
 

I officiate other sports and making a call in a reasonable amount of time (a few seconds) with emphasis on the call to sell it is crucial.  Would a no call, huddle and then ruling been the best course of action here?

It's rarely ever the best course of action.  In this case, the official on the goal line HAD to make that call and he froze.   As I mentioned above, he appears to have an unobstructed view of that play and should have been able to immediately make the call and sell it emphatically to show there was no doubt he was right.  Not signaling at all and then making a ruling only to reverse it after another conference is a VERY BAD LOOK.

There are situations where we have to get together some times because each official has different responsibilities.   An example of that would be a catch in the endzone close to the sideline or endline.   One official makes sure he's in bounds the other makes sure he has possession. Those 2 may come together and one may say, "Hey I have a catch if you saw his feet down",  "Or he might come in and say, "He never had control, it's going to be imcomplete".  

[Dwayne Pride 379]

56 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

It's rarely ever the best course of action.  In this case, the official on the goal line HAD to make that call and he froze.   As I mentioned above, he appears to have an unobstructed view of that play and should have been able to immediately make the call and sell it emphatically to show there was no doubt he was right.  Not signaling at all and then making a ruling only to reverse it after another conference is a VERY BAD LOOK.

There are situations where we have to get together some times because each official has different responsibilities.   An example of that would be a catch in the endzone close to the sideline or endline.   One official makes sure he's in bounds the other makes sure he has possession. Those 2 may come together and one may say, "Hey I have a catch if you saw his feet down",  "Or he might come in and say, "He never had control, it's going to be imcomplete".  

So similar to a double whistle on a block/charge in basketball.  Quick three second conversation.  

[frozennugget 0]

Have the uniform rules been updated to allow players to wear shorts now?  Some of these pants are mid-thigh and have no pads.  I thought player safety was important or are we moving to Aussie Rules where you can only tackle above the waist and below the neck?  And these kids need to get off my lawn!

[WarTiger 3,896]

16 hours ago, frozennugget said:

Have the uniform rules been updated to allow players to wear shorts now?  Some of these pants are mid-thigh and have no pads.  I thought player safety was important or are we moving to Aussie Rules where you can only tackle above the waist and below the neck?  And these kids need to get off my lawn!

The rules haven't changed at all.  It just seems to be an after thought on enforcing that.  Watch games and see how many players have a mouth piece and aren't actually wearing it during play.     Unless its enforced like it should be, its going to continue.

[TXaubie 566]

In our game against NMSU. On the Play in first quarter where we jumped offsides, then they threw an int…so  two penalties. 5 for them (in play) and then 15 for us (dead ball penalty)…I understand all that. I am just curious why they reset the chains to make it 1 and 10 again? IIRC, it was 1 and 10 when the original play happened?!?!  
 

****NVM-  I went back and saw it was not 1st and 10. It was 2nd and 2.  I get it now. I Must have missed the first down play on first watch!!!  Excuse my ignorance!!

Edited November 18, 2023 by TXaubie
Ignorance

[WarTiger 3,896]

So, I'm constantly validated that even head coaches or former head coaches do NOT know the rules.   The play that just happened in our game vs. new Mexico State, where they handed it off and did an end around and the ball carrier was chased out of bounds for a loss of 10 yards.   However, Derek Mason and former Division 1 HEAD COACH in the SEC says, the QB has to have awareness and throw that ball to the line of scrimmage and out of bounds to avoid the loss yardage.    Problem here Derek Mason.   He couldn't LEGALLY do that in that situation.  The QB gave up possession of the ball during the down.  Once that happens, NOBODY can legally throw the ball away to avoid loss yardage, even if he gets it back he CANNOT legally throw that ball away.   If he throws it away there, its an penalty for Intentional Grounding which would carry a loss of down at the spot of the foul.

How in the world doesn't a former Division 1 HEAD COACH know that?