‪Had a discussion about this yesterday with another coach specifically related to “Oklahoma.” It appears there are different interpretations of what this drill is depending on whose system you played/coached in.‬
 

Oklahoma to me meant 3 OL vs 3 DL in very close quarters (thus, not 4yds apart), with a QB handing to a RB who is to find the opening and cut away from a plugging LB. A VERY realistic “in-game scenario” and not a “test of strength” by any means. 
 

Other coached looked up “Oklahoma Drill” online and one interpretation of it was two players 5yds (or more) apart laying on their backs and on command they scramble to the feet and try to “win” against the other man. This seems to be what the recommendation is against more than the former. 

1 hour ago, theguru said:

So is this a hard and fast rule with no exceptions that these drills are banned or is this simply guidance/a strong recommendation that these drills be eliminated? 

Huge difference!  Anyone? 

Best I could find…. These drills have been banned in Kentucky & Massachusetts. The NFHS makes recommendations, but the final decision on “rules” is left up to each state association. 

3 hours ago, ChiefSmoke said:

Best I could find…. These drills have been banned in Kentucky & Massachusetts. The NFHS makes recommendations, but the final decision on “rules” is left up to each state association. 

I am not saying you are wrong but I do not think the wording here rises to the level of "banned" but rather it is a strong suggestion. From Commissioner Tackett:

"The following contact drills, if a part of workouts and practice, should be totally ELIMINATED"

"Should be" is not a ban and the announcement by Commissioner Tackett comes on the heels of the announcement by the (NFHS SMAC) that such drills are "deemed to need elimination."

So to summarize, the powers that be say these drills are "deemed to need elimination" and "should be totally ELIMINATED."

Those are strong suggestions, they are NOT a ban.

Anyone?

From Google AI:

The phrase "should be" indicates an expectation, likelihood, or a desired state. It is used to describe what is probable or what is considered the right condition.

In formal policies or legal documents, the term "should" is generally a recommendation, not a ban. While "must" and "must not" mandate rules, "should" allows flexibility. However, in casual, social, or subjective contexts, someone using "should" may be implying a strict social norm or an unwritten rule.

===========

The phrase "deemed to need elimination" typically refers to the process of identifying and removing unwanted or unnecessary elements across several different fields.

In legal and regulatory contexts, a mandate "deemed to need elimination" acts as a functional ban. It means the target (a product, practice, or substance) must be entirely phased out, withdrawn, or discontinued, effectively making it prohibited even if the word "banned" is avoided.

8 hours ago, theguru said:

So is this a hard and fast rule with no exceptions that these drills are banned or is this simply guidance/a strong recommendation that these drills be eliminated? 

Huge difference!  Anyone? 

I would imagine that if a player were to be severely injured doing one of these drills that the catastrophic injury insurance may not kick in. As a coach I would think you would have to re-think using those drills.

12 hours ago, theguru said:

So is this a hard and fast rule with no exceptions that these drills are banned or is this simply guidance/a strong recommendation that these drills be eliminated? 

Huge difference!  Anyone? 

The wording and specific dialogue that you’re referring to is a completely valid point. It was the first thing that I brought up to my sources when I read it. However, as I understand it now and am told, this is going into effect for all NKY schools as a hard rule - not guidance. These will be eliminated from use. 

15 hours ago, 9068 said:

I would imagine that if a player were to be severely injured doing one of these drills that the catastrophic injury insurance may not kick in. As a coach I would think you would have to re-think using those drills.

We never want to see anyone get injured but if 48 out of 50 athletic associations are allowing it then insurance "should" (see what I did there, lol) cover it. 

11 hours ago, PawPrints said:

The wording and specific dialogue that you’re referring to is a completely valid point. It was the first thing that I brought up to my sources when I read it. However, as I understand it now and am told, this is going into effect for all NKY schools as a hard rule - not guidance. These will be eliminated from use. 

In other words, the NKY schools caved..

From what I can see, it appears that Board Drills are mostly banned at the NCAA level, aside from the two exceptions below:

 

• One-on-one pass rush or pass protection drills are still allowed, provided they do not occur within these confined areas.
• Coaches are permitted to conduct the Board Drill with or without pads if it is done at a walking or jogging pace. 

On 7/10/2026 at 12:09 AM, PawPrints said:

The wording and specific dialogue that you’re referring to is a completely valid point. It was the first thing that I brought up to my sources when I read it. However, as I understand it now and am told, this is going into effect for all NKY schools as a hard rule - not guidance. These will be eliminated from use. 

 

On 7/10/2026 at 11:35 AM, theguru said:

In other words, the NKY schools caved..

I have to ask who specifically told you this is going into effect for all NKY schools? Is that something coming from like the superintendents of schools? I am curious because I have not heard this, especially with it being specific to NKY schools as you stated. 

2 minutes ago, futurecoach said:

I have to ask who specifically told you this is going into effect for all NKY schools? Is that something coming from like the superintendents of schools? I am curious because I have not heard this, especially with it being specific to NKY schools as you stated. 

This is exactly how "things" get started!  The "Boss" said we should, oh, I guess we are, they are, "everyone is" and I heard your insurance won't cover it, blah blah blah...

4 hours ago, futurecoach said:

 

I have to ask who specifically told you this is going into effect for all NKY schools? Is that something coming from like the superintendents of schools? I am curious because I have not heard this, especially with it being specific to NKY schools as you stated. 

I was told St. Elizabeth athletic trainers at NKY schools were given this guidance by their medical director as it was passed on from NFHS & then KHSAA (who essentially just copied the NFHS for their own). 

The way I understand it, the athletic trainers, coaches, AD’s, etc are all supposed to (maybe encouraged is the right word?) follow these guidelines. Now, as we have all pointed out, there are clear ‘gaps’ in the wording which some coaches very well may take advantage of and do as they please.

Whether intentional or not, the wording from Tackett allows self-interpretation which is why this is so unclear. But from the concussion/sport safety side of things, they’ve been told of the risks associated with these drills and are hoping for collaboration with coaches & AD’s to follow the guidelines to keep the players safe.