offside

Ugh. That hurts.

Somebody brought it up on another thread, but I've noticed it too: Is attendance at HS football games down this year? Is it just Northern Kentucky? Is it a side effect of the six class system? Is it the economy? Gas prices? Is it because of television (FSN, Insight cable and/or public access) or webcasts? Other fall sports? Marching band competitions? Or am I wrong?

I read the title of this thread and was excited at the prospect of offering some coaching advice. But now, only this one comes to mind... “Adults are just obsolete children, and the hell with them.”--Dr. Seuss

He had bad eyesight, so he took up reffing.

No officer, I don't think it's weird for a grown man to wear knickers.

Depends on who's wearing illegal cleats.

Neither the NFHS Rules Book, nor the Case Book, specifically says whether it is legal or illegal. Officials argue about it all the time. Here's the interpretation that I'm going with: From Rogers Redding's NFHS Football Rules: "Example 3-19. After the ready, all Team A players are set. As A53 snaps the ball, B72 reaches in and knocks the ball away. RULING: The umpire must decide whether the snap was illegal or B72 encroached. It is highly unlikely the preceding example could occur without a foul. In practicality, for a defensive player to knock the ball away, either the snapper would have to hesitate after lifting the ball making the snap illegal and thus allowing the opponent enough time to touch the ball, or the Team B player would have to put his hand into the neutral zone before the snap." In the context of the situation described in this thread, a highschool team taking a knee in the last seconds of a game, swatting at the snap should result in an encroachment foul against the defense. To quote HeyRef, "nothing good can come of it". I'll leave open the remote possibility that it could be a legal play if it happened some time earlier in the game. But that's a different can of worms we can discuss separately.

I've never seen it, but Coach J has actually had his team do it several times. See post 18. See the link in post 15 for some facts about it being done in the NFL.

Seems wacky, but that's probably because it's just rare to see it attempted. In the NFL, it appears that the period would be extended to make the kick if the clock ran out any time during the down in which a fair catch was made. In highschool football, unless there was kick catching interference, the period would not be extended to attempt the kick.

Not really; just like any free kick, they cannot cross their restraining line until the ball is kicked. The restraining lines are 10 yards apart.

I'll bet the PA announcer had a meltdown each time you tried it! "What in the...is this!?!" Hope I get to see somebody try it someday. That, and having a team get scored on elect to kickoff. The two Holy Grails of football reffing.

This is probably an awfully confusing thread to read.

Notice the NFL rule says that a kicking tee is not allowed during a "fair catch kick" attempt. It does appear that it is attempted from a free kick (kickoff formation). Check out this link: http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2006/07/nfl-fair-catch-kick-attempts.html (I rarely watch NFL games since we don't have a professional football team in Cincinnati.)

That is correct: Rule 6-5-4...The captain may choose to free kick or snap anywhere between the inbounds lines on the yard line through the spot of the catch when a fair catch is made, or through the spot of interference, when a fair catch is awarded. These choices remain if a dead-ball foul occurs prior to the down, or a foul or an inadvertent whistle occurs during the down and the down is replayed. I've never seen a free kick after a fair catch. I'm guessing that coaches either forget about it, or don't even know it exists as an option.

You are correct. I guess I need to bone up on my NFL rules: "If time expires while the ball is in play and a fair catch is awarded, the receiving team may choose to extend the period with one fair catch kick down. However, the placekicker may not use a tee." I found it under Fair Catch in the NFL Rules Digest, here's a link: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/digestofrules In high school football, there's an interesting twist: NFHS Rule 8-4-1a...A field goal attempt shall be...from a free kick following a fair catch or awarded fair catch. That's right, it's a 3 point scoring attempt from a kickoff formation. But there is no provision to extend the period for this unless it's an awarded fair catch penalty from a kick catching interference foul which occurred on the last timed down. NCAA rules do not allow for a 3 point free kick attempt after a fair catch, nor do they allow for an extension of the period after a fair catch.

An accepted penalty of some sort must have occurred during the down in order to extend the period. Maybe they were describing an "awarded fair catch", which is a penalty option for kick catching interference? Anyway, here's the high school rule about extending a period (the college rule is exactly the same): NFHS Rule 3-3-3...A period must be extended by an untimed down if during the last timed down of that period, one of the following occurred: a. There was a foul by either team and the penalty is accepted (with some exceptions). b. There was a double foul. c. There was an inadvertent whistle.

You had this exact look on your face: :scared: Cracks me up thinking about it. And thanks again to Jim and Z-man for the kind words. Speaking on behalf of all the zebras on BGP, we love to talk football almost as much as we love to be between the lines. Thanks for the opportunity.

Yes, I think it's an unfair act similar to the "where's the tee" scenario in the NFHS Case Book: 9.9.3 SITUATION B: From a field goal formation, potential kicker A1 yells, "Where's the tee?" A2 replies, "I'll go get it" and goes legally in motion toward his team's sideline. Ball is snapped to A1 who throws a touchdown pass to A2. RULING: Unsportsmanlike conduct prior to the snap. The ball should be declared dead and the foul enforced as a dead ball foul. COMMENT: Football has been and always will be a game of deception and trickery involving multiple shifts, unusual formations and creative plays. However, actions or verbiage designed to confuse the defense into believing there is a problem and a snap isn't imminent is beyond the scope of sportsmanship and is illegal. I don't think faking the kneel-down is an unfair act per se, but the verbiage (the coach yelling to take the knee before the fake) is. This interpretation did not exist in the Case Book until fairly recently. (Or, maybe I just didn't read it years ago!)

I like your thinking, coach.

I worked a game a few years back where this very thing happened. The coach for the offensive team told me he was going to take a knee, and screamed it over and over to his quarterback on the field. Everybody in the stadium heard him. So, we told the defense to lay off. Of course, the quarterback faked taking the knee, and before we could get our whistles to our stunned lips, he threw a pass to a wide open receiver who would have scored an 80+ yard touchdown. We eventually blew the play dead because we'd told the defense to lay off. Ironically, the coach for the defensive team was the one who complained--loudly I might add. He thought that his defense might have tackled the QB for a loss and possibly forced a last second punt if we hadn't blown it dead. I think it was overly optimistic on his part, especially since we called back a would-be touchdown for the other team, but he made a good point. I still think calling off the defense during a kneel-down is prudent in most game-ending situations. But not at the end of the first half.

This is going to be a tough one to explain because many of you are not going to agree with it. Frankly, I'm not sure I agree with the practice in a one-score game, but I understand where it comes from. The "Miracle in the Meadowlands", a play in which the New York Giants needed only to snap and down the ball one last time to seal a victory but instead fumbled and watched in disbelief as Herman Edwards returned it for a touchdown, has happened exactly once in the history of football. That play spawned the creation of the victory formation, making the likelihood of another "miracle" so remote it's almost impossible. When a team sets in the victory formation, what happens? The defense tries to cream the snapper to cause a fumble. Personal fouls happen, fights start, players get ejected--it gets ugly. This doesn't happen so much in college or the NFL, but it's a problem in high school football. Or at least it has been in the past. Because some officials have seen that happen so many times before, they will tell the defense to lay off. You might be thinking, instead of trying to blow up the center, what if the noseguard could swat the ball from the snapper before it gets to the quarterback? Technically, that's encroachment by the defense. So, with the victory formation, there's not much the defense can really do legally to try to create a fumble. I guess another 'miracle' could still happen, but a whole lot more bad things are much more likely. That's why some high school officials do this.

Thanks for the kind words. Answering questions on BGP is my favorite way to study the rules. It has made me a better official, so THANK YOU for asking the questions.

...yes, if the kick is touched prior to contacting the holder and the contact is unavoidable, it's probably not a foul. However, I don't think that was the scenario that JARS described. At least in my mind, I envisioned a play where the holder got hit in the back, either before or simultaneous to the blocked kick.

Yes, I think that hitting the holder in the back is avoidable. Whether the contact was slight is, obviously, subjective. This is probably the most I've ever thought about roughing the holder. Great question.

Rule 9-4-5...A defensive player shall neither run into the kicker nor holder, which is contact that displaces the kicker or holder without roughing; nor block, tackle, or charge into the kicker or holder, other than when: a. Contact is unavoidable because it is not reasonably certain that a kick will be made. b. The defense touches the kick near the kicker and contact is unavoidable. c. Contact is slight and is partially caused by movement of the kicker. d. Contact is caused by R being blocked into the kicker or holder by K.