Football rules changes -- not much here

[White hat]

The NFHS has issued its annual press release regarding the changes in football rules.

There isn't much here.

Basically, the NFHS is sick and tired of all the exposed knee caps and there is not a rule that works like the rule when a helmet comes off. An official sees the knees exposed, the player has to go off a play and get it fixed. If he wears pants that don't fit right, he's not going to be on the field much.

The other thing is that a penalty for a foul by the kicking team can be applied to the succeeding spot. Previously, if there was a 5-yard penalty on the kicking team, it would have to be declined to keep the ball. Now a receiving team can take the ball and get more yards.

Here's the release:

http://www.nfhs.org/articles/football-players-with-improper-equipment-will-be-removed-for-one-down/

 

[DinwiddieProud]

You veteran officials that have been so close to the game for years, and have witnessed the evolution of the game from you unique standpoint..., what rule's changes do you see in the next five to 10 years? I think it's a no-brainer that we will see ever more emphasis on player safety. But specifically, where do you see the most likely changes?

(Just like the infamous "press conference", I'll have a follow up question after we get your answer).

 

[White hat]

As much as I hate to say this, i think you're going to see kickoffs be fazed out. I haven't seen a greater number of injuries on kickoffs, but there is potential because all 22 players are going right at someone from distance. In theory, the collisions on kickoffs are at higher speed. I will be surprised if in 10 years there are still kickoffs. To get there, someone will have to come up with an option to the onside kick, it's too vital to the game.

I would like to see all low blocks eliminated. Be done with the free blocking zone.

Concussions are having a big effect on the game, as we know. Not sure what the answer is. Some people think that actually reducing the protection of helmets will help because players will stop using their heads. I disagree because 75% of the hardest hit to the head don't come fro other players, they come from the ground. This is especially true in youth games. Those kids are rarely running fast enough to seriously hurt another kid with a hit on a well-fitted helmet, but those kids are banging heads on the field all the time.

Finally, I wonder about the future of timing rules. Some states have experimented with the 40/25 second play clock they use in NCAA. I was against this at first, but now I'm more in favor of it. I don't think games with 12 minute quarters are too long, but the TV networks are doing all they can to shorten the NCAA games with 15 minute quarters and timing is a big part of this.

 

[DinwiddieProud]

I hadn't thought about the need for an alternative to the onsides kick, if the KO is removed from the game. Interesting.

You make the point about statistics not supporting some potential rules modifications. This is one of my favorite arguments. "Show me unbiased, statistical proof about football injuries." I don't deny the injuries, but every time I see a report on how dangerous football is, it is never reliably supported. And don't get me wrong, one injury to a kid is one too many, but let's get real. Not supporting an argument for rules changes with verifiable data is a disservice to the effort to make the game safer.

I don't see HS games running excessively long. Although I admit for reasons of being a fan, I love the no huddle, hurry up offense. It makes for an exciting game.

I think a continued improvement in helmet technology, with rules that do what is reasonable to take the "head" out of the game, is the way to go. I just don't think there will ever be any protection that will stop the brain from bouncing off the cranium during impact.

Sadly, and what scares me the most, is the changes in the game that will be the direct result of the fear of lawsuits. It's coming. Our game will be changed to some equivalent of flag football or 7 on 7, I fear.

 

[White hat]

There is no question that the people having the biggest effect on football rules are liability insurance companies.

I've had more than one coach take issue with the targeting rule or blindside block rule, as if it was something I personally wanted and instituted. I'm not a fan of the blindside block rule. I didn't write the thing.

Insurance companies who cover school divisions -- and their sports teams -- are terrified about getting sued because of possible long term effects from football, so they are pushing the rules changes. As much as I don't like it, the alternative is that premiums to insure a school with a football team will increase so much that there's no way to afford them.

Law suits are the biggest threat to the game. If a school system is sued and loses, football is done because no school will be able to get the insurance.

On a similar note, there has been talk about parents mad at officials' rulings going to court and suing officials. If that happens, there won't be any officials. I bet there's not a football official in the state who makes more than $2000 total in an entire season calling high school football. One lawsuit, even if it's unsuccessful, would cost far more than that to defend. No one is going to keep officiating if that happens.

 

[DinwiddieProud]

There is no question that the people having the biggest effect on football rules are liability insurance companies.

I've had more than one coach take issue with the targeting rule or blindside block rule, as if it was something I personally wanted and instituted. I'm not a fan of the blindside block rule. I didn't write the thing.

Insurance companies who cover school divisions -- and their sports teams -- are terrified about getting sued because of possible long term effects from football, so they are pushing the rules changes. As much as I don't like it, the alternative is that premiums to insure a school with a football team will increase so much that there's no way to afford them.

Law suits are the biggest threat to the game. If a school system is sued and loses, football is done because no school will be able to get the insurance.

On a similar note, there has been talk about parents mad at officials' rulings going to court and suing officials. If that happens, there won't be any officials. I bet there's not a football official in the state who makes more than $2000 total in an entire season calling high school football. One lawsuit, even if it's unsuccessful, would cost far more than that to defend. No one is going to keep officiating if that happens.

With respect to Officials: Sadly, there is some judge, somewhere, that will permit a case to be heard. And you are right, say goodby to most of your football officials. I find it very unlikely to happen here in Virginia, but it only takes one judge, and one good lawyer, and the genie is out of the bottle.

With respect to schools: the litigation that brings down high school football will be from a "supposed" brain injury from 10 or 15 years ago. Bringing a case to the courts for injury 20 years or more after the fact has very little chance. But starting about 15 years ago, there was a growing body of evidence that kids were being permanently brain damaged. And there was a window of about 10 years that a lawyer can say "you, (the school district), knew that kids were being harmed", "and you failed to react to a known problem". You only have to look at the litigation against the cigarette makers for the example.

In the last five years or so, the risk are extremely well documented, and basically all reasonable changes have been implemented to mitigate the possibility of injury. And there is explicit, comprehensive wording in the document that parents have to sign to allow their child to participate in football, detailing the risk. They don't sign away their rights, but they must have a much stronger argument to prevail after signing such an agreement.

In summary, if the school knew, or had reason to know, about the cumulative risk of head injuries, and made no attempt to address and educate about this syndrome, then they are wide open to litigation. Conversely, if every reasonable action has been taken, then proving the school culpable will be difficult.

Isn't it sad that the discussion about the future of high school football, and the likely rules changes, is more about litigation than running, passing and tackling?