Be the Referee: No Tackle Box
October 3, 2019
This week, MHSAA officials coordinator Sam Davis explains the difference between high school and college/pro rules in regards to the football tackle box and intentional grounding.
Be The Referee is a series of short messages designed to help educate people on the rules of different sports, to help them better understand the art of officiating, and to recruit officials.
Below is this week's segment - No Tackle Box - Listen
Today we are going to talk about the rules that govern the quarterback, specifically when the quarterback is being rushed and is looking to throw the ball away and avoid the sack.
Under both pro and college rules, they have what’s called the tackle box. When the quarterback gets outside of the original position of the offensive tackles and throws the ball and it reaches the line of scrimmage, there is never a foul for intentional grounding.
However, under high school rules there is no such thing as a tackle box. If the quarterback is either in pocket or scrambles outside of the pocket and now is trying to throw that ball away to avoid the sack, there always must be a receiver in the vicinity of the pass to avoid an intentional grounding foul.
Past editions
Sept. 26: You Make the Overtime Call - Listen
Sept. 19: Swimming Finishing Touch - Listen
Sept. 12: Curbing Gamesmanship By Substitution - Listen
Sept. 5: Football Safety Rules Changes - Listen
Aug. 29: 40-Second Play Clock - Listen
Sweating the Small Stuff - #3
June 5, 2018
I’m sure it discouraged some of our state’s high school football coaches to learn that the Representative Council of the Michigan High School Athletic Association did not approve at its May 6-7 meeting what some people refer to as the “enhanced strength of schedule proposal” for determining 256 qualifiers to the MHSAA’s 11-player football playoffs.
There was desire among some Council members to appease those who keep trying to reduce the difficulties that a football tournament causes for regular season scheduling and conference affiliations. Others noted that the proposal, as presented, could cause as much harm to some schools and conferences as it would help others, that it did not solve the scheduling problem but shifted it.
During spirited discussion, some Council members resurrected two ideas that have been rejected previously, such as (1) doubling the playoffs once again (and shortening the regular season to eight games), and (2) coupling a six- or seven-win minimum with the revised strength of schedule criteria. The pros and cons of each idea flowed freely.
And therein is the problem. If one digs down into the details of proposals, both old and new, there are both positive and negative aspects apparent, both intended and unintended consequences likely.
There can be paralysis in analysis; but when we are dealing with more than 600 high school programs and a physically demanding sport with fewer regular-season contests permitted than in any other sport, one cannot be too careful. Eliminating one of just nine regular-season games? Increasing first-round tournament mismatches? Disadvantaging larger schools locked in leagues or areas of the state where smaller schools predominate? These are not minor matters.
And until there are sensible answers, these are not trivial questions.