New regs on when teams can begin hitting.

[HereWeGo2019]

Not sure if this is specific to NCS or if this is state wide, but notice just went out yesterday notifying coaches that football players will not be allowed to dawn a helmet, shoulder pads or pad of any sort until Aug 5th. That means that teams who open Aug 23rd will have had 16 calendar days available to prepare in full gear before game 1. (That’s if they were to go 6 days a week) That also means there will be players who have never played the game before putting on helmets and hitting full speed with 3 weeks to fully acclimate to wearing a helmet. Imagine being the freshman in this scenario. Add in hitting limitations in practice,,,,,

This is an irresponsible move. Believable at the state level, but not unacceptable by any means especially if specific only to NCS. It’s a safety issue for sure. How can you say kids will acclimate to wearing a heavy helmet in 3 weeks and call it a safety measure. Starting games earlier to accommodate state playoffs and now starting practices and hitting later.

Probably means uglier football in late August than usual. But more importantly fingers crossed that this doesn’t have health consequences for our young players. I’m fine with controlling the hitting but let them wear helmets.

 

[FBAddict]

I'm pretty sure these are CIF-mandated rules. I get the theory behind these rule changes but I think it actually increases the likelihood of injury early in the season. And since these rules can't be applied nationwide, it creates increased disparity between states.

 

[NorCalSportsFan]

Reason for growth in contact camps and importance to play lower levels (Pop Warner and Youth Football) than starting out as a freshman. I also think the rule is too much. They should just limit the amount of hitting during the weeks practice like they do anyways. Have a couple camp weeks and then allow a day a week to scrimmage. If they are coaching proper tackling technique it would be a benefit. If they want to take contact our of the sport as a whole, they might as well just make it a club sport.

 

[HereWeGo2019]

Confirmed it’s a CIF mandate. Can’t help but feel like it’s a systematic take down of the sport. Just a little at a time. Hope I’m wrong.

 

[newguy13]

I am sure many teams will also be participating in jamborees the week prior to the 23rd as well.

How many non-padded practices are required before contact can begin?

 

[Streak One]

In the past, I think it has been 10 practices. Was it two years ago, Pitt was a practice short before their jamboree?

 

[Kickingtee18]

I am sure many teams will also be participating in jamborees the week prior to the 23rd as well.
How many non-padded practices are required before contact can begin?

Reading CIF regs, looks like 5 days without pads. Considering kids are year round now and out of pads for most of it, 5 more days just helps extend the season!

 

[raffidog123]

Is it possible that some schools could have players who just happen to practice together in an off campus location and just happen to have some old pads and helmets they could use throughout the summer.

In that scenario, would the players get in trouble?

 

[FBAddict]

Is it possible that some schools could have players who just happen to practice together in an off campus location and just happen to have some old pads and helmets they could use throughout the summer.

In that scenario, would the players get in trouble?

Key words - school could have players - which is the object? Schools or players. Players can do pretty much what they want outside the knowledge or promotion of schools. However, the schools need to strictly adhere to the rules. So if the coach has knowledge of such actions, its a gray area violation. If the coach promotes such personal action - its a violation. If the coach knows nothing about it - how can it be a violation. If a coach says, if you do it - don't tell me - possibly a gray area violation.

 

[mistark]

Players can do whatever they want. If a coach is present for this then the program is in violation.

 

[SpeedCity51]

They are just trying to lower the amount of hitting outside games, just like every other level of the sport. Can’t change a rule because people “think” this “might” lead to more injuries early in the season. But if data comes out that injuries in weeks 1 and 2 have gone up, then they would probably consider a change.

 

[mistark]

Cif allowed helmets for spring ball about 10 years ago. One school ruined that very quickly for the rest. CIF has 2 CYA for the mistakes of few and we all have to make it work.

 

[Kickingtee18]

If the coach knows nothing about it - how can it be a violation.

Coaches have been fired for program issues they knew nothing about, fair or not.

 

[RidgeRider]

This is legal and political posturing.

 

[HereWeGo2019]

They are just trying to lower the amount of hitting outside games, just like every other level of the sport. Can’t change a rule because people “think” this “might” lead to more injuries early in the season. But if data comes out that injuries in weeks 1 and 2 have gone up, then they would probably consider a change.

Not disputing what they are trying to do. But not acclimating players to helmets goes against common sense. It doesn’t take data and analysis to know that some players will need much more time to adapt to wearing a 3 1/2 pound helmet. Same with not wearing helmets during 7v7 as they did for generations. Since the new rules (for June/July) have been in place I’ve seen multiple facial and head injuries including missing teeth and concussions from unintentional contact or simple falls. Injuries that likely would never have happened in a helmet.

 

[FBAddict]

Coaches have been fired for program issues they knew nothing about, fair or not.

True in some level - however, if a group of like-minded friends get together from various groups (schools and ages). it would indefensible to hold a coach responsible. Your scenario presupposes some level of coach lack of oversight.

 

[SpeedCity51]

Not disputing what they are trying to do. But not acclimating players to helmets goes against common sense. It doesn’t take data and analysis to know that some players will need much more time to adapt to wearing a 3 1/2 pound helmet. Same with not wearing helmets during 7v7 as they did for generations. Since the new rules (for June/July) have been in place I’ve seen multiple facial and head injuries including missing teeth and concussions from unintentional contact or simple falls. Injuries that likely would never have happened in a helmet.

It doesn’t take data and analysis? Wtf? Well it SHOULD take data and analysis, these are children’s brains/bodies we are talking about here. As far as I am concerned the burden of proof lies on people saying more hitting is better for safety. People that disagree with this need to come to the CIF with more then “we think this is probably true” followed by some anecdotes where they attribute every injury early in the season to this rule.

You could start by compiling some data from other states with more lax rules and compare and contrast the early season injury rates to California. But anecdotes and hunches aren’t going to cut it.

 

[Paloma]

In the past, I think it has been 10 practices. Was it two years ago, Pitt was a practice short before their jamboree?

It was last year and was the majority of the NCS that was a practice short.

Apparently Cruickshank noticed a message was not sent to the athletic directors when the new no padded contact rule was implemented and notified everyone in June. Obviously that’s speculation, but believable considering last year Lemon didn’t notify athletic directors about last year’s new ten practice rule and relied on the posting of rules on the NCS web site. Thus, the majority of NCS teams could not participate in scrimmages.

Bon Voyage Gil!

 

[HereWeGo2019]

It doesn’t take data and analysis? Wtf? Well it SHOULD take data and analysis, these are children’s brains/bodies we are talking about here. As far as I am concerned the burden of proof lies on people saying more hitting is better for safety. People that disagree with this need to come to the CIF with more then “we think this is probably true” followed by some anecdotes where they attribute every injury early in the season to this rule.

You could start by compiling some data from other states with more lax rules and compare and contrast the early season injury rates to California. But anecdotes and hunches aren’t going to cut it.

I don’t need to compile anything. It’s not my job. It’s the job of those who are making the decisions that impact the safety of our kids. More importantly I said nothing about hitting. This thread has nothing to do with hitting with helmets. My point was preparing for hitting. You can’t put on a helmet and start hitting. The new rule will have some coaches hitting day 1. It takes time to physically prepare and acclimate and the new rule eliminates the acclimation period. Let me say it again so you understand. Putting on a helmet doesn’t equate to hitting. But seeing how you understand physics of hitting, preparation, coaching children and the “facts” behind it supported by your “data and analysis” do inform me so I can take it to the field to properly prepare “children” about to engage in the most physically challenging activity they have ever faced in their lives.

 

[SpeedCity51]

I don’t need to compile anything. It’s not my job. It’s the job of those who are making the decisions that impact the safety of our kids. More importantly I said nothing about hitting. This thread has nothing to do with hitting with helmets. My point was preparing for hitting. You can’t put on a helmet and start hitting. The new rule will have some coaches hitting day 1. It takes time to physically prepare and acclimate and the new rule eliminates the acclimation period. Let me say it again so you understand. Putting on a helmet doesn’t equate to hitting. But seeing how you understand physics of hitting, preparation, coaching children and the “facts” behind it supported by your “data and analysis” do inform me so I can take it to the field to properly prepare “children” about to engage in the most physically challenging activity they have ever faced in their lives.

I accept the rule change, I don’t need to “prove” anything. Anyways, don’t let me get in the way of your unproductive whining and complaining.

 

[mistark]

If the CIF cares so much about head injuries, one wonders why they are always adding games? Im all for 7-8 regular season games and 3-4 playoff games max but I am in the minority. I also think the lower levels should be set up as A/B teams, go to 6-7 games for 10-12 weeks. More practice, training and study hall for lower levels.

Im off my soap box now, back to work.

 

[Kickingtee18]

Im all for 7-8 regular season games and 3-4 playoff games max

Will join you as a minority member, totally agree there are more games than needed. However, if a kid doesn't make the playoffs, it is a ridiculous number of hours required year-round for 8 games, so put a limit on that, too.

 

[Streak One]

If the CIF cares so much about head injuries, one wonders why they are always adding games? Im all for 7-8 regular season games and 3-4 playoff games max but I am in the minority. I also think the lower levels should be set up as A/B teams, go to 6-7 games for 10-12 weeks. More practice, training and study hall for lower levels.

Im off my soap box now, back to work.

Stop being logical

All seriousness, this is a good idea and helps extend the money is that tight with high school sports.

 

[Sacchiefs]

If the CIF cares so much about head injuries, one wonders why they are always adding games? Im all for 7-8 regular season games and 3-4 playoff games max but I am in the minority. I also think the lower levels should be set up as A/B teams, go to 6-7 games for 10-12 weeks. More practice, training and study hall for lower levels.

Im off my soap box now, back to work.

For selfish reasons id say im on the opposite end of this coversation in favor of more games. 9 months of preparation and training for only 10 games and one scrimmage has always been a bit much and the season is over in a hurry. Id like to see a 12 game regular season with a 4-6 game state playoff format followed by a 2-4 game national chamionship playoff system between the top state champions in the country. Again for selfish reasons id like to see more not less. Player safety being the major concern, id emphasis putting a cap on a players playing time, limiting them to so many snaps a game while requiring coaches to utilize the entire roster. Having players going all three ways (offense, defense, and special teams) places them at a greater risk. Fatigue will eventually at some point kick in and lead to poor techniques and poor decision making, increasing the risk of injury. On the opposite end, i wonder what impact playing an 8 game season would have in regards to safety? Realistically i see the argument one could make. Less games less oppurtunity to get hurt. Im using the same analogy with restricting playing time. I cant help but think tho that limiting the amount of games could deture some players from playing. And i could only image the extra stress put on coaches and by coaches to extend their season and make it to playoff. In this scenaio i see players selling out and sacrificing their bodys even more so than they do now. Every game would have that playoff atmosphere where we all have heard the phrase "leave it all on the field, there is no tomorrow". Anyways im sure others may have some good ideas or thoughts on the topic

 

[zebs]

If we recall just few years ago it was two days helmets. Third day full gear and if you played a zero week you would play your game the 3rd week with only 14 days in pads if you practice on a Saturday and scrimmage the following Saturday. Now with the contact rules of only 90 min a week you have to find ways to teach proper technique without pads or contact. I.E. lots of Tackling rings and bag/sled work.

 

[mistark]

For selfish reasons id say im on the opposite end of this coversation in favor of more games. 9 months of preparation and training for only 10 games and one scrimmage has always been a bit much and the season is over in a hurry. Id like to see a 12 game regular season with a 4-6 game state playoff format followed by a 2-4 game national chamionship playoff system between the top state champions in the country. Again for selfish reasons id like to see more not less. Player safety being the major concern, id emphasis putting a cap on a players playing time, limiting them to so many snaps a game while requiring coaches to utilize the entire roster. Having players going all three ways (offense, defense, and special teams) places them at a greater risk. Fatigue will eventually at some point kick in and lead to poor techniques and poor decision making, increasing the risk of injury. On the opposite end, i wonder what impact playing an 8 game season would have in regards to safety? Realistically i see the argument one could make. Less games less oppurtunity to get hurt. Im using the same analogy with restricting playing time. I cant help but think tho that limiting the amount of games could deture some players from playing. And i could only image the extra stress put on coaches and by coaches to extend their season and make it to playoff. In this scenaio i see players selling out and sacrificing their bodys even more so than they do now. Every game would have that playoff atmosphere where we all have heard the phrase "leave it all on the field, there is no tomorrow". Anyways im sure others may have some good ideas or thoughts on the topic

I hear your points. I think we should go to Tiers to eliminate pointless games. Lets make 3-5 A/B and C leagues each W/6-8 teams, allowed only to schedule vs other similar rated leagues or out of section/state teams.

Promote/Relegate every 2-4 years based on point/seeding system.
SFL could pretty much stay the same. Add a SFL B league and C league. Have a "City league with Antelope, Capital, Del Campo, Grant, Indy and Sac. Add a "City" B and C as well as Hwy 50 leagues. Shoot we could go with Indy, Rio Linda, Vaca, Vanden, Wood. Bunch of ways to make it work.
I think this takes enrollment out of equation, take the best teams and makes them play each other and it allows for other programs to grow n play vs similar competition.

I have a lot I could add on how to make this work but it would take all night.

 

[concrete17]

I hear your points. I think we should go to Tiers to eliminate pointless games. ...........
Bunch of ways to make it work.

I think this takes enrollment out of equation, take the best teams and makes them play each other and it allows for other programs to grow n play vs similar competition.

I have a lot I could add on how to make this work but it would take all night.

Start a thread. I'll bite...

 

[RidgeRider]

I hear your points. I think we should go to Tiers to eliminate pointless games. Lets make 3-5 A/B and C leagues each W/6-8 teams, allowed only to schedule vs other similar rated leagues or out of section/state teams.

Promote/Relegate every 2-4 years based on point/seeding system.
SFL could pretty much stay the same. Add a SFL B league and C league. Have a "City league with Antelope, Capital, Del Campo, Grant, Indy and Sac. Add a "City" B and C as well as Hwy 50 leagues. Shoot we could go with Indy, Rio Linda, Vaca, Vanden, Wood. Bunch of ways to make it work.
I think this takes enrollment out of equation, take the best teams and makes them play each other and it allows for other programs to grow n play vs similar competition.

I have a lot I could add on how to make this work but it would take all night.

Sort of like European soccer where there is relegation for the bottom teams each season or two and promotion for top teams from the B & C leagues. I like it.

 

[Sacchiefs]

I hear your points. I think we should go to Tiers to eliminate pointless games. Lets make 3-5 A/B and C leagues each W/6-8 teams, allowed only to schedule vs other similar rated leagues or out of section/state teams.

Promote/Relegate every 2-4 years based on point/seeding system.
SFL could pretty much stay the same. Add a SFL B league and C league. Have a "City league with Antelope, Capital, Del Campo, Grant, Indy and Sac. Add a "City" B and C as well as Hwy 50 leagues. Shoot we could go with Indy, Rio Linda, Vaca, Vanden, Wood. Bunch of ways to make it work.
I think this takes enrollment out of equation, take the best teams and makes them play each other and it allows for other programs to grow n play vs similar competition.

I have a lot I could add on how to make this work but it would take all night.

Please dont pay me no mind because in my world i love football so much i wish ever friday night of the year there was a game. Just saying. Realistically tho you make good points and i agree with concrete17, you should start a new thread about this. It would be a good discussion and id like to see what other layers you would add. For me i like the break down on the different leagues. In your scenario id add jesuit and capital Christian to group A in place of grant and whitney. Add elk grove, christain brothers, and Monterey trail to that list of the city league teams.

 

[mistark]

Sac I agree with ur teams. I was just throwing in mine as an examples. Maybe I will throw something together.

 

[HSfan82]

CIF should allow last week of July as helmet practice for conditioning purposes. This way kids get 4 or 5 days of practice in helmets, allow them to feel weight and movement with helmet. Get used to being hot and sweaty, especially kids new to football. THEN allow 1st week of official football be full pads. Its a logical progressive safe process.