Uncommonly enforced rules

[Ralph Damren]

WHOA, you guys have convinced me that this isn't needed . I'm sure the debate would be around LOD if OPI was intentional. In reviewing video I've probably seen many more OPI that looked intentional, as the intended receiver grabs the defender to prevent him from intercepting an underthrown pass. As I recall, AFD was hulled out of DPI to enable LOD to be removed from OPI. I voted no on this ,as I feared it could open up the potential of intent on passes into the EZ. IMHO, LOD & AFD are two different critters. in 85% of the time, the 15 yards creates a 1st down without the award while a LOD is ALWAYS a loss of down. Some have suggested that 9-9-1 (the unfair acts rule) could be applied to this situation. While 9-9-1 is usually only considered if big ole' Bubba ,or his grandpa, come off the sidelines to make a TD-saving tackle. What say you...…..

                                           

[CalhounLJ]

WHOA, you guys have convinced me that this isn't needed . I'm sure the debate would be around LOD if OPI was intentional. In reviewing video I've probably seen many more OPI that looked intentional, as the intended receiver grabs the defender to prevent him from intercepting an underthrown pass. As I recall, AFD was hulled out of DPI to enable LOD to be removed from OPI. I voted no on this ,as I feared it could open up the potential of intent on passes into the EZ. IMHO, LOD & AFD are two different critters. in 85% of the time, the 15 yards creates a 1st down without the award while a LOD is ALWAYS a loss of down. Some have suggested that 9-9-1 (the unfair acts rule) could be applied to this situation. While 9-9-1 is usually only considered if big ole' Bubba ,or his grandpa, come off the sidelines to make a TD-saving tackle. What say you...…..

                                           

I’m in full agreement with the idea that AFD and LOD are different animals. I don’t see why we can’t award AFD without having to have LOD for the offense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bama_stripes]

I’m in full agreement with the idea that AFD and LOD are different animals. I don’t see why we can’t award AFD without having to have LOD for the offense.

I don’t know the exact percentages, but I’ll say (with a high degree of confidence) that a 15-yd penalty against the offense is almost always a drive killer — basically, a turnover.  No LOD necessary.

And while I hate to use the “E” word, perhaps the RC should consider awarding an AFD if the DPI penalty takes place during a goal-to-go down.

Or maybe the answer is to make DPI only a 5-yard + AFD penalty while leaving OPI as is.

[Ralph Damren]

I’m in full agreement with the idea that AFD and LOD are different animals. I don’t see why we can’t award AFD without having to have LOD for the offense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Removing LOD from OPI had been on the docket several times and often had a majority of floor votes but never a super-majority (2/3). I agree that LOD was usually a drive-killer while AFD was usually not needed as 15 yards took care of that. While 9-9-1,like 1-1-6,  should rarely be used; I could see where it could be applied in goal-to-go situations if DPI was obvious intent to prevent a score.

[Ralph Damren]

I don’t know the exact percentages, but I’ll say (with a high degree of confidence) that a 15-yd penalty against the offense is almost always a drive killer — basically, a turnover.  No LOD necessary.

And while I hate to use the “E” word, perhaps the RC should consider awarding an AFD if the DPI penalty takes place during a goal-to-go down.

Or maybe the answer is to make DPI only a 5-yard + AFD penalty while leaving OPI as is.

[SCline]

As stated above 15yard penalties on the offense are drive killers. No need to add LOD.

What about AFD of the DPI occurs in the end zone?

[CalhounLJ]

Removing LOD from OPI had been on the docket several times and often had a majority of floor votes but never a super-majority (2/3). I agree that LOD was usually a drive-killer while AFD was usually not needed as 15 yards took care of that. While 9-9-1,like 1-1-6,  should rarely be used; I could see where it could be applied in goal-to-go situations if DPI was obvious intent to prevent a score.

Or you could apply 9-9-2 and declare a forfeit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

As stated above 15yard penalties on the offense are drive killers. No need to add LOD.

What about AFD of the DPI occurs in the end zone?

I’m about to open a can of worms here, but DPI in the endzone should result in first and goal. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ncwingman]

I’m about to open a can of worms here, but DPI in the endzone should result in first and goal. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ooh! A can of worms!

2nd and π from the B45 ... A7 throws a bomb into the end zone where B56 grabs A87 in an obvious, but not ejection worthy, DPI. The 15 yard penalty is applied, and according to Calhoun's proposal, the next play will be 1st and Goal from the B30.

Yes. Let's definitely do that. 

Slightly more seriously, I think we could get AFD in a few ways more generally.

1. The second penalty for intentional PI is the AFD, not an additional 15 yards. This will probably result in IPI being called more often, but very inconsistently. Probably not a good idea overall.

2. Unnecessary roughness PF calls can come with an AFD. If the PI is sufficiently "intentional", it can graduate to a personal foul that comes with the first down. The feared mugging in the end zone can then be penalized with an AFD if necessary, without making it a global AFD.

[CalhounLJ]

Ooh! A can of worms!

2nd and π from the B45 ... A7 throws a bomb into the end zone where B56 grabs A87 in an obvious, but not ejection worthy, DPI. The 15 yard penalty is applied, and according to Calhoun's proposal, the next play will be 1st and Goal from the B30.

Yes. Let's definitely do that. 

Slightly more seriously, I think we could get AFD in a few ways more generally.

1. The second penalty for intentional PI is the AFD, not an additional 15 yards. This will probably result in IPI being called more often, but very inconsistently. Probably not a good idea overall.

2. Unnecessary roughness PF calls can come with an AFD. If the PI is sufficiently "intentional", it can graduate to a personal foul that comes with the first down. The feared mugging in the end zone can then be penalized with an AFD if necessary, without making it a global AFD.

Oops I see the glitch in my proposal. I meant first and goal from the one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

Oops I see the glitch in my proposal. I meant first and goal from the one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have another. Make IDPI a spot foul with auto first. If in the field of play. If in the endzone, make it 1st and goal. If it happens in the endzone three times in a row, award a td.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

So you’re advocating for ejecting a player for committing intentional pass interference? Sounds logical and sensible to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Once again, when you insist on trying to put YOUR words in MY mouth, producing YOUR presumptions, I would rarely think appropriate to consider, something gets lost/added in translation.

Actually, what I was trying to suggest is that, for those favoring an additional penalty for an ADDITIONAL level of severity type foul, focus might be better directed at the intensity of the foul (which is why I used the phrase "so egregious" to describe the behavior.

Perhaps an actual "Rule maker" could phrase it better, but I was thinking of behaviors that were SO obvious, blatant and/or dangerous, that would be so obvious there would be NO (serious) contention, as opposed to trying to determine whether some action was harboring some illicit intent, apart from preventing success. 

[CalhounLJ]

Once again, when you insist on trying to put YOUR words in MY mouth, producing YOUR presumptions, I would rarely think appropriate to consider, something gets lost/added in translation.

Actually, what I was trying to suggest is that, for those favoring an additional penalty for an ADDITIONAL level of severity type foul, focus might be better directed at the intensity of the foul (which is why I used the phrase "so egregious" to describe the behavior.

Perhaps an actual "Rule maker" could phrase it better, but I was thinking of behaviors that were SO obvious, blatant and/or dangerous, that would be so obvious there would be NO (serious) contention, as opposed to trying to determine whether some action was harboring some illicit intent, apart from preventing success.

So you ARE advocating for an ejection in some cases of Intentional Pass Interference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

While treating DPI as a spot foul has been chatted about over some of our "campfires" it has never been submitted as a proposal. Two obvious oppositions that would arise :
(1) This would assume that the pass would have been completed w/o the interference. The rebuttal that not all passes ,at the high school level, are completed. Requiring the pass to be catchable for DPI has been proposed a few times but met the same response. Not all passes are catchable.
(2) "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" crowd would want OPI to result in a turnover spot foul. The NCAA ,several years ago, backed away from passes that exceeded 15 yards being a spot foul. My murky memory recalls that once NCAA OPI in the end zone was a touchback .

A sub/fan/whatever coming onto the field to make a TD saving tackle, is certainly an unfair act (9-9-1) . Would a beaten defender tackling a receiver about to catch a TD pass the same

[AlUpstateNY]

So you ARE advocating for an ejection in some cases of Intentional Pass Interference?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not quite sure why you would question if I'm, "advocating for an ejection in some cases of Intentional Pass Interference?" after I suggested, "Actually, what I was trying to suggest is that, for those favoring an additional penalty for an ADDITIONAL level of severity type foul, focus might be better directed at the intensity of the foul (which is why I used the phrase "so egregious" to describe the behavior.)

Perhaps the reason applying "an additional 15 yards if intentional" is so rarely applied" to Forward Pass Interference is the difficulty in consistently determining and rendering such a conviction, whereas considering any related behavior, and penalty, for such behavior rising to the level of "fouls" judged by the game official to be "flagrant" (NFHS 9-4-1-through 8) already provides appropriate, additional remedy for egregious excess.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Perhaps the reason applying "an additional 15 yards if intentional" is so rarely applied" to Forward Pass Interference is the difficulty in consistently determining and rendering such a conviction, whereas considering any related behavior, and penalty, for such behavior rising to the level of "fouls" judged by the game official to be "flagrant" (NFHS 9-4-1-through 8) already provides appropriate, additional remedy for egregious excess.

So isn't a player who has clearly been beaten on a play intentionally tackling an opponent who is in a clear position to catch a pass before the ball arrives committed a flagrant act?

flagrant = blatant, conspicuous, egregious, glaring, gross, obvious, patent, pronounced, rank, striking

[AlUpstateNY]

So isn't a player who has clearly been beaten on a play intentionally tackling an opponent who is in a clear position to catch a pass before the ball arrives committed a flagrant act?

flagrant = blatant, conspicuous, egregious, glaring, gross, obvious, patent, pronounced, rank, striking

That is currently dependent on the judgement of the covering official as to what is being observed during the contact/interaction on that specific play, as outlined, and provided, in NFHS 9-5-10 (PENALTY).

[CalhounLJ]

So isn't a player who has clearly been beaten on a play intentionally tackling an opponent who is in a clear position to catch a pass before the ball arrives committed a flagrant act?

flagrant = blatant, conspicuous, egregious, glaring, gross, obvious, patent, pronounced, rank, striking

Yes and should be ejected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

Yes and should be ejected.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Finally, we agree (with what I originally suggested).  When an action violates 9-4-g to the extent of being "Flagrant" (See PENALTY summary) a severe, additional penalty can, by rule, ALREADY can be applied. ("as judged by the game official"). 

What would be gained by adding a different penalty (also subject to the judgment of the game official)  to address the same violation, other than creating a duplicate (multiple choice) remedy?

Following really OLD ADVICE, "When it ain't broke (or a remedy already exists), why putz around trying to invent a new/alternate fix?" 

[Derek Teigen]

Hurdling — in a middle school game.  And it was absolutely the correct call.

remember its not hurdling if the defender has any part of his body on the ground other than his feet (or foot).   If a defender is diving to make a tackle and the runner jumps over i'd be hesitant to throw a flag.

[ElvisLives]

remember its not hurdling if the defender has any part of his body on the ground other than his feet (or foot).   If a defender is diving to make a tackle and the runner jumps over i'd be hesitant to throw a flag.

Is hurdling in NFHS a foul that can only be committed by the ball carrier?

[Derek Teigen]

Is hurdling in NFHS a foul that can only be committed by the ball carrier?

It could be called on a defensive player also and this would be most likely in a pat or scrimmage kick. 

[CalhounLJ]

It could be called on a defensive player also and this would be most likely in a pat or scrimmage kick.

Exactly. My umpire called it twice this past season. Both on pat attempts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

Is hurdling in NFHS a foul that can only be committed by the ball carrier?

For those who may not have access to an NFHS Rule Book;  NFHS 2-22 "HURDLING: is an attempt by a player to jump (hurdle) with one or both feet or knees foremost over an opponent who is contacting the ground with no part of his body except one or both feet."

[bama_stripes]

remember its not hurdling if the defender has any part of his body on the ground other than his feet (or foot).   If a defender is diving to make a tackle and the runner jumps over i'd be hesitant to throw a flag.

Correct. But what I had was a ball carrier jumping directly over the head of a defender who had “broken down” and was crouching in anticipation of making the tackle.