Football Game Officials Manual

[ref4e]

I have NEVER seen Intentional Pass Interference called.  Has anyone else?  If so, please describe the circumstances.

True story.   I'm in my second or third year of officiating.   Working LJ as the junior member of an otherwise very experienced crew.   Receiver breaks down my sideline and pass is on its way.    Defender grabs the receiver by the jersey from behind and jerks him down.    Easy flag.    I go to the WH and tell him, "I've got intentional pass interference on the defense."    He says, "Intentional?"    I say, "Yep, 15 plus 15."     His response---"Like HELL you do!"    End of conversation and lesson learned.

[HLinNC]

Years ago, JV game.  TE beat the LB so he grabs him by the back of the jersey and throws him down.  It got reported as such to R but I'm pretty sure it got marked off as 15 only.

[bossman72]

Can any NFHS historians tell us why the intentional pass interference rule was created and when?

[riffraft]

Can any NFHS historians tell us why the intentional pass interference rule was created and when?

If I had to guess, I would say that it was for the situation when a receiver has a defensive back totally beat on a Long pass and the back tackles him to prevent a long td pass. So to be fair to the offensive give them 30 yards rather than 15.

[Rulesman]

If I had to guess, I would say that it was for the situation when a receiver has a defensive back totally beat on a Long pass and the back tackles him to prevent a long td pass. So to be fair to the offensive give them 30 yards rather than 15.

Yet it appears in at least two situations (cited in two posts above), this is EXACTLY what happened, however... 

[bossman72]

Yet it appears in at least two situations (cited in two posts above), this is EXACTLY what happened, however... 

I think this rule needs to go the way of knee pads in NCAA football...  If nobody is going to enforce it, don't make it a rule.

[prab]

For several years now, I have had "Free Kick After A Fair Catch" on my bucket list.  I had never given "Intentional Pass Interference" any serious consideration for that list.  However, maybe  IPI could be a fall back bucket list item.  Bucket list because I am reasonably certain that I would not be assigned many  more games after an IPI call, regardless of my knowledge of the rules and command of the English language.

[goodgrr]

...because I am reasonably certain that I would not be assigned many  more games after an IPI call, regardless of my knowledge of the rules and command of the English language.

Fed is not my area, however I am just curious over this.

In Soccer a player can foul when they are preventing a scoring opportunity and be sent off and in Rugby a penalty try can be awarded, so why if the rule book includes a more serious interpretation such as IPI would your chapter not support it being called in the right circumstances?

[Ralph Damren]

Yep AB - No argument here!
However, Intentional Pass Interference is a Rule rather than a mechanic and it is still in the Rules Book
I would agree Intentional Pass Interference needs further clarification as quite frankly, I do not know what it is as there is no NFHS definition.
If a defender is positioned between an eligible receiver and the passer, with his back to the passer and is waving his hands in the face of the receiver (See 7.5.10 SIT C) NFHS says we only have PI.
Should a coach asks, "How did you determine that waving you hands is NOT intentional"? I DO NOT have an answer, other than to say we don't interpret it that way.
I find it comparable to an Intentional foul in BasketBall. "hey ref, I am going to foul this guy as soon as he touches the ball on the throw in, please be quick on your whistle.  That is not an intentional act?  Well yes of course it is but it is not interpreted that way.

Perhaps the Rules Book needs to find a different word than "Intentional"

PS: If I recall, there was at one time, many moos ago,  a Case Book play that had Intentional PI as the ruling. I could be wrong. Anybody else remember that? Ralph?

I believe it was many a moo ago, KWH, and was only in for a couple of years. It echoed several above posts ,where the play was obvious. Many a case that is still good falls by the wayside as newer cases are submitted. Sorta' like a case of good lobsters falling off a seafood truck.

[AlUpstateNY]

The NFHS Rule BooK Penalty Summary" chart Forward-pass Interference is designated as a 15 yard penalty usinf Signal 33.  It further states, "if intentional an additional 15 yard penalty referencing Signal 27 (unsportsmanlike Conduct).  Both entries refer to NFHS 7-5-10.

That seems to suggest any additional 15 yard penalty application, for an "intentional" foul, would fall within the exclusive judgment of the covering official of any Unsportsmanlike Conduct violation being related to the action observed.

[Ralph Damren]

Can any NFHS historians tell us why the intentional pass interference rule was created and when?

The same year (1950) that the rule allowing a player to advance a grounded backward pass or fumble was passed. I believe that there was pressure on the NFHS to adopt the NFL and then NCAA rule to adopt their rule of making PI a spot foul from the point of interference. I assume that, as today, that would assume the pass would be complete without the interference. I assume that as many of you that assumption should not be assumed. IPI was a comprise, if you felt it was warranted. What might draw more IPI flags :
Add AFD to IPI for situations where warranted to prevent B from taking advantage of current rule. Opinions, anyone :

[Ralph Damren]

The NFHS Rule BooK Penalty Summary" chart Forward-pass Interference is designated as a 15 yard penalty usinf Signal 33.  It further states, "if intentional an additional 15 yard penalty referencing Signal 27 (unsportsmanlike Conduct).  Both entries refer to NFHS 7-5-10.

That seems to suggest any additional 15 yard penalty application, for an "intentional" foul, would fall within the exclusive judgment of the covering official of any Unsportsmanlike Conduct violation being related to the action observed.

In this situation, signal #27 is for a non-contact foul...IE...it was B player's thinking that drew the IPI foul. You couldn't enforce two live ball fouls on the same play BUT you could enforce both if one was to be treated as a dead ball foul. Good pick, YankeeAl.

[bossman72]

Actually, if you think about it, all pick plays should be intentional pass interference and 30 yards.

Ralph, I don't think the auto 1st would make it any better.  Just get rid of it.  It's a nonsensical rule

[bama_stripes]

I'd just as soon use 9-9-5 (travesty of the game) and award a score.

[HLinNC]

Given the removal of AFD from DPI, one would think that perhaps an increase in IPI calls might have been warranted already.

 I think it is just the reluctance of officials to be a "pioneer".  Not much different than R not flagging the QB for IG when they probably should/could more than they do. That may not be the best example as IG opportunities abound way more than IPI.

 Its that ugly word "intentional", IMO.

[prab]

Fed is not my area, however I am just curious over this.

In Soccer a player can foul when they are preventing a scoring opportunity and be sent off and in Rugby a penalty try can be awarded, so why if the rule book includes a more serious interpretation such as IPI would your chapter not support it being called in the right circumstances?

I was not supported when I enforced 3-6-4 (2013 rulebook) regarding starting the game on time.

I was not supported when I pointed out that hash marks do not bisect the yard lines.

Although I do not recall any situations where I thought an IPI flag was warranted, I nevertheless would not expect to be supported if I did make such a call.  (To be honest with you, I would call it any way and just suffer the consequences.)

[Rulesman]

You have a much bigger problem when your leadership doesn't support you for enforcing the rules as written.

[prab]

You have a much bigger problem when your leadership doesn't support you for enforcing the rules as written.

10-4

[VALJ]

I've seen one free kick as a fair catch in my officiating career (I was working the chains for a playoff game). I have yet to see an "intentional" pass interference call in my career. I expect that in the rest of my career, it's much more likely to see a second one of the former than I do my first of the latter.

[AlUpstateNY]

You have a much bigger problem when your leadership doesn't support you for enforcing the rules as written.

No question, under normal circumstances a Referee should absolutely support penalty judgments made by other game officials, provided the judgment accurately reflects BOTH the letter and spirit of the rule being invoked.  However, as there are often wide variances in experience among crews, advice of senior members can provide valuable guidance and instruction.

Often a thorough (always private) discussion and review of the specific circumstances, with crew mates, may lead the calling official to assess and consider alternate corrective measures that HE EVENTUALLY AGREES might better fit this specific application of the rule in question and convince him to reevaluate his initial decision.   

There are times when excessive application of a rule, can be as damaging to the general progress and management of a game as inappropriately lax application and discussion and review can help find the proper balance. There is no shame in taking the time to review any decision to insure it is correct.

[Rulesman]

I believe he is referring to the leadership of his association/chapter, rather than the Referee of his crew.

[Ralph Damren]

10-4

10-4 : ENFORCEMENT OF PENALTIES / BASIC SPOTS - A very important rule that officials should have a strong handle on.

10-4 : CB TALK - In full agreement of....great idea!!!!.....you bet....

          Am in full agreement with you & Rulesman, Prab, while boundaries should be set up on fishing in the other guy's pond (BJ calling IG) ; boundaries shouldn't be set up as to what rules to enforce and what not to.

[bossman72]

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but one mechanic has been brought to my attention that needs to go away:

Apparently, the manual says that when the Referee is to start the clock, he is to do BOTH chop it in, then wind the clock.  This is very confusing to clock operators.  It should be one or the other.

[zoom]

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but one mechanic has been brought to my attention that needs to go away:

Apparently, the manual says that when the Referee is to start the clock, he is to do BOTH chop it in, then wind the clock.  This is very confusing to clock operators.  It should be one or the other.

I never realized it would be confusing.  After a penalty enforcement or a first down when the clock will start on the ready, I chop down and then immediately wind in one continuous motion.  The clock operator should be watching me throughout the motion, so he or she will start the clock. 

[HLinNC]

This is very confusing to clock operators.

Sounds like we need new clock operators.