Author Topic: Intentional Pass Interference (Read 3503 times)

BetweenTheLines · « **on:** July 16, 2020, 09:34:55 AM »

The signal for intentional pass interference is #27. Question: Is this foul counted against the offendee as their first U?

ncwingman · « **Reply #1 on:** July 16, 2020, 10:31:40 AM »

No.

It's signal #27, but that also is the signal for "Noncontact Foul". Just because you use the signal doesn't make it a UNS by rule. The contact was the PI and first 15 yards. The "intent" was non-contact and the second.

And now I'll take "Things that have never come up in the game of football, even though they are technically in the rule book" for $400, Alex.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #2 on:** July 16, 2020, 10:32:54 AM »

No, signal #27 is for unsportsmanlike OR noncontact fouls. This is considered a non-contact enforcement whose basic spot would be the succeeding spot. To consider intentional PF as a live ball would create multiple fouls with only one able to be enforced.

PS : IPF is called as often as Haley's Comet is seen....Haley's Comet is seen every 75 years.

KWH · « **Reply #3 on:** July 16, 2020, 01:31:50 PM »

Yep!
Ole Haley is scheduled to return in or about 2061
I don't know where I will be then Ralph, but I wont smell to good that's for sure!

Patrick E. · « **Reply #4 on:** July 16, 2020, 07:13:31 PM »

Quote from: Ralph Damren on July 16, 2020, 10:32:54 AM

PS : IPF is called as often as Haley's Comet is seen....Haley's Comet is seen every 75 years.

FYI - Halley's Comet appeared in the sky when Mark Twain was born in 1835. The comet moves in a seventy-five or seventy-six-year orbit, and, as it neared Earth once again, Twain said, I came in with Halley's Comet... ... Sure enough, he died on April 21, 1910, just as the comet made its next pass within sight of Earth.

bossman72 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 16, 2020, 07:35:23 PM »

Quote from: Ralph Damren on July 16, 2020, 10:32:54 AM

No, signal #27 is for unsportsmanlike OR noncontact fouls. This is considered a non-contact enforcement whose basic spot would be the succeeding spot. To consider intentional PF as a live ball would create multiple fouls with only one able to be enforced.

PS : IPF is called as often as Haley's Comet is seen....Haley's Comet is seen every 75 years.

If one were to eliminate the rule, how much fuss would they put up in the rules committee? I think that rule is long overdue to get deleted.

HLinNC · « **Reply #6 on:** July 17, 2020, 06:27:59 AM »

Agree, this topic tends to get more discussion than is due. IPI happens more than we tend to acknowledge, (DB or LB gets beat), but is it really worth 30 yards? I could see linking it to an effort to restore the AFD to DPI.

SCHSref · « **Reply #7 on:** July 17, 2020, 10:00:00 AM »

Don't forget about the third flag that you would have, another unsportsmanlike, on the head coach of B.

bbeagle · « **Reply #8 on:** July 17, 2020, 11:19:22 AM »

Quote from: bossman72 on July 16, 2020, 07:35:23 PM

If one were to eliminate the rule, how much fuss would they put up in the rules committee? I think that rule is long overdue to get deleted.

Why?

It's a tool in our bag if we need it. I've never seen it called or even heard it called. But if something like this scenario comes up, I would definitely use it.

Team A trails 7-9 with :02 left 4th quarter. 1st and 10 from 50.

QB scrambles around, buys time, throws it to around the 20 where A80 is ready to come down with the pass with clear field ahead to the end zone. B88 guarding him jumps up way too early and falls to the ground. In desperation, while on the ground, he reaches out and pulls A80's feet out from under him, and the ball lands incomplete.

This is certainly a time where you would give Team A the ball at the 20 instead of the 35 with :00 left.

Team A could win the game on a FG, where a normal pass interference wouldn't allow this.

I'm glad we have this call. I enjoy the aspect where football has these 'hidden rules' which come up every once in a while. It adds excitement to the game that no other sport has. Fair-catch Field goal, Team who was scored upon chooses who kicks off and Intentional pass interference among them.

The rules of the game keep changing to disallow more and more of the 'cool' element of the game, like double passes, A-11 offense, etc. It's not fun when they remove these.

ncwingman · « **Reply #9 on:** July 17, 2020, 08:44:24 PM »

I personally would be very uncomfortable making that call -- enforcing a judgement call rule that most people don't even know exists to give one team an extra shot within field goal range? I'd feel like I'd be influencing the outcome of the game too much for that.

On "regular" PI there's enough intentional grabbing and pulling that you'd have to justify where the line is and why you didn't call that earlier in the game, and I don't think I could unless the action was flagrant and ejection worthy -- like full on, head shot, targeting long before the ball gets there.

prab · « **Reply #10 on:** July 18, 2020, 09:02:37 AM »

bbeagle's example meets the definition of IPI and I would not be at all uncomfortable making that call.

Besides, in my area, all of the coaches know all of the rules and it is highly unlikely that anyone would disagree with my call. I understand that this is not the case in all areas.

bbeagle · « **Reply #11 on:** July 18, 2020, 02:46:55 PM »

Quote from: ncwingman on July 17, 2020, 08:44:24 PM

I personally would be very uncomfortable making that call -- enforcing a judgement call rule that most people don't even know exists to give one team an extra shot within field goal range? I'd feel like I'd be influencing the outcome of the game too much for that.

In my scenario above, I am trying to describe a play where A80 would most likely have scored if he was given the opportunity to catch the ball. B88 was on the ground and 'out of the play' in any legal way. B88 interfered very flagrantly. B88's pulling the receiver A80's feet out from under him is not a 'football play' like a tug on A80's arm as he's trying to catch the ball would be.

In my opinion, B88 'cheated' in a way that a 15 yard penalty is not a good deterrent. A 1st and 10 at the 35 with :00 remaining where A needs to throw a deep bomb to win the game, is not a good reward for being cheated on a clearly intentional pass interference, where without that they would have won the game already.

If you didn't call the intentional pass interference, I would say you were helping B win the game.

It's just my opinion, and a call I, personally, would definitely make if this situation occurred. If it was a typical run-of-the-mill pass interference, where B88 contacted A80 a little early, or pulled his arm down right as the ball was coming, etc. then I would only call the standard pass-interference. I think the rule makers added the extra 15 for the rare case of a scenario of the type I described.

Etref · « **Reply #12 on:** July 18, 2020, 04:24:53 PM »

I was always told to be very careful when picking the nits out of fly poop!

Tom.OH · « **Reply #13 on:** July 18, 2020, 05:53:22 PM »

I saw it maybe 10 years ago. I was the LJ in a JV game the L made the call . The best receiver on A was a big TE. The ball was heading his way and he had faked the smaller DB, the ball was feet away on a for sure TD catch (yes I know nothing is for sure) the DB just tackled him as he caught up to him and the ball hit the ground at the 10 yard line...
B coach wasn't happy as the R and L explained the call but was ok after the game. A did score 6 and won by 8 I believe...

bama_stripes · « **Reply #14 on:** July 19, 2020, 09:56:54 AM »

IPI is a good example of what I call a “big stick” rule — if it weren’t there, we’d see it a lot more often. The extra yardage is a huge deterrent. And don’t forget, we have an even bigger stick we can use if necessary: the Unfair Acts clause, which allows us to award a score.

bossman72 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 19, 2020, 10:52:50 AM »

Quote from: bama_stripes on July 19, 2020, 09:56:54 AM

IPI is a good example of what I call a “big stick” rule — if it weren’t there, we’d see it a lot more often.

Disagree. Guaranteed 0.001% of players and coaches know that this rule exists.

AlUpstateNY · « **Reply #16 on:** July 19, 2020, 11:48:13 AM »

Quote from: bama_stripes on July 19, 2020, 09:56:54 AM

IPI is a good example of what I call a “big stick” rule — if it weren’t there, we’d see it a lot more often. The extra yardage is a huge deterrent. And don’t forget, we have an even bigger stick we can use if necessary: the Unfair Acts clause, which allows us to award a score.

There are currently, any number of situations, subject to additional penalty, AS DETERMINED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE CALLING OFFICIAL, as authorized by 2-16-c; "FLAGRANT: A FOUL so severe or extreme it places the opponent in danger of serious injury , and/0R involves violations that are extremely or persistently vulgar or abusive conduct.".

NFHS 9-5-1/2 (PENALTY): "Also disqualification IF JUDGED BY THE GAME OFFICIAL to be flagrant.

NFHS 7-5-10 (PENALTY): ..."IF" the pass interference by EITHER player is intentional, his team SHALL BE penalized an additional 15 yards.

The "BIG STICK" currently residing in the closet, was placed there to deter anyone from taking their frustration to a totally unacceptable level, and IT'S PRESENCE IN THE CLOSET is very likely the primary deterrent and reason it is RARELY NEEDED.

NFHS 1-1-9 (and if necessary 1-1-6) designates whose judgments and decisions, ALONE, are authorized to invoke,
(or not) additional penalties as related to specific situations and/or circumstances.

HLinNC · « **Reply #17 on:** July 19, 2020, 12:57:37 PM »

Flag a DPI, mark off 15, 1-10 A. If its incomplete, clock is on the snap. If it was the final play of the half, A gets an untimed down.

I'm not walking them hand in hand to the endzone.

We use to have a white hat that would always tell us in pre-game that PI was an intentional act. Using that philosophy, we should have been marking off 30 every time.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #18 on:** July 21, 2020, 11:54:25 AM »

Deranged thoughts from an ole' duffer.....

If we added AFD to an IPF call would that remove any concern to the potential of a receiver being grabbed in the EZ to prevent a TD on goal-to-go situations

?

(7-man crew)

HLinNC · « **Reply #19 on:** July 21, 2020, 02:21:38 PM »

Aye, it might Ralph.

KWH · « **Reply #20 on:** July 21, 2020, 05:09:52 PM »

Quote from: Ralph Damren on July 21, 2020, 11:54:25 AM

Deranged thoughts from an ole' duffer.....

If we added AFD to an IPF call would that remove any concern to the potential of a receiver being grabbed in the EZ to prevent a TD on goal-to-go situations ?

(7-man crew)

Not a bad thought from an ole' duffer. It could, just, might, may, perhaps, quite down some of those squeaking wheels?

VALJ · « **Reply #21 on:** July 22, 2020, 11:40:54 AM »

Quote from: SCHSref on July 17, 2020, 10:00:00 AM

Don't forget about the third flag that you would have, another unsportsmanlike, on the head coach of B.

Heck, might end up with a fourth one too, after you throw the third one.

HLinNC · « **Reply #22 on:** July 24, 2020, 04:31:05 PM »

This came in my e-mail from Referee.com Review for today.

https://www.referee.com/plays-not-seen-often/

INTENTIONAL PASS INTERFERENCE
That foul is unique to NFHS rules (likely and for good reason the least-called foul of them all). If the previous spot is outside team B’s 45 yardline, it would result in a 30-yard penalty.

Fouls which require an official to determine intent usually incur inconsistency and that’s not a surprise because humans are not mind readers. If a defender who has been beat makes a diving tackle of a receiver who is about to catch a pass, a large majority of officials would judge the act to be intentional. It could happen, but it’s highly unlikely. Anything other than the preceding should simply be pass interference.

Regardless of what position an official works, if he can make it through an entire career without having called any of those fouls, he can likely still boast that he never missed one.