RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: BryanM67 on August 30, 2010, 08:38:33 AM
-
My understanding according to NFHS rules, is when you determine pass interference to be intentional - you assess two penalties.
So the first penalty is the standard pass interference penalty. 15 yards and first down (if defensive) or loss of down (if offensive). As usual, you use the interference hand signal.
Now the second penalty is for the fact that it is intentional. An additional 15 yards. This time you use the unsportsmanlike conduct hand signal.
Now take this situation. Lets say the previous spot is B's 27 yard line. You observe intentional pass interference in the pass play.
Since a penalty cannot be more than half the distance to the goal, do you go half the distance both times? First enforcement takes you to 13.5 and the second to 6.75 (although you could argue the ball should be placed on 6 and a half or 7)?
Just interested to see what other officials out there would do.
-
Sounds right to me.
-
Your math is right. But the next time that intentional pass interference is called could well be the first.
It's a non-issue.
-
My read is that the first penalty 15 yards would be from the original LOS B's 27 and awarding of Automatic First Down, and the second penalty is from the succeeding spot (i.e. the new LOS, the 12 yard line). Splitting half the distance, I've got 1st and Goal from the 6 yard line.
-
My read is that the first penalty 15 yards would be from the original LOS B's 27
15 yards from the B-27 is more than half the distance to the goal.
-
Only on my occasional visits to the US every 3 or 4 years do I get to work NFHS Rules. I recall asking the guys I worked with about this Rule. No-one ever calls it, right?
-
I did some B.C. high school games (NFHS) for about seven-eight years, I guess. Never saw this one called.
-
Only on my occasional visits to the US every 3 or 4 years do I get to work NFHS Rules. I recall asking the guys I worked with about this Rule. No-one ever calls it, right?
The reason you don't ever see this is because the penalty is so severe.
The ONLY way I would ever call this is for the DB to absolutely tackle the receiver in order to prevent a TD pass, & even then I'd think twice.
-
The reason you don't ever see this is because the penalty is so severe.
The ONLY way I would ever call this is for the DB to absolutely tackle the receiver in order to prevent a TD pass, & even then I'd think twice.
Yes, exactly that. It has to be obvious to everyone in the stadium that the defender isn't even TRYING to make a legal play - he has to be clearly trying to cheat.
-
Never seen it called. Can't imagine calling it without a felony being involved. And I'd definitely have a long talk with the entire crew before calling the intentional part, just to make sure everyone else saw what I saw, too.
Going back to the enforcement question, half the distance to the 13 and a half, then another half the distance to the 6 and 3/4 is what I've got. Then, I've probably got another half the distance on the B head coach, since that explanation is going to get rather heated... :)
-
Then, I've probably got another half the distance on the B head coach, since that explanation is going to get rather heated... :)
You got that right, if not another and an ejection before you are done...
It is a crazy rule, 90%+ of the pass interference is intentional. I mean for instance, you don't accidentally grab a kids arm as he goes up to catch a pass? Its intereference and its certainly intentional but its only one act and it certainly isn't going to get penalized twice by any sane official. I have read this in the book and just can't imagine ever calling it. Maybe you cut off a route and its not 100% intentional, maybe you do a few other things that aren't, but really how often can it be unintentional when you commit pass interference?
Anybody actually seen it called???
-
One time and it was a least a high misdemeanor if not a felony. Receiver running a post route, defender was getting passed so he just tackled the guy from the back with a horse collar (before there was such a thing) - ball was not even 1/3 of the way there.
-
Agreed. 100% of pass interference is intentional because we rule the unintentional stuff as incidental contact. This particular foul has to be above and beyond the call of pass interference to become "Intentional". i.e. it actually WARRANTS that second unsportsmanlike signal.
-
Who gets the USC? Player or Coach?
PENALTY: Illegal forward pass (Arts. 2a,b,c) – (S35); intentional grounding
(Arts. 2d,e) –(S36) – 5 yards plus loss of down – (S9). Pass interference (Art.
10) – (S33) – 15 yards and automatic first down if by B, 15 yards plus loss of
down if by A – (S9). If the pass interference by either player is intentional, his
team shall be penalized an additional 15 yards (S27). Ineligible downfield
(Art. 12) – (S37) – 5 yards. Illegal touching (Art. 13) – (S16) – 5 yards plus loss
of down.
-
Neither. Just because it is S27 doesn't mean it is a USC charged to anyone.
-
Why give s27 then?
http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=2540.0
-
My guess is because the act is considered unsportsmanlike but not an actual Unsportsmanlike Conduct foul. Notice that intentional PI isn't listed under unsportsmanlike conduct fouls in rule 9.
-
or unfair acts?
PENALTY: Unfair act – the referee enforces any penalty he considers equitable,
including the award of a score – (S27). Repeated fouls (Art. 2) – the game may
-
Why give s27 then?
http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=2540.0
At the risk of sounding like a JERK - because the penalty chart on page 94 says so. My personal opinion is to show that there's something more going on than just the standard PI, because if we just signal PI and then walk 30 yards all hell's going to break loose.
Of course, hell's gonna break loose anyway if we call an intentional PI...