NFHS Questionnaire

[Ralph Damren]

The auto 1st down on all PFs by B has been on the docket a few times, but never made it to the floor for a final vote.  IMHO, two major reasons : (1) As GoodScout posted, it currently treats foul on a  defenseless player as more severe; (2) If all PFs were AFD, it would only benefit the offense and some would push for LOD if foul by A/K.

[zebrastripes]

The auto 1st down on all PFs by B has been on the docket a few times, but never made it to the floor for a final vote.  IMHO, two major reasons : (1) As GoodScout posted, it currently treats foul on a  defenseless player as more severe; (2) If all PFs were AFD, it would only benefit the offense and some would push for LOD if foul by A/K.

Regarding #1, then why isn’t blindside block, targeting, and hit on a defenseless receiver also an AFD? In the context of the NFHS preferring to avoid exceptions, it doesn’t make sense to single out the “roughing” fouls as being worthy of an AFD but not the other ones I mentioned. Heck under the current rule a B player can punch an A player in the face and be charged with fighting and disqualified, and it still isn’t an automatic first down. How does that make any sense?

Regarding #2, if A commits a live ball personal foul on 1/10, their next play would be 1/25. If B does it, A’s next play is still 1/10. If instead A’s next play was 2/25, which is a drive killer at the HS level pretty much. I would argue that unbalances the scale of offense vs. defense in the opposite direction.

[zebrastripes]

I don't agree with giving out automatic first downs for every Personal Foul. It's excessive and not necessary.
And giving them out for roughing fouls is easy to explain. In every case - RTP, RTK, RTS, RTH - the player fouled in a personal foul is extremely vulnerable because of their position and/or the action they're taking when they're fouled. An additional penalty beyond 15 yards is justified.

You could say the same thing for targeting, blindside block, hit on a defenseless receiver, and fighting – and none of those fouls include an AFD. In the context of NFHS not liking exceptions, it’s a lot easier to make all PFs and AFD rather than pick and choose four fouls that are subjectively deemed “worthy” of an AFD.

[sj]

(2) If all PFs were AFD, it would only benefit the offense and some would push for LOD if foul by A/K.

And to keep the circle of arguments going, it would benefit the offenses of both teams.

[lawdog]

I vote no on every change.  honestly there is no need for any of these and I can't stand just parroting NCAA as a justification for a rule change.

[zebrastripes]

I vote no on every change.  honestly there is no need for any of these and I can't stand just parroting NCAA as a justification for a rule change.

The whole reason rules trickle down from the higher levels is because those levels essentially take on the risk of trying out those changes, and if they’re successful, it’s fair to believe that they can be successful at the HS level.

So while I agree that it’s silly to adopt a rule change “because that’s the college rule so it must be better,” it’s equally stupid to avoid changing rules simply to be different. Too many HS officials just don’t want to align with the higher levels because of some feigned distaste for NCAA/NFL.

“BECAUSE IT’S HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL AND THESE ARE KIDS,” despite what some on this forum believe, is not a good reason to avoid rules from the higher levels.

[lawdog]

“BECAUSE IT’S HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL AND THESE ARE KIDS,” despite what some on this forum believe, is not a good reason to avoid rules from the higher levels.

Except it IS a good reason.  It is many good reasons,. 1 High school games aren't built for TV timing and million dollar budgets.  2. High school kids aren't college level athletes.  3. High School sports are about learning skills, both athletic and life, they are part of education. 4. etc. etc. etc.   

and TOTAL BS they take a risk of trying new rules so they can work for high school.  Where did you get that line of dung?  They adopt rules that work for their game.  They aren't experimenting with rules to help NFHS. That's laughable.

[NVFOA_Ump]

You could say the same thing for targeting, blindside block, hit on a defenseless receiver, and fighting – and none of those fouls include an AFD. In the context of NFHS not liking exceptions, it’s a lot easier to make all PFs and AFD rather than pick and choose four fouls that are subjectively deemed “worthy” of an AFD.

I disagree.  The 4 AFD fouls are fouls that take into account the serious "risk position" that the 4 players are in based on their role(s) and position pre-snap.  While most PF's have some level of risk from injury, the 4 AFD fouls IMHO have a significantly higher risk that is known pre-snap and that the defense is aware of pre-snap.  I'm satisfied that we don't need to "emulate" some other code(s) when we don't need to fix anything.

[ilyazhito]

Those fouls zebrastripes mentioned also merit an AFD. This is because the fouls are committed on a player "whose position and focus of concentration make them vulnerable to injury". Hits to the head or to a player in a defenseless position are dangerous, because the victim has no way to reasonably defend himself. Fights and UNS need an additional deterrent. The automatic first down can serve as that deterrent. If NFHS wants to avoid exceptions, all 15-yard penalties can be an automatic 1st down. IP can be downgraded to a 10-yard penalty or removed from the book to avoid giving a 1st down for illegal participation.

[AlUpstateNY]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and to a lesser/more specific degree so is punishment.  Multiple punishments available for specific fouls (based on judgment) provide the calling official the option of evaluating the specific instance being observed.

[bossman72]

Except it IS a good reason.  It is many good reasons,. 1 High school games aren't built for TV timing and million dollar budgets.  2. High school kids aren't college level athletes.  3. High School sports are about learning skills, both athletic and life, they are part of education. 4. etc. etc. etc.   

and TOTAL BS they take a risk of trying new rules so they can work for high school.  Where did you get that line of dung?  They adopt rules that work for their game.  They aren't experimenting with rules to help NFHS. That's laughable.

I tend to agree with Lawdog here.  I hate when the NCAA adopts an NFL rule "because NFL".  Similar reasons for NFHS adopting NCAA.  There are some NFHS rules that are better and there are some NCAA rules that really don't need to be in the NFHS game (like forward fumble OOB new rule).  Some rules are better in NCAA and I'm glad NFHS adopted them, but others don't really need to be changed.

At the same time, when the NCAA adopts an NFL rule, they just copy the NFL rule.  NFHS tries to start from scratch and butchers it completely almost every single time without exception.  The revisions to Rule 10 come to mind immediately among many others.  So that adds to the frustration more when NCAA rules are copied to NFHS.

[Ralph Damren]

Yo, just got the questionnaire results. Some close ones are....

B?R scoring on a PAT : yea 47% , nah 53%
remove 5 yd FM :        yea 46% , nah 54%
leaping on kick            yea 50%, nah  50%

Leading responses from officials....

Illinois           871
Ohio              688
Florida           359

Will have more info on this when I return from NFHS meeting. 

[GoodScout]

Yo, just got the questionnaire results. Some close ones are....

B?R scoring on a PAT : yea 47% , nah 53%
remove 5 yd FM :        yea 46% , nah 54%
leaping on kick            yea 50%, nah  50%

Will have more info on this when I return from NFHS meeting. 

"When in doubt, leave it out."

[Ralph Damren]

"When in doubt, leave it out."

On final floor votes, 2/3 yea's are needed. The close ones - such as listed - will need to try again next year..