Author Topic: Enforce these Penalties Under NFHS  (Read 10649 times)

Offline jason

  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-1
Re: Enforce these Penalties Under NFHS
« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2010, 09:26:42 AM »
Ignoring the POURING match for a moment, it seems to me that this could reasonably be covered by 9-9-1: "A player or nonplayer or person(s) not subject to the rules shall not hinder play by an unfair act which has no specific rule coverage."

In my opinion, R hindered play by an unfair act when he blocked a K player who was clearly out of bounds as a result of the first block.  If the second block ISN'T an unfair act, then at what point does it become unfair?  When the block takes place 10 yards off the field?  When the blocker drives his opponent into the stands like this is the movie "Blindside"?  This is about limits and interpretation.  Determining if K was attempting to get back in bounds is inconsequential to the block by R.  And since this situation has no specific rule coverage, as mentioned numerous times, then those who wish to use 9-9-1 as a means of protecting players can do so.  Others who don't feel it falls into that category can rule as they wish.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 09:28:34 AM by jason »

Offline Welpe

  • *
  • Posts: 1853
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-11
Re: Enforce these Penalties Under NFHS
« Reply #26 on: September 10, 2010, 10:03:58 AM »
Ignoring the POURING match for a moment, it seems to me that this could reasonably be covered by 9-9-1: "A player or nonplayer or person(s) not subject to the rules shall not hinder play by an unfair act which has no specific rule coverage."

This doesn't hold water as there is plenty of specific rule coverage regarding blocking and personal fouls.  This rule is to cover truly outlandish situations and should be very rarely applied.

Offline jason

  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-1
Re: Enforce these Penalties Under NFHS
« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2010, 10:26:38 AM »
This doesn't hold water as there is plenty of specific rule coverage regarding blocking and personal fouls.  This rule is to cover truly outlandish situations and should be very rarely applied.

The key words in "A player or nonplayer or person(s) not subject to the rules shall not hinder play by an unfair act which has no specific rule coverage." is in bold.  The key word in that grouping is underlined.

Since this has no specific rule coverage, despite the fact that several rules are similar in regards to blocking and personal fouls, then it can be reasonably covered by 9-9-1...even though I agree with your belief that 9-9-1 should be used sparingly.


Offline BoBo

  • *
  • Posts: 216
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-1
Re: Enforce these Penalties Under NFHS
« Reply #28 on: September 11, 2010, 01:44:54 PM »
my only addition to this discussion is i dont see how the actions of the vikings player can be deemed a personal foul as i think we can all agree he threw a punch.

with that being said for arguments sake we have an illegal block out of bounds on R and an unsportsmanlike foul on K

thus

we have post scrimmage kick enforcement 10 yards from the end of the kick on R

then

we have a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty on K (live ball treated as a dead ball foul)

K player ejected.

1st and 10 for R

that is my answer to the original question without all the commentary on the original block tiphat:

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Enforce these Penalties Under NFHS
« Reply #29 on: September 11, 2010, 03:34:46 PM »
i dont see how the actions of the vikings player can be deemed a personal foul as i think we can all agree he threw a punch.


If he threw a punch, it CAN'T be unsportsmanlike conduct.  USC fouls are non-contact fouls.  Whether he connected with the punch or not, if you deem he threw a punch, it's a PF, not USC.

2-11 for definition of fighting, 9-4-1 for foul for fighting