15-yard penalties

[El Macman]

At least one BCS conference coordinator is sure that penalties that are currently 15 yards for things other than personal fouls, unsportsmanlike conduct, and DPI/OPI will change to 10-yard penalties. E.g., illegal batting, illegal kicking will become 10-yard penalties by editorial change (for 2011). So, the statement in the Major Editorial Changes section of the 3-1-11 rules changes bulletin that 15-yard penalties are to be reserved for PFs, UNSs, DPIs and OPIs is for real. RR will have to be careful to check every foul and clarify for each. I'll bet he gets it done.

[RedTD]

I never quite understood the severity of 15 yards for "hurting" (kicking/batting) the football. 

[Diablo]

What about the loss of down aspect of the penalty for some illegal batting/kicking fouls?  Will that stay or disappear?

[El Macman]

What about the loss of down aspect of the penalty for some illegal batting/kicking fouls?  Will that stay or disappear?

My guess is that won't change. But, just a guess.

[Welpe]

Some of these changes seem rather significant to be covered under an "editorial change".

[El Macman]

Some of these changes seem rather significant to be covered under an "editorial change".

That has been the history since RR became Sec-Ed. Not saying it is good or bad, just fact.

[Diablo]

That has been the history since RR became Sec-Ed. Not saying it is good or bad, just fact.

I seem to recall there were editorial changes that were on the same level as a rule changes in the John Adams era.  Granted the distinction - editorial vs rule change - has become more diffuse under Dr. Redding.

Ditto to being unsure if good or bad. 

BTW, what is the official distinction between an editorial vs rule change?  What sets apart the two categories?

[El Macman]

BTW, what is the official distinction between an editorial vs rule change?  What sets apart the two categories?

Don't know for sure, but my sense is that a rule change is a significant change to the playing of the game, i.e., limited BBW versus allowed BBW; fair catch; extra periods, etc. Distance of a penalty may be more editorial in nature. My sense. My senses may be seriously disturbed.

[NVFOA_Ump]

At least one BCS conference coordinator is sure that penalties that are currently 15 yards for things other than personal fouls, unsportsmanlike conduct, and DPI/OPI will change to 10-yard penalties. E.g., illegal batting, illegal kicking will become 10-yard penalties by editorial change (for 2011). So, the statement in the Major Editorial Changes section of the 3-1-11 rules changes bulletin that 15-yard penalties are to be reserved for PFs, UNSs, DPIs and OPIs is for real. RR will have to be careful to check every foul and clarify for each. I'll bet he gets it done.

But isn't "the rest of the story" that illegal batting and illegal kicking are very similar on the advantage/disadvantage scale to OPI and DPI?  By illegal batting and illegal kicking a player has committed an illegal act under the rules that potentially prevents an opponent from gaining possession of the ball, and/or aids himself or a teammate in gaining possession of the ball by virtue of the foul.  Is there really a clear differentiator between those and OPI/DPI?

[jg-me]

As to Diablo's question - it would seem that an editorial change would consist of an altering or reorganizing of text to make it clearer to read and easier to understand without altering the substance and/or intent of the rule. Since a penalty is a part of and sustantial to the rule it is associated with, one would think any change in a penalty should be considered a rule change.

[TXMike]

I agree with jg as to what an "editorial change" should be but I believe there is precedent to it being otherwise.  For some reason, I have it stuck in my head that rule changes came from the rules committee whereas editorial changes came from the editor.  That was not so cumbersome when there was no PROP but since there is a PROP I wonder if editorial changes can even be made without going through the PROP.