Printing error in the 2019 Rule book

[NorCalMike]

At our rules meeting last night we were discussing a pass interference play. While working on the enforcement options it was noted that on page 65 in Table 7-5, for DPI it says this is a succeeding spot foul. It looks to me that the alignment in the table got screwed up. In both situations a and b, it should be a previous spot enforcement. Situation c is the succeeding spot enforcement. If look at NFHS publication site on the arbiter, it has previous spot lined up with with a and b and succeeding spot with c.

Anyone know how to report this to the NFHS?

[HLinNC]

Go through your state's interpretor/commissioner/supervisor of officials.

[Ralph Damren]

I'll pass it along to NFHS (they probably already know) INTENTIONAL pass interference is succeeding spot and should be preceded by signal #27 that indicates this a noncontact foul and can be tacked on to the succeeding spot and not a multiple foul.

Useless knowledge :
 Halley's Comet passes every 66 years....this year is my 50th officiating....number of intentional pass interference calls I've seen is 0.

Pages 94-95 of official signals shows about 50% of referees still in white knickers.

[refjeff]

Pages 94-95 of official signals shows about 50% of referees still in white knickers.

I could wear the white knickers, but only if we truly go old-school and bring back those over-sized "newsboy" caps too.

[blandis]

This is not an error. It is in fact the infamous PI/USC double foul which I had called on my high school team way back in 1989. It is still a NFHS rule but NO ONE wants it called. If there is DELIBERATE Pass Interference it is both a foul for PI from the previous spot and then a USC foul added on from the succeeding spot. That is how the rule still reads.

[NorCalMike]

This is not an error. It is in fact the infamous PI/USC double foul which I had called on my high school team way back in 1989. It is still a NFHS rule but NO ONE wants it called. If there is DELIBERATE Pass Interference it is both a foul for PI from the previous spot and then a USC foul added on from the succeeding spot. That is how the rule still reads.

The problem is that in Table 7-5, the words succeeding spot line up with B committing interference instead of the line with intentional pass interference.

[FLAHL]

 Halley's Comet passes every 66 years....this year is my 50th officiating....number of intentional pass interference calls I've seen is 0..

That is amazing Ralph. Congratulations.   

[Ralph Damren]

This is not an error. It is in fact the infamous PI/USC double foul which I had called on my high school team way back in 1989. It is still a NFHS rule but NO ONE wants it called. If there is DELIBERATE Pass Interference it is both a foul for PI from the previous spot and then a USC foul added on from the succeeding spot. That is how the rule still reads.

Signal #27 isn't intended to be USC (puts the player on double-secret probation) but is to indicate that it is a non-contact foul. This classifies it as similar to a dead ball foul with succeeding spot enforcement. If it was treated as a live ball foul, it would become a multiple foul. A double foul(s) occur when there are one or more live ball fouls on both teams.

[Ralph Damren]

I could wear the white knickers, but only if we truly go old-school and bring back those over-sized "newsboy" caps too.

NFHS responded. they were aware of the misprint .  White knickers are still legal, so the signal page stays politically correct.

[VALJ]

This is not an error. It is in fact the infamous PI/USC double foul which I had called on my high school team way back in 1989. It is still a NFHS rule but NO ONE wants it called. If there is DELIBERATE Pass Interference it is both a foul for PI from the previous spot and then a USC foul added on from the succeeding spot. That is how the rule still reads.

This is NOT a USC foul.  By definition, all USC fouls in NFHS are non-contact.  The extra USC signal is to signal to the press box that an additional 15 yards (or half the distance) are being enforced due to the deliberate PI.

Remember too that these are enforced as two separate fouls.  If you start on the B-28 and have the egregious PI resulting in this situation, you go half the distance twice - first to the B-14, then to the B-7.  If you start on the B-40, you go 15 yards to the B-25, then half the distance to the B-12.5.

[NorCalMike]

NFHS responded. they were aware of the misprint .  White knickers are still legal, so the signal page stays politically correct.

Thanks Ralph. I threw my knickers out.

[BIG DON]

in my 20 year of officiating I have had one  intentional pass interference call, receiver ran a out and up, the corner bit on the out and fell down the Split end was wide open on the up the QB underthrew the Split End causing him to stop and come back for the ball which gave to corner enough time to gather him self and with out even looking at the ball nailed the receiver before the ball got to him, this was in the day before defenseless players, the PI was obvious what made it intentional in my eye was I could hear the corner back yell no way you are catching the pass

it was on b's sideline coach told me good call