[KWH]

Originally posted by Theisey
I read the doucment rather quickly, (since it really will not apply for me at this time), but I am curious as to just what the words:
"A period is not extended for a foul occurring during a try" really are intended to mean?

You can explain if you want.

I would love to explain.
It is an ad lib version of what the impending 2004 Rule Book would say, (since the 2004 Rule Book was not out at the time that sentence was written!) The 2004 Rule book version of the same statement is as follows:
Rule 3-3-3 NOTE: - The period shall not be extended further when the defense fouls during a successful try/field goal and the offended team accepts the results of the play with enforcment of the penalty from the succeeding spot.
And, since the current experimental rule document is a "working draft" I will see to it that the wording is updated in the next revision.

Originally posted by Theisey

Maybe I missed further details, but I am also wondering why the people who defined this change did not give Team-B an option to end the game without a mandatory TRY down? As perscribed by NCAA, a TRY is required unless the team behind in the score leaves the field.
In some cases, this is a very good thing to have. Last thing anyone wants is to have a fight on a play that in 99.9% of the time will not change the outcome.

Theisey, NFHS rules DO NOT require a "mandatory TRY down" as you suggest. AND,
The Oregon experimental rule did not alter NFHS Rule 8-3-1 EXCEPTION: Which states...
If a touchdown is scored during the last down of the fourth period, the try shall not be attempted unless the point(s) would affect the outcome of the game or playoff qualifying.

HOWEVER, The interpretation of 8-3-1 EXCEPTION has changed:
For example, if A scores a touchdown (on a play in which time in the 4th quarter expires) to make the score A22 - B 20, the extra point must be attempted as the outcome is still in doubt. (While common sense would suggest the A QB would take a knee during the TRY, we all know stranger things have happened.) We did not see a need to either a), alter the existing NFHS rule, nor b), deny B the opportunity to tie the game.

Originally posted by Theisey

I can live with a change like this, but I think a change to allow defensive offside to be a live ball foul would have been a better experiment to have.

I agree with you 110%.
The current "encroachment" rule enforcment interupts the flow of the game far too often. All one has to do to recieve approval for an experimental rule is get your state association to request permission from the NFHS. That's all we did! If Oregon can do it so can you!
Be careful of what you ask for as you might just get it. And he who asks (in the eyes of the NFHS) is responsible for writing the experimental rule and the experimental caseplays!

I hope this helped answer your questions...