Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike L
Perhaps it's the area you work in, but around here the USC problem is pretty minor.
|
Sportsmanship is an NFHS Point Of Emphasis this year. No, I don't think it's just my area.
Quote:
|
The bottom line is, I spend little time worrying about why penalties are enforced the way they are and more time making sure I do enforce them the way the NFHS, the CIF board, and my assoc wants them enforced.
|
Nor do I. I have very few worries nor do I have a problem enforcing the rules the way they're written. But I am interested in making the game better.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rdfox
In Kentucky, we have been instructed by the State to enforce the unnecessary roughness penalty that is behind the ball on a "break-away" scoring play as succeeding spot (the try). Not live ball and also not carry-over to the kickoff. The try is from the 18-yard line.
|
Any idea why?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mbcrowder
No ... what would happen is that you'd have officials ignoring USC that SHOULD be flagged, because it had no true outcome on the play. You'd have B players end up not being penalized for USC behind the play, because (unless A scores on the play) A would be forced to decline the foul. Both of these are bad outcomes. Leave the current rule alone.
|
Still think that live ball foul has to be declined, Mac?
