Quote:
Originally Posted by JugglingReferee
Yes, the R was correct by saying IFP because IG is a member of the set of IFPs, but he could have narrowed down the foul more.
|
Why? Any foul by A in the end zone in that situation is going to be a safety.
Quote:
|
Also, all IFP also must carry the same penalty as IG in order for a mistake not to have been made between what was said and what was applied. If that is true, then what circumstances deem IG to be different than an IFP, and thus the need for IG?
|
Same enforcement in HS. I'd have to look it up for NFL.
Quote:
|
Furthermore, but not calling it IG, when it appears that it should have been according to MP, the R is actually confusing players, coaches, and fans. And I *know* that the NFL is aware and concerned with such things. (They likely don't hold public sessions on NFL rules, but they do have the OR section on TA.)
|
Fans are always confused. Players, and coaches don't seem to be confused. Seems the most confused are a few HS officials and one Canuck.
Quote:
|
Additionally, why did Corrente say "there is no foul for intentional grounding as #34 was in the area." Also, why do 99.99% of the time, do we hear "IG" from the R and not "IFP"?
|
What does Corrente have to do with it?
Quote:
What's next? Will Riveron say "grasping/tackling a non-ball carrier" instead of "holding"? 
|
Nah, "grasping/tackling a non-ball carrier" isn't listed as an option. Illegal forward pass is.