View Single Post
  #155 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 10, 2009, 10:40am
Ed Hickland Ed Hickland is offline
Official Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,130
Originally Posted by pedr View Post
That was my thought while watching: if they ruled him down short, Pittsburgh could accept the penalty, giving Arizona the ball back, and one last shot at the end-zone (unlikely), or go into the locker room having nearly but not quite pulled off one of the greatest interceptions in Superbowl history!

The idea that a foul before a change of possession is still assessed against the possession-surrendering team seemed very odd - but that's what Pereria said the rule was in the NFL (and, I suppose, the justification is that 'Personal Foul' is not a foul because it is an unfair game-altering act like holding, but an offence of unauthorised violence towards another player which ought to be penalised when ever it takes place.)

The technicalities on whose penalties extend the half are well beyond my amateur status, of course!
What you say makes sense. The NFL rule essentially states no personal foul shall go unpunished. In the case of the Super Bowl half ending play if the Pittsburgh player had been tackled that foul would have been HUGE.

The NFHS philosophy would have disadvantaged Pittsburgh because you cannot have the ball and the foul if the foul against you was pre-possession.

NFHS has been leaning toward no personal foul goes unpenalized in the area of scoring. Personally, I think that should be the rule. My pet peeve over the years has been chipping -- contact on a defenseless player -- by the offense on the long run which officials hesitate to penalize per the rule.
Ed Hickland, MBA, CCP
[email protected]
Reply With Quote