Look for updated interpretations to No.13 and No.15 at
http://www.nfhs.org/sports/football_interp.htm

Outstanding!

SIT 15 backs up what our state interpreter told us from the beginning, that the foul had to be by the defense, not by the opponent of the scoring team. The wording under the Rule Changes is correct. The wording under 8-2-2 in the context of the rule book is incorrect.

I also have to give credit to KWH. He first posted the correct interpretation of SIT 13 with his "Understanding PSK" page on the Portland Football Officials Association website back in the summer. Clean hands does apply! Nice job, Kevin!

http://www.pfoa.us/index.asp?page=interp

Thanks Tom.

I told you guys.
 

Now there should be no debate.

Peace

I like the change they made with the PSK interpretation, but I find it interesting that the rules they cite contradict the interpretation. Anyway, I think this is the most fair decision possible on such plays.

I'm thrilled they came to their senses
 

REPLY: Now let's hope they change NF 10-2 and 8-2-2 in next year's books to clarify this much better interpretation!

Bob, don't ask for too much all at once,
 

nm

Thanks for the recognition BBR, however...
 

BBR_
I thank you for the compliment on our PFOA web page. I am also excited that the NFHS has now (finally) seen the light on Situation 13.
However...
<u>I do not support you take on situation 15.</u>
<b>Situation 15 is merely an exception to new rule 8-2-2</b>
The clearly rule states <b> ...a foul by the opponents of the scoring team...</b>
Situation 15 is <b>am exception!</b> Situation 15 is <b>the only time</b> that you do not get to keep the points and have the penalty enforced on the succeeding spot! <u>In this one exception you get to keep 6 points or 2 points but the penalty is not carried over to the succeeding spot!</u>
Other than on page 2 the rulebook clearly supports what I have just stated!
<b>The intent of rule 8-2-2 was that all penalties are enforced.</b> Now with the exception of Situation 15 they all will be!
Also please note the end of Situation 15 where it states: <i>As interpreted, the foul by A would have to be following the change of possession in order for the revised provisions of 8-2-2 to be in place. </i>
<b>This makes it pretty clear that a foul can occur by A on a play that results in a B touchdown and B will get the points and the penalty.</b>

Re: Thanks for the recognition BBR, however...
 

My understanding from, our state office is that the wording will be changed next year to "a foul by the defense...." That is the way it is written in the rule changes at the front of the book and the way it should have been written in the context of 8-2-2.

I didn't say that a foul by A couldn't occur. Remember that A and B do not change during a change of possession but offense and defense do change. In SITUATION 15, the foul is by A. But, the foul is by A when they are on offense. Once the ball is intercepted, A is now on defense. Accordingly, since the foul was not by the defense, B must decline the penalty to accept the score.

Changing the wording as I have described above eliminates the need for any exception and doesn't change any other issues associated with the rule. It is the way the rule was supposed to be written and I am told that it will be properly edited next year.

BBR I understand what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree!
 

While I understand your interpretation and could officiate under it, I do not believe your interpretation was the intent of the rules committee.
I also agree that their wording on page 2 has a hugh conflict with the wording within <b>8-2-2</b>, the wording on <b>Page 67</b>, and the wording on <b>Page 73</b>. I believe the person that wrote page 2 did not understand the impact his conflicting words would make, however I believe the person who wrote page two was in error just as I believe the committee overlooked Situation 15 when they wrote the rule. (I also believe they overlooked Situation 13 when they wrote the PSK rule.)

I agree with you that next year this situation should be resolved with the issue of the new rule books along with (several?) other conflicts!

Re: BBR I understand what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree!
 

Well, I guess we'll have to wait until next year to see who's right. I'm bookmarking this thread! :)