To me, that is a positive. Any time that the defense chooses to avoid a foul, for strategic reasons or otherwise is a time that I have to call one less foul. The less flags I throw, the better the game will flow. If a foul can bail out the offense, then it is good, because causing fouls to have teeth will force the defense to play in a more disciplined manner. If teams play cleanly, it makes it easier for me to make the basic calls (catch, no catch, 1st down, score, etc.).

Then, if you'll allow yourself to roam beyond the choices in that survey, why not propose increasing the penalties for all fouls against both offense & defense?

I think it's rare that "the defense" (or any team) "chooses to avoid a foul". Most fouls are not committed cunningly, calculatingly. (And that's true not only of football!) Athletes just mis-perform. The player who commits a foul is hardly ever aiming to, but is aiming elsewhere & missing. In most sports where danger is involved, choosing to commit such a foul results, or should result, in disqualif'n. Choosing to avoid such a foul isn't a considered choice, it's just the ordinary course of play, & sometimes still results in the foul's occurring because one's aim is off, literally -- a hand or a baseball or a vehicle winds up hitting a place it wasn't intended to hit.

That is what the unfair act provision exists for, as a catch-all for situations that are unfair, but not explicitly covered. An automatic first down is sufficient for personal fouls, unsportsmanlike conduct, and pass interference when said fouls are committed by the defense.

I don't think you & I are thinking about the same kinds of unfairness.

I guess so. To me, unfair = "illegal by the spirit of the rules". In this sense, strategic fouls = unfair, because they give an advantage not intended by rule to the fouling team, even though the team is punished by conceding yardage. Safety fouls and UNS are also unfair (in that sense, and in the conventional sense), because those fouls cause harm to the victims and/or provoke retaliation. This is why Automatic 1st Downs are assigned to fouls by B that fall into the "unfair" (illegal by spirit of the rules, unsafe, or unethical (UNS)) foul categories in NCAA and NFL rules.

Perhaps the inherent maturity, physical differences, unique objectives and tactical approach and capabilities of both players, and games, played under NCAA and NFL games, as applied to penalty concerns and administration is simply part of the logic and purpose of establishing a unique Rules code for Interscholastic level football.

Apparently, no one thought so initially, because NFHS did not gain a separate rules committee until the 1930s for football.

The fact that NFHS included proposals for an automatic first down on the annual rules questionnaire administered to coaches and officials after the 2017 season is proof that there is debate on the topic, and NFHS is trying to address it. Because automatic first downs are on the table in NFHS, I believe that the argument that automatic first downs are not appropriate in high school does not hold water.

I support adding an automatic first down to all 15 yard personal fouls, DPI, and Unsportsmanlike Conduct by B (the defense/kicking team prior to R gaining possession), because that will simplify enforcement of those penalties. Coaches at the HS level want an automatic first down called on personal fouls/DPI/USC by the defense because they see that at other levels, and officials have to constantly explain to them that this is not the high school rule. If an automatic first down is added to the high school rules for the above offenses , then this confusion will be reduced.

As you've stated, repeatedly, You "support adding an automatic first down to all 15 yard personal fouls, DPI, and Unsportsmanlike Conduct by B, because that will simplify enforcement of those penalties.". OK, got it.

No doubt, some number of, "Coaches at the HS level" may indeed agree with your observation, and the NFHS may well be considering this question, likely along with a lot of other "questions", as is their traditional, and appropriate, responsibility.

Equally, traditionally and appropriately, they will give this question the attention and merit it deserves, considering it's value and benefit specifically to the NFHS environment, rather than the specific, and often somewhat different, objectives of other levels.

It will be interesting to see, if any adjustments actually are deemed necessary.

For years the rule gave automatic first down for DPI and it was often seen as something they wanted to take off because they felt it was too harsh of a penalty (It was on surveys for years BTW). Then they finally changed it.

Again this is one of over 200 plus rules from college and nearly 300 to the NFL.

Peace

Actually, it was removed because the NFHS RC felt that the LOD provision for OPI was too severe. In order to keep the balance between offense and defense, they also removed the AFD penalty from DPI.

I'm aware of all of this, but the person I was responding to likely does not know the history of all of that conversation (nor was I trying to get into all of that). And does it really matter at this point? Not from where I am standing.

Peace

Well, it matters if you want to be accurate, rather than misleading.

Misleading what? This is a complicated issue and talking with a person that has bearly officiated.

Again, stop taking these discussions so damn seriously. Not everyone is going to know all the ins and outs of rules changes over the years. No one is trying to mislead something that they might not realize that even was discussed before.

Peace

You said:

That's misleading, because it's inaccurate.

The AFD provision was removed because the NFHS RC felt that the LOD provision for OPI was too severe. In order to keep the balance between offense and defense, they also removed the AFD penalty from DPI.

I have not idea why the NF decided to actually change the rule and most here do not either. They did and that is all that matters. And whatever the reason it is, I can argue that it created no balance between the offense and defense. Because if the defense keeps causing a PI penalty, they can keep doing it and still benefit from the penalty if they are close enough to the end zone. There is not much incentive for the offense to do the same over and over again. Either way, it was dumb to do and not other level has such an allowance for this penalty to be continued without given a first down.

Peace