I can affirm removing the AFD provision for DPI was definitely a compromise by members of the committee to remove the LOD for OPI. It was the only way they could get it passed after attempts for several years. Their logic was to maintain balance between offense and defense. I believe the public documentation about the rule change mentioned that part as well. I still think it's a dumb idea and very poor justification, but that is WHY the rules committee did what they did.

You should, since you've been told by two posters that do know.
Now we've found something to agree on!

Apparently, this doesn't happen frequently enough for coaches to get sufficiently riled to reinstate the AFD provision. After all, most of the DPI walkoffs result in a FD regardless of the AFD provision.

And let's be realistic: How many HS coaches are going to spend their valuable practice time teaching their players to intentionally foul in a situation that may never happen in a season?

There was an official statement from the NF about the issue or statement from posters on this site? There is a huge difference. Sorry, I take statements from the NF as actual reasoning more official than some person commenting on what they think or what conversation they might have had with someone else. The NF does not appear to go into all their reasoning in their rules changes, they just change the rule and explain how it should be enforced. I do not remember any specific reasoning given at the time, nor is it relevant to this discussion honestly. The individual I was talking to has not officiated that long.


I do not know the answer to that last question and honestly do not go around worrying about that. All I know is that the logic that you claim to be true still is silly and should have never been changed. And I have been in a game where we had to call several DPIs in one possession to continue a half. Not sure if it was done on purpose, but it was called and enforced without a first down.

Peace

I don't pretend to represent NFHS in any capacity. I do know several members of the football rules committee who have all confirmed what I have posted here.

You may think that their logic is silly, and in this instance I agree. The fact remains that they vote on the rules proposals presented to them, which originate mainly from coaches.

Again you are trying to have a conversation I was not commenting on or trying to have. I was commenting to a very specific individual for a very specific purpose. I really do not care to discuss what the NF did beyond my original comments where you decided to "set me straight." :D

Peace

I agree that the justification is dumb, because no level (NCAA has just 15 yards from the previous spot, NFL has 10 yards from the previous spot, NFHS eliminated the LOD provision in 2013) uses a loss of down to penalize OPI. Therefore, the "balance" argument does not make sense.

Because offensive penalties tend to kill drives (with or without loss of down provisions), no offense has an incentive to foul in the way that a defense would, to prevent a score. Therefore, it is entirely consistent in NCAA and NFL football for 15 yard penalties on the defense (pass interference*, personal fouls, unsportsmanlike conduct), and it would be consistent for NFHS to have similar enforcement provisions, without corresponding loss of down provisions on the offense.

* In NFL, pass interference is always enforced at the spot of the foul, except in the end zone, when the ball is moved to the 1 yard line. NCAA pass interference is enforced as a spot foul if the foul was under 15 yards from the line of scrimmage, as a 15 yard foul if the distance from the spot of the foul to the line of scrimmage was 15 yards or more, or with the ball being placed at the defense's 2 yard line, if the ball is snapped between the B17 and the B2, and the foul is on or inside the B2 (from the B2 to the end zone).

It may be worthwhile to consider, and remember, that Football is a game, of serious physical contact, enjoyed by participants between the ages of minors and senior citizens, with extraordinarily different levels of skill sets, maturity and overall objectives (from teaching interactive relationship skills to generating serious revenue objectives)

It seems neither surprising, nor illogical that these dramatically different objectives would contribute to minor rule differences related, and specific, to the inherent physical, emotional, strategy and profit objectives unique to each level.

Although consistency across levels is usually beneficial, and worthy of pursuit, consistency arbitrarily ignoring the unique performance and strategic capabilities and responsibilities of each level, for the sake of consistency alone, seems excessive, unnecessary and counterproductive.