2018 NFHS Rules Changes

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

That's what I said. In the casebook (HS), rulebook, or approved rulings (NCAA), Team B is the term used for the defense. The automatic first down is a deterrent to both "tactical" personal fouls and "safety" fouls, and this is the reason why all personal fouls by B (the defensive team, or R, on a kick play, before the kick) are automatic first downs at the NCAA and NFL levels.

But I was just pointing out that if deterring such fouls is your aim, why would you make a change that affects only the penalties for fouls by team B?

I'm looking for your justif'n for such a penalty in any of the various play situations where such fouls could occur, especially when the value of an AFD varies depending on what the down & distance situation was.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But I was just pointing out that if deterring such fouls is your aim, why would you make a change that affects only the penalties for fouls by team B?

I'm looking for your justif'n for such a penalty in any of the various play situations where such fouls could occur, especially when the value of an AFD varies depending on what the down & distance situation was.

I believe that the NCAA chose to tag all personal fouls by B with the automatic first down to deter fouls in situations where the yardage assessed would not be enough to award A a first down, when A would have otherwise received a first down from the yards gained by penalty. DPI was (and is) an automatic first down, regardless of yards gained, because of the potential for strategic misuse, and the fact that a penalty without the automatic first down gives the defense a "freebie" when yardage is of no consequence. Perhaps the rule makers believed that the 15-yard penalty is an adequate deterrent for the offense, because 1st and 25, 2nd and 20, etc. would put an offense behind schedule, and force them to catch up, and they believed that the converse situation (offense fouls with their backs to their own goal line, making the yardage penalty trivial) would not happen, because there is no purpose for the offense to foul to go backwards. This is why there is no "Loss of Down if committed by A" provision next to the enforcement statement for personal fouls anywhere in the NCAA rulebook. For the record, there are no 15-yard, loss of down fouls (most are for procedural errors, such as a forward pass ahead of the line of scrimmage (5 yards from spot of the foul), intentional grounding (spot of the foul), or illegally batting a kick (10 yards from the previous spot, loss of down)).

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I believe that the NCAA chose to tag all personal fouls by B with the automatic first down to deter fouls in situations where the yardage assessed would not be enough to award A a first down, when A would have otherwise received a first down from the yards gained by penalty.

Then why don't you advocate for an AFD enforcement only in those situations? That is, a new series for the penalty for a live ball foul by the defense when inside B's 30 yard line and 15 yards or less from A's line to gain. And how about making the first down not automatic, but a choice offered the non-offending side? They may prefer to repeat a down if the distance portion of the foul leaves them close to their line to gain but not the goal line, or if they'd be repeating 1st down.

[ilyazhito]

That was not an option on the NFHS questionnaire for football rules changes. The question was about adding an AFD to personal fouls, so I answered "yes" on that one. I also answered "yes" on the question about adding an AFD to DPI. If there was a question on adding an AFD to USC fouls, I would have answered "yes" to that as well.

The automatic first down provision can also bail out an offensive team that is behind schedule (e.g. 3rd and 20 for A from the A45, 15 yard DPI would ordinarily produce A 3/5 from the B40, but with an AFD, as in NCAA, the situation would be A 1/10 from the B40), so the defense would be encouraged not to foul in long-distance situations, in addition to the situations previously mentioned. Unsportsmanlike Conduct by B (except for fouls enforced between series) should also be an automatic first down, to deter unsportsmanlike action regardless of the down or distance.

Personally, I would agree with the automatic first down inside the 30 rule, or the 1st down on coach's option rule, but those would be more complicated to administer than the "all personal fouls are 15 plus Automatic First Down" rule that exists in the NCAA/NFL. This is why if the personal foul, unsportsmanlike conduct, and DPI enforcements are changed, it would be more likely that these fouls become 15 and automatic first down, rather than the options that you suggest. Ease of administration is the reason why high school football has not adopted the 10-second runoff rule, a rule that also depends on the offended coach's option, even in states that use NCAA rules for high school football.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The automatic first down provision can also bail out an offensive team that is behind schedule (e.g. 3rd and 20 for A from the A45, 15 yard DPI would ordinarily produce A 3/5 from the B40, but with an AFD, as in NCAA, the situation would be A 1/10 from the B40), so the defense would be encouraged not to foul in long-distance situations, in addition to the situations previously mentioned.

Do you see that as a positive or negative?

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Do you see that as a positive or negative?

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.).

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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.