2018 NFHS Rules Changes

[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.

[ilyazhito]

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

That is what the unfair act provision exists for, as a catch-all for situations that are unfair, but not explicitly covered.

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

[ilyazhito]

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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.

[ilyazhito]

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.