2018 NFHS Rules Changes

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

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

[CT1]

You said:

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

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

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

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).

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I agree that the justification is dumb, because no level uses a loss of down to penalize OPI. Therefore, the "balance" argument does not make sense.

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.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

You should, since you've been told by two posters that do know.

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

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

You should, since you've been told by two posters that do know.

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.

Originally Posted by CT1

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?

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

[CT1]

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.