Double Scrimmage Kick

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by sorrydog

Thank you! Over the years, we could post stuff on this site and get a answer without others being a smart-ass. Now looks like a few have now joined and instead of answering with a rule or knowledge, they want to make fun and criticize the poster. And "YES" I know how to look-up the rule. In the past, most of us post stuff like this just to get others to think about the play. If this is the new trend of making fun of officials that post stuff instead of keeping it professional, I'll delete my account and move on.

But...there's nothing to look up here. You can't find anything in the rule book to say this is legal. Most stuff that's legal is just not illegal. The book can't list everything you might do that's legal.

[CT1]

The general principle in all NFHS sports is:
If it’s not proscribed as being illegal, then it’s legal.

So, if you can’t find a rule or case play that forbids an action (such as a second kick from behind the LOS), it’s quite likely OK.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by CT1

The general principle in all NFHS sports is:
If it’s not proscribed as being illegal, then it’s legal.

Not just NFHS...that's a gen'l principle used by everyone in writing rules for sports whose play flows similarly to football. The presumption is of action's being legal. It's not an absolute presumption; there's always a loophole in such rules about "travesty of the game" or similar criterion that makes it illegal to go obviously beyond the bounds of the spirit of the game. You know, like turning a fire hose on the players, opening a trap door, or pulsing the lighting to induce seizures.

Some games are of the type where procedures are spelled out so as to give the players a limited range of choices: You can do A, B, or C, period. But games like football have their rules written more like, you can do anything you can think of except A, B, or C.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by sorrydog

Yep. Kind of why the question was asked. I do read the rule book and case book almost DAILY. Sometimes it can be confusing so in the past one could ask the question here and get interpretations. But first time I've ever ran into a lecture. Ego's came out of the woodwork on this one!

Sorry, I've been as kind as possible, but you're just looking for reasons to be offended. If you aren't willing to put any effort into getting better yourself, why should we help you?

No more post about egos. They....and you....will be deleted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by sorrydog

Yep. Kind of why the question was asked. I do read the rule book and case book almost DAILY. Sometimes it can be confusing so in the past one could ask the question here and get interpretations. But first time I've ever ran into a lecture. Ego's came out of the woodwork on this one!

Maybe your "ego" is not allowing you to understand the answer. It is simply not illegal. There is nothing that suggests this situation you gave is illegal. If it is not covered in the rules as illegal, then it is legal. It is not about what it should be or what you might think. So clearly you are not reading the rulebook enough if you keep trying to get an answer that honestly has already been implied and answered in many forms.

Peace