OPI/DPI Extra penalty

[Bob Floyd]

Originally posted by Theisey
I see my recollection was not too good. Of course DPI is an auto-first down (or OPI loss of down). Duh!!

I see from Bobs reply that the signal for the additional penalty is S27? Hmmm, NF wants the use of the Unsportsmanlike signal which is normally for non-contact fouls? I only have a summary page handy and "intentional pass interfernce" is sure not listed under that section.
S27 also implies the players number and name are recorded since he half way from being DQd.
Personally S38 is more appropriate

In my post I stated Signal 27 is used for the intentional aspect of pass interference. This is the signal specified in the penalty summary at the end of Rule 7-5. Also, it states that the team is penalized an additional 15 yards. This would not be one of two disqualifying fouls against a player since it is a team penalty.

[Bob Floyd]

Originally posted by jransom

Excellent points, Jim. Also by Theisey. Way to think things out, guys!

Although I may be splitting hairs here, as far as the USC goes, it's the unsportsmanlike intent of the IPI that's being penalized (on top of the PI), not the actual contact. The rule book (Penalty summary at the end of 7-5) says that IPI is an USC charged to the team, so I guess, theoretically, you could call this USC without charging it to the player toward DQ. A similar example of this type of judgment would be on an illegal batt: contacting a loose ball can be legal (muff) or an illegal bat. It's the intent manifested in an action that has to be examined. How do we know whether it's a muff/illegal bat, or PI/IPI? By judging intent--even though in most cases it will be obvious.

I ran accross an interesting situation in my mind while researching some of the things posted in this thread. While I don't care too much for far-fetched play situations, try this one out just for the exercise--what is the worst case ruling coming from this play (assuming NFHS, no personal fouls and no invoking of 9-9):
A 4&G at B7YL. A19 throws a legal fwd pass; A82 sees that B23 is in position to intercept the pass & while ball is in air, A82 lunges at the legs of, and tackles B23 at the 5YL. The pass is then caught by A34 at the 4YL, who fumbles the ball forward to the 2YL where A82 (seeing a teammate in EZ) kicks the ball forward into the endzone where it is recovered by A89 for an apparant TD.
Remember, what is the worst ruling (most penal) that could come out of this--not necesarily how we would most likely handle it...

Jonathan E. Ransom

Intentional offensive pass interference. 15+15 against A from previous spot (B's 7 yard line). Loss of down. B's ball 1st and 10 at B's 37 yard line. Decline A's foul for intentional kicking.

[Theisey]

Just happen to have my 2003 book and I see those words. I don't see where that changes anything in that someone is going to be charged with a UC. Its either the player committing the I-PI or the coach. I say its the player.

I think those words just mean that the +15 is on A if OPI and on B is DPI.

[Jim S]

Originally posted by Bob Floyd

The rule book (Penalty summary at the end of 7-5) says that IPI is an USC charged to the team, so I guess, theoretically, you could call this USC without charging it to the player toward DQ.

Have to disagree. All (accepted) fouls are penalized against the team, but they are charged to the player, or the head coach. Would make for some interesting formations if we penalized the individual players wouldn't it?

[Bob Floyd]

I respectfully disagree that intentional pass interference is classified as an USC foul. It is INTENTIONAL PASS INTERFERENCE, which carries an additional 15 yard penalty.This is not by rule USC. The player or coach is not charged one of the two disqualifying fouls. The use of signal 27 is misleading, maybe NF should come up with another signal.

[Theisey]

Originally posted by Bob Floyd
... (snip) The use of signal 27 is misleading, maybe NF should come up with another signal.

Agreed, it just doesn't make sense to use S27.

[jransom]

Originally posted by Bob Floyd
I respectfully disagree that intentional pass interference is classified as an USC foul. It is INTENTIONAL PASS INTERFERENCE, which carries an additional 15 yard penalty.This is not by rule USC. The player or coach is not charged one of the two disqualifying fouls. The use of signal 27 is misleading, maybe NF should come up with another signal.

If you're using the USC signal to call a penalty, it's a USC. If you're not using the signal, what are you going to call? If you're calling I-PI, and using PF or anything other than S-27, you have a multiple foul situation unless they're going to put a written exception in for that particular ordeal.

Originally posted by Theisey
Just happen to have my 2003 book and I see those words. I don't see where that changes anything in that someone is going to be charged with a UC. Its either the player committing the I-PI or the coach. I say its the player.

I think those words just mean that the +15 is on A if OPI and on B is DPI.

I completely agree with you on this; Although I stated earlier that in theory you could call it only on the team and not the player, there is wording that says otherwise: look at the pen. summary for 9-8. Basically it infers that anytime you have a USC-type foul called that carries a 15-yd. penalty (there are situation where it's not 15), it counts toward DQ.
IMO, if NFHS wanted I-PI to truly be a distinct, stand-alone penalty, they would've made it a one-signal, one 30-yd. penalty. By saying that it's an "add-on" penalty, it has to be USC in order to get enforced (otherwise mult. foul because it's live-ball).

Originally posted by Jim S
...All (accepted) [USC] fouls are penalized against the team, but they are charged to the player, or the head coach...

Excellent statement, Jim. The distance penalty can be declined (although I'm not sure why it would be, since it's always suc.-spot enforcement), but the player or coach called for the foul always gets "charged" on the game card.

Not that any of us has the "right" answwer, but think about this: say Home Team player #33 gets called for I-PI in the 2nd per. and then in the 3rd, #33 gets flagged for swearing at an official. Do you toss him? What if after the 2nd per. I-PI, he commits I-PI again in the 4th per. Is he gone? If not & he does it a 3rd time, can you justify tossing him after a "3rd" USC? What if...

We could all go back and forth on this thread, but as long as it's as clear as mud exactly how & why NFHS wants I-PI to go "into the books", I think we can say that our crews will probably look at it in different lights, and if it actually comes up in a game, we'll deal with it.

Let's try to not get too bogged down in this thread, guys (easier said than done); I-PI won't happen too often, but by the same token, don't be afraid to call it.

Jonathan E. Ransom

[jransom]

Originally posted by Bob Floyd
Intentional offensive pass interference. 15+15 against A from previous spot (B's 7 yard line). Loss of down. B's ball 1st and 10 at B's 37 yard line. Decline A's foul for intentional kicking.

Although this is what most of us would probably do, it's not the worst that can happen...What if I told you that it's B's ball 1st & 10 from the A48? In addition, A82 gets to sit for the rest of the night. Now let's see if anyone can figure out why. Again, I would never actually rule on it this way, but it can be.

Jonathan E. Ransom

[PiggSkin]

Originally posted by jransom
If you're using the USC signal to call a penalty, it's a USC. If you're not using the signal, what are you going to call? If you're calling I-PI, and using PF or anything other than S-27, you have a multiple foul situation unless they're going to put a written exception in for that particular ordeal.

Just because you use S27, that doesn't mean that you must have a USC... It's also part of the signal for Failure to Wear Required equipment (1-5-6)... That's not even a 15 yard penalty, much less a USC...

Personally, I would have a hard time ejecting someone because of an IPI call, even if they did it twice...

[Bob Floyd]

Originally posted by PiggSkin

Just because you use S27, that doesn't mean that you must have a USC... It's also part of the signal for Failure to Wear Required equipment (1-5-6)... That's not even a 15 yard penalty, much less a USC...

Personally, I would have a hard time ejecting someone because of an IPI call, even if they did it twice...

Excellent point PiggSkin and I rest my case!!

[Bob Floyd]

Originally posted by jransom

Although this is what most of us would probably do, it's not the worst that can happen...What if I told you that it's B's ball 1st & 10 from the A48? In addition, A82 gets to sit for the rest of the night. Now let's see if anyone can figure out why. Again, I would never actually rule on it this way, but it can be.

Jonathan E. Ransom

I understand where you are coming from on your possible ruling in the play. You would rule A82's illegal kick an USC foul under Rule 9-5-1e and tack on the additional 15 yds, moving the ball from B's 37 to A's 48. This is a stretch. I would think the illegal kick would fall under Rule 9-7-1. making it part of a multiple foul situation. 9-5 primarily deals with fouls which occur outside of a play in progress.