OPI/DPI Extra penalty

[BigGref]

I was looking through 7-5-10 at different Forward pass interference rules and saw something that I had previously not seen before, the additional 15 if the PI was intentional.

Now I know that I have seen "intentional" PIs before (like when a defender gives the reciever a bear hug after he finds out he can't cover him, giving up 15 but not 6 points), but I have never seen an additional penalty for intention. So my questions are, first if anyone here has ever added on those additional 15 yards, and if so, where is the line drawn that makes the difference between a good foul, and an intentional pass interference? And the bigger question is WHAT IS IPI?

[Snake~eyes]

I'll answer for everyone. No one has ever called nor seen the intentional 15 yards added on. I've always wondered if you mark off 15 and then another 15 or if its one 30 yard penalty.

[kentref]

I've wondered about the "intentional" PI as well. Although it may never have been applied, Snake eyes brings up an interesting point - is it one 30 yard penalty or 2, 15 yarders? For example, if the enforcement spot (on def. PI) is B's 30, two 15 yarders get you to B's 7 1/2 (the first one to the 15 and then half the distance on the second). One 30 yarder is automatically a half the distance issue - or only to the 15; so yes, it theoretically would make a difference. The same could apply to A for offensive PI at A's 30.

I can only imagine the look on the coach's face when you try to enforce a 30 yarder on his team.

[BigGref]

In the book it says that it is an additional 15 yards, so I think that it would be treated as a Dead Ball type Mutliple foul. These are Succeeding spot fouls so the 30 yard penalty would be 15 then half.

[Theisey]

An example of intentional PI would be were the defender who is trailing the receiver by a several yards, simply dives at the receivers feet and tackles him long before the ball arrives. I'm sure we could come up with others for this rare situation.

It's not 30 yards, it's two 15 yard penalites enforced one after another. Therefore any 1/2 distance situations are handled one at a time.

[kentref]

Theisey - if the intentional PI is enforced as a separate 15 yard penalty, it would seem to me that you have a "multiple foul" issue. Since it is enforced as two, 15 yard penalties, and both are presumably live ball, then doesn't it follow that the offended team would have a "choice" of penalties? I realize (what I just said) doesn't necessarily make sense in the context of this penalty, but NFHS 10-2-3 clearly indicates that "when two or more live-ball fouls are committed by the same team, only one penalty may be enforced..." It seems like this (intentional PI) should be an exception to 10-2-3.

Having said all that, the PI penalties (without the intentional part) are pretty severe already. Furthermore, if no one is enforcing the "intentional" PI, then why is it in the rulebook?

[skybackjudge]

We viewed a film on this last year during a training session. The film moderator said that this extra penalty was for the combination of an intent to harm and pass interferance. I took it to mean it was a foul that was a combination of pass interferance and unsportsman like conduct (throwing a punch at a receiver for example). The calling official only threw one flag, and I believe the referee in the film gave the personal foul signal then the pass interferance signal and enforced it as one penalty of 30 yards.

[Theisey]

Originally posted by kentref
Theisey - if the intentional PI is enforced as a separate 15 yard penalty, it would seem to me that you have a "multiple foul" issue. Since it is enforced as two, 15 yard penalties, and both are presumably live ball, then doesn't it follow that the offended team would have a "choice" of penalties? I realize (what I just said) doesn't necessarily make sense in the context of this penalty, but NFHS 10-2-3 clearly indicates that "when two or more live-ball fouls are committed by the same team, only one penalty may be enforced..." It seems like this (intentional PI) should be an exception to 10-2-3.

Having said all that, the PI penalties (without the intentional part) are pretty severe already. Furthermore, if no one is enforcing the "intentional" PI, then why is it in the rulebook?

### It most certainly is an exception but I would not call this a multiple foul by the same team. The example by skybackjudge is a mutiple foul and I would think it would called DPI and a personal foul for throwing a punch (which results in an ejection). I don't think that can be called intentional PI.

Team A doesn't have any choice to think about. They accept the foul for DPI and they get the possibility of an additional 15 for free for the intentional portion of DPI.
Still one foul.

Now since no one I know has called this, how is it enforced?
In each, the call is intentional DPI.
(a) Pass is incomplete. enforce 15+15 from previous spot.
(b) Pass is complete but yardage gain is less than 15. Looks to me it will be take the 15+15 over the results of the play.
(c) Pass complete and yardage gain is greater than 15 but less than 30.
Now what? I have my own thoughts, but what do others think? I'll just say, I see nothing that says add the extra 15 to the end of the run.
(d) Basically (c) except the yardage gain is 30 or more yards. What do you do here?

[ljudge]

In a thru d all situations are still loose-ball play so if you provide the penalty option it's always 30 yards. Now in D the only time I'd see a captain accepting that is if the LTG was over 30 yards (say 40) and the play gained 35. He might accept less yardage if the penalty gives an auto first down. So, the offense would only get 30 yards out of the penalty but would have 1st down.

As far as the original post I'm sure all of you have been coached this way (as was I) when you played. We were taught if we thought we were beat to go for DPI because 15 yards was better than 6 pts. I'm sure they put that rule in because of that coaching strategy but I guess no one really follows it. I've never called it nor seen it called either. In fact I asked my Referee about it last season and he wasn't aware of the rule. I was asking him if he ever saw it called. He said "No, and don't even think of calling it if you see it."

[Theisey]

Can't always be 30 yards. What if the ball is snapped on the B-30 and you have an incomplete pass with IDPI.
Your darn sure not going to move it to the goal line.
You're going to go 15, then you going to go 7.5 more. My recollection is no auto-1st down.

You'd have to be on the B-45 or further back before it would always be 30 yards.

[Jim S]

Well as one who has been around a while not only have I seen this called several times, I have called it myself once.
The use is for a foul that is basically an unfair or dangerous act. Such as: the receiver has beaten the defender who then tackles him from behind simply to stop the receiver from any chance of catching the ball. Or, as stated, above the player fouling does so in what is a personal foul.
The enforcement we were given these many years ago was to enforce the PI and then the intenional part as an unsportsmanlike conduct. No question of a multiple foul.
It's too bad this is not called more.
The rule is there. The purpose for the rule is there. The mentallity that we shouldn't call it because "the pass interference rules are tough enough already" starts to put personal opinion into the enforcement of the rules. Perhaps if this were called once in a while there would be fewer plays on which it should be called.

[kentref]

Jim. I appreciate your comments, and I'm glad to hear that the foul/penalty has been used. I plan to bring this up with our crew for discussion. As I recall, I've seen some situations, where the receiver was tackled, and intentional DPI should probably have been called.

[Bob Floyd]

I too have been around awhile and have seen the intentional PI called. As previously stated, it is most certainly warranted when a player stops defending against the pass and goes for the opponents legs to keep him from the ball. There are two specific parts to this situation. The intentional aspect of pass interference is considered an unsportsmanlike foul, which by rule, is enforced from the succeeding spot, ie., after the pass interference penalty, if accepted, is marked off. The administration of the penalties would be to signal pass interference and walk off 15. Then signal unsportsmanlike (signal 27) and walk off the second 15, assuming half the distance is not a factor.
This carries an automatic first down.
Also, keep in mind that this penalty pertains to offensive PI as well as the defense. For offensive PI you would have 15 + 15 and loss of down.

[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

[jransom]

Originally posted by Jim S
...The use is for a foul that is basically an unfair or dangerous act...
The enforcement we were given these many years ago was to enforce the PI and then the intenional part as an unsportsmanlike conduct. No question of a multiple foul.
It's too bad this is not called more.
The rule is there. The purpose for the rule is there. The mentallity that we shouldn't call it because "the pass interference rules are tough enough already" starts to put personal opinion into the enforcement of the rules. Perhaps if this were called once in a while there would be fewer plays on which it should be called.

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