OK...my turn

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by James Neil

Saying never will usually get you in trouble. But in this case since I cant think of any contact un-sporty, and there’s none listed in the “Book”, I’m going to say never. Now how much trouble am I in?

I don't think you're in trouble, I can't think of any.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by James Neil
Saying never will usually get you in trouble. But in this case since I cant think of any contact un-sporty, and there’s none listed in the “Book”, I’m going to say never. Now how much trouble am I in?

REPLY: Only a "little." Take a look at the penalty for intentional pass interference.

[James Neil]

Originally posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Only a "little." Take a look at the penalty for intentional pass interference.

But Bob, the penalty listed for IPI only says to add an additional 15 yards from the succeeding spot. It makes no mention about unsportsmanlike conduct. I also remember having a discussion about this addition 15 yards and if we eject the player if he’d had a previous un-sportsmanlike. If I remember correctly the consensus was no. I believe the rational was although the enforcement of the additional 15 was treated like a UNS it couldn't be one because it was in fact a contact foul.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Actually Jim, it does make reference to USC. It's a bit "hidden" but look at the PENALTY section and specifically look at the signal(s) for intentional PI. Agreed that it seems like a dumb decision to make it USC, but...

[James Neil]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: Actually Jim, it does make reference to USC. It's a bit "hidden" but look at the PENALTY section and specifically look at the signal(s) for intentional PI. Agreed that it seems like a dumb decision to make it USC, but...

once again ... You are correct Sir !

[PiggSkin]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: Actually Jim, it does make reference to USC. It's a bit "hidden" but look at the PENALTY section and specifically look at the signal(s) for intentional PI. Agreed that it seems like a dumb decision to make it USC, but...

Actually, that signal also means "non-contact foul", not just USC... It can also apply to a five yard penalty... Just because that signal is used doesn't necessarily mean that you have USC...

[jransom]

Originally posted by PiggSkin

Actually, that signal also means "non-contact foul", not just USC... It can also apply to a five yard penalty... Just because that signal is used doesn't necessarily mean that you have USC...

Thank you for pointing that out--I love it when guys "talk" things out on here. S27 is also for nonplayer fouls.

The only thing I'd like to add that might be somewhat in opposition to your comment is that the book also implies that if you assess a penalty using S27 (USC/non-contact) that goes for 15 yards, someone should be tagged on your game card toward DQ.

On page 64 of the rulebook, under 9-8 PENALTY section, A second unsportsmanlike foul with a 15-yard penalty results in disqualification. I realize that you can split hairs and say that if it's not USC that you can't use that statement, but why would it say "USC with 15 yarder" if it didn't mean what I'm thinking--that if you use S27 and assess a 15 yarder it counts toward DQ. I believe the intent of that statement is because we do assess penalties using S27 that are only 5 yarders. But those are not USC, they're either nonplayer or noncontact (e.g. 1st sideline interfernce after an official sideline warning is S27 with a 5 yd. pen.).

What do you guys think?

Jonathan

[chiefgil]

LSU player jumped to block PAT, landed on an Auburn player. FJ ruled PF. Auburn gets another chance, PAT good, LSU goes home.

Coach Saban is confused, wants to know why it's a PF. He's on the NCAA Rules Committee, and he still doesn't inderstand that rule.

GO TULANE