The NHFS has issued it's press release with the rule changes for 2005:

http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/va...?category_ID=3

Glad they've made official notice of the Tackiness problem. That should address some of those awfully tacky uniforms out there, eh?

Rules Committee did a nice job here. Brought the game closer to its collegiate and NFL brothers.

Getting rid of the "two forward pass rule" is probably the smart thing. Brought out too many trick plays.

Including the provision that DPI must be in the initial direction of the pass is also a good rule.

And nice to see they took my suggestion and allowed periods to end when a loss of down foul is committed. YAY!

REPLY: Can't wait to see how they suggest we handle this situation which some bright official came up with. Consider it in light of the rule change which says not to extend the period if the foul includes loss of down:

A, 4-20 from their own 1 leading by 3 points. 0:03 remains on the clock. QB throws an illegal forward pass from his 2 yardline. Time expires during the down.

Do you think B's coach is going to like this new rule??

I'm not an NF official and I believe this was posted previously by someone. I think that this rule should be written in a way that it only applies on downs 1 thru 3. That way on 4th down the ball would be going over to the defense for an untimed down and a possible shot at field goal or hail mary pass especially if this were at the end of the 2nd or 4th qtr.

Hey, hey! They fixed the momentum exception to cover grounded balls, too.

I have to concur that this seems to be a pretty solid set of rule changes. Maybe somebody on the committee has been listening here.

I don't have my rule book with me. What's the 7-2-1 Illegal Procedure terminology that was removed?

This was the rule requiring offensive players to be within 15 yards of the ball at some point after the ready whistle.

That makes sense. Thanks.

This doesn't seem unfair to me. Giving B an untimed down in this situation seemed like a weird side effect of the rule.

If A threw an IFP from B's 10 under last years rule, and scored a TD they'd get another shot at the endzone so either way B's coach is not going to be happy.

[Edited by kdf5 on Jan 24th, 2005 at 12:19 PM]

Bob-
You play is lacking a little information.
1) What was the the illegal forward pass complete or incomplete?
2) If the pass was complete, did A have possession of the ball in B's endzone? Was the result of the play a touchdown?

I will assume you intention was that an A player caught the ball in B's endzone for an apparant touchdown.

Lets take a look at the rules...
<b>Under 2004 rules "B" would have two options</b>;
1) Accept the penalty (extend the period and replay the down from the 7 yard line following enforcment)
2) Decline the penalty and accept the result of the play, <u>TOUCHDOWN BY A, Game over </u> (A wins by 9 points)
<b>There is no option which allows "B" to put the ball in play</b>


<b>Under 2005 rules</b> (if the illegal forward pass was caught in B's endzone by A) B would have two options;
1) Accept the penalty, and since the penalty includes a loss of down foul, AND BECAUSE IT OCCURRED ON THE LAST PLAY OF A PERIOD, the game is over. (A wins by 3 points)
2) Decline the penalty and accept the result of the play, <u>TOUCHDOWN BY A, Game over </u> (A wins by 9 points)
<b>There is <u>still</u> no option which allows "B" to put the ball in play</b>

I hope this helps...





[Edited by KWH on Jan 25th, 2005 at 01:03 PM]

REPLY: Sorry Kevin...It was 4th down and I meant for the IFP to be thrown incomplete from A's 2 yardline. B would normally take over 1st and goal from A's 1. In 2004, even for this play at the end of the period, he could have the ball for an untimed down. But with the new rule, since the 4th period ends and there's no extension because the penalty includes loss of down, B gets to go home with a loss. A clearly gains an unfair advantage by fouling. I'm not sure this is what the Fed intended. But we really need to see the final rule wording.

I'm probably the one confused. I was thinking of the play where A throws an IFP on, say, 2nd down at the end of the game and it's complete for a TD. B has the choice of giving up the TD or letting A have another shot, in effect giving A an advantage by fouling, same as your play. That to me seems as unfair as your scenario where B doesn't get the ball. My point was that there are situations in both '04 and '05 where B gets no love, no matter the rule.

REPLY: Right...I think the new rule is fair as long as the foul occurs on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd down since the fouling team (A) would get another possibly unfair opportunity--like your play. But if it occurs on 4th down, and the result of the penalty would put B in a rightfully advantageous position, it does seem a little unfair. Maybe the right way to deal with it is to offer the offended team the option of whether to extend or not. That would take care of the play you mention as well as mine.