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.

Here is the actual wording...
 

The underlined sections are the new wording.
Revise 3-3-3a as follows:
There was a foul, other than unsportsmanlike or non-player <u> or fouls which specify loss of down</u> by either team and the penalty is accepted. <u>In the latter case, any score by the team which fouled is cancelled.</u>
Play situation: QB A2 runs many yards beyond the line to gain as the clock runs out for either half. A2 realizes he will be unable to score, but sees A3 in the end zone. A2 throws a complete pass to A3. <b> RULING:</b> The half (game) is over and no points scored. "Loss of down" penalties will not extend a period, <b>regardless of whether the down is a factor.</b>

While the wording may change slightly in its final form the intent is pretty cut and dry: "A" can no longer gain an extra play (and possibly win the game) by fouling in this manner.
The trade-off (on a 4th down situation, "B" is not given one untimed down) is a small price to pay for "A" no longer to be given the chance of letting their all-state kicker attempt the winning field goal from the 9-yard line. If you disagree, I suggest you<b> ask any coach that has lost in this manner!!!</b>

I would also expect some wording changes to last sentence of Rule 5-2-2 as the current wording currently conflicts with this new rule. And, perhaps, (but no likely) the Rules Committee will write a 4th down exception to this loss of down exception. I would, however, like to see them Rules Committee vote on BobM's suggestion that <b>the offended team be given the option of whether to extend or not.</b>

Hey ya'all. It may take a few years to get the wording just right, but remember, We made it through PSK with a few bumps. Based on that we should be able to make it through this one...

Well, he might not like it, but in practice team A is going to take an intentional safety in this situation anyway.

Your proposal really wouldn't be out of line. B should get a choice as in other penalty situations. However, there might be other situations that would require special wording until the rulebook is overloaded with ifs, ands, or buts.

PS Bob M: Are you busy editing "Penalty Enforcement for Dummies"? If you are let me know when you're done so I can get another copy. It's the bombdiggity!

REPLY: I will as soon as we get the final wording of the rules and possibly some case plays. Until then I'd be shooting into the air. Personally, I don't think that the Press Release is enough to make the changes. Actually, the only rule change I see that directly affects enforcement procedures is the one about not extending the period when the foul includes loss of down. While the other changes may indeed categorize something as a foul that previously wasn't, the enforcement procedures to deal with the situation are apparently already in place.

By the way, is "bombdiggity" a defined term in Rule 2? <a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZSzeb02822' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_213.gif' alt='Laugh' border=0></a>

Bob, Is it REALLY unfair to B? Would they have had an opportunity to have a play and win the game if A hadn't committed such a foul on the last play of the game?
The change is to take away a situation where A can gain an advantage (score , or get another play) by committing a foul. It really doesn't take away an advantage for R. If there is no incentive to commit the foul there probably will be no foul of this type.

Like I said, the only real way A gets an advantage here is if they're doing something to avoid a safety in a tie game or one in which they lead by 1 or 2. But if they're throwing the illegal forwrd pass beyond the LOS, I'm guessing that they're not doing it to avoid a safety.

It probably all should go the way of the higher level rules. The period can only be extended buy an accepted penalty against the team that didn't have the ball at the end of the period. Then there are no special exceptions for loss-of-down penalties and A can't "benefit" from their own foul. Perhaps we will get there in a few years.

REPLY: In my opinion, yes it is patently unfair to B. By <i><u>illegally</u></i> ending the play (and the game) with an illegal forward pass, B by their foul deprives A of any opportunity to let the game end foul-free. You ask, "Would they (Team B) have had an opportunity to have a play and win the game if A hadn't committed such a foul on the last play of the game?" Good question. We won't know if we just allow A to end the game by throwing an IFP. Isn't there a risk of a fumble by the A runner if he just waits and takes the hit? And doesn't he effectively mitigate that risk by illegally ending the play? And just suppose he was going to pass. What's the safer route, throwing a pass to an eligible who is covered, or dumping it to avoid any possibility of a turnover?

Or even a better example: A leads by 3 points with 0:04 remaining in the fourth quarter. A, 4-10 from A's 4. A throws a pass into the flats at A's 8. Corner breaks on the ball and clearly has a perfect opportunity to intercept and take it in for the winning score. WR A88 pulls him down to prevent the interception. Pass falls incomplete. Clock expires during the down. According to the proposed rule, "Sorry B. The penalty for A's OPI foul includes loss of down so the game is over." Now I'll re-ask your question: "Would they have had an opportunity to have a play and win the game if A hadn't committed such a foul on the last play of the game?" Yep...probably.

I understand completely why the rule needs to be changed (the play you cited). And it's perfectly fair in that case. But in the plays I cite, I think it's grossly unfair. My suggestion to the Rules Committee would be to offer the offended team the choice of whether to extend or not.

That's a better example than the one I questioned on the "other" board. B does really get screwed here.