Here's one of the new rules...

<i><b>7-5-10 NEW: Hindering an opponent’s vision without making an attempt to catch, intercept or bat the ball is pass interference, even though no contact was made.</b></i>

What's <b>"new"</b> about this? I thought this has always been a foul. For example if you waive your hands in front of a receiver's face to prevent him from seeing the ball I was always under the impression this was DPI. That was legal before? Or, are they simply making a clarification of something that was already common knowledge / sense?

Of course it is not new. But those words were never found to be in the rule book until know. You only found them in the comic book or case book or interpretation meeting notes or in the NCAA/NF rules differences book.
Not found in the a coaches play book either, so they would teach it.

Personally, they should have gone the other way. I.e. No contact... No foul.

REPLY: All they're doing is codifying it that what's commonly called 'face-guarding' is a foul. And I agree with Tom...should have eliminated it completely and required contact for PI to be called.

NCAA:
7-3-8-c: DPI is contact ...
7-3-9-f: Physical contact is required to establish interference

REPLY: Base...the prior three posts are related to a clarification in the <u>Federation</u> rule book. There, contact is not required to have pass interference called. Personally, I like the NCAA rule, but...

OK, thanks, Bob

Doesn't the Fed rule it like the NFL? As I recall the NFL considers face guarding a DPI. So that being the case maybe the NCAA needs to get with it.
I also agree, about time they actually put it into words in the rule book. Heck in basketball it is good enough to ba called a technical.

You are incorrect. I work NFL rules in semi-pro ball, and the NFL is like the NCAA, contact is needed for DPI. NF is the only set of rules where contact is NOT necessary.

I think even the peewee league guys would understand if physical contact is required to establish interference. This is one of the fed rules that don't make much sense to me.

Mountain vs. Mole Hill
 

Guys-
Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.

The NFHS philosophy is not complicated:

1) <b>If you are playing the ball</b> (ie; looking toward the QB)<b> it is unlikely </b>that you will draw a face gaurding/pass interfenence flag for hindering your opponents vision.
However,
2) <b>If you are playing the man</b> (ie; back toward the QB)<b> it is likely</b> that you will draw a face gaurding/pass interference flag if you hinder your opponents vision.

Remember it works both ways. Either the offensive player or the defensive player can be guilty of face gaurding.

<b>If both players are playing the ball</b>, generally speaking,<b> we got nothin'!!!

Maxbk, what'd he do in Baltimore? Did he blow a DPI call? Tell him he had better get it out of his sytem and be ready for varsity ball come September. If he doesn't I'm going to ship him off to Cliff's crew and take you. :-)

KWH - good summary!

Bob M - don't you wish they would go to these extra lengths to clear up better and more important things like when a run ends?

REPLY: Are you going to bring up Case Book plays 10.4.5 I and 10.4.5 J again?!? You're trying to get me to jump off a bridge, right?
<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZSzeb02822' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_17_1.gif' alt='Forth Rail Bridge' border=0></a>

The problem is that the Federation has defined the end of a run very well. It's just that they have no compunction about ignoring that definition when it suits them and re-defining it in a knee-jerk fashion for specific plays.

This has been in the Case Book and the Illustrated for years. It only took decades to codify it.

Personally, NFHS is where players learn the fundamentals of football and learning how to properly cover a pass receiver is a valuable lesson. Using face-guarding as a form of pass defense does not teach them anything of value about playing the game.