Clarification of new IP enforcement

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I just got back from vacation and looked at this thread. (I think I need to go back on vacation !!!)

Needless to say, the Fed didn't fully think this one through and their rule book, case book, and even their Part 1 exam are all inconsistent. [Sounds like PSK 2003 all over again.] YES...the Fed answer key says that #5 is TRUE and does cite 3-7-4 as its governing reference. How that can be in light of the new rule is beyond me. YES...the COMMENT on page 71 in the case book (b & c) does appear to specify different enforcements--one at the basic spot and the other according to the all-but-one. Why they would use different language if they wanted the penalties enforced the same way, I'll never understand. I think BBR and KWH's 'epilogue' say it all: If a player steps onto the field way behind the play with no intention whatsoever of participating, I DIDN'T SEE IT !!!

I don't know why they changed this rule. Judging participation or not isn't all that hard. It's a heck of a lot easier the judging DPI. They should have left it the way it was.

But that said, they really need to get their act together when they change these rules to make sure they do it completely, and maintain consistency across the rule book, case book, and even their exams.