The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 27, 2007, 08:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 945
I think that the only way they could follow the enforcement rules we have is to call it USC. You are calling two fouls here as 15 yards is the biggest possible. So there is a 15 yard DPI and a 15 yard USC. If you called the second PF or something else then you would have multiple fouls and could only enforce one of them. By calling the second USC, you can enforce the second 15 yards without disagreeing with the rest of the rules book. However we do know that USC penalties are always enforced unless we can't determine the order of the fouls. In this case there was only one USC foul, even though it was a contact foul which causes us to not think of it as a USC. It was one act for which we are calling two fouls. In other situations when there are two fouls committed by one act we usually just call it the worse of the two.

So based on all other calls we make I would say that all of the fouls offset and we replay the down. However if this is truly USC, though it is not listed under 9-5, then it must be enforce as it can't be offset by another live-ball, non-USC foul.

Last edited by Warrenkicker; Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:37am.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 27, 2007, 04:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob M.
REPLY: I never really thought about this one. It's a really good question apart from the fact that almost no one has ever called or even seen intentional PI.
If it's that rare a call, why not just penalize it equitably as an unfair act? (Does Fed have that?) Equally rare, but instead of trying to figure out how the rules committee wanted it penalized, just let the ref decide what's fair.

Robert
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 27, 2007, 04:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Clinton Township, NJ
Posts: 2,065
REPLY: Yes, the Fed does have an Unfair Acts rule like the NCAA. However, it's limited to those acts for which there's no specific rule coverage. Intentional PI does have specific rule coverage, so we shouldn't be using the Unfair Acts rule in this case. Maybe it's not as clear as we'd prefer, but it does have coverage.
__________________
Bob M.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 31, 2007, 11:42am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 41
Two things I would add:

1. USC is a non-contact foul so that's out

2. This year NFHS has defined a flagrant foul as: "a flagrant foul may or may not involve contact, but involves such acts as fighting, contacting a game official, fouls so severe as to place an opponent at risk, persistent or extreme abusive conduct and the use of vulgar language or gestures."

So, if you determine in your judgment that the act you are describing on the PI is "so severe as to place an opponent at risk" then you have a flagrant foul and boot the guy.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Double Pass tamaty Football 6 Mon Aug 28, 2006 01:08pm
Double pass scenario skybackjudge Football 2 Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:04am
Forward Progress on Pass Play mikesears Football 26 Sat May 14, 2005 04:28pm
Wierd Pass Play BulldogMcC Football 9 Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:43am
Double play Whowefoolin Baseball 9 Wed Jul 25, 2001 12:37pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1