double foul, pass play

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by Jim D

In table 7-5 it's listed as "intentional pass interference" and, although the signal is s27, the foul seems to be pass interference and not USC. This foul is only listed under the pass interference rules and not under the USC (9-4). The illegal formation and the pass interference call(s) should offset.

Good points, those. But table 7-5 also says that the additional 15 yards are penalized from the succeeding spot. Granted that this is the only way that the penalty makes any sense, but 10-4-5d says that the basic spot is the succeeding spot for only four types of penalties: USC, dead-ball, nonplayer, or during a touchback. It's clearly none of the last three, so this foul must be USC.

[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. But my thoughts are that if you wiped out the PI as part of the double foul, how could you enforce a penalty against the 'intentional' part of it? Seems incongruous to me. But then again so do a lot of interpretations related to the new rules.

[Warrenkicker]

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.

[Robert Goodman]

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

[Bob M.]

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.

[tskill]

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.