I don't understand the new NFHS rule

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually this is not what the NF has put out so far. Now your state might take a different stance or interpretation but they do not get to carry over several fouls to a kickoff. The rule might change next year, but once there is the scoring team accepts an option, they cannot take two options to the kick off. So what BJ says applies across the board and in the rulebook at this point.

So B gets a free shot. Not sure I like that, but that is the way it is right now.

Peace

But isn't a "free shot at the holder, etc" a liveball foul penalized as a dead ball foul? Thus allowing you to penalize the first liveball foul normally and then tack on the dead ball foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MadCityRef

States can have their own interpretations of rules. And create their own.
You forgot the IHSA balk rule change this year?

That is not entirely true. A state cannot create any rules unless they want to be left off the NF Committee consideration all together or their rules making process. A state can take a rule and become more restrictive or give an interpretation that not spelled out clearly by existing rules. The balk rule was not a complete creation. The IHSA came up with an interpretation that was easier to apply consistently and understand. For example in Basketball we used a rule for two years for DQ'd players that only applied to our state. That was a NF experiment that we were allowed to use. Once the experiemental period was over, the rule was dropped.

Originally Posted by MadCityRef

I'd expect better from a Wolverine. Don't forget: There's plenty of room on the Rutgers bandwagon!!

If you are going to attend Michigan games with me, you really need to stop it right now.

BTW

Anyone
But
Carr

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

But isn't a "free shot at the holder, etc" a liveball foul penalized as a dead ball foul? Thus allowing you to penalize the first liveball foul normally and then tack on the dead ball foul.

No. Roughing the kicker is not a dead ball foul, so why is roughing the holder?

And dead ball fouls are enforced just like any other dead ball penalty. You do not get an option; you apply only to the succeeding spot.

I fully feel they will change this rule next year because of this obvious hole in the rule.

Peace

[Mike L]

Although I would be VERY careful about applying it, one could use the flagrant foul rule on an obvious "free" try penalty like being discussed here. Yep, the offended won't get any additional yardage out of it, but the offender would be done for the night and around here that would also mean he's done for at least the following week as well.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Although I would be VERY careful about applying it, one could use the flagrant foul rule on an obvious "free" try penalty like being discussed here. Yep, the offended won't get any additional yardage out of it, but the offender would be done for the night and around here that would also mean he's done for at least the following week as well.

Another possibility is the kick is missed or blocked thus giving K another shot at the try. Still not fair though if the kick is good.

[prosec34]

I watched a varsity high school game last week and thought the officials might've messed up this new rule. A is punting deep in their own territory when the center snaps the ball over the punter's head. In attempting to avoid B scoring a touchdown since the ball is bounching in the end zone, the punter kicks the ball out of the end zone for a safety.

The officials flagged the illegal kicking, but made B decline the penalty for the safety (of course, the penalty inside A's end zone makes for an automatic safety anyway).

I checked the rule book, and the provision for applying penalties on kickoffs only applies for touchdowns and field goals. It wasn't added to safeties. Perhaps it should be, because in this instance, the punter has every incentive to violate the rule and kick the ball.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by prosec34

I watched a varsity high school game last week and thought the officials might've messed up this new rule. A is punting deep in their own territory when the center snaps the ball over the punter's head. In attempting to avoid B scoring a touchdown since the ball is bounching in the end zone, the punter kicks the ball out of the end zone for a safety.

The officials flagged the illegal kicking, but made B decline the penalty for the safety (of course, the penalty inside A's end zone makes for an automatic safety anyway).

I checked the rule book, and the provision for applying penalties on kickoffs only applies for touchdowns and field goals. It wasn't added to safeties. Perhaps it should be, because in this instance, the punter has every incentive to violate the rule and kick the ball.

I always thought it was stupid that this was a rule violation in the first place. It's the smart thing for K to do, actually, taking the safety.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Not True in Ohio, we have been told that once you accept a penalty on the TD that is the one enforced on the KO. If there is another LB foul on the try it is disregarded! This comes directly from OHSAA!

Nothing of the sort has been mandated by OHSAA.

IF you are an official in Ohio you better be giving the team an option of which foul to accept. They can choose only one but I repeat the foul on the try is NOT automatically disregarded. They may choose that one if it is more advantageous.

[bigjohn]

You better email Hank Z and see what he says! I am not an official!