I've scrubbed a lot of bad rules and mechanics out of my mind. You have a date for these little goodies?

I think it gives us an out and they're relying on our judgment as experienced officials. It's basically to keep you from using it as your base offense. You're not going to punt every time you get the football, are you?

If you want iron-clad language, write some iron-clad language. I'd be fine with the language as written above to back up a call I'd make in an A-11 circumstance. As in, "You're obviously not punting coach, give me a break."

It's a 'spirit of the rules' thing, right? Much of the discussion here about A-11 is that, while it technically follows the rule as written, it violates the spirit of why the numbering exception exists. So people are up in arms.

So if they put in some language to give us a leg to stand on (if you want "obvious punting situation" or "in the referee's judgment" or whatever, knock yourself out), you'd have to have the same opinion about the "spirit" in which it's intended, right?

If team A sends out the 5-8 soccer player and a holder on 4th and 7 from the 10 yard line, they may run a fake, but if I'm the correct-side wing in a four-man game, I'm going under the goalpost because that looks to me like they're going to kick a field goal. I don't need iron-clad language to tell me that.

Unless the Rules Committee removes the numbering exception completely it is going to rely on interpretation.

Rule writing is an art especially when you consider there are those who seek to exploit

I don't get the rationale though, because their reasoning for this is because inside the 30, it's supposedly not that bad of a penalty, which I think can be argued. Also, all the wording says, "automatic first down". So I guess the assumption is only B commits these types of fouls? What happens if it's A that commits the foul? Do they get a pass on the supposed severity of the foul like the "worry" about the current OPI making it just to hard for the poor offense to overcome a major screw up on their part or does this become a loss of down foul too to make it equitable?

The guys up in NCAA seem to be able to figure it out. Maybe us HS guys are just too stupid in your book.

As is officiating itself, n'est-ce pas?

I don't get this, either. NCAA and NFL football have been awarding an AFD on PFs forever. If the offense commits one during a play, they replay the down (or the defense can decline it). If it's after the play, the down counts. No big deal.

I do think that the deck is stacked a bit against the offense -- the AB1 exception with a hold that's 5 yards behind the line takes it from 1st and 10 to 1st and 25. Also, a PF or 15yd FM is severe enough to warrant an AFD as a penalty, IMO.

The rationale may be flawed a bit, but the change would be a positive one, at least that's how I see it.

So a PF foul by B is severe enough to be 15 yds plus a new series but the same foul by A is only severe enough for the 15 yds? Just arguing the other side of the coin here.

I have never had a problem with a LOD provision for the offense on things like OPI. The offense knows what they are doing; the defense does not know what the offense is doing. It is very possible that the defense commits a foul and it was purely a mistake. The offense knows the play, where they are going and why they are going to get there. The offense deserves to lose a down for some of their actions.

Peace

I could see the AFD for a face mask. I could also see the LOD for A. They really have no business anywhere near the face mask making it more likely it was done on purpose.

Not precisely. Fed changed the encroachment rule in 2 stages. During the 1960s (starting i don't know when) it actually depended on how quickly you could whistle! Encroachment killed the ball except when it was put in play before the official could whistle it; probably led to some slow whistles, and it probably meant that on a free kick offside was almost always an option rather than dead ball enforcement. By the early 1970s that exception was gone. But when they deviated originally from NCAA in that regard I don't know; wouldn't surprise me if it was from Fed's major revisions in the 1940s, such as allowing more than one forward pass per down.

The automatic touchback I'd just have to guess at. Probably between 1945 & 1965. During that period Fed had the philosophy of looking for any excuse to kill the ball, because the players are safer when they're not running around.

I believe there was a still earlier period of automatic touchbacks, pre-1912, which was before Fed existed. But before that period, the ball was live.

The specific rationale given for killing the ball with encroachment was that to practically abolish judgement of dual fouls in scrimmage situations, where one team's player going offside drew an opponent into the neutral zone or induced a false start, or when the player in the neutral zone blocked the view opponents had of the ball and so caused them to go offside that way. Free kicks were made the same way just in the interest of keeping the rules simple, I guess.

Robert

They only reason they're "able to figure it out" is that nobody has attempted the A-11 there.

I know we have different horizons about "forever", but NFL's had the AFD a lot longer than NCAA for PFs. I don't remember when NCAA adopted it, but ISTR it's 20 yrs. ago or less.

Waaay back, there was a period of AFD for any penalty against either team! A penalty was deemed to interrupt the continuity of downs, necessitating a new series. I read somewhere in Spalding's that for a while there was confusion on that point, with some officials administering what today would be repeat-the-down following enforcement, and others starting a new series for the team in possession, because the line-to-gain rules didn't specify what constituted the "series" of downs. But that's ancient hx.

The trouble with AFD for fouls by the defense isn't its severity, but its inconsistency. A team that gives up an AFD on 4th down is hurt a lot more than one that gives it up on 1st down. The later the down, the more severe AFD is in practice, yet it's for the same type of foul.

If anything, the rationale is stronger in favor of AFD for the situation given in the proposal, where half the distance appears to be an insufficient penalty. IIRC in Canadian football certain enforcements become AFD within certain distances of the offending team's GL.

BTW, did you know that for quite a while (at least into the 1930s, maybe 1940s), for certain major enforcements the line-to-gain was moved along with the spot? The idea was to penalize field position while not affecting down-&-distance, when the foul was not a tactical one.

Robert

I'm not sure if the information on this website is correct but it has rule changes going back to 1960.

NF Football Rules Changes - pre-1981 - Football.Refs.Org

But then if A fouls, depending on the location on the field, then the penalty may only be 3 yards and replaying the down. I know your situation where there was a facemask and neither team understood the enforcement was weird, but the result would be the same had A fouled on the other end of the field. Changing the penalty to AFD for fouls by B would be giving the offense and advantage. I'm not saying that is bad but I'm not sure that is what the NFHS wants to do.

But A holding could have prevented B from sacking the QB who was standing 10 yards deep. So if A didn't hold it would be 2nd and 20 yards to go. The rule change would take that down to 1st and 20. Once again that favors the offense. It just depends on what the rules makers want as both sides have good points.