Possible rules changes for 2009

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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

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

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't think it says this -- I think ANY PF or 15 yard FM would be an AFD.

I get the rationale.

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?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mike L

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?

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.

[Mike L]

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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 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.

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.

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

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't get this, either. NCAA and NFL football have been awarding an AFD on PFs forever.

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.

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

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.

[Forksref]

and it is obvious that a kick may be attempted.



Someone explain how it is obvious. I guess we are supposed to be mind-readers.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Forksref

and it is obvious that a kick may be attempted.



Someone explain how it is obvious. I guess we are supposed to be mind-readers.

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

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

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

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

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

Maybe because it's been figured out at the NCAA level what "obvious" means so the a-11 offense is known to be illegal except in said obvious kicking situation so they obviously have not even attempted it. I would think this to be quite obvious.

obvious - easily discovered, seen, or understood

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Maybe because it's been figured out at the NCAA level what "obvious" means so the a-11 offense is known to be illegal except in said obvious kicking situation so they obviously have not even attempted it. I would think this to be quite obvious.

obvious - easily discovered, seen, or understood

Obvious that a kick may be attempted? When is it not? It's obvious to me that a kick of some kind may be attempted starting on any down, anywhere. I don't think their wording had anything to do with A-11's not being attempted; it wasn't in Fed either until very recently, and with fewer teams playing NCAA rules, it's obvious to me that the chances of anything new appearing first under NCAA rules is less than under Fed rules.

Robert

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by Mike L

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

So every time a team has a back at least 7 yds from the line of scrimmage it's obvious that it's a kicking situation? Or, do we have to look at down and distance...or...time of the game...or... time left in the half...or... if they have passed in this situation earlier in the game...or...if they have used the fake punt before...or...

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Forksref

So every time a team has a back at least 7 yds from the line of scrimmage it's obvious that it's a kicking situation? Or, do we have to look at down and distance...or...time of the game...or... time left in the half...or... if they have passed in this situation earlier in the game...or...if they have used the fake punt before...or...

Is it just me? I'm always aware of all of those things when I'm on the field.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by daggo66

Is it just me? I'm always aware of all of those things when I'm on the field.

It's not just you. It's just some people insist on making a simple observation impossible to comprehend.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Forksref

So every time a team has a back at least 7 yds from the line of scrimmage it's obvious that it's a kicking situation? Or, do we have to look at down and distance...or...time of the game...or... time left in the half...or... if they have passed in this situation earlier in the game...or...if they have used the fake punt before...or...

So in your games you're often caught off-guard when the holder places the block on the ground an kneels next to it, or when the punter lines up 15 yards deep as if in punt formation? I don't ever remember a situation where a team lined up as if to kick and I thought to myself, "What are they doing?"

Obvious is obvious, and it's obvious some guys just like to argue for the sake of arguing.