DPI blown call ?

[mbyron]

You are nearly correct about DPI, though the restriction applies to the neutral zone, not the line of scrimmage: "Pass interference restrictions only apply beyond the neutral zone and only if the legal forward pass, untouched by B in or behind the neutral zone, crosses the neutral zone."

The penalty for DPI is 15 yards plus an automatic 1st down. If everything you said is correct, then the officials either:
a) got the conditions and enforcement of DPI wrong (2 major errors)
b) gave the wrong signal for some other foul.

The only foul which would yield the result that you describe is a dead-ball PF or USC foul.

[jstafan]

Thanks for the replys. Thanks for setting me stright on the neutral zone vs the line of scrimmage. mbyron after reading your reply you have given me another question. if the ball was tipped on the pass behind the los and the ball travels past the neutral zone, can there be a dpi past the nz?

Just talk to a friend that was running the chains on that game and he said that, on that play he ask the line judge about that and the LJ said that it was not a automatic 1st down in high school. Not sure where he would have got that from because its deffinetly a first down.

[mbyron]

No, a tip behind the NZ ends the pass interference restrictions.

[Robert Goodman]

Not only that, but how, on a penalty accepted by the offense, did the down advance from 3rd to 4th?

Maybe it was actually a dead ball foul by team B after 3rd down ended in an incomplete pass. Maybe the official wasn't too clear about where he was holding his hands and what looked like interference (hands in front) was actually unsportsmanlike conduct (hands out to sides).

[jaybird]

Just talk to a friend that was running the chains on that game and he said that, on that play he ask the line judge about that and the LJ said that it was not a automatic 1st down in high school.

Two obvious things wrong with this statement.

1) Based on normal positions, if the guy on the chains asked the line judge a question, was it after the game or did he scream across the field at him?

2) If a legitimate game official said DPI did not include an automatic first down, he is either incompetent, they are using a different set of rules than NFHS or there was a misunderstanding.

[jstafan]

thanks for the replys everybody. as for " Based on normal positions, if the guy on the chains asked the line judge a question, was it after the game or did he scream across the field at him?" it was the ref to his side and apparently it was right after play. and for "If a legitimate game official said DPI did not include an automatic first down, he is either incompetent, they are using a different set of rules than NFHS or there was a misunderstanding." I think after talking to everyone they just blew that call because nobody seems to understand why they would have inforced a dpi the way they did. They also go by NFHS rules. Or as Robert Goodman suggests that maybe another call was called ie dead ball foul or usc call and the other refs misunderstood. But on that play I can only say that me or nobody else seen anything other than a dpi (behind the neutural zone) which should not have resulted in a foul at all. but i will also agree that i didnt have the advantage that the refs did ( as being right on top of the play) even if all that was true again like good ol rob pointed out if the offense accepted the pently why did the down change? thanks again all.

[bossman72]

not only did they didn't award the auto 1st, they lost a down. it went from 3rd to 4th! If anything they should have replayed 3rd down.