The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Rule Reference Question - OPI on try (https://forum.officiating.com/football/59487-rule-reference-question-opi-try.html)

MD Longhorn Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:56pm
There should be a difference between OPI that is merely blocking downfield, and OPI that potentially prevents an interception. Seems the former should be penalized much less severely (15 and replay or 5 and LOD both make sense to me), but the latter is penalized harshly and correctly.

Mike L Thu Oct 21, 2010 01:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697478)
If the pass is incomplete, then they can either back them up yardage and replay the down or decline the penalty and the down counts with no yardage. Why should they get *both*?

Assuming a pick-six is as unrealistic as me saying that a holding penalty kept a defender from stripping a ball and returning the fumble for a TD.
Are you willing to make the same argument for all the other LOD fouls too?

Rich Thu Oct 21, 2010 01:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike L (Post 697489)
Are you willing to make the same argument for all the other LOD fouls too?
Nope. Those are different kind of fouls.

ppaltice Thu Oct 21, 2010 04:24pm
I agree with Rich that OPI's penalty in NFHS is quite harsh. I would rather see it lose the LOD aspect (akin to other rule sets).

Also harsh is the hold behind the LOS (or fouls by A). I would not be surprised if these rules are revised in the future.

Rich Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ppaltice (Post 697528)
I agree with Rich that OPI's penalty in NFHS is quite harsh. I would rather see it lose the LOD aspect (akin to other rule sets).

Also harsh is the hold behind the LOS (or fouls by A). I would not be surprised if these rules are revised in the future.
This is another foul I'd love to them to visit. A hold 5-6 yards behind the line is almost a guaranteed punt where I work. Previous spot, as in the NCAA/NFL is a much better way of not giving the double whammy to a team.

Cobra Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697582)
This is another foul I'd love to them to visit. A hold 5-6 yards behind the line is almost a guaranteed punt where I work. Previous spot, as in the NCAA/NFL is a much better way of not giving the double whammy to a team.
It isn't a double whammy, the down is replayed. If there wasn't a hold then the defense could have tackled the QB for a 9-10 yard loss.

Currently it would be 1st and 25-26 with the hold, or 2nd and 19-20 without the hold.

Your change would be 1st and 20 with the hold, 2nd and 19-20 without the hold. Basically the ball will be in the same spot. The offense is gaining an advantage by fouling. If a guy is going to get a sack it is better for the offense to just hold him so that the down will be repeated.

Rich Fri Oct 22, 2010 01:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra (Post 697583)
It isn't a double whammy, the down is replayed. If there wasn't a hold then the defense could have tackled the QB for a 9-10 yard loss.

Currently it would be 1st and 25-26 with the hold, or 2nd and 19-20 without the hold.

Your change would be 1st and 20 with the hold, 2nd and 19-20 without the hold. Basically the ball will be in the same spot. The offense is gaining an advantage by fouling. If a guy is going to get a sack it is better for the offense to just hold him so that the down will be repeated.
It doesn't necessarily hold that the defender is going to get a sack on the play.

Besides, if it's 2nd and 19 it makes sense for the defense to decline the penalty. If the player is brought down 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage, why tack a hold on top of it?

Finally, previous spot enforcement works well in the other codes. 1st and 26 just means a punt in most HS games. It's too punitive. I don't expect everyone to agree, certainly, but it's just something I've thought for some time.

bisonlj Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697586)
It doesn't necessarily hold that the defender is going to get a sack on the play.

Besides, if it's 2nd and 19 it makes sense for the defense to decline the penalty. If the player is brought down 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage, why tack a hold on top of it?

Finally, previous spot enforcement works well in the other codes. 1st and 26 just means a punt in most HS games. It's too punitive. I don't expect everyone to agree, certainly, but it's just something I've thought for some time.
I agree Rich. This is one that confuses a lot of people who watch college and NFL games. They think we screwed them. Not that making fans and coaches happy is a reason to change a rule but it would make more sense.

Cobra Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697586)
It doesn't necessarily hold that the defender is going to get a sack on the play.

Besides, if it's 2nd and 19 it makes sense for the defense to decline the penalty. If the player is brought down 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage, why tack a hold on top of it?
That is a good reason to keep it as it is. The basic spot is the end of the run so it would be 2nd and 19 or 1st and 29. Your way it would be 2nd and 19 or 1st and 20. Essentially it is a one yard penalty. If the blocker thinks he is going to give up a sack he might as well just hold the guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697586)
Finally, previous spot enforcement works well in the other codes. 1st and 26 just means a punt in most HS games. It's too punitive. I don't expect everyone to agree, certainly, but it's just something I've thought for some time.
But the other codes give more of an advantage to the offense while NF rules remain more balanced. Read the part below from the Football Handbook, other rule codes allow the QB to throw the ball away and it woks ok for them, but it is just another way of favoring the offense. I prefer the NF way.

When the defensive team forces a passer into a position from which he cannot safely deliver the ball to an eligible teammate and he is unable to escape the defensive confinement, the defensive team has accomplished its objective. If the passer is permitted to intentionally incomplete a forward pass without penalty, except for the immediate “spiking,” and thus avoid loss of yardage, the official by his poor judgment or lack of it, has taken away an advantage which was fairly earned.

Rich Fri Oct 22, 2010 02:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra (Post 697629)
That is a good reason to keep it as it is. The basic spot is the end of the run so it would be 2nd and 19 or 1st and 29. Your way it would be 2nd and 19 or 1st and 20. Essentially it is a one yard penalty. If the blocker thinks he is going to give up a sack he might as well just hold the guy.



But the other codes give more of an advantage to the offense while NF rules remain more balanced. Read the part below from the Football Handbook, other rule codes allow the QB to throw the ball away and it woks ok for them, but it is just another way of favoring the offense. I prefer the NF way.

When the defensive team forces a passer into a position from which he cannot safely deliver the ball to an eligible teammate and he is unable to escape the defensive confinement, the defensive team has accomplished its objective. If the passer is permitted to intentionally incomplete a forward pass without penalty, except for the immediate “spiking,” and thus avoid loss of yardage, the official by his poor judgment or lack of it, has taken away an advantage which was fairly earned.
It may just be a philosophical difference. I would prefer tilting the scales in favor of the offense a bit more at the HS level.

I would also eliminate the dead ball enforcement on simple encroachment. No reason that the defense shouldn't have a chance to get back and no reason the offense shouldn't get a free play in that situation (assuming the encroachment is on the defense, which is the case a majority of the time).

Robert Goodman Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697478)
If the pass is incomplete, then they can either back them up yardage and replay the down or decline the penalty and the down counts with no yardage. Why should they get *both*?

Assuming a pick-six is as unrealistic as me saying that a holding penalty kept a defender from stripping a ball and returning the fumble for a TD.
Yes, assuming a pick-six is unrealistic -- but assuming a pick is realistic, if it's the type of interference that occurs during the pass. I don't think it was ever the rule in Fed, but for a while in NCAA it was loss of ball.

Robert Goodman Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697586)
It doesn't necessarily hold that the defender is going to get a sack on the play.
Nor that a foul by the offense on any other kind of play prevented a certain tackle.
Quote:
Besides, if it's 2nd and 19 it makes sense for the defense to decline the penalty. If the player is brought down 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage, why tack a hold on top of it?

Finally, previous spot enforcement works well in the other codes. 1st and 26 just means a punt in most HS games. It's too punitive. I don't expect everyone to agree, certainly, but it's just something I've thought for some time.
But would you believe that until about 40 yrs. ago even in the pros, the ordinary all-but-1 enforcement was used even on pass plays -- and that it was a 15 yard penalty? It wasn't uncommon for illegal use of hands to occur 5 yards behind the previous spot, resulting in repeating the down 20 yards back of the previous spot. (And there was a lot less legal use of the hands then.)

All repeat-the-down distance penalties involve some imagination about what would've happened absent the foul, and there is no justice. In the case mentioned above, eventually the rules makers decided that on an apparent pass play, if A1 hadn't held B1, A2 would've gotten off a not-quite-bad-enough-to-be-grounding incomplete pass, so that the previous spot would be the basis for enforcement.

Robert Goodman Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697640)
I would also eliminate the dead ball enforcement on simple encroachment. No reason that the defense shouldn't have a chance to get back and no reason the offense shouldn't get a free play in that situation (assuming the encroachment is on the defense, which is the case a majority of the time).
What happens when one player enters the neutral zone and blocks the view of the ball by an opponent at some distance, who then enters the neutral zone as well? In NCAA if the ball is then snapped, it's allowed to be put in play, but the play is futile and the original encroacher gets off when the fouls offset. And if the original encroacher gets back and the ball is snapped, it's even worse.

No such problem on a free kick, however.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:56pm.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1