Fed 7-5 "additional" yards

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by CT1

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Football Fundamentals state that all penalties are 5, 10 or 15 yards -- there is no 30 yard penalty.

So, the term "in addition" must mean that the team is penalized 15 yards for the PI, and 15 yards for the intent.

"Football Fundamentals" are after-the-fact summations that I don't trust. They're not fundamentals that the rules committee decides on first and then derives details from, and they're also not authoritative statements like approved rulings or interpretations books from the same source. Besides, 2-16-1 says, "A foul is a rules infraction for which a penalty is prescribed." A penalty, not 2 of them.

If Fed wanted to be clear, they would've said either that it's a 30 yard penalty in the case of intentional PI, or that it's successive 2 penalties of 15 yds. each, the second being a succeeding spot enforcement, rather than writing this "additional 15 yards" business. It's not clear whether "additional" means you add the yards to a single penalty or administer a 2nd penalty.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Besides, 2-16-1 says, "A foul is a rules infraction for which a penalty is prescribed." A penalty, not 2 of them.

Then how can we eject a player for a flagrant foul? That's 15 yards plus ejection -- 2 penalties for the one foul.

It's not clear whether "additional" means you add the yards to a single penalty or administer a 2nd penalty.

It is to those of us who actually officiate.

[bkdow]

I MIGHT call it in a lower level game if it was multiple times by a single player and he ignores verbal instructions that we would provide. It's as rare as the 1 point safety allowed for in the book. Kind of like Sasquatch.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bkdow

I MIGHT call it in a lower level game if it was multiple times by a single player and he ignores verbal instructions that we would provide. It's as rare as the 1 point safety allowed for in the book. Kind of like Sasquatch.

What I wonder about is whether this is supposed to supersede 9-9-1. It looks like the rules makers were saying this is specific rule coverage, so that no matter how unfair you think a player's pass interference was, this 15+15 is the most you can give, not an equitable penalty.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bkdow

I MIGHT call it in a lower level game if it was multiple times by a single player and he ignores verbal instructions that we would provide. It's as rare as the 1 point safety allowed for in the book. Kind of like Sasquatch.

Rarer. I've NEVER heard of this being enforced, at any level, by any official. I've actually seen the 1-point safety, by Texas A&M about 4 years ago.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by CT1

Then how can we eject a player for a flagrant foul? That's 15 yards plus ejection -- 2 penalties for the one foul.

No. If the rule book says "Penalty:", then whatever follows the colon I take to mean a single penalty.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

It's not clear whether "additional" means you add the yards to a single penalty or administer a 2nd penalty.

Well, it is to everyone but you.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Well, it is to everyone but you.

I gather from everyone here -- and now a description on another board of an actual enforcement a coach witnessed -- that the understanding of it is the same as if the words "penalty of" were interpolated between "additional" and "15 yards". That would be soooo simple for the rules makers to write. This is why they need technical writing assistance. They didn't seem to have that problem until a little over 30 yrs. ago; before that, they seemed to know how to write clearly and concisely.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I gather from everyone here -- and now a description on another board of an actual enforcement a coach witnessed -- that the understanding of it is the same as if the words "penalty of" were interpolated between "additional" and "15 yards". That would be soooo simple for the rules makers to write. This is why they need technical writing assistance. They didn't seem to have that problem until a little over 30 yrs. ago; before that, they seemed to know how to write clearly and concisely.

I'm confused... are you saying they need an editorial change because 64,952 of 64,952 officials understand it, but you don't?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I'm confused... are you saying they need an editorial change because 64,952 or 64,952 officials understand it, but you don't?

Yes, especially when it's clear the change would do no harm and would un-confuse at least 1 person who needs to know the rules. And it's clear from the responses in this thread that there was at least 1 person other than me who didn't understand, evidenced by what he wrote about its making no difference.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Yes, especially when it's clear the change would do no harm and would un-confuse at least 1 person who needs to know the rules. And it's clear from the responses in this thread that there was at least 1 person other than me who didn't understand, evidenced by what he wrote about its making no difference.

Wow. Quite an ego you've got there, sir.

Instead of going through the process of making an editorial change to the book to accommodate a single person who "needs to know the rules", perhaps it would be simpler if that one person attend even a single clinic.

Or better yet, ask here - and ACCEPT THE ANSWER YOU'RE GIVEN. You aren't STILL confused, right? So that worked. Now we can all move on.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Wow. Quite an ego you've got there, sir.

Instead of going through the process of making an editorial change to the book to accommodate a single person who "needs to know the rules", perhaps it would be simpler if that one person attend even a single clinic.

Or better yet, ask here - and ACCEPT THE ANSWER YOU'RE GIVEN. You aren't STILL confused, right? So that worked. Now we can all move on.

Don't be a jerk. Robert's right. The rule is ambiguous. It wouldn't take more than a word or two to make it unambiguous. Writing clearly and concisely is a difficult skill and this rule isn't up to the mark.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Wow. Quite an ego you've got there, sir.

Instead of going through the process of making an editorial change to the book to accommodate a single person who "needs to know the rules", perhaps it would be simpler if that one person attend even a single clinic.

Or better yet, ask here - and ACCEPT THE ANSWER YOU'RE GIVEN. You aren't STILL confused, right? So that worked. Now we can all move on.

Oh, I accept this answer. But what about the next question? Or the next person that has this question? Good rules writing tries to hammer these things out whenever they come up. There's no reason not to address every single one that's raised that way.

Indeed, it appears I, or somebody with the exact same question, got NCAA some years ago to fix a problem that'd existed in the wording of provisions to determine who was on team A's line of scrimmage. They had in one place written "[various body parts] or body", which implied that "body" alone was meant not to include those parts, and elsewhere nearby wrote "body" alone where they did mean to include all parts. I asked the editor a question, got an answer, and sure enough, about 3 years later they fixed that ambiguity. It pays to ask, and it pays to complain.