Fed 7-5 "additional" yards
 

In case of intentional PI, is the "penalized an additional 15 yards" added to the distance of a single penalty, i.e. made a 30 yd. penalty? Or is it administered as 2 penalties, each of 15 yds., in succession?

Keep reading on down to PENALTY after 7-5-13, note S27.

That's where I got this from. It raises the question, doesn't answer it.

What does it really matter ? 30 = 15 + 15 = 30.

You stand a better chance of being struck by lightning inside your house than ever seeing it on the field.

There is no mechanic which specifies but since S27 is for USC/Non contact foul one can infer that the R would signal PI, U walk off 15, then signal USC and walk off 15.

It makes a difference if either is half the distance to the goal line. Then if it's a single 30 yard penalty it could be a much shorter distance than if it's 2 penalties nominally 15 yds. each.

Half the distance is half the distance no matter how you break down the math. No different scenario than if you had a live ball foul followed by a dead ball foul on the same team, ie DPI + USC.

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.

Actually, a 30 yard penalty would have different enforcement, since DPI would start being enforced half the distance at the A40!

Consider: ball at B45, pass play, DPI + intent. A 30 yard penalty would be enforced half the distance, A 1/10 @ B22.5.

If anyone in the history of high school football were ever to call this in an actual game: ball at B45, DPI + intent. Enforce DPI to the B30, then another 15 for intent, A 1/10 @ B15.

That said, the question is ridiculous. The foul is never called, and it's a fundamental (as CT1 points out) that penalties are 5, 10, or 15 yards.

If you have actually called this please raise your hand...anyone...anyone? :)

I have never called this and doubt I ever will, but I could see this being called in a game if a coach coaches this kind of action. I do not see this as the equivalent of the multiple foul in basketball.

Peace

Um ... no. Which is why we walk them separately.

Say the foul happened on the 32. A single 30-yard penalty (which doesn't exist, btw) would result in a half-the-distance walkoff to the 16. Two 15 yarders (the right way to do this) results in a first walk to the 17, and a second walk to the 8 1/2.

So what in my statement is wrong? I realize based on field position that it is conceivable that one or both penalty assessments may or may not receive the entire 15 yard penalty mark-off.

I saw no need to type an entire list of where and when it would become necessary to satisfy his wacky scenario. Kind of like the etrade baby commercial- he's more likely to be mauled by a polar bear and a regular bear in the same day.

We had a case last year where a B player hit the QB late for RTP, then got a taunting USC as the intercepted pass was being returned for a soon-to-be nullified touchdown. (Goose-stepping with the ball held out to the pursuing A players as he crossed the goal line.)
We took 6 off the board, walked off two separate 15's, set the stakes and kept playing. The only thing more eerie than the chorus of boos and angry shouts from the visitor stands was the momentary silence when everyone looked at our WH when he began the signals. I felt really vulnerable holding a down indicator with no kevlar under my shirt.

Robert said: You replied:
That part is wrong.

"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.

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

It is to those of us who actually officiate.

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.

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

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.

Well, it is to everyone but you.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

This is why Robert there is a "Spirit of the Rule" portion of most rulebooks. Not every situation is going to be clearly stated and accepted if you are trying to find nits in every word or statement.

Peace

Sure, but hardly any of them are resolved by the presumed spirit of the rule either -- this one, for instance.

always! :(

PENALTY: Illegal forward pass (Arts. 2a,b,c) – (S35); intentional grounding
(Arts. 2d,e) –(S36) – 5 yards plus loss of down – (S9). Pass interference (Art.
10) – (S33) – 15 yards and automatic first down if by B, 15 yards plus loss of
down if by A – (S9). If the pass interference by either player is intentional, his
team shall be penalized an additional 15 yards (S27). Ineligible downfield
(Art. 12) – (S37) – 5 yards. Illegal touching (Art. 13) – (S16) – 5 yards plus loss
of down.


I have seen an A players commit OPI intentionally to prevent an interception. No one even thinks about that being an additional 15 yard PENALTY!

True, except apparently for you.