Coaches make the rules?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

I think a lot of coaches would like to see 8-2-2 changed to only include PFs or USCs be tacked on to try or ensuing kickoff.

Originally Posted by maven

I wouldn't be surprised to see that one in this year's survey.

However, when you start making exceptions to the rules, that's when it gets screwed up. For that reason, the Fed isn't fond of exceptions. That's why the rule is written the way it is.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

However, when you start making exceptions to the rules, that's when it gets screwed up. For that reason, the Fed isn't fond of exceptions. That's why the rule is written the way it is.

You don't need to make exceptions. Reword it positively, not negatively.

Personal Fouls and Unnecessary Roughness penalties that occur... blah blah blah...

Easy to write, easy to understand.

[maven]

Here it is, just insert "personal" into 8-2-2:

If an opponent of the scoring team commits a personal foul (other than
unsportsmanlike conduct on a nonplayer foul) during a down in which a touchdown
is scored and there was not a change in possession during the down, A
may accept the results of the play and choose enforcement of the penalty:
a. On the try, or
b. On the subsequent kickoff.

With this change, it's also advisable to delete the parenthetical remark, which no longer makes sense (UNS is not a PF).

Modify 8-2-3 in the same way.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

However, when you start making exceptions to the rules, that's when it gets screwed up. For that reason, the Fed isn't fond of exceptions. That's why the rule is written the way it is.

And the NFHS would be well advised to simply point at the NCAA rulebook and say, "we're going to that." I can't think of anything (other than blocking below the waist, which is a disaster in NCAA) where the NFHS rule is better.

We had defensive holding against an eligible receiver on a touchdown play (where the ball was thrown to a different receiver). There's no good reason to allow the TD *and* penalize 10 yards on the kickoff. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[cdoug]

We had a call in our game Friday that was a TD and a DPI. The DPI was assessed on the kickoff and the coach on my side (B at the time) went ballistic about A being able to take both the TD and penalty. I explained to him that it changed a couple of years ago and this is the way it's supposed to be enforced now. My R told him the same thing. I'm not sure if he believed us or not, but he at least didn't dwell on it after the KO.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by cdoug

We had a call in our game Friday that was a TD and a DPI. The DPI was assessed on the kickoff and the coach on my side (B at the time) went ballistic about A being able to take both the TD and penalty. I explained to him that it changed a couple of years ago and this is the way it's supposed to be enforced now. My R told him the same thing. I'm not sure if he believed us or not, but he at least didn't dwell on it after the KO.

The coach should know the rule, but it makes no sense to enforce this and allow the TD to stand. They could fix this quite easily -- personal fouls and dead ball fouls (and live enforced as dead) only, the rest are declined by rule. Easy enough.

[cdoug]

Originally Posted by Rich

The coach should know the rule, but it makes no sense to enforce this and allow the TD to stand. They could fix this quite easily -- personal fouls and dead ball fouls (and live enforced as dead) only, the rest are declined by rule. Easy enough.

I totally agree on all accounts, but as written that's not the way it is.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by cdoug

I totally agree on all accounts, but as written that's not the way it is.

I know. That's what should be fixed.

When we had defensive holding on the TD, I signaled in this order.

Holding, defense. Touchdown. Penalty enforced on the kickoff.

The PA announcer said that the holding was declined. Well, that's not what I signaled.

So now I had 2 crew members coming to me assuming I had screwed up. Then I had the defensive coach livid when we enforced the holding on the kickoff. Fortunately, the H was able to talk him down off the ledge pretty quickly.

(Didn't matter in the end -- the kickoff went through the uprights, so it would've been a touchback anyway.)

[cdoug]

Originally Posted by Rich

I know. That's what should be fixed.

+ infinity!

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by Rich

The coach should know the rule, but it makes no sense to enforce this and allow the TD to stand. They could fix this quite easily -- personal fouls and dead ball fouls (and live enforced as dead) only, the rest are declined by rule. Easy enough.

I can understand the philosophy behind this rule. The idea being to not allow a desparation foul on a potentially scoring play to benefit the defense. I could go either way with it, for the following case:

DPI but A receiver makes the catch, he is tackled at the B1. --> Decline DPI, A's ball at the B1.
DPI but A receiver makes the catch, he scores a touchdown. --> Accept DPI, enforce on try or kickoff.
You're penalizing B double for essentially "not fouling hard enough". My beef with it is that it encourages B to foul hard in all cases, to make sure there is no score. If he's gonna shove the receiver, he may as well maul him.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jchamp

I can understand the philosophy behind this rule. The idea being to not allow a desparation foul on a potentially scoring play to benefit the defense. I could go either way with it, for the following case:

DPI but A receiver makes the catch, he is tackled at the B1. --> Decline DPI, A's ball at the B1.
DPI but A receiver makes the catch, he scores a touchdown. --> Accept DPI, enforce on try or kickoff.
You're penalizing B double for essentially "not fouling hard enough". My beef with it is that it encourages B to foul hard in all cases, to make sure there is no score. If he's gonna shove the receiver, he may as well maul him.

If it rises to the level of a personal foul, then enforce it on the kickoff. DPI is not a safety foul and there's no need to enforce it when it is unsuccessful (and a touchdown is scored).

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by Rich

If it rises to the level of a personal foul, then enforce it on the kickoff. DPI is not a safety foul and there's no need to enforce it when it is unsuccessful (and a touchdown is scored).

I can get behind this reasoning... and this is starting to sound like a very familiar conversation.

Maybe I've just been talking to myself again.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by Rich

DPI is not a safety foul and there's no need to enforce it when it is unsuccessful (and a touchdown is scored).

At last, a concise summary. Thanks.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

And the NFHS would be well advised to simply point at the NCAA rulebook and say, "we're going to that." I can't think of anything (other than blocking below the waist, which is a disaster in NCAA) where the NFHS rule is better.

We had defensive holding against an eligible receiver on a touchdown play (where the ball was thrown to a different receiver). There's no good reason to allow the TD *and* penalize 10 yards on the kickoff. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I do not see the big deal. It is so rare and if you take your time usually you will not call the foul anyway. I would not want to go to NCAA rules for high school games for many reasons. Coaches have enough time understanding basic rules, add exceptions to a lot of stuff and we will have more issues. I am fine with the add on rule for scoring plays.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not see the big deal. It is so rare and if you take your time usually you will not call the foul anyway.

#82 is tackled at the line of scrimmage when starting his route -- wing throws a flag. The pass is deep to a different receiver.

This is not one you can avoid by taking your time. It's a foul that must be called -- we don't know where the pass is going to go.

And we shouldn't have to pass on an obvious DPI flag because a receiver caught the football. What if there's an offensive penalty we could otherwise offset? Now we've penalized the offense unnecessarily.