NFHS Additional Rules per helmeted players

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Tim C

“Offensive and defensive pass interference and the penalty structure related to these fouls has been debated many times in recent years,” Garrett said. “Proposals that either deleted the loss of down or the automatic first down – but not both – failed to gain support among committee members. The proposal to eliminate both components, thus not upsetting the balance between offense and defense, was the key factor in the adoption of the new rule.”

But overall it favors the offense. 15 yds. will usually produce a 1st down anyway, and if I'm 2nd & 16, I'd rather repeat the down and get 2nd & 1. Where it'll mostly matter is against the defense in a half-the-distance enforcement -- which actually is where you needed the AFD the most.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Where it'll mostly matter is against the defense in a half-the-distance enforcement -- which actually is where you needed the AFD the most.

This will likely be a major issue around the goal line. No doubt.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

This will likely be a major issue around the goal line. No doubt.

Maybe in a yr. or 2 they'll add a special enforcement near B's end zone.

In Fed's football rules committee archives, in the 1940s (or maybe it was the late '30s) the sec'y or chairman wrote that he thought NCAA's failure to automatically award a TD on DPI in B's end zone was outdated, owing to a time when TDs had been scarcer, and advocated and expected Fed to make it a TD. That was one of the changes that was never adopted.

[CT1]

My understanding is that the loss of the AFD provision was a compromise to get the LOD out of the enforcement. I suspect that AFD will be reinstated in a couple of years after some rules committee members have rotated off.

[maven]

Originally Posted by CT1

My understanding is that the loss of the AFD provision was a compromise to get the LOD out of the enforcement. I suspect that AFD will be reinstated in a couple of years after some rules committee members have rotated off.

Mine too, and it struck me as quite odd. Compromise with whom? The defensive coordinator lobby?

I sincerely hope it doesn't take NFHS longer than one season to figure out how bad deleting AFD is.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by maven

Mine too, and it struck me as quite odd. Compromise with whom? The defensive coordinator lobby?

I sincerely hope it doesn't take NFHS longer than one season to figure out how bad deleting AFD is.

I have a feeling that some states might still make this an AFD anyway.

Peace

[maven]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have a feeling that some states might still make this an AFD anyway.

Peace

That would be unusual and not an area where NFHS rules permit state "adoption."

But I might suggest it to my state interpreter anyway!

[asdf]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

This will likely be a major issue around the goal line. No doubt.

+1

4th and goal at the 9. Team will teach if you get beat, interfere with the player. The worst than can happen is 4th and goal at the 2 1/4.

Bad move by the Rules Committee