NFHS Additional Rules per helmeted players

maven · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:03am

Quote:

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 · #2 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:52pm

Quote:

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 · #3 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:01pm

Quote:

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!

JRutledge · #4 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 10, 2013, 05:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by maven

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

But I might suggest it to my state interpreter anyway!

Actually states make adoptions more than you realize. And since the penalty would be more harsh than the current rule, it is allowed. For example my state has a completely different rule application to the uniform rule in basketball to make that rule more accommodating and the Board of Directors made that decision in the middle of the season. So it can be done if a state wanted to for a couple of reasons.

Peace

bigjohn · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:42am

PENALTY: . If the pass interference by either player is intentional, his
team shall be penalized an additional 15 yards (S27).

This should be a POE then!!!!

CT1 · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 12, 2013, 11:30am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigjohn

PENALTY: . If the pass interference by either player is intentional, his
team shall be penalized an additional 15 yards (S27).

This should be a POE then!!!!

Don't hold your breath.

JRutledge · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:01pm

And it would not change the issues taking away the AFD provision of the rule. You still could have a situation where no first down is awarded.

Peace

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
additional ncaa rules changes	SamIAm	Basketball	11	Wed Jun 10, 2009 09:09am
Quiz/Questions to teach NFHS rules to HS Players?	MECU	Football	6	Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:58am
Additional warmup pitches during defensive coaches rules discussion	moorg	Baseball	3	Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:40pm
And still yet more players who don't know the rules	Bluefoot	Softball	11	Mon Aug 18, 2003 05:33pm
More players who don't know the rules	Bluefoot	Softball	13	Sat Aug 16, 2003 06:58pm