NFHS Additional Rules per helmeted players

[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!

[JRutledge]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Exactly, and in some instances, only half yard additional penalty.

[maven]

Originally Posted by Adam

Exactly, and in some instances, only half yard additional penalty.

If you flagged intentional interference, it might be two half-yard penalties.

[JRutledge]

Or even if it is 3rd and goal from the 10 and a DPI happens in the end zone, it will be 3rd and goal from the 5 no matter how the DPI took place.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Or even if it is 3rd and goal from the 10 and a DPI happens in the end zone, it will be 3rd and goal from the 5 no matter how the DPI took place.

Peace

The rules committee considers it two separate penalties (I know that violates the fundamental) so it would be 3rd and goal from 2.5. Still not a huge difference and still 3rd down.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

The rules committee considers it two separate penalties (I know that violates the fundamental) so it would be 3rd and goal from 2.5. Still not a huge difference and still 3rd down.

You are right, but it is still 3rd down. Instead of 1st down and 4 downs to score. Why would I not teach as a coach to do whatever to prevent a TD or a big play in similar situations?

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are right, but it is still 3rd down. Instead of 1st down and 4 downs to score. Why would I not teach as a coach to do whatever to prevent a TD or a big play in similar situations?

Peace

Exactly...well worth the risk because the penalty is better the result (TD) without it. I am not a fan of this change.

[bigjohn]

when can you invoke this rule?

ART. 2 . . . No team shall repeatedly commit fouls which halve the distance to
the goal line

PENALTY: Unfair act – the referee enforces any penalty he considers equitable,
including the award of a score

[HLin NC]

repeatedly

Don't know, Fed has never defined repeatedly that I know of. I'd venture they expect it to be called very conservatively. I can think of numerous times I have called consecutive encroachments, particularly on a try, and we've never invoked the repeatedly cause. In fact K normally declines the penalty on a try anyway.

I brought this point up earlier in the thread. Its probably extreme but I can see DPI being committed on every pass play in a goal to go situation. I would imagine the repeatedly scenario would be invoked after the ball could no longer be moved for penalty enforcement, which is strictly my own opinion.

It would boil down a game of chicken between A and B's head coaches. At some point A is probably going to flinch and call a run play.

I forsee the AFD coming back very, very soon.