Rules that make no sense

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

Why is the play dead just because a kickoff or punt crosses the goal line ???

Safety.

Peace

[REFANDUMP]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Safety.

Peace

Still doesn't make any sense to me. If a punt travels 45 yards into the end zone and is returned, doesn't make it any different than a punt that travels 45 yards and is returned in the middle of the field. Same thing as a kickoff fielded one yard into the end zone being more dangerous to return than a ball fielded on the one yard line.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

Still doesn't make any sense to me. If a punt travels 45 yards into the end zone and is returned, doesn't make it any different than a punt that travels 45 yards and is returned in the middle of the field. Same thing as a kickoff fielded one yard into the end zone being more dangerous to return than a ball fielded on the one yard line.

It does not have to make sense to you or me. I am just telling you what appears to be the reason this play ends when the ball gets into the EZ.

And really a punt going into the EZ is not much different from other levels, the play just continues a little while longer until the ball is downed. And the NF wants to kill the play and not let any unnecessary action take place. It is really a minor difference on scrimmage kicks. The free kick classification is just similar I am sure to not make one part of the kicking drastically different.

Also not many teams try to recover a punt inside the 10 yard line on a punt. On a punt as well teams are not running at each other for several yards without some resistance on a scrimmage kick. Heck, the NFL and NCAA moved their FK line to prevent more kick off returns. I do not see the NF changing this anytime soon.

Peace

[asdf]

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

Still doesn't make any sense to me. If a punt travels 45 yards into the end zone and is returned, doesn't make it any different than a punt that travels 45 yards and is returned in the middle of the field. Same thing as a kickoff fielded one yard into the end zone being more dangerous to return than a ball fielded on the one yard line.

This one is actually a good one and supported by statistics. The rate of catastrophic injury is markedly higher on these types of plays.

[HLin NC]

Why allow a QB "spike" after a hand-to-hand snap, but not when the QB is in the "pistol"?

The hand to hand snap makes it almost instantaneous. From shotgun or pistol allows offense to attempt deception which goes around the rule exception for IFP. Also in that formation, B can pressure and then WH would be put in position of deciding if grounded pass was an intentional spike to stop clock or avoid sack.

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

Still doesn't make any sense to me. If a punt travels 45 yards into the end zone and is returned, doesn't make it any different than a punt that travels 45 yards and is returned in the middle of the field. Same thing as a kickoff fielded one yard into the end zone being more dangerous to return than a ball fielded on the one yard line.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Of course, there is no additional risk based on where the ball is caught. However, all long kick plays carry more risk than scrimmage plays. Injury statistics at every level bear this out. The more we can reduce the overall number of returns in the kicking game, the safer the game will be. Both the NCAA and the NFL have moved (marginally) closer to the NFHS in recent years, specifically due to increased risk on long kick plays. The NCAA changes on free kicks led to a significant change in touchback to return ratio (1 in 6 : 1 in 3). The NFL changes also lead to more touchbacks due to balls being kicked out of the end zone.

You're not going to see any changes allowing more returns at the NFHS level anytime soon. Not while all other codes are moving in Federation direction.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

Why is the play dead just because a kickoff or punt crosses the goal line ???

Rule changes are COACH driven for the most part.

Coaches do NOT want a 16 year old kid to have the option of

A- attempting to catch a kick in the end zone and possibly muffing it, allowing K to fall on it for a TD

or

B-making the decision to return a kick out of the end zone when 9 times out of 10, he's not going to make it to the 20 yard line.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I agree with Rich as well. Penalty enforcement for fouls against the defense when the run ends behind the LOS should be enforced at the previous spot as well. Case in point, QB drops back to pass and wants to throw to an eligible receiver downfield but he's held. The QB gets sacked for a 10-yard loss. Penalty enforcement for a running play is from the end of the run so this brings the ball back to the previous spot AFTER enforcement. It would be more equitable to enforce that from the previous. It's not a major issue because it doesn't happen often.

We can always offer plays to make our point. For example,

QB A12 is scrambling for his life. 15 yards behind the LOS, B78 is about to sack A12 when he's literally tackled by A56, enabling A12 to throw the ball away. If the rule was written as Rich suggested, we enforce the holding from the previous spot. Team A saves 5 yards on the play by committing the foul as well as getting the opportunity to replay the down.

Is that more equitable? No.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

We can always offer plays to make our point. For example,

QB A12 is scrambling for his life. 15 yards behind the LOS, B78 is about to sack A12 when he's literally tackled by A56, enabling A12 to throw the ball away. If the rule was written as Rich suggested, we enforce the holding from the previous spot. Team A saves 5 yards on the play by committing the foul as well as getting the opportunity to replay the down.

Is that more equitable? No.

It's never going to be 100% perfect but there are going to be more circumstances where it's more equitable to penalize from the previous spot than the spot of the foul for fouls behind the NZ and when runs end behind the NZ. I work both codes and much prefer the NCAA code.

[xtremeump]

Please explain to me the reason for the change in Pass Interference ?

[HLin NC]

It was a compromise between the factions that wanted to rid OPI of the loss of down and those set against changing it.

Rumor has it they will then go back and add the automatic first down back to DPI later.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Rumor has it they will then go back and add the automatic first down back to DPI later.

I'd be very surprised if this didn't get added back next year.

The rule that makes no sense to me is the "Scoring free kick following a fair catch/awarded fair catch" rule; ie: the only time in a football game that one team has the possibility of scoring points without the other team being able to realistically prevent the kick.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

The rule that makes no sense to me is the "Scoring free kick following a fair catch/awarded fair catch" rule; ie: the only time in a football game that one team has the possibility of scoring points without the other team being able to realistically prevent the kick.

The idea of this very old rule was that it was the play leading up to the scoring attempt which culminated in a relatively easy score, although previously the other team was allowed to rush as soon as the ball touched the ground for the place kick. And a free kick (at goal or otherwise) was also allowed from a fair catch from a punt-out (from goal) or punt-on (as its own free kick) by the kicking side.

The games that today preserve that type of scoring sequence are Gaelic and Australian Rules football, most closely the latter, in which most of the scores come off fair catches of teammates' kicks. It is thus said that most of the scoring plays in Aussie Rules are anticlimactic. The idea was that the opposing team had the opp'ty to prevent the team's setting up their own shot like that, but very little chance of preventing the shot's own success. Similarly in American football one can say that it was in the play leading up to the fairly caught kick, or the kick itself, where the defense was possible.

NCAA abolished the fair catch in 1950 and didn't bring the free kick back when the fair catch was reinstated in 1951. Canadian football had abolished the fair catch in the 1940s. Rugby Union abolished the kick at goal from the fair catch in 1976 IIRC, and Rugby League in the 1960s.

NFL, Fed, Gaelic, and Australian Rules football are the outliers in this regard. It would change their games enormously for Gaelic & Australian Rules to disallow scoring off such free kicks. However, in Fed & NFL the play is so rare, it's not obvious why they haven't abolished it, especially given Fed's predilection for abolishing rare plays.

Then again, I can't see why American & Canadian football haven't abolished the try/convert.