Rules that make no sense

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Adam

Tim Tebow won't gave a chance to fumble the Q/C exchange.

I didn't know he had any HS eligibility left.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Spiking the ball to stop the clock in this manner is an exception to the rule. What advantage would be gained by changing this rule? I don't see one.

I'll ask it another way:

If you're going to allow such exception to the IFP rule, why should the formation make any difference?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by CT1

I'll ask it another way:

If you're going to allow such exception to the IFP rule, why should the formation make any difference?

The exception is a way to legally spike the ball and conserve time. Which snap conserves more time, hand to hand or a shotgun snap? Obviously the hand to hand.

I never seen a shotgun snap used to spike the ball in the NFL or NCAA.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The exception is a way to legally spike the ball and conserve time. Which snap conserves more time, hand to hand or a shotgun snap? Obviously the hand to hand.

I never seen a shotgun snap used to spike the ball in the NFL or NCAA.

Good point. And I haven't seen one either at the college level executed from the shotgun/pistol formation. Seems like a non-issue.

I guess the part that could get complicated (mainly for NF offiicals), what if the shotgun snap is not completed cleanly? Do you still allow them to spike the ball if they had to chase the ball or if the fumble the snap?

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The exception is a way to legally spike the ball and conserve time. Which snap conserves more time, hand to hand or a shotgun snap? Obviously the hand to hand.

I never seen a shotgun snap used to spike the ball in the NFL or NCAA.

That's because they have enough practice time (except for some children's teams using NCAA rules) to work on a handed snap. It's not a trivial skill, and when your practice time is very limited (this season my club is allowed only 7 preseason practice sessions), if you install one kind of exchange for general play, you're not likely to spend time on the other if it's just for this situation. Easier to practice having an eligible receiver nearby to knock the ball down.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The exception is a way to legally spike the ball and conserve time. Which snap conserves more time, hand to hand or a shotgun snap? Obviously the hand to hand.

I never seen a shotgun snap used to spike the ball in the NFL or NCAA.

At least in the NFL, the player has be directly under center to legally spike the ball.

[HLin NC]

At least in the NFL, the player has be directly under center to legally spike the ball

Isn't that basically the same thing as saying a hand to hand snap?

[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.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

If FED had abolished it, we wouldn't have gems like this:

[JRutledge]

That was one the funniest videos I have ever seen about HS sports (I have seen it before BTW).

Whooooohooooooo, we got shoes!!!!

Peace

[Rich]

Reminded of this thread today -- discussion on DPIs on scoring plays. I mentioned that we should be extra patient when processing these because of the idiotic enforcement if the receiver completes the catch and then scores.

We had one earlier this season in a JV game -- BJ throws a flag for DPI and the receiver catches the ball in stride and scores. Now we're tacking 15 onto the kickoff when it probably wasn't big enough to be a flag in the first place.

They really need to look at removing non-PF / non-live-ball-enforced-as-dead-ball fouls from the provision that allows fouls to be put on the kickoff.