Rules that make no sense
 

On another thread about OPI and DPI, asdf stated:

Not calling him out specifically, I am just curious. What FED rule(s) do you all find that makes absolutely no sense? And how would you change it?

I'm not sure it makes no sense, but I've been long opposed to offensive fouls (such as holding) being spot fouls behind the line of scrimmage.

1/10 becomes 1/27 and there's the end of the series for most teams.

I think the NCAA gets this one right. The foul is 10 yards, no more.

I also think the logic behind "if we're not penalizing a LOD on OPI we can't give an AFD on DPI" is tortured, at best. The NCAA/NFL have never had an issue with it, for example. It's not like there weren't examples of other codes, in other words, and the NFHS was breaking new ground.

I'd also eliminate non-PF, non-flagrant, non-USC fouls on scoring plays against the defense. No reason we should penalize 15 on the kickoff for DPI when there's a TD scored on the play. This is one that, to me, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I'd also put an AFD in for all PFs, but that's just something on my wish list.

I'm with you Rich, on all points!

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.

One that was changed this year was the towel rule. Why we had to be the towel police, I'll never know. I understand streamers and tiger tails and all the stupid juvenile "look at me" crap.

However they didn't take it far enough- I understand no ball or penalty flag colors but why if 3 guys have white and 3 guys have black towels does it really matter?

True, but that would be better dealt with by having as a separate foul (and enforcement) illegal use of hands vs. an eligible receiver while a legal forward pass to him is possible, irrespective of whether the play ends as a running play. In other words, this should be an exception to 3-and-1, while the general case of fouls by the defense should keep that enforcement.

For rules that make no sense, you don't have to look farther than another thread going on now, where one team puts the ball behind the opposing goal line and the opposing team gains possession and fouls there. It "makes sense" in that a fairly simple application of rules produces a safety, but it doesn't make sense in the overall conception of the touchback/safety distinction.

You just hit on one I forgot.

A12 drops back to pass. He's tackled 10 yards behind the LOS by his face mask.

That should be enforced from the previous spot, NOT from the spot where A12 was illegally tackled.

Why?

If instead A12 had run 10 yards downfield and fouled there, would you want the penalty on A enforced from the previous spot? Why wipe out the progress of the play up to the time and place of the foul?

The tackle was the foul itself. Why should B benefit AT ALL from the illegal tackle?

To answer your question, I would put an exception to the all-but-one in place for a defensive foul on a running play. End of the run beyond the line, tack it on -- previous spot if the run ends behind the line. Hey, B's the team that fouled.

Unless A12 fumbles, then it is from the previous spot...which is crazy.

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

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

Safety.

Peace

I had forgotten that one. I saw that happen two years ago...and called it right on the air.

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

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

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.

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.

Because he could probably have even more easily made a legal tackle there.

What kind of deception can they try while the loose ball is moving backwards from the snapper? It's not as if they can do anything with it until the passer has it in his hands, and at that point he can do the same thing just as fast whether he got a handed snap or a thrown one.
That part makes sense.

But a more basic question is why team A should be allowed to delay the game by conserving time like this at all. But if that was the object of the rules makers, they could make it simpler by just telling the R "spike", and then you don't have to spot the ball again.

Agree. And I'm surprised there hasn't been some sentiment for doing away with kick returns entirely in FED.

Heck, in our pee-wee games we just spot the ball at the 35 on "kickoffs" and move it 30 yds on "punts".

I agree that's the rationale. I think also that ease of officiating the play is a consideration.

The Fed often writes rules to accommodate the lowest common denominator. It's much easier to say that when a kick breaks the plane, it is dead instead. Same thing with dead ball balks in baseball, etc.

Not saying I agree with it but that is their justification.

It's allowed at other levels. There's no reason it couldn't be allowed here, either.

I'd also allow a placekick holder to flip the ball to another player without raising from the ground -- as is legal in other levels.

The only difference in NCAA ball are kicks that either (1) are caught before they hit the ground or (2) are touched by R on the field of play.

I don't think there's a whole lot of safety added by killing kicks immediately as they cross the planes of goal lines, but I agree this isn't going to change anytime soon.

Fed instituted that during an era over which they put in several things that make the ball dead or prevent play. This one survives along with encroachment killing the RFP.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-mMAnYyf8tc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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

Whooooohooooooo, we got shoes!!!! :D

Peace

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.

Happened to me last night. Threw the flag, coaches were asking why?

LCD rules-making.

Attempted murder is a serious crime, allowing the shooter to avoid punishment because he's a lousy shot, is not a good idea and sets a really bad prescedent. Allowing DPI, especially near the EZ, to go unpunished because it was unsuccessful, is likewise not a great idea as it would clearly encourage a "what the heck, might as well" attitude.

When the risk of not fouling, is far greater than the risk and punishment of fouling, the risk/reward ratio is tilted in the wrong direction.

Can I flag you for excessive use of commas? :D

Seriously, the foul isn't the contact. It's the *interference*. If I judge there wasn't *interference* then it's not a foul. Even if there is contact.

Agreed. The reason why a PF makes sense is you don't want someone getting a cheap shot in on a play like this. DPI is not a cheap shot. If you feel it was a cheap shot than call it UNR rather than DPI. It doesn't happen that often so Im not overly concerned about it, but it given a choice the NCAA enforcement makes more sense.

Football is a wonderful game that appeals to participants between the ages of 6 and 60. With such a wide age spread it's no surprise that there are slightly different Rules Codes, that take player maturity, experience, physical development, administrative assets and skill levels into consideration.

Some NFL Rules are designed for very skilled grown men, NCAA Rules take other considerations into rule development and NFHS Rules, which apply to 48/50 States take into consideration player maturity, or lack thereof, developing physical skills, developing game comprehension, and are often applied to players younger than High School, suggesting carefully considered modifications.

Having an overall flexible Rule structure, designed to accommodate these differences seems logical, has worked extremely well for over 100 years and is subject to review and revision on an annual basis.

I think many of the rules in the NFHS code are LCD rules written to make things easier on the officials, many of whom simply don't know the rules and the principles behind those rules well enough in the first place.