The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Intentional Defensive Pass Interference (https://forum.officiating.com/football/95964-intentional-defensive-pass-interference.html)

agr8zebra Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:35pm

Intentional Defensive Pass Interference
 
I get the Penalty, 1st 15 Yd for the DPI, 2nd 15Yd for the Intentional act. My question, given the fact the signals are 33 and then 27. Given that the 27 is for unsportsmanlike, would this count toward the two unsportsmanlike required to disqualify a player?

Has anyone ever called one?

Our association thinks we might be seeing it more frequently now that the Auto-1st down has been removed, What do you think?

JRutledge Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:43pm

I think you have to give two different signals. After all the "Intentional Part" is an additional penalty.

I have never called one I hope it stays that way. But I can see a situation where now without the AFD portion, this could be part of the consideration. And I can see more coaches calling for this being called. I have already heard coaches say they will "intentionally" prevent a completion if beat. I hope this does not happen, but I can see it being more of an issue.

Sorry, but this was the dumbest change in a long time.

Peace

bigjohn Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:48pm

Signal 27 can mean noncontact foul as well.

http://www.blcf.org/Special/footballsignals.pdf


I definitely think there should more Intentional DPI called than has been called in the past. I have a friend that is an officials that say he thinks there should be more invoking of the unfair acts clause for intentional dpi inside the 10 yard line.


PENALTY: Unfair act – the referee enforces any penalty he considers equitable,
including the award of a score – (S27).

JRutledge Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:52pm

I am glad you have a friend BJ, but hell no. No support for that under this provision for intentional interference and unfair acts are usually things not covered by rule. We have a rule that says what to do and unfair acts is not the rule remedy.

Peace

bigjohn Thu Aug 29, 2013 01:10pm

even if it is done repeatedly to prevent a TD, 3 and 10 from the 10 results in 3rd and 5 and half the distance is always better than an automatic first down near the goal line.

MD Longhorn Thu Aug 29, 2013 02:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigjohn (Post 903803)
even if it is done repeatedly to prevent a TD, 3 and 10 from the 10 results in 3rd and 5 and half the distance is always better than an automatic first down near the goal line.

Yes, but "unfair acts" is meant to cover things not otherwise in the rules. Not this. Not this EVER.

bigjohn Thu Aug 29, 2013 02:18pm

9-9-2 ????

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

asdf Fri Aug 30, 2013 06:40am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigjohn (Post 903816)
9-9-2 ????

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

Not applicable here......No competent official will invoke this in this situation.

This is an unintended (and obviously not thought through) consequence to a bad decision by the rules committee. (removing the AFD for DPI)

Hopefully it will be changed next year.

HLin NC Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:05am

Quote:

Hopefully it will be changed next year.
Allegedly that has been "the plan" all along.:rolleyes:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:20am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1