Intentional Defensive Pass Interference

[agr8zebra]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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]

9-9-2 ????

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

[asdf]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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]

Hopefully it will be changed next year.

Allegedly that has been "the plan" all along.