DPI - First time replaying the down

[SE Minnestoa Re]

I can see the smart coaches teaching kids to interfere in the endzone. Small yardage and way better than a touchdown.

I don't think anyone thought of this when making the rule change.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

I can see the smart coaches teaching kids to interfere in the endzone. Small yardage and way better than a touchdown.

I don't think anyone thought of this when making the rule change.

This is caused by the lack of officials on the committee or the people that represent states. If there were mostly officials, I think someone would have told them this was a problem. Instead people that do not enforce rules never think of the possibilities. And yes someone will give me one example of a guy that is an official or once was an official having a say, but it is obviously not enough voices to stop the NF from these stupid rulings.

Peace

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

I can see the smart coaches teaching kids to interfere in the endzone. Small yardage and way better than a touchdown.

I don't think anyone thought of this when making the rule change.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is caused by the lack of officials on the committee or the people that represent states. If there were mostly officials, I think someone would have told them this was a problem. Instead people that do not enforce rules never think of the possibilities. And yes someone will give me one example of a guy that is an official or once was an official having a say, but it is obviously not enough voices to stop the NF from these stupid rulings.

Peace

Agree all around.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

I can see the smart coaches teaching kids to interfere in the endzone. Small yardage and way better than a touchdown.

I don't think anyone thought of this when making the rule change.

That's why they need study committees who'll look thru archives not only of their own rules committee, but those of other governing bodies. Once in a while they actually do convene such committees, but not often enough. Not enough institutional memory.

In this case, if Fed looked back to near their rules committee's inception, they'd see that serious consideration was given to changing the rules to award a TD in such situations, even if the foul were not deliberate. They could at least benefit from looking at the discussion of proposals like that.

It's at least slightly amusing that over a long enough period of time, some rules provisions have gone back & forth more than once between two versions. Each way they had it had pluses & minuses, but they were always the same pluses & minuses, so you'd think they'd settle on one or the other, or something else. But it was always a long enough period of time that hardly anybody knew of the previous cycle.

JRutledge wrote:

This is caused by the lack of officials on the committee or the people that represent states. If there were mostly officials, I think someone would have told them this was a problem. Instead people that do not enforce rules never think of the possibilities. And yes someone will give me one example of a guy that is an official or once was an official having a say, but it is obviously not enough voices to stop the NF from these stupid rulings.

That would help, but I don't think it's their main problem. I think they get enough input that way, maybe could use a little more.

I've seen the result when they don't get input that way, though. It was the rule book written by the IWFL several years ago. It is perhaps the world's worst example of technical writing. Their head of officials was left out of the loop and saw the awful product too late.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

I can see the smart coaches teaching kids to interfere in the endzone. Small yardage and way better than a touchdown.

I don't think anyone thought of this when making the rule change.

I think in most situations where a defender is close enough to intentionally interfere like we are talking about is in position to play the ball instead. A coach would be crazy to teach it in this situation.

I still don't think it will happen that often. It will happen but I'd be surprised if any official sees it more than once or twice in a varsity season.

[Texas Aggie]

Does Fed have spot of the foul up to 15 yard enforcement like the NCAA?

No AFD is just NUTS! The other night in a JV game we had 2 DPIs inside the 5 -- one in the end zone -- and the offensive team STILL didn't score with about 9 plays. They were penalized themselves a couple of times and ended up committing grounding on 4th and goal from around the 15. I think we played like 4 consecutive first downs!

[johnnyg08]

Many of us on here thought of the major advantage the defense gains from no AFD on DPI the day the rule change came out.

There were obviously no officials on the committee who were willing to make a case against getting rid of automatic first down. (I suppose they may have been out voted)

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Many of us on here thought of the major advantage the defense gains from no AFD on DPI the day the rule change came out.

There were obviously no officials on the committee who were willing to make a case against getting rid of automatic first down. (I suppose they may have been out voted)

I don't think it was that so much as the only way they could eliminate loss of down on offense was accepting no AFD on defense. Some of the commentary was that it was a compromise to keep the balance of the change roughly the same - though it probably isn't. Some wanted to eliminate it on offense only, some on defense only, so in true committee fashion they compromised and satisfied no one.

[HLin NC]

I don't think it was that so much as the only way they could eliminate loss of down on offense was accepting no AFD on defense. Some of the commentary was that it was a compromise to keep the balance of the change roughly the same - though it probably isn't. Some wanted to eliminate it on offense only, some on defense only, so in true committee fashion they compromised and satisfied no one.

That is pretty much what we were told at the state clinic.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by scrounge

I don't think it was that so much as the only way they could eliminate loss of down on offense was accepting no AFD on defense. Some of the commentary was that it was a compromise to keep the balance of the change roughly the same - though it probably isn't. Some wanted to eliminate it on offense only, some on defense only, so in true committee fashion they compromised and satisfied no one.

And next year we'll probably see the AFD back in.

[Texas Aggie]

the only way they could eliminate loss of down on offense was accepting no AFD on defense

One has NOTHING to do with the other.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Does Fed have spot of the foul up to 15 yard enforcement like the NCAA?

No, Fed is a simple 15 yards or half the distance.

I've never understood equating AFD with a loss of down. They are very different IMO. A 15 yard penalty PLUS a loss of down was a complete drive killer. They might as well have just given the ball to the defense.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I've never understood equating AFD with a loss of down.

Heck, I've never "understood" previous spot enforcement for DPI.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Heck, I've never "understood" previous spot enforcement for DPI.

That is because you must not understand penalty enforcement.

Peace

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Heck, I've never "understood" previous spot enforcement for DPI.

Have you ever seen a wide-open receiver drop a pass?