A rule change I don't understand...

[Skippy]

It never was automatic for personal foul. Only if the yardage gets it.

[AnonymousRef]

I thought PI is all they took the auto matic first down away from... So it doesn't apply to PF as well? That's even more wrong

The only penalties that are automatic first down are those that involve the word "roughing." So, roughing the passer, kicker, holder, and snapper.

Had a situation this year where a defender committed a personal foul against the QB. The coaches wanted an automatic first down (probably needed 20 yards for first down) for roughing the passer. But since the QB never threw the ball, he was not a passer...He was a runner. No automatic 1st. It's a complicated rule and few people have kept up with the changes. Not that it keeps those in the stands and sidelines from speaking up anyway

[Eaglealum]

Haha very true, thanks. For what it's worth, I never missed an interpretations meeting when I was younger ;)

[AnonymousRef]

Question. A QB calls for a timeout to stop the clock, the refs ignore him then he spikes the ball to stop the clock. Shouldn't have there been a penalty for calling for a time out when your team is out of time outs? Not that it mattered because there were seconds left in the game just wanted to know the rule on this.

There is not a rule on this (unlike in basketball). So, therefore, there is no foul for attempting to call at TO when you have none. It is simply ignored. Hopefully the officials are paying attention and don't attempt to grant a TO before realizing the team is out.

[AnonymousRef]

In the 4th and goal case, as Coach said, the privilege of a 'free' PI, knock down of a wide receiver, can be immediately followed by an unsportsmanship-like foul and the offense still only gets one shot to score... What would be 2 major fouls in the middle of the field, only cost a team 7.5 yards in this case... hardly any penalty at all for letting the refs know your opinion.

I've never actually seen this happen, but if I would think that if a defense kept mugging the receivers purposefully, the officials could call unsportsmanlike conduct instead of PI, which would eventually result in ejections. That probably would take care of the problem. That is making a travesty of the game, which gives the officials greater powers to do what it takes to get the game back within the intent of the rules.

[Skippy]

Unsportsmanlike are non contact fouls. A touchdown could be awarded by rule in this instance, but that would be a tough one. A team continually causing penalties which half the distance to the goal can result in the officials awarding a touchdown.

[AnonymousRef]

Unsportsmanlike are non contact fouls. A touchdown could be awarded by rule in this instance, but that would be a tough one. A team continually causing penalties which half the distance to the goal can result in the officials awarding a touchdown.

Unsportsmanlike can be contact or non-contact (although, yes, it usually is non-contact). A kid could, in theory, dish out cheap shots all night as long as they are called personal fouls (and not considered fighting). But if he gets 2 unsportsmanlike conducts, he is ejected. You better believe that I am making that call based on player safety.

[Blueandwhitefan]

Unsportsmanlike are non contact fouls. A touchdown could be awarded by rule in this instance, but that would be a tough one. A team continually causing penalties which half the distance to the goal can result in the officials awarding a touchdown.

Unsportsmanlike can be contact or non-contact (although, yes, it usually is non-contact). A kid could, in theory, dish out cheap shots all night as long as they are called personal fouls (and not considered fighting). But if he gets 2 unsportsmanlike conducts, he is ejected. You better believe that I am making that call based on player safety.

Nice to see someone does that. And Thanks for explaining the rules. I bug the two Officials I work with all the time. But I think they realize I am just trying to get the rules straight. So many people in the stands have NO CLUE!!!!!

[Blaze]

costanza yes I was referring to the Bellwood game.

Thanks Anonymousref and Skippy for the rules on that.

[Whitehat1]

If you are in a goal to goal situation that means this is no line to gain. Pass Interfence is not an automatic first down. If a defense or offense team commits a intentional pass inference another penalty will be called. Still not resulting in an automatic first down. Since at the NBC game no line to gain since it was 4th and goal. THE HEAD COACH SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT. I believe that each school recieves a rule book from the PIAA each season and goes back to high school coachs wanting to use the NFL rulebook. Read the book each year.