If you could make one change

Thought of another rule I would change and this one is in college and NFL. That a defensive holding or PI is an automatic first down. You see a team get a goalline stand and it gets wiped out by a questionable hold to the guy the weren't even targeting and the offense gets four new downs. Four!! and closer to the goalline. Just seems excessive.

Maybe some rule that was the opposite of loss of down for the offense. Maybe "gain of down". So you stop them on fourth down at the 8. But holding. Now it is third at the 4. 1st at 4 just seems too much.

Or even on 4th and 20 and you get a holding on the guy not targeted. It goes to 3rd and 10 instead of 1st and 10.


I actually like this "gain of down" concept and it might could be applied to other defensive penalties.

I do too, at least in spirit.  Automatic first down is a very variable penalty in terms of how much it penalizes.  The value of an AFD on first down is nothing; sometimes it's less than repeating the down, but it's never more.  As you get further into the down count its value increases, until on 4th down it's outrageously severe.

---

Another thing I don't like about the handling of downs is on penalties in situations where the succeeding down was going to be first anyway.  What good is "repeating a down" after possession, before downs start?  (You're not really repeating the down.)  That's how it is for fouls after change of possession during a down.  If it's a foul by the returning team, the penalty acts like a loss of down penalty would in other situations.  If it's a foul by the team that's turned over the ball, at which instant they're the defense, it's like the defense gets to foul and the down counts anyway.  If it's a foul after the offense has already gotten the ball past the line to gain, and the foul is by the defense, it's as if the down counted anyway.  So a penalty against the defense seems too little, and one against the offense seems too much, compared to repeat-the-down penalties in most situations.

The solution to this would be to introduce a zeroth down for these situations.  Like at the moment possession changes during a live ball, or the line to gain is reached, it becomes 0th down.  Absent a penalty (or a retreat behind the line to gain), the next down is going to be 1st, but a penalty where the down is to be repeated would leave the next down the 0th, with no line to gain set yet.  The line to gain would be set the next down, which is first.

I brought this up about 20 years ago in an officiating forum, and the objection to my idea was that the situation after a change of possession or the line to gain is reached would not really be reproduced by having the ball snapped with a down still in the offense's pocket.  Of course no penalty can reproduce the situation at the instant of the foul; the remedies are never so well fit -- not for inadvertent whistles either.  It may be a bit much to have that zeroth down when at the instant of the foul the offense could no longer make a forward pass.  Maybe you'd have to outlaw the forward pass on 0th down to better reproduce the situation after a change of possession or a run downfield; but on the other hand the team with the ball in such situations when a foul occurs has the advantages of a broken field, so maybe the ability to throw a forward pass is just compensation.

---

I could also see revisiting a bit of penalty enforcement that was abandoned about a century ago.  There used to be some yardage penalties which did not affect the distance to go for a first down.  The line-to-gain was moved the same distance and direction as the penalty yardage, so field position was affected but down and distance were not; they were all repeat-the-down penalties.  Seems like for non-tactical fouls, down and distance shouldn't be affected.

My first game as an OC on varsity we threw 53 passes.

That was more than we threw in 3 seasons afterward. One year we played 12 games (11-1) and threw 47 times.

With all the new rules emphasized on "safety", I'm really surprised that they haven't changed the rule to allow the QB to throw the ball away outside of the tackles. 

As a DC I'm personally glad it is the way it is but still, pretty surprised it is the way it is.

Our last game of the season we were getting to the QB pretty well, by the end of the the game he was seeing ghosts as they say, ended up with 4 intentional grounding penalties running for his life. Got me thinking a bit about the rule.... 

The perfect game

There's some things I disagree with on the Fed... but then I'm just geared to be that kind of person.  

However, I LOVE the fact that our game is unique and different.  This might be within the realm of keeping individual fiefdoms (which I also disagree with) but almost every change you mentioned is part of why I love the HS game over the others: hashes, rules enforcement, etc....

First, you should be ashamed that in the example you are talking about quick screens from the 3.  Run the ball or wear a skirt   (sarcasm obviously)

Second- I believe the outcomes SHOULD be different...because the ball is ONLY BEING SPOTTED DUE TO THE OFFENSE SCORING A TOUCHDOWN.    It isn't a play like any other.  It is like the "bonus balls" you get to roll in bowling if you strike or spare in the 10th frame. 

You could do that, or you could go the opposite way and have the ball be dead if a player inside the tackles is touched by an opponent while trying or looking to pass.

Yes, I've wanted that for years.



But why stop there? Why not double or nothing on the touchdown? Or let them risk any number of points they want? And why do it only after a touchdown? Why not let the offense at any time interrupt where they are on a drive, and have a "try" like that to win or lose 1 or 2 or however many points, and then resume play where they were?

I'm putting that forward just as reduction to absurdity. The whole idea of giving a team an opportunity to gamble like that reminds me of TV game shows. I say make the TD 7 points, no options, just kick off.



What if they blocked an attempted field goal during general play, and ran that back all the way? 3 points?

Like I have said. I like the symmetry. 3 points for a kick, 6 points for making it all the way down and punching it in, with the bonus opportunity to make it 7 or 8.  Just my preference. 

If you go 3 & out throwing the ball 3 times so we can maybe finish the game sometime before 10:00 PM. I really like this one!

Completely understand but 2 counterpoints.

we had a team get called for THREE PIs inside the 10 on the same series (we struggled running on them mightily but eventually put it in). Each of the PIs was blatant, borderline taught. The penalty, half the distance and replay the down bc it’s not an automatic first down in HS. At some point, gaming the system (I don’t want an ethics argument, just typing here) kills the spirit of the rule.

second, offensive pass interference is nearly impossible to bounce back from. It’s a big time drive killer, wouldn’t we want balance on the defensive side (yes, I pointed out one of the few rules that doesn’t benefit the O!)

While I will admit that some of the things players want to wear are ridiculous and very, "look at me". That I do not approve of. I found, in practice, the regulation of wrist bands, towels and eye black to be a gigantic pain. We have as state association rule where wristbands can only be worn no higher than 3 inches above the wrist. We had old, strecthed out play sheets that some kids tried wearing on their belts or too high on their arms for the officials. It was not to look cool, it was what we had. 

So I come from the point of view, "who cares", it is not effecting the game. Focus on things that actually matter. I would much rather have the referee's focusing on players having knee pads then the shape of a kid's eye black. 

I'm not talking about any changes to rules, just more of a societal shift away from " LOOK AT ME! ME! MEEEEEE!!!!"