Author Topic: Penalty Enforcement? (Read 7630 times)

sczeebra · « **on:** August 03, 2018, 06:05:30 AM »

Where would this foul be penalized from? K's ball 4th and 10 from K's 30. K lines up in a scrimmage kick formation and punts the ball deep where it is caught by R at his 20 and then returns the ball to R's 40. During the kick R55 came onto the field at the 50 but did not participate. What do we have?

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #1 on:** August 03, 2018, 06:19:13 AM »

5 yd penalty enforced from succeeding spot. 3.7 comment #6 in case book.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

js in sc · « **Reply #2 on:** August 03, 2018, 10:36:44 AM »

Illegal substitution during a scrimmage kick down should be penalized from the basic spot, in this case the end of the kick (PSK). If the substitution occured at the snap, it would be previous spot and not PSK.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #3 on:** August 03, 2018, 11:57:27 AM »

It specifically states in the casebook that if a substitute enters during the down but does not participate the penalty is enforced from the succeeding spot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

js in sc · « **Reply #4 on:** August 03, 2018, 01:14:27 PM »

Quote from: CalhounLJ on August 03, 2018, 11:57:27 AM

It specifically states in the casebook that if a substitute enters during the down but does not participate the penalty is enforced from the succeeding spot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In regular scrimmage plays I would agree, however Rule 2-16-2h states: any foul by R (other than illegal substitution or illegal participation that occurs AT THE SNAP) when the foul occurs during scrimmage kick plays, other than a try or successful field goal is enforced under PSK rules. Therefore, an illegal substitution foul during the kick is a PSK foul and enforced from the basic spot under all-but-one. In this case the end of the kick.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #5 on:** August 03, 2018, 04:51:48 PM »

I’m not close to a rule book at the moment but I’m under the impression this is treated as a non player foul with succeeding spot enforcement and PSK does not apply. I could be wrong though.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

js in sc · « **Reply #6 on:** August 03, 2018, 06:14:35 PM »

On further reflection and study, this would be illegal participation penalized as a PSK foul from the end of the kick, not illegal substitution. Similar to Case Book play 9.6.1D

VA Official · « **Reply #7 on:** August 03, 2018, 06:45:06 PM »

Quote from: js in sc on August 03, 2018, 06:14:35 PM

On further reflection and study, this would be illegal participation penalized as a PSK foul from the end of the kick, not illegal substitution. Similar to Case Book play 9.6.1D

This is illegal substitution. See rule 3-7-6. Case play 9-6-1 Situation D assumes that the player enters the game and participates "as the 12th player." If he didn't participate, it would've been illegal substitution.

Calhoun is correct here. This is a succeeding spot foul. In 2017, the committee changed 2-16-2h to encompass IP fouls during the kick. The rule change was silent (as far as I can tell) on IS fouls during the kick. Technically, the way the rules are currently written, this play meets the requirements for both PSK and succeeding spot enforcement. PSK no longer requires the foul to be live-ball, so a non-player foul that occurs during the kick applies (this was to allow IP fouls to become PSK).

Using the Case Book 3.7 Comment Table as well as the 9.6 Comment Table, to me it's clear that this 2017 rules change was only intended to encompass IP and not IS. The IP Table (9.6) was edited to include PSK enforcement, whereas the IS Table (3.7) does not include PSK for this scenario. I'm going with succeeding spot on this.

refjeff · « **Reply #8 on:** August 04, 2018, 10:04:58 PM »

3.7.6 It's illegal substitution. Under Penalty it says IS is a nonplayer foul.

10.4.5.c The basic spot for a nonplayer foul is the succeeding spot.

Bugolathe · « **Reply #9 on:** August 04, 2018, 11:29:40 PM »

So just to be sure, if R scores a touchdown on this play, we're enforcing it on the try or ensuing kick, just like a UNC?

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #10 on:** August 05, 2018, 06:11:55 AM »

Correct. If either team commits a non player or usc foul on a touchdown scoring play, the foul is marked off on either the try or the ensuing kickoff if there is one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VA Official · « **Reply #11 on:** August 05, 2018, 09:21:23 AM »

Quote from: CalhounLJ on August 05, 2018, 06:11:55 AM

Correct. If either team commits a non player or usc foul on a touchdown scoring play, the foul is marked off on either the try or the ensuing kickoff if there is one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only exception to that is an IP foul by R during the kick, which now falls under PSK.

refjeff · « **Reply #12 on:** August 05, 2018, 11:29:33 AM »

Quote from: VA Official on August 05, 2018, 09:21:23 AM

Only exception to that is a non-player IP foul by R during the kick, which now falls under PSK.

2.32.10 If he participates, he is no longer a nonplayer. So it's just Illegal Participation, live ball, previous spot or PSK.

VA Official · « **Reply #13 on:** August 05, 2018, 12:01:26 PM »

Quote from: refjeff on August 05, 2018, 11:29:33 AM

2.32.10 If he participates, he is no longer a nonplayer. So it's just Illegal Participation, live ball, previous spot or PSK.

2-32-10 doesn't say if a nonplayer comes onto the field during the down it isn't a nonplayer foul. Check Case Book 9.6 Comment Table. "Nonplayer enters during down - Basic spot (nonplayer, unless PSK enforcement applies)." So unless PSK enforcement applies, it's treated as a nonplayer foul and the basic spot is the succeeding spot.

refjeff · « **Reply #14 on:** August 05, 2018, 02:03:25 PM »

Quote from: VA Official on August 05, 2018, 12:01:26 PM

2-32-10 doesn't say if a nonplayer comes onto the field during the down it isn't a nonplayer foul. Check Case Book 9.6 Comment Table. "Nonplayer enters during down - Basic spot (nonplayer, unless PSK enforcement applies)." So unless PSK enforcement applies, it's treated as a nonplayer foul and the basic spot is the succeeding spot.

OK, so reading carefully, I think that I am right, and wrong, but in the end correct. Maybe we both are. Bear with me, and tell me if I am still thinking wrong.

I still still maintain that it is not nonplayer foul. 2.32.10 A nonplayer is ... a substitute ... who does not participate... If he isn't a nonplayer, it cannot be a nonplayer foul. (Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think so.)

9.6.4a Illegal participation live ball, basic spot Not previous spot. I was wrong here the first time.

So what's the basic spot? 10.4.4 Where the related run ends.

In the previous discussion, if R returns the punt for a TD, an Illegal Substitution foul would be a nonplayer foul enforced from the succeeding spot, 5 yards on the PAT or KO.

If R returns the punt for a TD an Illegal Participation foul would be a live ball foul enforced from the basic spot under the all but one principle. Which is going to be 15 yards walked off from where the illegal participation occurred, nullifying the TD.

If we have Illegal Participation on A/R on a TD play we are not enforcing that on the Try of KO.
Maybe we're just using different thoughts to get to the same place.

VA Official · « **Reply #15 on:** August 05, 2018, 03:04:53 PM »

Redacted

refjeff · « **Reply #16 on:** August 05, 2018, 03:34:35 PM »

Is my penalty enforcement correct?

"If R returns the punt for a TD an Illegal Participation foul would be a live ball foul enforced from the basic spot under the all but one principle. Which is going to be 15 yards walked off from where the illegal participation occurred, nullifying the TD."

"If we have Illegal Participation on A/R on a TD play we are not enforcing that on the Try of KO."

VA Official · « **Reply #17 on:** August 05, 2018, 03:51:57 PM »

Quote from: refjeff on August 05, 2018, 03:34:35 PM

Is my penalty enforcement correct?

"If R returns the punt for a TD an Illegal Participation foul would be a live ball foul enforced from the basic spot under the all but one principle. Which is going to be 15 yards walked off from where the illegal participation occurred, nullifying the TD."

"If we have Illegal Participation on A/R on a TD play we are not enforcing that on the Try of KO."

Sorry, I was merging the 9.6 Comment and the 3.7 Comment with your question.

"If a substitute enters the field during the down and participates, it is illegal participation and enforced from the basic spot using the all-but-one principle unless post-scrimmage kick enforcement applies. The spot of the foul is where the substitute participated, not necessarily where he entered the field."

refjeff · « **Reply #18 on:** August 05, 2018, 04:06:31 PM »

I fully understand the ability to talk yourself into a dark alley of confusion. I have done it more than once.

Thanks for staying with me, this is all part of my pre-season preparation.

No that it matters, but my brother lives in Springfield.

VA Official · « **Reply #19 on:** August 05, 2018, 04:10:10 PM »

I talked myself in a circle on the 9.6 Comment in the case book, the Illegal Substitution 3.7 Comment, the original play and your play. See the edit above for the 9.6 Comment relating to this IP enforcement. We are on the same page now

It's also an interesting note that the potential enforcement spot is at the spot where the substitute participates, not where he comes onto the field. It makes sense, I just always threw the flag where the substitute entered. I know a number of officials who do the same.

refjeff · « **Reply #20 on:** August 05, 2018, 04:36:48 PM »

Quote from: VA Official on August 05, 2018, 04:10:10 PM

We are on the same page now

Two years ago in our post game discussion, our LJ admitted confusion on a play. The wide receiver inadvertently stepped OOB, and then came back inbounds to break up the interception. He wasn't sure if it was a foul or not and had not thrown a flag.

Me: Once he goes out he has to stay out. We should have had Illegal Participation.

Our HL Are you sure? I thought he had to come back in.

Me: Fellas, let's get out our rule books and check this.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #21 on:** August 06, 2018, 10:25:43 AM »

IMHO, the rationale of lumping the IS of big ole' Bubba strolling out on the field to see what is happening as a non-player foul is that his action had not baring on the outcome of the play and have succeeding spot enforcement.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #22 on:** August 06, 2018, 10:31:38 AM »

Makes sense. I have a mechanics question related to this foul. Let's say I catch the IS when the nonplayer enters the field and throw my flag immediately. Then, later on, if/when he participates, do I throw another flag? If so, which spot is the spot of the foul? Where he entered? Or where he participated?

AlUpstateNY · « **Reply #23 on:** August 06, 2018, 01:35:19 PM »

One way to avoid confusion (and perhaps some argument) when a receiver steps/goes OOB, and then returns in-bounds and participates, is to bag the spot where he went OOB, and flag where he participates after coming back. Whether you choose to flag for IS (without any "participation") is a judgment call based on advantage/disadvantage.

VA Official · « **Reply #24 on:** August 06, 2018, 01:38:44 PM »

Quote from: CalhounLJ on August 06, 2018, 10:31:38 AM

Makes sense. I have a mechanics question related to this foul. Let's say I catch the IS when the nonplayer enters the field and throw my flag immediately. Then, later on, if/when he participates, do I throw another flag? If so, which spot is the spot of the foul? Where he entered? Or where he participated?

I'm going to hold my flag to see if he participates. If he does, flag the spot. If he doesn't, throw it high because IS is nonplayer and the spot doesn't matter. If you've already thrown it, I would just come up and move the flag to the correct spot for IP (the spot where he participated).