Football Officiating > National Federation Discussion
scrimmage kick--fg attempt
CalhounLJ:
Yes. Which is why succeeding spot language in the exception is so bad.
CalhounLJ:
My argument in a nutshell:
The play in question: K misses a field goal on the last play of regulation in a tie game. K commits a live ball foul (illegal formation) on this play.
The enforcement: Using the 10-4-2 exception, R has three options: 1. Decline and go to overtime. 2. 5yd penalty from the previous spot, with a replay of the down. 3. Tack on 5yds at the succeeding spot.
The problem: The definition of succeeding spot in the rulebook is: “The spot where the ball would next be snapped or free kicked if a foul had not occurred.” In this particular situation, the succeeding spot is the first play in overtime. Under no circumstances would the ball ever be snapped at the R20 after a missed field goal during the last play in regulation in a tied game if a foul does not occur. That spot would ALWAYS be the first play in overtime.
The other problem: 3-3 commands us to extend the period and play an untimed down on an accepted live ball foul by either team. We can’t do that at the succeeding spot, because the succeeding spot is the first play in overtime. So, we can’t go to overtime.
Solution: To be able to apply 10-4-2 exception to this play: 1. The succeeding spot language would have to be removed and other language added (similar or identical to the suggestion by bossman). 2. Rule that the exception cannot apply because we can’t end the period on an accepted foul, and to apply the exception we would have to end the period and go to the succeeding spot, which is the first play in overtime. So, in this situation, R would have to accept enforcement at previous spot or decline.
bossman72:
--- Quote from: CalhounLJ on November 18, 2021, 09:21:53 AM ---So, in this situation, R would have to accept enforcement at previous spot or decline.
--- End quote ---
In NCAA it's handled this way.
First, they don't allow tack-on penalties on field goals, so let's pretend this was a punt for a touchback.
Their options would be to decline and go to OT, enforce 5 from previous and replay the down, or tack on 5 from the 20 and have 1st and 10 from the 25 with an untimed down, since it's an accepted live ball foul to extend the period.
This is one thing I don't like about the NFHS rule making process. They copy a rule from NCAA but don't copy the rule book language just to be different... "because we're not NCAA". They end up screwing it up and it takes 2 or 3 rule change cycles to correct it.
PABJNR:
The way the rule is written one can argue in this case there is no succeeding spot. For OT to be the succeeding spot, the 4th quarter has to have ended, which because of the foul it can’t end by rule. By the definition of succeeding spot if the foul had not occurred, the period would have ended.
I would say in this case the basic spot would move to the 20 and there would be an untamed down after enforcement, which I believe would comply with the spirit of the rule.
Look at 10.4.4 Situation B in case book. They say basic spot is 20, as the 20 is succeeding spot on a touchback. If this play happened on the last play of a tied game would it be the same dilemma?
My opinion is the foul, the way the current rules are written and by the spirit of the rule is to have an untimed down following enforcement from the 20. I just can’t get to an enforcement in OT as the period has not expired.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NVFOA_Ump:
I agree. This cannot go to OT since IMHO that clearly violates the requirement that the game cannot end until the live ball penalties have been completed. I would focus on revising the language in definition of succeeding spot since the added language, again IMHO, simply does not belong there.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version