Football Officiating > National Federation Discussion

scrimmage kick--fg attempt

<< < (12/16) > >>

KWH:

--- Quote from: NVFOA_Ump on November 18, 2021, 08:53:22 AM ---So back to a previously discussed question.  Isn't it correct under NFHS rules to say that a half cannot end until all live ball fouls have been completed?

--- End quote ---

YES - NFHS Rule 3-3-3a

CalhounLJ:

--- Quote from: CalhounLJ on November 18, 2021, 08:57:36 AM ---Yes. Which is why succeeding spot language in the exception is so bad.

--- End quote ---
Retweet


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ralph Damren:
IMHO, succeeding spot is often synonymous with end of run, such as when big ole' Bubba wanders out on the field to git a better look while the play is still going but doesn't participate. That is a live ball foul with succeeding spot enforcement which will probably be the end of the run - unless it was a loose ball play via definition. It which case the succeeding spot would also be also be the preceding spot. With the tack-on rule, end of run couldn't be used as there might not be any run, just the kick rolling dead. The location of the kick becoming dead would be the succeeding spot.

While there may be fly=poop in the pepper shaker, it still tastes good  eAt& on my 'tatters and greens :).

CalhounLJ:

--- Quote from: Ralph Damren on November 19, 2021, 09:59:59 AM ---IMHO, succeeding spot is often synonymous with end of run, such as when big ole' Bubba wanders out on the field to git a better look while the play is still going but doesn't participate. That is a live ball foul with succeeding spot enforcement which will probably be the end of the run - unless it was a loose ball play via definition. It which case the succeeding spot would also be also be the preceding spot. With the tack-on rule, end of run couldn't be used as there might not be any run, just the kick rolling dead. The location of the kick becoming dead would be the succeeding spot.

While there may be fly=poop in the pepper shaker, it still tastes good  eAt& on my 'tatters and greens :).

--- End quote ---
Apply that same logic to a field goal that scores. If K kicks a field goal that ties the game on the last play of regulation, and R fouls, 8-4-3 states K can keep the score and have the penalty enforced at the succeeding spot. Where is that succeeding spot? At any other time in the game, the succeeding spot would be the kickoff, unless itís the last play of the half. but not in this situation. In this situation the succeeding spot is the first play in overtime. Why? Because thatís the spot where the ball would next be put in play if no foul had occurred.

Which brings up another question. Why is it that on scoring plays we have no problem setting aside 3-3, but on the 10-4-2 exception itís forbidden? Itís still an accepted live ball foul. Other than just because?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

PABJNR:
I think it comes down to spirit of the rule and philosophy.  On a made field goal, the philosophy is the foul to not go unpunished and the succeeding spot is clearly the next kickoff or OT.

With the play we are talking about, the spirit is to prevent a re-kick.  Also the 10-4-2 exception states when k will not be next to put the ball into play. We donít know that if we move to OT.

I totally get where you are coming from though, but I think that is why the difference on the thought process. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version