Illegal Touching in A's End Zone

[MBK]

The following case is from the 2023 Redding Study Guide, page 195.

Fourth down for Team A at the A-8. Under a heavy rush, A19 drops back into his end zone to pass. A79 is in the end zone where he catches A19's legal forward pass.
(a) If A79 is tackled in the end zone, Team B must take a safety - no option.
(b) Illegal touching. Half-the-distance penalty from the previous spot and loss of down. First and goal for Team B from the A-4.
(c) The ball is dead when A79 catches it.
(d) If A79 is tackled at the A-1, Team B may decline the penalty and have first and goal at that spot.
(e) The penalty for A79's foul results in a safety since the spot of the foul is in the end zone.
(f) None of the above.

The study guide's answer is a, d, e (7-5-13) The play ends when A79 is tackled. If Team B accepts the penalty for the illegal touching foul, which includes loss of down, it is a safety since the spot of the foul (where the ball was touched) is in the end zone.
   
I don't understand why (b) is incorrect and (e) is correct under the new basic spot enforcement rules.

Answer (b) seems correct since illegal touching has previous spot enforcement

Answer (e) seems incorrect since 8-5-2c says "It is a safety when...A player on offense commits any foul for which the penalty is accepted and enforcement is from a spot in his end zone" but the enforcement spot in this case is the previous spot.

Can someone tell me what I'm missing?

[CalhounLJ]

The following case is from the 2023 Redding Study Guide, page 195.

Fourth down for Team A at the A-8. Under a heavy rush, A19 drops back into his end zone to pass. A79 is in the end zone where he catches A19's legal forward pass.
(a) If A79 is tackled in the end zone, Team B must take a safety - no option.
(b) Illegal touching. Half-the-distance penalty from the previous spot and loss of down. First and goal for Team B from the A-4.
(c) The ball is dead when A79 catches it.
(d) If A79 is tackled at the A-1, Team B may decline the penalty and have first and goal at that spot.
(e) The penalty for A79's foul results in a safety since the spot of the foul is in the end zone.
(f) None of the above.

The study guide's answer is a, d, e (7-5-13) The play ends when A79 is tackled. If Team B accepts the penalty for the illegal touching foul, which includes loss of down, it is a safety since the spot of the foul (where the ball was touched) is in the end zone.

I don't understand why (b) is incorrect and (e) is correct under the new basic spot enforcement rules.

Answer (b) seems correct since illegal touching has previous spot enforcement

Answer (e) seems incorrect since 8-5-2c says "It is a safety when...A player on offense commits any foul for which the penalty is accepted and enforcement is from a spot in his end zone" but the enforcement spot in this case is the previous spot.

Can someone tell me what I'm missing?

Ask the editorial committee.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lukez]

The following case is from the 2023 Redding Study Guide, page 195.

Fourth down for Team A at the A-8. Under a heavy rush, A19 drops back into his end zone to pass. A79 is in the end zone where he catches A19's legal forward pass.
(a) If A79 is tackled in the end zone, Team B must take a safety - no option.
(b) Illegal touching. Half-the-distance penalty from the previous spot and loss of down. First and goal for Team B from the A-4.
(c) The ball is dead when A79 catches it.
(d) If A79 is tackled at the A-1, Team B may decline the penalty and have first and goal at that spot.
(e) The penalty for A79's foul results in a safety since the spot of the foul is in the end zone.
(f) None of the above.

The study guide's answer is a, d, e (7-5-13) The play ends when A79 is tackled. If Team B accepts the penalty for the illegal touching foul, which includes loss of down, it is a safety since the spot of the foul (where the ball was touched) is in the end zone.
   
I don't understand why (b) is incorrect and (e) is correct under the new basic spot enforcement rules.

Answer (b) seems correct since illegal touching has previous spot enforcement

Answer (e) seems incorrect since 8-5-2c says "It is a safety when...A player on offense commits any foul for which the penalty is accepted and enforcement is from a spot in his end zone" but the enforcement spot in this case is the previous spot.

Can someone tell me what I'm missing?

This one is interesting.  Since it is a legal forward pass, that suggests that it isn't intentional grounding.  Usually this would be a previous spot enforcement.  I suppose this is an interpretation of 10-4-4e.  "The basic spot is the spot of the foul for... When A commits any foul in his end zone for which the penalty is accepted (8-5-2c)".

[Snapper]

This one is interesting.  Since it is a legal forward pass, that suggests that it isn't intentional grounding.  Usually this would be a previous spot enforcement.  I suppose this is an interpretation of 10-5-4e.  "The basic spot is the spot of the foul for... When A commits any foul in his end zone for which the penalty is accepted (8-5-2c)".

Agreed.  ITP by an ineligible has a subtle difference between the college and Fed codes.

10-4-4-e makes this a Safety if they commit ITP in their end zone, and the penalty is accepted, rather than Previous Spot enforcement.

[Snapper]

Ask the editorial committee.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 I’d rather not.   

[lukez]

Agreed.  ITP by an ineligible has a subtle difference between the college and Fed codes.

10-4-4-e makes this a Safety if they commit ITP in their end zone, and the penalty is accepted, rather than Previous Spot enforcement.

The reference of "(8-5-2c)" inside of 10-4-4e simply confuses me.  If it did not say that text, the explicit "When A commits any foul in his end zone" is clear.  But that parenthetical makes me think that they are trying to suggest that "all" means only 8-5-2c...?

[Snapper]

The reference of "(8-5-2c)" inside of 10-4-4e simply confuses me.  If it did not say that text, the explicit "When A commits any foul in his end zone" is clear.  But that parenthetical makes me think that they are trying to suggest that "all" means only 8-5-2c...?

It’s certainly not phrased very clearly.  But I think what they are trying to say is “also refer to 8-5-2c”, which says that any accepted penalty by the offense that is enforced from their end zone is a Safety.

So I think it’s their way of saying put these 2 rules together to arrive at a Safety if the penalty is accepted.

[CalhounLJ]

Ask the editorial committee.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To answer the question, it’s another snafu from the editorial committee. Under the old ABO, this would be easy, because it’s a foul by A behind the basic spot, ergo, a safety. But that wouldn’t work with the new rule, because the new rule literally would negate a safety. So, they had to explain it step by step by listing the basic spot for each type of foul, and then create exceptions when the basic spot wouldn’t work.  Obviously, they left illegal touching off the “spot foul” list.

They basically said, “this is the rule, but don’t follow the rule when the rule won’t work.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

I think its a matter of Reddings was printed before all the NFHS info was out.

Illegal touching is an exception to our new "ball foul behind the LOS" philosophy.  IT is enforced from the previous spot ,not the spot of the foul a la IG and IFP.

[Snapper]

I think its a matter of Reddings was printed before all the NFHS info was out.

Illegal touching is an exception to our new "ball foul behind the LOS" philosophy.  IT is enforced from the previous spot ,not the spot of the foul a la IG and IFP.

This thread, along with many other recent threads, is a perfect example of why it was a big mistake for the NFHS Rules Editor and the Editorial Committee to abandon basics and tried to "get cute" with the changes.  It's not so cute when they confuse large percentages of officials and coaches.

Yes, Illegal Touching will be enforced from the Previous Spot in most cases.  But not when it occurs in A's end zone.  In that special case, then 10-4-4e is in effect, and the basic spot is the spot of the foul.  Then 8-5-2c tells us that is a Safety.

As the rules have now been rewritten, it's a lot harder for everyone to learn some basics, then remember a few specific exceptions.

It's been true for years that when you use NCAA rules, you literally have exceptions to exceptions.  Congratulations to the NFHS, you're well on your way to accomplishing that as well. /s

[CalhounLJ]

This thread, along with many other recent threads, is a perfect example of why it was a big mistake for the NFHS Rules Editor and the Editorial Committee to abandon basics and tried to "get cute" with the changes.  It's not so cute when they confuse large percentages of officials and coaches.

Yes, Illegal Touching will be enforced from the Previous Spot in most cases.  But not when it occurs in A's end zone.  In that special case, then 10-4-4e is in effect, and the basic spot is the spot of the foul.  Then 8-5-2c tells us that is a Safety.

As the rules have now been rewritten, it's a lot harder for everyone to learn some basics, then remember a few specific exceptions.

It's been true for years that when you use NCAA rules, you literally have exceptions to exceptions.  Congratulations to the NFHS, you're well on your way to accomplishing that as well. /s

NFHS has surpassed the NCAA on exceptions with this new rule. But we all know what they meant, right. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Snapper]

NFHS has surpassed the NCAA on exceptions with this new rule. But we all know what they meant, right.

I thought I did….

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, 10-4-4e : When A commits ANY foul in his end zone for which the penalty is accepted.... That would include such fouls as O-holding, block in back AND illegal touching.

[CalhounLJ]

IMHO, 10-4-4e : When A commits ANY foul in his end zone for which the penalty is accepted.... That would include such fouls as O-holding, block in back AND illegal touching.

Yes, I agree Ralph. 10-4-4e makes it clear. The issue with me is that the new rule change created confusing when enforcing  8-5-2c, because it says:

"It is a safety when...A player on offense commits any foul for which the penalty is accepted and enforcement is from a spot in his end zone"

According to the new rule change, a foul by A behind the LOS is enforced from the previous spot. But, we all understand that penalties by A in the endzone should be a safety, and so they had to create another exception to make that enforceable. Now, because of 10-4-4e, the spot of enforcement is the end zone.

IMHO, there was a much easier way to do this...

[CalhounLJ]

I think its a matter of Reddings was printed before all the NFHS info was out.

Illegal touching is an exception to our new "ball foul behind the LOS" philosophy.  IT is enforced from the previous spot ,not the spot of the foul a la IG and IFP.

Correct. Unless the spot of the foul is in the end zone. Then the enforcement spot is from the spot of the foul in the end zone...

[HLinNC]

IMHO, there was a much easier way to do this...

This is the biggest charlie foxtrot they've pulled in my now 30 years of officiating.

[Ralph Damren]

This is the biggest charlie foxtrot they've pulled in my now 30 years of officiating.

I once taught the rookies and the logic of the ABO was easy to explain. I don't teach the rookies anymore as this logic may be hard to explain/understand. 

[dammitbobby]

As an outside looking in (FWIW), the NHFS Editorial seems to have really doubled down on leaving the confusing language as is...

1) do other sports have this kind of problem with their rules makers?

2) in my experience this is really indicative of internal dysfunction and personal fiefdoms being threatened.  I can't imagine the internal politicking and infighting going on regarding this one rule change, that really shouldn't have been that complicated... I'd bet (someone else's) money that someone on that committee saw the train wreck coming, and wasn't listened to.

[CalhounLJ]

As an outside looking in (FWIW), the NHFS Editorial seems to have really doubled down on leaving the confusing language as is...

1) do other sports have this kind of problem with their rules makers?

2) in my experience this is really indicative of internal dysfunction and personal fiefdoms being threatened.  I can't imagine the internal politicking and infighting going on regarding this one rule change, that really shouldn't have been that complicated... I'd bet (someone else's) money that someone on that committee saw the train wreck coming, and wasn't listened to.

You've hit the nail on the head.

[refjeff]

This is the biggest charlie foxtrot they've pulled in my now 30 years of officiating.

Yes.