RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: HLinNC on July 17, 2023, 11:48:17 AM
-
2023 NFHS Football Rules Book Clarification:
Rule 10-4 and TABLE 10-4 are correct as listed in the 2023 NFHS Football Rules Book.
In compiling the multitude of changes to Rule 10 necessitated by the discussion around the proposed 2023 NFHS football rules change that was approved unanimously, there remains two additional clarifications to be made for coaches, administrators and game officials for the upcoming 2023 high school football season.
To summarize, if on-field game situations involving a loss of possession create a conflict between the end of the run or related run and the succeeding spot, game officials should apply the standard related to the end of the run as intended by the cleanup in Rule 10-4-8. This does not apply to fouls as detailed in Rule 10-4-5a through 10-4- 5d which explicitly call for succeeding spot enforcement (the spot where the ball will next be put in play per Rule 2-41-10). Rule 2-41-9b will help clarify those situations in which conflict might exist.
https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/football-rules-interpretations-2023/
Rule 10-4 and TABLE 10-4 Clarification – (Play Situations):
PLAY 1: A first and 10 on A’s 40. The runner runs to B’s 40, where he fumbles the ball forward and out of bounds at B’s 30. During the run (before the fumble), A11 commits a holding foul at B’s 38. RULING: The holding penalty is enforced from the end of the run (B’s 40 - the fumble spot). A first and 10 at the 50.
PLAY 2: A first and 10 on A’s 40. The runner runs to B’s 40, where he fumbles the ball forward and out of bounds at B’s 30. During the run, B18 commits a face mask foul anywhere on the field. RULING: The penalty for illegal face mask is enforced from the end of the run (B’s 40 - fumble spot). A first and 10 on B’s 25.
PLAY 3: A first and 10 on A’s 40. The runner runs to B’s 40, where he fumbles the ball forward and B RECOVERS at B’s 30. During the run, B11 commits a face mask foul anywhere on the field. RULING: The penalty for illegal face mask is enforced from the end of the run (B’s 40 - fumble spot). A first and 10 on B’s 25.
2023 NFHS Football Case Book Clarification: (Underlining shows additions; strikethrough shows deletions.)
Page 75, 9.2.1 SITUATION J: On a successful try for point by kick, the interior linemen of K all reached across and grasped the teammate immediately to their inside after the snap. RULING: Interlocked blocking, 10-yard penalty from the previous spot spot of the foul since this spot is probably behind the basic spot. (10-4-2)
-
...as intended by...
I "intended" to pretend to respect the work of this year's editorial committee.
Anyway, thank-you, HLinNC, and also to Patrick E. and Ralph and everyone else that has been posting info as they get it.
-
Ok, so let's try this one. Assuming 10-4-5e is correct: "The basic spot is the succeeding spot for: e. A foul by B when the run or related run ends beyond the line of scrimmage."
Play: 1st and 10 at the A20. A1 runs around the left end, gains 10 yds to the A30. He is tackled by the facemask by B45. During the run, time expires in the 2nd quarter. Where is the succeeding spot? and where do we mark the penalty from?
According to 2-41-10, the succeeding spot is, "where the ball would next be snapped or free kicked if a foul had not occurred." If a foul had not occurred on this play, the ball would next be free kicked from the K40.
So, do we mark off the penalty on the ensuing kickoff to start the 3rd quarter?
Because, according to this statement, 10-4 is correct.
-
Page 75, 9.2.1 SITUATION J: On a successful try for point by kick, the interior linemen of K all reached across and grasped the teammate immediately to their inside after the snap. RULING: Interlocked blocking, 10-yard penalty from the previous spot spot of the foul since this spot is probably behind the basic spot. (10-4-2)
I would love to talk about this one too. WTH? "10-yd penalty from the previous spot spot of the foul..." Which one?
"since this spot is probably behind the basic spot." What if it's not?
My stars......
-
To summarize, if on-field game situations involving a loss of possession create a conflict between the end of the run or related run and the succeeding spot, game officials should apply the standard related to the end of the run as intended by the cleanup in Rule 10-4-8. This does not apply to fouls as detailed in Rule 10-4-5a through 10-4- 5d which explicitly call for succeeding spot enforcement (the spot where the ball will next be put in play per Rule 2-41-10). Rule 2-41-9b will help clarify those situations in which conflict might exist.
WHY NOT JUST CHANGE THE RULES IN CONFLICT WITH SUCCEEDING SPOT TO "END OF RUN OR RELATED RUN?"
-
Page 75, 9.2.1 SITUATION J: On a successful try for point by kick, the interior linemen of K all reached across and grasped the teammate immediately to their inside after the snap. RULING: Interlocked blocking, 10-yard penalty from the previous spot spot of the foul since this spot is probably behind the basic spot. (10-4-2)
I would love to talk about this one too. WTH? "10-yd penalty from the previous spot spot of the foul..." Which one?
"since this spot is probably behind the basic spot." What if it's not?
My stars......
There’s a strike through missing in the OP:
Page 75, 9.2.1 SITUATION J: On a successful try for point by kick, the interior linemen of K all reached across and grasped the teammate immediately to their inside after the snap. RULING: Interlocked blocking, 10-yard penalty from the previous spot spot of the foul since this spot is probably behind the basic spot. (10-4-2)
-
Thanks, that makes much more sense.
-
Disregard, ValJ pointed out what I was going to.
-
There’s a strike through missing in the OP:
Page 75, 9.2.1 SITUATION J: On a successful try for point by kick, the interior linemen of K all reached across and grasped the teammate immediately to their inside after the snap. RULING: Interlocked blocking, 10-yard penalty from the previous spot spot of the foul since this spot is probably behind the basic spot. (10-4-2)
Weird, it’s gone again.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
To summarize, if on-field game situations involving a loss of possession create a conflict between the end of the run or related run and the succeeding spot, game officials should apply the standard related to the end of the run as intended by the cleanup in Rule 10-4-8. This does not apply to fouls as detailed in Rule 10-4-5a through 10-4- 5d which explicitly call for succeeding spot enforcement (the spot where the ball will next be put in play per Rule 2-41-10). Rule 2-41-9b will help clarify those situations in which conflict might exist.
WHY NOT JUST CHANGE THE RULES IN CONFLICT WITH SUCCEEDING SPOT TO "END OF RUN OR RELATED RUN?"
Striking 10-4-5e,f,g would accomplish this due to 10-4-8. It does seem a awkward that they say 10-4 is correct and then issue rulings that don't seem to be supported by what 10-4 actually says. I suspect they had added in these succeeding spots either in an attempt to simplify the rules or in an attempt to remove loopholes that required the offended team to decline a penalty, but it's just moving around the loopholes.
Are there any situations during a running play where loss of [player] possession (per guidance from the interpretation) and end of the related run are different? Handing the ball, I suppose.
-
Striking 10-4-5e,f,g would accomplish this due to 10-4-8. It does seem a awkward that they say 10-4 is correct and then issue rulings that don't seem to be supported by what 10-4 actually says. I suspect they had added in these succeeding spots either in an attempt to simplify the rules or in an attempt to remove loopholes that required the offended team to decline a penalty, but it's just moving around the loopholes.
Are there any situations during a running play where loss of [player] possession (per guidance from the interpretation) and end of the related run are different? Handing the ball, I suppose.
Using succeeding spot instead of end of run in those situations is the problem. Simple fix by changing the language. Not sure why they don’t do that. I do know there is a critical lack of understanding concerning the definition of succeeding spot and why it doesn’t need to be used in certain situations.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Ok, so let's try this one. Assuming 10-4-5e is correct: "The basic spot is the succeeding spot for: e. A foul by B when the run or related run ends beyond the line of scrimmage."
Play: 1st and 10 at the A20. A1 runs around the left end, gains 10 yds to the A30. He is tackled by the facemask by B45. During the run, time expires in the 2nd quarter. Where is the succeeding spot? and where do we mark the penalty from?
According to 2-41-10, the succeeding spot is, "where the ball would next be snapped or free kicked if a foul had not occurred." If a foul had not occurred on this play, the ball would next be free kicked from the K40.
So, do we mark off the penalty on the ensuing kickoff to start the 3rd quarter?
Because, according to this statement, 10-4 is correct.
A perfect example is this situation. I guess this post has leprosy, because nobody will touch it, but this case play illustrates the problem with using succeeding spot instead of end of run. A simple change in the language, and enforcement makes perfect sense. Enforce the face mask from the end of the run, run an untimed down, and go to halftime. Easy peasey...
But for some reason, they stubbornly cling to succeeding spot, choosing to issue a "clarification" that only muddies the waters more..
-
A perfect example is this situation. I guess this post has leprosy, because nobody will touch it, ...
It's not the post that's the issue. I think it's just the stunning level of NFHS's hubris.
It's not just this board that has been pointing out the problems with their editorial changes. It was also interpreters and rules committee members from around the country.
It reminds me of when the penultimate episode of Game of Thrones aired and everyone complained that it was disappointing and that it was so dark as to be unwatchable. But the creators basically said "No, no, it's all of your TV's, not us, because we're geniuses. And if you think that episode was bad, here hold my beer while we get the final episode ready."
So yeah, there are still issues with what they've published. But at this point, I'm not sure that pointing them out does much good. (I haven't even posted about a mistake on one of their powerpoint rules change slides yet, because, well, what's the point? They're geniuses.)
With this "clarification", they seem to be saying "You know what we meant." Which isn't a great way, IMHO, to try to teach a new rule and way of doing things to thousands of officials and coaches.
So anyway, I know that they meant. The full rules committee wanted to go to the college way of enforcing fouls behind the line. I mostly work college rules. But I'll be out there on high school fields some Thursdays. And this change isn't going to bother me. I know what they meant. But I do still worry about how much confusion this is going to cause in association meetings, crew meetings, etc.
-
It's not the post that's the issue. I think it's just the stunning level of NFHS's hubris.
It's not just this board that has been pointing out the problems with their editorial changes. It was also interpreters and rules committee members from around the country.
It reminds me of when the penultimate episode of Game of Thrones aired and everyone complained that it was disappointing and that it was so dark as to be unwatchable. But the creators basically said "No, no, it's all of your TV's, not us, because we're geniuses. And if you think that episode was bad, here hold my beer while we get the final episode ready."
So yeah, there are still issues with what they've published. But at this point, I'm not sure that pointing them out does much good. (I haven't even posted about a mistake on one of their powerpoint rules change slides yet, because, well, what's the point? They're geniuses.)
With this "clarification", they seem to be saying "You know what we meant." Which isn't a great way, IMHO, to try to teach a new rule and way of doing things to thousands of officials and coaches.
So anyway, I know that they meant. The full rules committee wanted to go to the college way of enforcing fouls behind the line. I mostly work college rules. But I'll be out there on high school fields some Thursdays. And this change isn't going to bother me. I know what they meant. But I do still worry about how much confusion this is going to cause in association meetings, crew meetings, etc.
perfect take. I agree completely.
-
I know what they meant. But I do still worry about how much confusion this is going to cause in association meetings, crew meetings, etc.
Our state clinic is next week. I fear they won't be able to explain it either.
-
Our state clinic is next week. I fear they won't be able to explain it either.
I don't fear Cecil not explaining it, for it is a certainty. Which one are you going to? I'll bring the popcorn. :sTiR:
What I fear is knowing there are quite a few fellow officials who either a) never pick up a rule book (they've been doing this for 30 years, they know the rules!) or b) interpret the rules in their own way regardless of official explanations. There will be quite a few clusterfudges of plays this year that should be avoidable, because you can't show Group A the new rule because it's nonsense and you can't convince Group B of the new rule because the official interpretation is "You know what I mean?" and they think they do, but they're wrong.
Cecil will potentially make things worse before they get better.
-
Which one are you going to? I'll bring the popcorn. :sTiR:
Tuesday in Avl.
You're 100% correct. I'm thinking of popping a couple of Benedryl before I go. Mind over matter-if I don't mind, it won't matter. ;D
I took the advice from one of the threads yesterday. I've downloaded the NCAA pdf and printed the enforcement chapter 10, which is 4 pages, I think.
-
Tuesday in Avl.
You're 100% correct. I'm thinking of popping a couple of Benedryl before I go. Mind over matter-if I don't mind, it won't matter. ;D
I took the advice from one of the threads yesterday. I've downloaded the NCAA pdf and printed the enforcement chapter 10, which is 4 pages, I think.
This is the wave of the future.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Just to put my thoughts in words and see if people agree with my interpretation of "you know what I mean?", this is what I think should be the case. If I'm wrong, please let me know so I'm not part of that Group B I mentioned earlier.
Scenario A: If there is a foul and NO COP on the play, the new rule states that:
a) If the run ends behind the LOS, the penalty is enforced from the previous spot.
b) If the foul by A occurred behind the LOS, the penalty is enforced from the previous spot. (Except IFP, IK and IB and any foul that occurs in A's end zone that would be a safety)
c) Any other scenario follows the ABO principle that used to be in the rule book.
Scenario B: If there is a foul PRIOR to a COP on the play:
a) The philosophy of clean hands still applies.
b) The "succeeding spot" in the rule book really means "end of the *related run*", i.e. the bean bag spot.
c) If the foul by A or bean bag spot are behind the LOS, enforce from the previous spot as in Scenario A, otherwise it's ABO. (Editors note - if the "bean bag spot" was behind the LOS, there shouldn't be a bean bag because it was a loose ball play where the basic spot was the previous spot anyway, so that aspect really hasn't changed)
Scenario C: If there is a foul AFTER a COP on the play (including PSK):
a) Enforce ABO as previous. Nothing has fundamentally changed here as the LOS is now irrelevant.
Any special enforcement rules, such as on free kicks or scoring plays, are also unchanged by the new rule.
What did I miss?
-
At first glance I think you are right. I'm currently working on video clips for a wing/BJ presentation due in two weeks so I'm not in the mood, presently, to check you without bringing on a potential migraine.
-
Just to put my thoughts in words and see if people agree with my interpretation of "you know what I mean?", this is what I think should be the case. If I'm wrong, please let me know so I'm not part of that Group B I mentioned earlier.
Scenario A: If there is a foul and NO COP on the play, the new rule states that:
a) If the run ends behind the LOS, the penalty is enforced from the previous spot.
b) If the foul by A occurred behind the LOS, the penalty is enforced from the previous spot. (Except IFP, IK and IB and any foul that occurs in A's end zone that would be a safety)
c) Any other scenario follows the ABO principle that used to be in the rule book.
Scenario B: If there is a foul PRIOR to a COP on the play:
a) The philosophy of clean hands still applies.
b) The "succeeding spot" in the rule book really means "end of the *related run*", i.e. the bean bag spot.
c) If the foul by A or bean bag spot are behind the LOS, enforce from the previous spot as in Scenario A, otherwise it's ABO. (Editors note - if the "bean bag spot" was behind the LOS, there shouldn't be a bean bag because it was a loose ball play where the basic spot was the previous spot anyway, so that aspect really hasn't changed)
Scenario C: If there is a foul AFTER a COP on the play (including PSK):
a) Enforce ABO as previous. Nothing has fundamentally changed here as the LOS is now irrelevant.
Any special enforcement rules, such as on free kicks or scoring plays, are also unchanged by the new rule.
Looks solid to me, NCwingman, and plan to use your format with our guys. The complexity of Rule 10 has been echoed many times over
the years and two of my favorites came from coaches........
SCENE: This Spring's coaches clinic, when trying to explain our rule change. A crusty ole' coach muttered....
"It's your job to understand this stuff ::) , please try to git 'er right. :bOW . "
SCENE: Last century, coaches clinic after I had blown an enforcement spot at a critical spot in a regional championship game; I tried to explain my error to the jilted coach. He responded....
"I'm never shy to have a good arguement :-\ , BUT I wouldn't have a clue what I would have been arguing about :o !"
^flagWE ARE TRUSTED TO GET T THIS RIGHT...LET'S DO OUR BEST TO EARN THEIR TRUST ^flag
-
Just to put my thoughts in words and see if people agree with my interpretation of "you know what I mean?", this is what I think should be the case. If I'm wrong, please let me know so I'm not part of that Group B I mentioned earlier.
Scenario A: If there is a foul and NO COP on the play, the new rule states that:
a) If the run ends behind the LOS, the penalty is enforced from the previous spot.
b) If the foul by A occurred behind the LOS, the penalty is enforced from the previous spot. (Except IFP, IK and IB and any foul that occurs in A's end zone that would be a safety)
c) Any other scenario follows the ABO principle that used to be in the rule book.
Scenario B: If there is a foul PRIOR to a COP on the play:
a) The philosophy of clean hands still applies.
b) The "succeeding spot" in the rule book really means "end of the *related run*", i.e. the bean bag spot.
c) If the foul by A or bean bag spot are behind the LOS, enforce from the previous spot as in Scenario A, otherwise it's ABO. (Editors note - if the "bean bag spot" was behind the LOS, there shouldn't be a bean bag because it was a loose ball play where the basic spot was the previous spot anyway, so that aspect really hasn't changed)
Scenario C: If there is a foul AFTER a COP on the play (including PSK):
a) Enforce ABO as previous. Nothing has fundamentally changed here as the LOS is now irrelevant.
Any special enforcement rules, such as on free kicks or scoring plays, are also unchanged by the new rule.
What did I miss?
This sounds nice, but I wonder, is it really this simple? The NFHS "interpretation" says to only change succeeding spot to end-of-related-run when there is a "loss of possession" conflict (which I assume to mean loss of player possession based on the plays provided there). I don't know that we can entirely disregard the succeeding spot unless there is an explicit NFHS or state interpretation specifying to do that; it seems like they're suggesting that they want to stick with it. Of course they haven't touched the conflict of when the succeeding spot is the second half kickoff but the accepted penalty requires extending the 2nd quarter.
-
This sounds nice, but I wonder, is it really this simple? The NFHS "interpretation" says to only change succeeding spot to end-of-related-run when there is a "loss of possession" conflict (which I assume to mean loss of player possession based on the plays provided there). I don't know that we can entirely disregard the succeeding spot unless there is an explicit NFHS or state interpretation specifying to do that; it seems like they're suggesting that they want to stick with it. Of course they haven't touched the conflict of when the succeeding spot is the second half kickoff but the accepted penalty requires extending the 2nd quarter.
My theory of events, which Ralph can probably neither confirm nor deny:
1) Rules meeting happens where members have 45 minutes to debate rule changes. They decide that offensive holding should be a 10 yard foul, not potentially a 14 yard foul depending on spot. Since they don't have time to debate the nuance of the rule itself, they pass the motion in general terms only.
2) The voted change is given to the rules/editorial(?) committee (not sure of the correct name here). Said committee dun goofs by making a major philosophical change to the rule book (eliminating the ABO principle) that goes WAY above and beyond the intent of the voted and passed rule change.
3) Leadership realizes the rule books, that are printed and shipped apparently sight unseen because of how the process above unfolds, contain a terrible implementation of the rule change, but can't come out and directly say that because that would undermine trust in the process (or whatever). They issue a statement saying that the rule books are correct, except for the parts that aren't, but they can't say what isn't right because it's all correct, thus firmly planting their foot in the pile of dog poo they saw coming.
My advice, and I'm just some random dude on the internet who is allowed to be ignored and out voted, is not to do something that is philosophically stupid because you're trying to follow the letter of a very poorly written rule change. Yes, they used "succeeding spot" incorrectly in several places since that phrase has a specific meaning defined in 2-41-10, but don't let the unintended consequences ruin the game. The intent of the rule change was to prevent a 10 yard penalty from becoming a 15 yard penalty because of the spot of the foul behind the LOS. If there is a change of possession involved, or a score, or bridging to the next kickoff, ask yourself what you did last year and keep doing that -- doing anything else because you're hyper focused on the incorrect usage of "succeeding spot" is an unintended consequence.
The clarification press release has already poked a hole in the infallibility of the phrase "succeeding spot". Play 3 (B commits a foul THEN recovers the fumble) is enforced has it had been previously (i.e., from the end of the related run and A keeps the ball, not the actual succeeding spot where B gets the ball). Be smart, not literal.
However, I'm also failing to come up with a scenario where the succeeding spot is the 2nd half kickoff, but the penalty requires an untimed down. If the second quarter must be extended, then that untimed down is the succeeding spot, not the 2nd half kickoff. If there is a score that allows penalty enforcement on the succeeding kickoff, then there is no period extension (3-4-4-b(4)).
-
My theory of events, which Ralph can probably neither confirm nor deny:
1) Rules meeting happens where members have 45 minutes to debate rule changes. They decide that offensive holding should be a 10 yard foul, not potentially a 14 yard foul depending on spot. Since they don't have time to debate the nuance of the rule itself, they pass the motion in general terms only.
2) The voted change is given to the rules/editorial(?) committee (not sure of the correct name here). Said committee dun goofs by making a major philosophical change to the rule book (eliminating the ABO principle) that goes WAY above and beyond the intent of the voted and passed rule change.
3) Leadership realizes the rule books, that are printed and shipped apparently sight unseen because of how the process above unfolds, contain a terrible implementation of the rule change, but can't come out and directly say that because that would undermine trust in the process (or whatever). They issue a statement saying that the rule books are correct, except for the parts that aren't, but they can't say what isn't right because it's all correct, thus firmly planting their foot in the pile of dog poo they saw coming.
My advice, and I'm just some random dude on the internet who is allowed to be ignored and out voted, is not to do something that is philosophically stupid because you're trying to follow the letter of a very poorly written rule change. Yes, they used "succeeding spot" incorrectly in several places since that phrase has a specific meaning defined in 2-41-10, but don't let the unintended consequences ruin the game. The intent of the rule change was to prevent a 10 yard penalty from becoming a 15 yard penalty because of the spot of the foul behind the LOS. If there is a change of possession involved, or a score, or bridging to the next kickoff, ask yourself what you did last year and keep doing that -- doing anything else because you're hyper focused on the incorrect usage of "succeeding spot" is an unintended consequence.
The clarification press release has already poked a hole in the infallibility of the phrase "succeeding spot". Play 3 (B commits a foul THEN recovers the fumble) is enforced has it had been previously (i.e., from the end of the related run and A keeps the ball, not the actual succeeding spot where B gets the ball). Be smart, not literal.
However, I'm also failing to come up with a scenario where the succeeding spot is the 2nd half kickoff, but the penalty requires an untimed down. If the second quarter must be extended, then that untimed down is the succeeding spot, not the 2nd half kickoff. If there is a score that allows penalty enforcement on the succeeding kickoff, then there is no period extension (3-4-4-b(4)).
I think we all agree in principle with everything you posted, certainly the part about being smart, not literal. But in reality, that's the issue. The rules committee has created a situation in which, to do what we all know is right and fair, we have to disobey and/or ignore the rule as written. There is absolutely no reason to have to do that. When it's all said and done, the rulebook is supposed to rule the roost, and we are supposed to be able to use it as a tool to correctly and fairly administer penalty enforcement.
As to this portion of your post: "However, I'm also failing to come up with a scenario where the succeeding spot is the 2nd half kickoff, but the penalty requires an untimed down. If the second quarter must be extended, then that untimed down is the succeeding spot, not the 2nd half kickoff. If there is a score that allows penalty enforcement on the succeeding kickoff, then there is no period extension (3-4-4-b(4))."
I think we all also agree using "succeeding spot" instead of "end or run or related run" has created a conflict between at least two rules, making enforcement impossible as written. Just because a quarter must be extended because of a penalty does not mean that the definition of succeeding spot should be changed, ignored, or set aside. The proper thing to do is to change the basic spot of enforcement to "end of run or related run," because that would solve everything. If the penalty is accepted, we enforce from the spot where the run ended, run an untimed down, and go to halftime.
Again, it's not a question of understanding the right and smart thing to do, it's frustration that the rules committee has put us in this position in the first place. The Rulebook should be accurate and the committee should take all steps necessary to make sure it is.
But for some reason, the rules committee has decided to doggedly hang on to an incorrect usage of succeeding spot.
-
A lot of you have made some really good points. And yes, what the NFHS editors have done is frustrating. I've certainly bitched quite a bit about it myself. But as the saying goes, wish in one hand for the NFHS editors to clearly write good rules, and do something else in your other hand, and see which fills up first.
So I think it's time that we do what we always do, overcome a badly written rule, and do what's best for the game and the kids.
We all know that they screwed up by loosely using "Succeeding Spot". And I think most agree that totally dumping "All-but-one" might not have been the best approach. But we do know what they meant. And I contend that they've now given us enough guidance in their "Football Rules Interpretations - 2023" document for us to proceed, even if it wasn't very clearly written.
State Association Interpretations override Fed interpretations. But absent any from a State Association, then we use what the Fed has given us.
They first say:
"To summarize, if on-field game situations involving a loss of possession create a conflict between the end of the run or related run and the succeeding spot, game officials should apply the standard related to the end of the run as intended by the cleanup in Rule 10-4-8. This does not apply to fouls as detailed in Rule 10-4-5a through 10-4- 5d which explicitly call for succeeding spot enforcement (the spot where the ball will next be put in play per Rule 2-41-10). Rule 2-41-9b will help clarify those situations in which conflict might exist."
That's a bunch of gobbledygook, but they give do give us guidance to proceed "as intended".
They then give us 3 specific examples of when to proceed "as intended" and use end of the related run, rather than succeeding spot:
Rule 10-4 and TABLE 10-4 Clarification – (Play Situations):
PLAY 1: A first and 10 on A’s 40. The runner runs to B’s 40, where he fumbles the ball forward and out of bounds at B’s 30. During the run (before the fumble), A11 commits a holding foul at B’s 38. RULING: The holding penalty is enforced from the end of the run (B’s 40 - the fumble spot). A first and 10 at the 50.
PLAY 2: A first and 10 on A’s 40. The runner runs to B’s 40, where he fumbles the ball forward and out of bounds at B’s 30. During the run, B18 commits a face mask foul anywhere on the field. RULING: The penalty for illegal face mask is enforced from the end of the run (B’s 40 - fumble spot). A first and 10 on B’s 25.
PLAY 3: A first and 10 on A’s 40. The runner runs to B’s 40, where he fumbles the ball forward and B RECOVERS at B’s 30. During the run, B11 commits a face mask foul anywhere on the field. RULING: The penalty for illegal face mask is enforced from the end of the run (B’s 40 - fumble spot). A first and 10 on B’s 25.
So, they've basically told us what they meant, and given us permission to extrapolate for other play situations that come up.
Very poor rules writing, yes. And a poor attempt to clean it up. It's clearly going to lead to a lot of confusion.
But by my reckoning, we are now covered to "do the right thing" and do what they intended, rather than blindly relying on a strict reading of what they've written. It's not great, but it's what we've got.
-
As to this portion of your post: "However, I'm also failing to come up with a scenario where the succeeding spot is the 2nd half kickoff, but the penalty requires an untimed down. If the second quarter must be extended, then that untimed down is the succeeding spot, not the 2nd half kickoff. If there is a score that allows penalty enforcement on the succeeding kickoff, then there is no period extension (3-4-4-b(4))."
I think we all also agree using "succeeding spot" instead of "end or run or related run" has created a conflict between at least two rules, making enforcement impossible as written. Just because a quarter must be extended because of a penalty does not mean that the definition of succeeding spot should be changed, ignored, or set aside. The proper thing to do is to change the basic spot of enforcement to "end of run or related run," because that would solve everything. If the penalty is accepted, we enforce from the spot where the run ended, run an untimed down, and go to halftime.
Again, it's not a question of understanding the right and smart thing to do, it's frustration that the rules committee has put us in this position in the first place. The Rulebook should be accurate and the committee should take all steps necessary to make sure it is.
But for some reason, the rules committee has decided to doggedly hang on to an incorrect usage of succeeding spot.
I think you're overthinking my point there. This has nothing to do with the rule change or changing definition of "succeeding spot". The point I was referencing was:
Of course they haven't touched the conflict of when the succeeding spot is the second half kickoff but the accepted penalty requires extending the 2nd quarter.
I cannot come up with a situation, before or after the rule change, where this would be a conflict. If the accepted penalty requires extending the 2nd quarter, then the succeeding spot is that untimed down and NOT the second half kickoff. If the succeeding spot is the second half kickoff, then the 2nd quarter is NOT extended.
Of all the new issues and unintended consequences of the rule change, this is simply not one of them -- unless I'm missing something here.
-
I think you're overthinking my point there. This has nothing to do with the rule change or changing definition of "succeeding spot". The point I was referencing was:
I cannot come up with a situation, before or after the rule change, where this would be a conflict. If the accepted penalty requires extending the 2nd quarter, then the succeeding spot is that untimed down and NOT the second half kickoff. If the succeeding spot is the second half kickoff, then the 2nd quarter is NOT extended.
Of all the new issues and unintended consequences of the rule change, this is simply not one of them -- unless I'm missing something here.
Think of it like this. A runs the ball from the A10 to the A20. So the ball is dead at the A20. B tackles A by the face mask. Time expires during the down. Where would the ball be next put into play if there was no foul? The Kickoff to begin the 3rd quarter. That’s the succeeding spot. It’s as simple as that. The fact that B fouls during the down does not and cannot, by rule, change the definition of succeeding spot. You can’t make the A20 the succeeding spot for penalty enforcement because it wouldn’t become the succeeding spot until AFTER the penalty is accepted and enforced.
On the other hand, if the rule were written correctly, the A20 would logically become the enforcement spot for an untimed down because it was by definition, no matter what, the end of the run.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Think of it like this. A runs the ball from the A10 to the A20. So the ball is dead at the A20. B tackles A by the face mask. Time expires during the down. Where would the ball be next put into play if there was no foul? The Kickoff to begin the 3rd quarter. That’s the succeeding spot. It’s as simple as that. The fact that B fouls during the down does not and cannot, by rule, change the definition of succeeding spot. You can’t make the A20 the succeeding spot for penalty enforcement because it wouldn’t become the succeeding spot until AFTER the penalty is accepted and enforced.
On the other hand, if the rule were written correctly, the A20 would logically become the enforcement spot for an untimed down because it was by definition, no matter what, the end of the run.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yes, this is what I meant by the conflict. I'm not suggesting that anybody try to enforce it by the letter of the rule, but pointing out by example that they probably should've corrected it instead of issuing a vague statement. :-)
-
Yes, this is what I meant by the conflict. I'm not suggesting that anybody try to enforce it by the letter of the rule, but pointing out by example that they probably should've corrected it instead of issuing a vague statement. :-)
Exactly. We all know it’s dumb and hopefully would not enforce it as written. The point is, it never should have been written.
Can you imagine that discussion on the field?
Whatcha got?
Face mask, 20 defense.
Ok, where’s the spot?
Succeeding spot.
But that’s the kickoff in the 3rd.
Dang, you’re right. Guess we will have to make a new one. Let’s just call the end of the run the succeeding spot in this case.
Completely asinine and unprofessional.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I guess I did miss that glitch. However, that got me thinking about another potential glitch that... isn't explicitly there, surprisingly, but it is implied.
Going back to the way the rules were previously written, if you had the basic spot as the succeeding spot, that also precludes repeating the down -- e.g, 1st and 10, A10 hands off to A33 who runs up the middle for 5 yards. After the handoff, A10 tells B55 some choice words you can't say on TV. Next play is 2nd and 20 after the USC foul that has succeeding spot enforcement.
I was looking for that in Rule 5-2, but there's nothing that explicitly states the down counts for succeeding spot enforcement, just that the down remains the same for accepting certain (most) fouls and it feels like anything where 10-4-5 applied just "fell through the cracks" by design. (There's also nothing that explicitly states when the down advances. It's heavily implied in several places, but never outright stated. However, that's a different rant.)
Ergo... based on the wording of the new rule, if the play ends beyond the LOS, any foul by B or foul by A beyond the end of the run does not result in replaying the down, because the succeeding spot is the next down.
*By the letter of the rule*:
3rd and 30 at the A10. B55 holds A88 during a pass route. QB A10 gets sacked for a loss of 5 yards. Penalty enforced from previous spot, next play is 3rd and 20 from the A20.
3rd and 30 at the A10. B55 holds A88 during a pass route. QB A10 tucks and runs for a gain of 5 yards. Penalty enforced from succeeding spot, next play is 4th and 15 from the A25.
-
I guess I did miss that glitch. However, that got me thinking about another potential glitch that... isn't explicitly there, surprisingly, but it is implied.
Going back to the way the rules were previously written, if you had the basic spot as the succeeding spot, that also precludes repeating the down -- e.g, 1st and 10, A10 hands off to A33 who runs up the middle for 5 yards. After the handoff, A10 tells B55 some choice words you can't say on TV. Next play is 2nd and 20 after the USC foul that has succeeding spot enforcement.
I was looking for that in Rule 5-2, but there's nothing that explicitly states the down counts for succeeding spot enforcement, just that the down remains the same for accepting certain (most) fouls and it feels like anything where 10-4-5 applied just "fell through the cracks" by design. (There's also nothing that explicitly states when the down advances. It's heavily implied in several places, but never outright stated. However, that's a different rant.)
Ergo... based on the wording of the new rule, if the play ends beyond the LOS, any foul by B or foul by A beyond the end of the run does not result in replaying the down, because the succeeding spot is the next down.
*By the letter of the rule*:
3rd and 30 at the A10. B55 holds A88 during a pass route. QB A10 gets sacked for a loss of 5 yards. Penalty enforced from previous spot, next play is 3rd and 20 from the A20.
3rd and 30 at the A10. B55 holds A88 during a pass route. QB A10 tucks and runs for a gain of 5 yards. Penalty enforced from succeeding spot, next play is 4th and 15 from the A25.
Exactly. Definitions are important and back in the day, wise people spent many hours getting the definitions just right on purpose. I hate to see it demolished in such a short time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Going back to the way the rules were previously written, if you had the basic spot as the succeeding spot, that also precludes repeating the down -- e.g, 1st and 10, A10 hands off to A33 who runs up the middle for 5 yards. After the handoff, A10 tells B55 some choice words you can't say on TV. Next play is 2nd and 20 after the USC foul that has succeeding spot enforcement.
I see the point you're making but I don't think it was that absolute. Your example is a nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul (2-16-2f), and those fouls are carved out in the football fundamentals as not being considered when determining the next down and not extending a period. There were player fouls with succeeding spot enforcement options, e.g. (A) fouls by B when a touchdown is scored; (B) free-kick OOB; (C) fouls by K during a kick; (D) foul by B during a successful try. (A) doesn't extend the period because of 3-4-4. (B) would probably never happen when the clock expires. (C) and (D) though would extend the period, right?
-
I see the point you're making but I don't think it was that absolute. Your example is a nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul (2-16-2f), and those fouls are carved out in the football fundamentals as not being considered when determining the next down and not extending a period. There were player fouls with succeeding spot enforcement options, e.g. (A) fouls by B when a touchdown is scored; (B) free-kick OOB; (C) fouls by K during a kick; (D) foul by B during a successful try. (A) doesn't extend the period because of 3-4-4. (B) would probably never happen when the clock expires. (C) and (D) though would extend the period, right?
Nope. Neither one would extend the period. OR SHOULDN’T. And none of those you mentioned would require a replay of the down. All would be next down.
There’s actually a conflict with the “fouls during a kick” rule too, because of the way it’s written. They used succeeding spot instead of adopting the ncaa language, creating a conflict between the period can’t end on an accepted foul, and the option to enforce from the succeeding spot.
EXAMPLE:
K punts as time expires in the second quarter. Ball becomes dead at the B20. Where is the succeeding spot? Third quarter kickoff, right?
Insert a penalty:
K punts as time expires in the second quarter. During the kick K commits a foul. Ball becomes dead at the B20. Where is the succeeding spot?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I hate to dig this up again, and I'm sure this was probably covered elsewhere too, but one more glitch I want to get clarification on.
My previous summary post essentially took the position that the new 10-4 rules for basic spots overruled previous basic spots when either a) the end of the run or b) the foul by A were behind the LOS (and no COP). Everything else essentially followed the old ABO principle or special enforcement rules.
However, I had mentally glossed over 10-5-2 wherein the enforcement spot is the goal line for a defensive foul when the run ends in A's end zone and would result in a safety. This follows the old standard of the basic spot being the end of the run, wherever that is, but that the basic spot must be in the field of play, so it gets rounded up to the goal line.
My assumption, at this point, is that 10-5-2 is now moot and such a penalty should be enforced from the previous spot, as per the new 10-4 rules?
-
I hate to dig this up again, and I'm sure this was probably covered elsewhere too, but one more glitch I want to get clarification on.
My previous summary post essentially took the position that the new 10-4 rules for basic spots overruled previous basic spots when either a) the end of the run or b) the foul by A were behind the LOS (and no COP). Everything else essentially followed the old ABO principle or special enforcement rules.
However, I had mentally glossed over 10-5-2 wherein the enforcement spot is the goal line for a defensive foul when the run ends in A's end zone and would result in a safety. This follows the old standard of the basic spot being the end of the run, wherever that is, but that the basic spot must be in the field of play, so it gets rounded up to the goal line.
My assumption, at this point, is that 10-5-2 is now moot and such a penalty should be enforced from the previous spot, as per the new 10-4 rules?
Great question. Looking forward to the answer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I hate to dig this up again, and I'm sure this was probably covered elsewhere too, but one more glitch I want to get clarification on.
My previous summary post essentially took the position that the new 10-4 rules for basic spots overruled previous basic spots when either a) the end of the run or b) the foul by A were behind the LOS (and no COP). Everything else essentially followed the old ABO principle or special enforcement rules.
However, I had mentally glossed over 10-5-2 wherein the enforcement spot is the goal line for a defensive foul when the run ends in A's end zone and would result in a safety. This follows the old standard of the basic spot being the end of the run, wherever that is, but that the basic spot must be in the field of play, so it gets rounded up to the goal line.
My assumption, at this point, is that 10-5-2 is now moot and such a penalty should be enforced from the previous spot, as per the new 10-4 rules?
After looking into it, my opinion is we enforce this from the goal line. First, it's in keeping with the philosophy of A fouls in the end zone. Second, it's listed twice in the book. the first place is 10-4-7, and then again in 10-5-2. It's clear as mud I know, but I believe "what they meant" for us to do is enforce a foul by B when the run ends in A's end zone from the goal line.
-
I don't think this is the same philosophy as A fouling in the end zone, because it's simply locating the end of the run, not the location of the foul.
The issue for the special rule was that the basic spot must be in the field of play. If the end of the run is in an end zone, there had to be a rule on where in the field of play to put the basic spot.
10-4-7/10-5-2 are still needed after a change of possession, but 10-4-2-d overrules those when there is no change of possession.
My issue is with the disparity of the following scenario:
3rd and 5 at the A15. B55 holds A88 during a pass route which causes QB A7 to hold the ball and get sacked.
If A7 was sacked at the A1, the penalty is enforced from the A15, resulting in 1st and 10 at the A25.
If A7 was sacked 1 yard deep in the endzone, the penalty is enforced from the goal line, and it's 3rd and 10 from the A10?
What if he's contacted right at the goal line? That's a 15 yard swing based on where you rule forward progress...
-
I don't think this is the same philosophy as A fouling in the end zone, because it's simply locating the end of the run, not the location of the foul.
The issue for the special rule was that the basic spot must be in the field of play. If the end of the run is in an end zone, there had to be a rule on where in the field of play to put the basic spot.
10-4-7/10-5-2 are still needed after a change of possession, but 10-4-2-d overrules those when there is no change of possession.
My issue is with the disparity of the following scenario:
3rd and 5 at the A15. B55 holds A88 during a pass route which causes QB A7 to hold the ball and get sacked.
If A7 was sacked at the A1, the penalty is enforced from the A15, resulting in 1st and 10 at the A25.
If A7 was sacked 1 yard deep in the endzone, the penalty is enforced from the goal line, and it's 3rd and 10 from the A10?
What if he's contacted right at the goal line? That's a 15 yard swing based on where you rule forward progress...
No doubt. We've had that discussion before. My opinion is that A is responsible for being in the end zone in the first place. It's not B's fault he retreated. It is b's fault that he was tackled there, so B has screwed himself out of two points. But that doesn't mean A should get all the yardage back he voluntarily gave up before the foul. Just as I believe it's true that a team should rightly be entitled to yardage gained without the benefit of the foul, they should have to pay for all yardage lost without the benefit of the foul.
As to the point of needing a spot of enforcement in the field of play, I agree. We can't penalize a foul from a spot in the end zone, which is identical to the situation of a foul by A in his own end zone. If we were going by the previous spot logic, the right thing to do in that case would be to penalize A from the previous spot instead of giving them a safety. but we don't. In the same way, we don't give A all the yardage they gave up by going back to previous spot. Instead, we go to the first spot in the field of play, the goal line.
At least that's my 2 cents worth. That and a dollar still won't buy anything today.
-
No doubt. We've had that discussion before. My opinion is that A is responsible for being in the end zone in the first place. It's not B's fault he retreated. It is b's fault that he was tackled there, so B has screwed himself out of two points. But that doesn't mean A should get all the yardage back he voluntarily gave up before the foul. Just as I believe it's true that a team should rightly be entitled to yardage gained without the benefit of the foul, they should have to pay for all yardage lost without the benefit of the foul.
As to the point of needing a spot of enforcement in the field of play, I agree. We can't penalize a foul from a spot in the end zone, which is identical to the situation of a foul by A in his own end zone. If we were going by the previous spot logic, the right thing to do in that case would be to penalize A from the previous spot instead of giving them a safety. but we don't. In the same way, we don't give A all the yardage they gave up by going back to previous spot. Instead, we go to the first spot in the field of play, the goal line.
At least that's my 2 cents worth. That and a dollar still won't buy anything today.
I don't like the "It's A's fault he retreated" argument because what if A only had to retreat because B committed a foul? The play was supposed to be a timing pass over the middle, but the linebacker just tackles the tight end right off the snap -- now the QB is left with the ball in his hands and a broken play so he starts to scramble, and we're going to penalize A because of that?
Secondly, the whole philosophy behind the new 10-4 is not to double penalize A for losing yardage AND a foul. What I'm getting from your statement is that you're just not a fan of the new enforcement rule, which is fine. However, since the new rule is that we are wiping out any loss of yardage on the play when there's a foul, and only enforcing the penalty, then it should be consistent in that as much as possible.
The most equitable solution is likely to be making the basic spot the spot of the ball when the foul occurred, but saying "enforcing that would be impractical" would be the understatement of the year (especially in NFHS where we don't have high tech video replay robo-ref).
-
I don't like the "It's A's fault he retreated" argument because what if A only had to retreat because B committed a foul? The play was supposed to be a timing pass over the middle, but the linebacker just tackles the tight end right off the snap -- now the QB is left with the ball in his hands and a broken play so he starts to scramble, and we're going to penalize A because of that?
Secondly, the whole philosophy behind the new 10-4 is not to double penalize A for losing yardage AND a foul. What I'm getting from your statement is that you're just not a fan of the new enforcement rule, which is fine. However, since the new rule is that we are wiping out any loss of yardage on the play when there's a foul, and only enforcing the penalty, then it should be consistent in that as much as possible.
The most equitable solution is likely to be making the basic spot the spot of the ball when the foul occurred, but saying "enforcing that would be impractical" would be the understatement of the year (especially in NFHS where we don't have high tech video replay robo-ref).
I feel you. It’s a different perspective. My argument would be he doesn’t have to scramble. He could just eat it and go down, or throw it at the feet of the receiver. He might get a DPI. Live to play another play.
You assume wrong about my feelings toward the new enforcement. I’m actually a fan of the NCAA version. Which, btw, is enforced as I suggest. On a foul by B on a play the otherwise results in a safety, the enforcement is from the goal line.
Lastly, the new rule doesn’t wipe out all lost yardage situations. The foul by A resulting in a safety is a prime example of that. If you want to talk about unfair, consider this:
A ball on the A 10. A holds at the 1. A is also tackled at the 1. If b accepts we go back to the 10 and give a the ball at the 5. But, if the hold happens in the end zone just 1 yard deeper? It’s a safety, b gets 2 points, and the ball. What’s fair about that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Last year, B would have declined the penalty and left A with the ball next down at the 1.
This year, B would do the same thing.
-
Last year, B would have declined the penalty and left A with the ball next down at the 1.
This year, B would do the same thing.
Agree but in this hypothetical, B inexplicably accepts the penalty so we can understand the gist of what we were talking about. It was exaggerated on purpose.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk