IP Enforcement Spot

[younggun]

If anyone has seen the 2013 Aloha Clinic Videos yet the 'New Rules' video has this play in it. So, are we to throw two flags on this? and hit them with the enforcement of the flag that hurts them the most? Realisticly I can see the U throwing the first flag, OT looses helmet is looking for something to do and then bam takes off running. The R not looking at the LoS blocks becasue his QB is under duress then sees the non helmet player come into view and throws a block that allows the QB to make a play. Wont we want to get the foul that hurts them more, plus had a real impact on the play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I10WL7nYSA4

[Atlanta Blue]

If anyone has seen the 2013 Aloha Clinic Videos yet the 'New Rules' video has this play in it. So, are we to throw two flags on this? and hit them with the enforcement of the flag that hurts them the most? Realisticly I can see the U throwing the first flag, OT looses helmet is looking for something to do and then bam takes off running. The R not looking at the LoS blocks becasue his QB is under duress then sees the non helmet player come into view and throws a block that allows the QB to make a play. Wont we want to get the foul that hurts them more, plus had a real impact on the play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I10WL7nYSA4

No, it's a foul when the helmetless player "participates" in the play.  Chasing the defender is participating.  Blocking the defender isn't a separate foul, it's a continuation of the same foul.


Sure there is judgment as to when he started "participating" without his helmet, but at that point, wherever it is judged, is the spot of the one foul that took place.

[younggun]

Consider this,

4th Quarter :03 left in the game. 3/10 @ 50. Game is tied. A8 gets the snap and drops back to pass. At the line of scrimmage A68 looses his helmet, on his own, and takes off running into the backfield to block. A8 gets hit and fumbles. B78 picks up the ball and starts running toward the EZ. A68 catches up with him and makes the tackle at the A-3. Result?

[Sumstine]

If anyone has seen the 2013 Aloha Clinic Videos yet the 'New Rules' video has this play in it. So, are we to throw two flags on this? and hit them with the enforcement of the flag that hurts them the most? Realisticly I can see the U throwing the first flag, OT looses helmet is looking for something to do and then bam takes off running. The R not looking at the LoS blocks becasue his QB is under duress then sees the non helmet player come into view and throws a block that allows the QB to make a play. Wont we want to get the foul that hurts them more, plus had a real impact on the play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I10WL7nYSA4

That play is an unusual situation but not two fouls just a revised spot for the impact on the play. It is a foul when you determine he has not removed himself from the play. Because he continued this act and had a direct impact further back it makes sense to adjust the location of enforcement.

This is the common sense way we are having the officials in Hawaii work the call. Because he is illegally participating the entire time we are making a judgment for the entire act. If he does not influence the play or make a block further back it reverts back to the spot where he initially actively pursued the play.

[younggun]

That play is an unusual situation but not two fouls just a revised spot for the impact on the play. It is a foul when you determine he has not removed himself from the play. Because he continued this act and had a direct impact further back it makes sense to adjust the location of enforcement.

This is the common sense way we are having the officials in Hawaii work the call. Because he is illegally participating the entire time we are making a judgment for the entire act. If he does not influence the play or make a block further back it reverts back to the spot where he initially actively pursued the play.

I agree with you on changing the spot of the foul as they did gain an advantage. What do you think about my last scenario? Just wondering.

[Sumstine]

I think your play is one of the few I would award the TD unless in A's pursuit he is blocked by team B creating an offset or decline and enforce from the end of the run. Plays like these are special situations and should include a crew discussion.

[bama_stripes]

Consider this,

4th Quarter :03 left in the game. 3/10 @ 50. Game is tied. A8 gets the snap and drops back to pass. At the line of scrimmage A68 looses his helmet, on his own, and takes off running into the backfield to block. A8 gets hit and fumbles. B78 picks up the ball and starts running toward the EZ. A68 catches up with him and makes the tackle at the A-3. Result?

I believe this play is more cleanly officiated as two fouls.  It's really two separate acts. 

FWIW, I'd like to see this foul have succeeding spot enforcement --  it's no different than the USC for not wearing required equipment.

[maven]

I'm not sure succeeding spot enforcement makes sense for most instances. If the player w/o a helmet springs the runner, why would we enforce it downfield and give A the benefit of the block?

[bama_stripes]

I'm not sure succeeding spot enforcement makes sense for most instances. If the player w/o a helmet springs the runner, why would we enforce it downfield and give A the benefit of the block?

Good point.

[Ralph Damren]

Consider this,

4th Quarter :03 left in the game. 3/10 @ 50. Game is tied. A8 gets the snap and drops back to pass. At the line of scrimmage A68 looses his helmet, on his own, and takes off running into the backfield to block. A8 gets hit and fumbles. B78 picks up the ball and starts running toward the EZ. A68 catches up with him and makes the tackle at the A-3. Result?

IMHO, I would have multiple fouls : (1) When he first started to participate w/o hat - around the LOS ; (2) When he made the TD saving tackle @ A-3 . The obvious choice would be the A-3 flag and award B the ball & an untimed down @ A's 1 1/2. Could you enforce 9-9-1 and award a TD?? To me that would be a stretch. B could bring in Hans ( the foreign exchange student from Norway) and he become the team hero by kicking thru the pipes and ensuring him a date with the Prom Queen.

[HLinNC]

I'm willing to venture there will NOT be a case play issued by the Fed that remotely approaches this scenario.
 

[Ralph Damren]

I'm willing to venture there will NOT be a case play issued by the Fed that remotely approaches this scenario.
 

Seen the new casebook --- you ventured correctly

[Rulesman]

The Case Book rarely has plays that cover much of anything important. Whenever you look for a specific issue you find everything but!

[Bob M.]

The Case Book rarely has plays that cover much of anything important. Whenever you look for a specific issue you find everything but!

REPLY: And what IS important is usually just cited as a play situation with specific fouls/situations/conditions mentioned. It leaves you wondering if the ruling applies for only that combination of fouls/situations/conditions, or does it apply to something more general. What's needed is more use of case play COMMENTS to specify the philosophical principle upon which the ruling is based.

[Ralph Damren]

There's a NFHS Interpreters' Teleconference on July 23rd. I feel confident that play will be discussed and will be addressed in the additional case plays that are posted on the NFHS Website in August. My suggestion is to add a comment that while most fouls occur at a definitive spot, making it easy to determine the basic spot ;the playing without a helmet foul occurs at every step the player makes. The basic spot should be that which the player participated that impacts his team the most. Any other ideas, guys???

[HLinNC]

The basic spot should be that which the player participated that impacts his team the most.

Creating a new Fundamental, Ralph?  I think you would be better off declaring it a previous spot enforcement on all plays, loose or run,  rather than going down that rabbit hole.

[Ralph Damren]

Creating a new Fundamental, Ralph?  I think you would be better off declaring it a previous spot enforcement on all plays, loose or run,  rather than going down that rabbit hole.

A new Fundamental wouldn't be needed as F-X 3 & 5 only refers to "all-but-one" & "basic spot" but doesn't define them. Rule 10-4 or 9-6-4 would need to be tweaked to cover this, but an NFHS interp could cover the situation this year without Rule Book support with the tweak to follow at the rules meeting (it's been done before). IMHO, the table on page 84 of this year's Case Book could be expanded to include: "Player who participated without a helmet" ......."Basic spot determined by location of participation most severe to his team".

[Ralph Damren]

At the NFHS Interp Teleconference, it was indicated that a helmetless player participating in several portions of the play would be considered as having committed multiple fouls. Case plays will be posted on their website soon.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Ralph...I heard that from our NH buddy, and that is good news. I believe that Kevin adequately prepped Brad for that decision.

[zhntr]

I was watching the 2013 Aloha FB Clinic New Rules video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm6wdCCw23I) and on Play 1 he has two spots for IP on one player.

Outstanding videos, btw.

[HLinNC]

See also-

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=10078.0

[zhntr]

Thanks. Can I delete this topic?

[HLinNC]

No but a mod can merge it.

[Rulesman]

No but a mod can merge it.

Done!