First Touching

[mhez141]

As I agree with what has been discussed but I still need more fire power to convince these guys. 
Mr Ralph Damren would you please give your ruling on this scenario? Since you are on the NFHS rules committee your input has major weight?
If anyone know this gentleman please contact him.
Thanks

[ncwingman]

Honestly, I'd probably ask for rule/case citations that suggest otherwise. If their only argument is "Well, it doesn't *seem* right..." hopefully you can emphasize that that's not how we officiate the game. (Offer not valid for Rule 10-4...)

I mean, my first post in the thread suggested the same as your colleagues (although not fully convinced), so I started digging in the rule book and realized I was mistaken. A general philosophy in the rule book is that Exceptions Are Bad (except for the exceptions), therefore you shouldn't insert any sort of informal exception when none exists.

Furthermore, "Live ball enforced as dead ball" is not a defined phrase/category of foul in the rule book. It's short hand/mnemonic for our purposes for live ball fouls that come with succeeding spot enforcement. They are not, by definition, dead ball fouls and should not be conflated.

[bama_stripes]

I still do not think I can convince my guys this is the correct call but will try. 

Maybe they should read this: (6-1-7)
?The right of R to take the ball at the spot of first touching by K is cancelled if...the penalty is accepted for any foul committed during the down.? (emphasis mine)

[NVFOA_Ump]

Since we're looking at a live ball foul that's enforced as a dead ball foul, the order of events is irrelevant. The play goes on until the ball is dead and then we enforce the penalty from that spot.

Furthermore, the right for R to take the spot of first touching is cancelled if any penalty is accepted during the down. This is not a "clean hands" consideration. If R commits any foul at any time during the down, the ball cannot be awarded to R and returned to a first touching spot. We could go back to a spot that's the "end of the (related) run", but not a spot of first touching.

There do exist technical possibilities for K to decline a pre-"touching by R" foul and give the ball back to R at a first touching spot, but it would never be at their advantage to do so -- similar to B committing DPI then intercepting the pass. A *could* decline the foul and give B the ball, but they never would.

What is the result if the "first touching" occured before the ball had touched the ground?

[NVFOA_Ump]

Maybe they should read this: (6-1-7)
?The right of R to take the ball at the spot of first touching by K is cancelled if...the penalty is accepted for any foul committed during the down.? (emphasis mine)

But isn't section 6-1 applicable exclusively to free kicks? I believe that you're looking for 6-2-5?

[CalhounLJ]

But isn't section 6-1 applicable exclusively to free kicks? I believe that you're looking for 6-2-5?

Technically, you're correct. However, with the exception of the comments about the neutral zone, the first touching explanations are identical.

[mhez141]

WOW even our State Rules Interpreter says it is R's ball at spot of first touching.  Enhancing the scenario...
State 6A championship game Score is 21-19 with K behind with 2:00 minutes left in game. K has 3 timeouts left.
K punts ball.  Ball touches K at the R15.  R possesses ball at the R10 and fumbles at the R15.  K recovers at the R20 and is down there..
During the play R coach in his excitement during the play is in the Restricted area and furiously flinging his arms accidentally hits the HL in the face knocking him out"big muscled coach and average size official".  It is R's first sideline warning.  During the play on the HL side R player holds and slings K's star WR to the ground breaking his Collarbone.  The HL is the only one who could have seen this as all other 4 officials have their area of concentration and players to watch. 
This how I see the conversation going with K's HC and I am purposely leaving out the expletives: 
Coach:  Our ball!  Offense!
Official:No coach it is not your ball, it was a non player foul. So R has the ball at the first touching spot as the Succeeding spot.
Coach:"I know the Coach doesn't know the rules but let's pretend he does." But 6-2-5 states if R touches the ball and commits ANY foul during the down the spot of first touching goes away.
Official: Yes but live ball non-player fouls are treated as dead ball fouls. The foul had no effect on the play.
Coach: Nowhere is that in the rule book. 10-4-5c says non-player fouls are succeeding spot. 6-2-5 states the succeeding spot should be the end of the down with my player in possession of the football.  And didn't affect the play my star WR was injured because the official on that side was unconscious because of the foul.
Official: You are correct it is not in the rule book, it is phrase we made up after the debacle of 2014 when a touchdown was taken away after an R coach was flagged for being in the restricted zone so no crew would make that mistake again.
Coach: So under 6-2-5 ANY foul during the play doesn't mean ANY foul just so called player fouls that happen on the field. So you just pick and choose which fouls apply and those that don't.
Official: Coach I am just telling you what our State rules interpreter said.  This is how we are to rule on a play like this.
Coach: Well get me the State Rules interpreter down here I want to speak with him and have him show me in the Rule Book references on why this is ruled in this manner or this game is going to be another debacle and going to court for rule misapplication!

[CalhounLJ]

WOW even our State Rules Interpreter says it is R's ball at spot of first touching.  Enhancing the scenario...
State 6A championship game Score is 21-19 with K behind with 2:00 minutes left in game. K has 3 timeouts left.
K punts ball.  Ball touches K at the R15.  R possesses ball at the R10 and fumbles at the R15.  K recovers at the R20 and is down there..
During the play R coach in his excitement during the play is in the Restricted area and furiously flinging his arms accidentally hits the HL in the face knocking him out"big muscled coach and average size official".  It is R's first sideline warning.  During the play on the HL side R player holds and slings K's star WR to the ground breaking his Collarbone.  The HL is the only one who could have seen this as all other 4 officials have their area of concentration and players to watch. 
This how I see the conversation going with K's HC and I am purposely leaving out the expletives: 
Coach:  Our ball!  Offense!
Official:No coach it is not your ball, it was a non player foul. So R has the ball at the first touching spot as the Succeeding spot.
Coach:"I know the Coach doesn't know the rules but let's pretend he does." But 6-2-5 states if R touches the ball and commits ANY foul during the down the spot of first touching goes away.
Official: Yes but live ball non-player fouls are treated as dead ball fouls. The foul had no effect on the play.
Coach: Nowhere is that in the rule book. 10-4-5c says non-player fouls are succeeding spot. 6-2-5 states the succeeding spot should be the end of the down with my player in possession of the football.  And didn't affect the play my star WR was injured because the official on that side was unconscious because of the foul.
Official: You are correct it is not in the rule book, it is phrase we made up after the debacle of 2014 when a touchdown was taken away after an R coach was flagged for being in the restricted zone so no crew would make that mistake again.
Coach: So under 6-2-5 ANY foul during the play doesn't mean ANY foul just so called player fouls that happen on the field. So you just pick and choose which fouls apply and those that don't.
Official: Coach I am just telling you what our State rules interpreter said.  This is how we are to rule on a play like this.
Coach: Well get me the State Rules interpreter down here I want to speak with him and have him show me in the Rule Book references on why this is ruled in this manner or this game is going to be another debacle and going to court for rule misapplication!

Not sure how helpful your rant is, but this situation is definitely live ball. No way R gets the ball if K accepts this penalty: "During the play on the HL side R player holds and slings K's star WR to the ground breaking his Collarbone."

[mhez141]

A agree but the holding and PF were not called because none of the other officials saw it.  The only flag on the field is for the sideline interference.  I know i took liberty with exaggeration of the scenario.   

[ncwingman]

What is the result if the "first touching" occured before the ball had touched the ground?

Not sure I understand what you're getting at here.

If K touches a kick in flight, it could be KCI (unless R is not in a position to receive the kick) in which case it would not be first touching -- or rather the foul supersedes the first touching. If R's coach was outside the team box, this would not be a double foul as per 10-2-1 since the foul on R is a nonplayer foul.

[mhez141]

 After sending the scenario our rules interpreter said it brought up a valid question on 6-2-5 and was going to do research and talk to some   experts to get a ruling on the non player fouls during the play that involved first touching of a scrimmage kick.

[bama_stripes]

Not that it?s particularly relevant, but if a coach in the restricted area knocks out my wing man, it?s Sideline Interference, not just a warning.

[mhez141]

Definitely sideline interference! 15 yards from SS.  Again I took great liberty in enhancing and exaggerating the scenario and hope that would never happen.  It's just people in my association are having problems seeing non player fouls as not being part of the ANY R fouls.  They keep arguing that any entails only the 11 players on the field.  Hopefully I will find out the ruling we will follow today and share later.

[CalhounLJ]

Not that it?s particularly relevant, but if a coach in the restricted area knocks out my wing man, it?s Sideline Interference, not just a warning.

This is true. I've been studying this for a couple of days, and still come back to the idea that even though the foul (sideline warning, interference, whatever) is enforced as a dead ball foul, it occurred during the down, and if K accepts, first touching goes away and K keeps the ball after enforcement.

Also, philosophically, there is nothing wrong with the idiom "live ball foul enforced as a dead ball foul." Works every time these fouls occur. Demetriou even uses the term in the Redding Guide. He states that even though the term is not used in the rule book, the principle is valid. I agree with him.

[bama_stripes]

Also, philosophically, there is nothing wrong with the idiom "live ball foul enforced as a dead ball foul." Works every time these fouls occur. Demetriou even uses the term in the Redding Guide. He states that even though the term is not used in the rule book, the principle is valid. I agree with him.

Wholeheartedly agree, but I think this is where the folks in OK are getting tripped up.

In almost every instance, enforcement for such a foul is temporarily set aside until all live ball action is dealt with.  *Then* we proceed to enforce the LBFTADBF.  But in the case of First Touching, R loses its right to choose if it commits *any* foul during live ball action after the FT (even one such as Sideline Interference) that would be penalized later.

PS: We need a better acronym for this enforcement!😜

[NVFOA_Ump]

This is true. I've been studying this for a couple of days, and still come back to the idea that even though the foul (sideline warning, interference, whatever) is enforced as a dead ball foul, it occurred during the down, and if K accepts, first touching goes away and K keeps the ball after enforcement.

Also, philosophically, there is nothing wrong with the idiom "live ball foul enforced as a dead ball foul." Works every time these fouls occur. Demetriou even uses the term in the Redding Guide. He states that even though the term is not used in the rule book, the principle is valid. I agree with him.

Except that in a Referee magazine article (June 1, 2021) George Demetriou clearly stated "Treating a foul as a dead-ball foul essentially means the penalty is enforced from the succeeding spot (usually the dead-ball spot) with no impact on the previous play or the number of the next down. Although the term live-ball fouls enforced as dead-ball fouls does not appear in NFHS rules, nonplayer fouls and all unsportsmanlike conduct fouls are in that category." The succeeding spot of the actual play has not been determined until live ball actions including in this case the first touching has been completed.  What are we doing if we have a USC on a R player instead of a non-player is this play?

[Ralph Damren]

The rationale of treating some ''naughty acts" that may occur during a live ball to be treated as dead ball fouls is that they had no impact of the play. Refer to 2-16-2f. I vote for allowing first touching option and penalty enforced from succeeding spot.

[ncwingman]

The rationale of treating some ''naughty acts" that may occur during a live ball to be treated as dead ball fouls is that they had no impact of the play. Refer to 2-16-2f. I vote for allowing first touching option and penalty enforced from succeeding spot.

Instead of coach outside the team box, B56 picks up the ball after the first touching, then it gets knocked out of his hands by K88. Instead of trying to recover the fumble, B56 calls K88 a bunch of names you can't say on TV. A different K player then recovers the ball and is downed.

Are you giving the ball back to B at the spot of first touching?

What if B56 punches K88 instead of calling him nasty names?

This was my problem with inserting a "well, except for succeeding spot fouls" exception that isn't in the rule book. If you do it for one, you do it for all.

I'd be all for amending the first touching rule for nonplayer fouls that aren't UNS, but it doesn't say that now.

[mhez141]

ncwingman
Those are great examples and the reason it says "any" foul on R is so R does not get away with "Naughty" tricks thinking because K had first touching they think they have a free pass to do any non-player fouls or UNS fouls they desire and still will have the football just with penalty's and not losing the ball.  As in the scenario end of the game or playoff game and K is behind by 7 or less points with a chance to win the game could make a big difference.

[bama_stripes]

The rationale of treating some ''naughty acts" that may occur during a live ball to be treated as dead ball fouls is that they had no impact of the play. Refer to 2-16-2f. I vote for allowing first touching option and penalty enforced from succeeding spot.

Then change the rule.  As it stands now, any foul negates the FT option.

[mhez141]

Just received text from our State Rules Interpreter.  Below is what he stated:

After multiple texts between Mr George Demetriou and I, this is our conclusion for the scenario you have described.

We believe that the current 2023 language indicates that the unintentional contact foul that occurred "during the down" does in fact negate team R's opportunity to keep the ball at the spot of first touching - so team K does in fact retain possession! - we also are in agreement that this foul treated as a dead-ball foul should NOT impact the first-touching aspect of the play, but as George said "that's not what it says"! - therefore, we must go with what it does say and plan to submit a rule change proposal for 2024 to address this very issue!

IT is important to know that the exact same issue would apply had this been a free kick with first-touching involved.

Fortunately, we are dealing with a situation that would be an extremely rare occurrence if it happened at all.

End of text.
My observation is yes it is a very rare occurrence but it must of have happened at one time in football.  I used the example of if it happened in a State Championship game just to give emphasis to if a ruling is administered incorrectly and costing a team a Gold Ball trophy. We didn't think what happened in 2014 with a touchdown being called back that put a team ahead because the crew took the TD away and brought it back to the SOF and it caused a delay in the playoffs until a judge could rule on it.  Surprise alert if you don't know or remember the game was finished under protest(which we all know protests of NFHS rules are not recognized"  and the judge ruled sorry the penalty enforcement was administered incorrectly but game over.

[HLinNC]

So you're celebrating something that will likely be buggered up badly once the editorial committee gets a hold of it.

Super.

Be careful what you wish for.

[mhez141]

U'm I don't see anyone celebrating.  Is not our job to get the penalty enforcement correct every time.
From the Officials Code of Ethics
OFFICIALS shall master both the rules of the game and mechanics necessary to enforce the rules.
I and the others on this forum took no joy pointing out that the rule book needed some changes on this to make it SAY what everybody was saying or implying so that the non-player or UNS foul on R did not count against them not losing the first touching spot.
I never disagreed that "all live ball non-player or UNS fouls are treated as dead ball fouls".
Although to your point, I still do not understand how you fouling helps you keep the football.  I read somewhere and cannot find it but it said "no foul committed by that team shall give that team an advantage". When they do change it next year I believe this is exactly what it will do.

[HLinNC]

"Um", you didn't just discover fire nor invent the wheel.  And my ethics are just fine , thank you.

[mhez141]

I was not questioning yours or anyone's ethics and never would and apologize if you took it that way.