Enforcement spot changes in existance

[JugglingReferee]

Would you allow a team to change their mind if an enforcement spot that once didn't exist, somehow did exist afterwards?

[110]

Would you allow a team to chance their mind if an enforcement spot that once didn't exist, somehow did exist afterwards?

Uh... me no understand.

[JugglingReferee]

So you have a penalty and you present the non-offending team their options.  They choose one of those options - the penalty is accepted.  (Whether it be declined or accept is a supplementary issue.)

Then something else happens in the game before the above mentioned penalty is enforced.  In this "something else" occurring, a further option (associated with accepting the penalty) is created.    The further option didn't exist prior to the "something else" occurring.

So now back to the original question:

Would you allow a team to chance their mind if an enforcement spot that once didn't exist, somehow did exist afterwards?

Does that make it clearer?

[110]

Uh... you're still kinda losing me. What could change the enforcement spot during application of a penalty, other than an infraction of some nature, which would still be in a dead-ball period and could only therefore be UR/OC?

The only other thing I could think that might change things would be a series of dual/double fouls on a convert followed by a dead ball OC/UR.

That wouldn't change the enforcement spot options (now, I haven't had my first cuppa java, so I reserve the right to be wrong) as I can fathom. But it might change where teams want penalty application. Option would still go to the first non-offending team. And if you're sitting there doing a penalty application and some kid waggles a finger, drops an f-bomb or shoves an opponent, you're really just starting over with a new batch of penalty applications, aren't you?

[JugglingReferee]

Team B leads by 7.  It's the last play of the the 4th quarter.

A scores a TD on a play where roughing the passer is called.  Team A elects to enforce the penalty on an ensuing kickoff.  Team A successfully kicks the field goal.  The score is now tied.

At this point, a new enforcement spot has appeared: the beginning of overtime.

Do you allow A to move their choice from the induced KO to OT?

[110]

Team B leads by 7.  It's the last play of the the 4th quarter.

A scores a TD on a play where roughing the passer is called.  Team A elects to enforce the penalty on an ensuing kickoff.  Team A successfully kicks the field goal.  The score is now tied.

At this point, a new enforcement spot has appeared: the beginning of overtime.

Do you allow A to move their choice from the induced KO to OT?

Ah, now I get you.  (Although if I were the A coach, I'd be strongly thinking about the unrestricted penalty to move the convert to the 1 yard line - just to try the two-point convert.)
1.5.6
If the last play of the period is a legally scored touchdown, any penalty for UR, RP occurring during the
play, or during the interval between the touchdown and the convert, may be applied at the option of the
non-offending team as follows:
(1)
on the convert following a touchdown
OR
(2)
on the kick off in the same period
OR
(3)
on a kick off to open the next period

and ...

1-4-2 COMMENT: Penalty Applications Without The Necessity Of An Option. [...]
If the foul is UR or RP the non-offending team may choose to have the penalty
applied immediately and another play will take place or, have the penalty applied on the first play of the
next period in order to terminate the current period.

the rules suggest that A has to make a choice right there and then, but my gut says that's not quite fair/right.
I think you've got a casebook addition, here.

[JugglingReferee]

But you haven't answered my question!   

Do you allow A to move their choice from the induced KO to OT?  Why or why not?

[110]

But you haven't answered my question!   

Do you allow A to move their choice from the induced KO to OT?  Why or why not?

I think I did answer your question: A has to choose, by the book, at the point of application. Convert, kickoff in same period, first play of  OT.

I just don't agree with that interp. I get what you're saying, and think the rules committee should issue a casebook entry to clarify.

[JugglingReferee]

Well, I'm not sure that it's fair to offer the OT option, because then how does it look if A misses the PAT, and there is no overtime?  A is now not given a chance to tie the game with another scoring play*.  But explaining the "what-if" scenario is weird too.



* These scoring plays are: (a) if B chooses A kicks to B, then A could kick a rouge from the B-50, or (b) if B chooses to kick to A, A could return-kick the ball through the EZ for a rouge.

[110]

or (b) if B chooses to kick to A, A could return-kick the ball through the EZ for a rouge.

And whoever makes the kick is signed to the bigs: that'd be a leg.

I think you and I are on the same page, here. There needs to be a clarification. Again, my gut says that A should have the option of applying the UR on whichever play they choose.

[JugglingReferee]

I think you've got a casebook addition, here.

This play was someone else's idea!