Hopefully we are being rational about the succeeding spot nonsense. Which is what making illegal kicking a spot foul beyond the line of scrimmage does. But at the same time we also want to respect the wishes of the committee in wanting fouls behind the line by A to be enforced from the previous spot instead of the spot of the foul, don’t we?
The intent of the rule committee seems clear in both cases. As noted in the press release, "
Current penalties for illegal kicking, [...] remain intact." This sounds like their intent was to NOT change how this penalty was enforced.
In that same breath, the 2022 rule change press release states "The committee edited the EXCEPTIONS to Rule 3-6-1a(1)e, which clarify the necessary conditions for an abbreviated 25-second play clock after a stoppage in play.
This rule now includes an exception for Rule 3-5-7i, mandating that a 40-second play clock be employed following a foul committed only by the defensive team.". This is not listed with an exception to the exception. The rules committee stated if the defensive team commits a foul, the play clock is set to 40 seconds.
Both of these cases seem pretty clear as to the intent of the rule changes. The fact that the editorial committee mangled it up in both cases doesn't change the clear and straightforward intent of the rules committee. We very often enforce the rules by intent and philosophy rather than by the letter, and especially in the current state of 10-4, I think we really need not to get lost in the wording of the rule and miss the intent.
And, honestly, if Ralph feels like stepping in and backing me up in either/both of these cases I would greatly appreciate it -- otherwise I feel like I'm going mad here.
