Goal to Go / Automatic 1st Down

[J12]

        A has 1st and Goal from B's 5. Obviously, the chain is not set. Through a series of penalties, sacks or whatever, A suddenly has 3rd and Goal from B's 30.

        On 3rd down, we have an incomplete pass but B is called for Roughing the Passer. A now has an automatic first down on B 15. 

         With A's first down on B15, I'm reasonably sure the chain would now have to be set and A would have a 1st and 10 rather than a 1st and Goal. Sitting at a game earlier this year, I had someone (someone who generally seemed pretty knowledgeable) explain that once a team has a 1st and Goal, it can't revert back to a 1st and 10 without either a score or a change of possession. He says A gets the automatic first down, but the chain still doesn't get set and it's 1st and Goal. Those weren't his exact words, but that's the gist of the argument.

[Rulesman]

He's wrong. A new series begins with the auto 1st.

[FLAHL]

The situation described in the OP is true during overtime.

“The line to gain is always the goal line regardless of whether or not a penalty enforcement places the ball more than 10 yards from the goal line to start a new series.”

Excerpt From: NFHS. “2015 NFHS Football Rules Book.” NFHS. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

[ncwingman]

        A has 1st and Goal from B's 5. Obviously, the chain is not set.

I believe the mistake lies here. The line to gain IS set in a goal-to-go situation. The chains are used as a visual reference as to where the LTG is set, but they are not needed when the LTG is also the goal line. This does not mean that the chains are "not set", but they are redundant and unnecessary (and not using the chains is also a visual cue that the LTG is the goal line as well).

What is important is the LTG not the chains. After the auto-1st, the LTG gets reset and then the chains follow to denote where the LTG is placed -- not the other way around.

[J12]

The situation described in the OP is true during overtime.

“The line to gain is always the goal line regardless of whether or not a penalty enforcement places the ball more than 10 yards from the goal line to start a new series.”

Excerpt From: NFHS. “2015 NFHS Football Rules Book.” NFHS. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Good point. Maybe that's where the confusion was. Thanks.

[Atlanta Blue]

The situation described in the OP is true during overtime.

Assuming you use the optional FED suggested overtime.  Many states (somewhere around 17 the last time I heard) do not.

[J12]

Assuming you use the optional FED suggested overtime.  Many states (somewhere around 17 the last time I heard) do not.

Here in NJ, they use the 25 yard overtime procedure like the NCAA. And now that you mention it, I did see an interesting situation with that this year.

A scores a TD in the first half of the overtime. A is successful on the extra point and B gets called for a Personal Foul. The Personal Foul gets assessed in the second half of overtime. B (now A, I guess) starts with 1st and 10 on the 40. I assume that's correct, but I did wonder if it should have been 1st and 25. If there were multiple penalties, could a team start overtime with 1st and 10 on their own 15?

[Atlanta Blue]

Foul came before the RFP,  so it will be 1st and 10 from the 40.

It won't be 1st and 25 unless the penalty comes AFTER the RFP for the new possession. 

If it were a FED OT state, it would be first and goal from the 25. 

[Ralph Damren]

The awarded first down creates a new series. The new series is usually 1st & 10. The new series may be 1st and goal if : (1) If it is  started within B's 10; (2) NFHS OT procedure.

A couple of years ago, a coach wanted to take the yardage of a roughing the passer penalty without taking the auto 1st down. Was he : (1) allowed to do it; (2) drunk; (3) not allowed to do it, but it would have been good -for him- if he could......

  YOU MAKE THE CALL AND EXPLAIN THE SERENIO...

[bama_stripes]

Well, he could decline the yardage, but not the AFD.

I could see a coach wanting to do this if the yardage plus replaying the down made it 2nd-and-1, for example.

[Ralph Damren]

Well, he could decline the yardage, but not the AFD.

I could see a coach wanting to do this if the yardage plus replaying the down made it 2nd-and-1, for example.

You are on the right track, 'Bama. This occurred a few years back in one of my games:

 (1) 1st & 10 @ B's 30..
 (2) A for holding @ B's 31 -ABO = ball on B's 41.
 (3) B  for RTP on incomplete pass.
 (4) Ball on B's 26.
 (5) Coach to me : "Can we forget the rest of it and have 1st & 6 ?"
 (6) Me to coach : "NO ."

If we allowed this, our already complicated Rule 10 would even become more complicated.

   Is 1st & 10 better than 2nd & 5.... than 4th & 1

     ....I don't think we need that.  

[VALJ]

I agree in philosophy - the AFD goes with the yardage.  We do have a fundamental that says the distance penalty for any foul may be declined, though, without saying anything about AFD or LOD, though.  Might be worth closing that loophole...

And had you let the coach decline the yardage and take the AFD, I sure hope you would have had the chains reset. 

[Ralph Damren]

I agree in philosophy - the AFD goes with the yardage.  We do have a fundamental that says the distance penalty for any foul may be declined, though, without saying anything about AFD or LOD, though.  Might be worth closing that loophole...

And had you let the coach decline the yardage and take the AFD, I sure hope you would have had the chains reset. 

Yes, I would allow the coach to take the penalty w/o the yardage and reset the chains. I would then probably ask a health care professional to check his blood/alcohol content - as he may be drunk.

[J12]

Yes, I would allow the coach to take the penalty w/o the yardage and reset the chains. I would then probably ask a health care professional to check his blood/alcohol content - as he may be drunk.

Concussion Protocol on the coach?