New Kick Penalty Rule

[CalhounLJ]

I think I'm beginning to get the picture now. Let me ask one more question. Let's assume this FG was good. In the highly unlikely event R wanted to accept the hold, let the points stay on the board, and have K's foul marked off on the succeeding kickoff, is that possible? I don't know why they would, but it helps me to understand whether they have that option.

[SCline]

No because R would not be next to put the ball in play. K would be kicking off

[AlUpstateNY]

Finally was provided with my 2018 Rules Book, Case Book & Official's Manual last night.  With all the apparent confusion about the change made to NFHS 6-1-9-b, I found the following summary under "Comments on the 2018 Rules Changes"(Rule Book, pg 99);

6-1-9-b:  In an effort to reduce re-kicks, further minimize risk and insure that appropriate penalties are in place for all fouls, the committee has added an option for fouls committed by the kicking team during free and scrimmage kicks[/b].  The change would allow the receiving team ALL OF THE PREVIOUS OPTIONS AS WELL AS ACCEPTING THE DISTANCE PENALTY AT THE END OF THE DOWN .

Didn't see any reference to, or use of the word "DOWN" in rule 6-1-9. (pg 54)

There is no indication in 6-2-7 (relating to Scrimmage OOB kicks).  R simply retains the existing choice; following the ball being awarded to "R of choosing to put the ball in play at the inbounds spot, unless R chooses a spot of 1st touching."

[Patrick E.]

See 10-4-2 Exception

[AlUpstateNY]

Thanks, a somewhat sneaky "exception" added for a unique situation (waiting in the dark, like a land mine).  All the more reason an inadvertent whistle requires a "round".

[prab]

I haven't heard anyone talk about land mines since 1970.  Ahh, those were the good old days!  Draft cards, demonstrations, USO shows, but I digress.

The new kick/penalty rule should provide us with many chances to demonstrate our knowledge in an area where perhaps the rule writers were somewhat less than clear with their intentions.

[Jackhammer]

This is probably an easy one, but as I think it through.  For a free kick OOB doesn't it make taking the foul option at the inbounds spot moot?  Would anybody be giving this as an option?

[bama_stripes]

This is probably an easy one, but as I think it through.  For a free kick OOB doesn't it make taking the foul option at the inbounds spot moot?  Would anybody be giving this as an option?

I doubt it.  Same thing as when they added tack-on enforcement for KCI a couple of years ago.

[Ralph Damren]

This is probably an easy one, but as I think it through.  For a free kick OOB doesn't it make taking the foul option at the inbounds spot moot?  Would anybody be giving this as an option?

IMHO, there would still two times when declining the penalty and taking the ball at the inbounds spot.
(1) If the free kick hadn't traveled 25 yards;
(2) If it involved having an untimed down and R didn't want that : 0:02 to play, K squibs kick that is muffed by K @ R-40, legal touching- clock starts, untouched by R kick goes OOB @R-30. Taking the 25 yard award is considered accepting the penalty = untimed down, taking OOB spot is considered declining the penalty = GAME OVER....let the celebration begin....

  (5-man crew)

[KWH]

Guys -
I made some incorrect interpretations earlier in this thread.
Please see my corrections to in RED my earlier posts.
However;

The new succeeding spot (Tack-on) penalty choice is only applicable for fouls which occur prior to the end of the kick on downs in which;
1) K legally kicks the football,
2) K commits a live ball foul prior to the end of the kick, and,
3) K is not next to put the ball in play.

Fouls which occur after the end of the kick have basic spot enforcement.

My earlier posts were incorrect and I have corrected them in RED

[Jackhammer]

IMHO, there would still two times when declining the penalty and taking the ball at the inbounds spot.
(1) If the free kick hadn't traveled 25 yards;
(2) If it involved having an untimed down and R didn't want that : 0:02 to play, K squibs kick that is muffed by K @ R-40, legal touching- clock starts, untouched by R kick goes OOB @R-30. Taking the 25 yard award is considered accepting the penalty = untimed down, taking OOB spot is considered declining the penalty = GAME OVER....let the celebration begin....

  (5-man crew)

Ralph, under scenario 1 you list above wouldn't that still be a foul and have a 5 yard option from the succeeding spot (also the inbounds spot)?

[Patrick E.]

IMHO, there would still two times when declining the penalty and taking the ball at the inbounds spot.
(1) If the free kick hadn't traveled 25 yards;

If the free kick from the K 40-yard line goes OOB at the K 45-yard line, R will have the "tack on" option and put the ball in play at the K 40-yard line.

Do you mean the kick goes OOB more than 30 yards from where the ball was kicked? 

If the free kick from the K 40-yard line goes OOB at the R 30-yard line, with the tack-on option, R will put the ball in play at the R 35-yard line. Same as 25 yard from where the ball was kicked.

If the free kick from the K 40-yard line goes OOB at the R 31-yard line, with the tack-on option, R will put the ball in play at the R 36-yard line.

If the free kick from the K 40-yard line goes OOB at the R 29-yard line, with the tack-on option, R will put the ball in play at the R 34-yard line. R is now better off taking the ball 25 yards from where the ball was kicked.

[VA Official]

K attempts a field goal, but is flagged for holding.  The kick goes into R’s EZ but is no good.

R’s ball at the R-30?

Very interesting. I wonder if this will be amended as well to exclude FG attempts and add in that fouls by K in K's end zone still result in a safety. I believe it should. If so, it would look exactly like the NCAA rule, minus the neutral zone requirement.

Editing the NCAA rule for 10-4-2 Exception would look something like:
"Penalties for all live-ball fouls by K, other than kick-catch interference, during a free kick or during and prior to a scrimmage kick (except field-goal attempts) may be enforced at the succeeding spot, at the option of R. This does not apply to fouls in K’s end zone."

[Curious]

Guys -
I made some incorrect interpretations earlier in this thread.
Please see my corrections to in RED my earlier posts.
However;

The new succeeding spot (Tack-on) penalty choice is only applicable for fouls which occur prior to the end of the kick on downs in which;
1) K legally kicks the football,
2) K commits a live ball foul prior to the end of the kick, and,
3) K is not next to put the ball in play.

Fouls which occur after the end of the kick have basic spot enforcement.

My earlier posts were incorrect and I have corrected them in RED

OK, now I REALLY confused...

KWH, is this "new, revised, improved" interpretation the result of the latest Rules Committee meeting?

Has there been any clarification/change about the use of this rule during OT beyond "it's being left up to the individual states"?

[VA Official]

I agree that cases like this need to be addressed officially, but I also believe that this new exception was not meant to disrupt the basic philosophy of penalty administration. In this case R would need to decline the holding foul to keep the Td, because it is impossible to have both. The ironclad rule regarding fouls in the EZ dictate that there is no distance awarded with this foul, the penalty IS the safety. To my knowledge it is still impossible to “tack on” two points to a TD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was in agreement based on my initial understandings of fouls in A/K's end zone until last night.

I re-read 10-5-4: "If the offensive team throws an illegal forward pass from its end zone or commits any other foul for which the penalty is accepted and measurement is from on or behind its goal line, it is a safety."

Then paired this with the Fundamental X.6: "No penalty directly results in a safety, but if a distance penalty is enforced from behind the ­offender’s goal line toward his end line, it is a safety."

Since succeeding spot enforcement means that the measurement is no longer "from on or behind (K's) goal line" as it would have otherwise, the yardage for the penalty is tacked-on to the succeeding spot (the try) rather than tacking on the 2 points for the safety.

So it seems on a K foul in the EZ with R returning a TD, R has the option of taking 2 points and receiving a KO, or taking the TD with half the distance on the try.

[CalhounLJ]

I see your logic but disagree. The fact that the enforcement spot is in the end zone means that a penalty will be enforced from there. The foul is the illegal activity and the penalty is a safety. If we then tack a distance penalty on to that penalty we have broken the multiple foul principle by awarding 2 live ball penalties on the same play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VA Official]

I see your logic but disagree. The fact that the enforcement spot is in the end zone means that a penalty will be enforced from there. The foul is the illegal activity and the penalty is a safety. If we then tack a distance penalty on to that penalty we have broken the multiple foul principle by awarding 2 live ball penalties on the same play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do see what you're saying. I would say rather than the enforcement spot being in the end zone, technically it is the spot of the foul that is in the end zone. In order for the spot of the foul to be the enforcement spot, it has to qualify under the ABO principle. In this new tack-on rule, the succeeding spot would become the basic spot. The spot of the foul is in advance of the basic spot, so the enforcement spot would be at the basic (succeeding) spot.

In my interpretation, we would be enforcing from the 3 yard line in the field of play on a try, unless R elected to enforce from the spot of the foul (using ABO where the previous spot becomes the basic spot) which would then result in a safety only and the TD would be wiped.