RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: CalhounLJ on July 07, 2018, 07:31:36 AM
-
Shouldn't the casebook play in 5.1.3 situation B be amended? Or am I missing something about the new rule? Under the Ruling: "If the penalty is accepted by R, the down would be replayed from K's 30..." Is this not a "tack-on" situation? If so, one of R's options would be to accept the penalty, and get the ball 1st and 10 at the R30.
-
I believe you are correct, except it would be 1 and 10 from R's 20 since the 10 would be the succeeding spot. (10-4-2 Exception)
-
Have made NFHS aware of this. The fact that it isn't preceded by an * ,as all new cases are, tells me that it was an existing case that wasn't picked up and tweaked after this year's rule change. Several new cases are usually added with each new rule change, but the challenge is do any of the current cases need to be removed/adjusted. Usually the NFHS prints additional cases in August and also lists any needed corrections.
-
Speaking of the 2018 casebook.
Does anyone know when the 2018 case book will be posted to the NFHS site for Publications?
The 2018 Rules Book is up and available, but not the case book.
-
OOPS
Hey Ralph, Take a look at this revised Ruling
5.1.3. SITUATION B...
RULING: If the penalty is accepted by R, R may choose to have the penalty enforced from the previous spot and the down would be replayed from K's 30 yard line, or R may choose to retain possession AND have the penalty tacked-on from the succeeding spot (spot of recovery); R will put the ball in play first and 10 from its 20-yard line. If the penalty is declined, R will put the ball in play first and 10 from its 10-yard line, the spot of recovery. (5-1-3,10-4-2 EXCEPTION, 10-5-1j)
-
While we are on the subject of this new rule, could ya'll take a look at 2018 casebook play 10.5.3 SITUATION C:. Could not R take the results of the play and enforce K's holding on the try? As always, thanks and have a great year!
-
While we are on the subject of this new rule, could ya'll take a look at 2018 casebook play 10.5.3 SITUATION C:. Could not R take the results of the play and enforce K's holding on the try? As always, thanks and have a great year!
For those of you without your case book handy -- K is punting from their own 4. During the kick, K2 holds in K's end zone. R returns the punt for a TD. Previous options -- accept the penalty and the safety or decline the penalty and take the touchdown.
I believe this is correct that the new rule allows R to have the enforcement spot as the succeeding spot. It is a foul by K during a scrimmage kick down and R is the next to put the ball in play.
Furthermore, the way 8-2-3 is written, R must take the penalty on the try (and not on the ensuing kickoff) if they choose the succeeding spot enforcement as the foul occurred prior to the change of possession (i.e., 8-2-3 doesn't actually apply).
-
I agree with NCwingman
Best option - Take the TD and half the distance on the TRY
-
I agree with NCwingman
Best option - Take the TD and half the distance on the TRY
KWH was the author of this rule change. When the author of a change agrees with something, I then agree with the author. KWH was also the author of the rule outlawing the dreaded Oregonian flea-flicker. KWH can also drink more beer than I can.
-
7.2.1 situation B ruling needs an editorial update to read R will likely accept the penalty by K at the succeeding spot.
-
When we added the "carry-over" provision on fouls by opponents of the scoring team, part of the rationale was that it would prevent a cheap shot by an opponent, knowing that the penalty would be declined to keep the score. If the foul occurred prior to a change of possession, the fouling player wouldn't have knowledge of the upcoming score. With PSK, the assumption is K is assumed to turn the ball over. With our new "tack-on" rule, the assumption is the same.
-
I'm assuming 10.1.3 Situation is the same way. K fouls illegal use of hands, R signals fair catch, then runs with the ball. Ruling states, "R may decline the penalty by K and retain possession." With the new exception, it's not necessary for R to decline the foul to keep the ball is it? R may take the K penalty at the succeeding spot, and then have their delay of game marked off after that, right? Since one was live-ball, one was dead-ball, it is not a double foul.
-
I'm assuming 10.1.3 Situation is the same way. K fouls illegal use of hands, R signals fair catch, then runs with the ball. Ruling states, "R may decline the penalty by K and retain possession." With the new exception, it's not necessary for R to decline the foul to keep the ball is it? R may take the K penalty at the succeeding spot, and then have their delay of game marked off after that, right? Since one was live-ball, one was dead-ball, it is not a double foul.
Do not confuse the "tack-on" rule as a "live ball treated as dead ball foul" like UNS would be.
The scenario you gave would be the exact same ruling last year as it is this year.
Good point to bring up because I bet lots of people have the same question!
Edit: But yes, you can enforce the K foul at the succeeding spot, then enforce the DOG. I read that too quick.
-
You may need to explain further. Are you saying that this situation is treated the same way this year as it was last year, and the new kick rule enforcement does not apply? Because I think it does. I may not have provided enough information. the situation reads that K illegally used hands during the kick. To me, that fits the parameters of the new kick rule exception, and R CAN accept K's foul and still keep the ball. The situation in the case book states that for R to keep the ball, they must decline K's foul. It goes on to further state that if R accepts the foul, we go back to previous spot, mark off both, and replay the down. That's not right is it?
*** Disregard... thanks for the clarification
-
I think the confusion is coming from the "succeeding spot" terminology on free kick plays
-
I feel certain that this has been overlooked and not the intent of this rule, however, the rule reads during a kick 'down'...not during the kick. Why did they choose the word 'down' in this rule? With that, it means ANY K foul during the 'entire down', not just the kick part.
So, K punts from the K30. R22 catches punt at R20, runs to the R30, where K80 commits a facemask penalty and causes R22 to fumble. R44 recovers the fumble and runs to the 50 where he is tackled.
Because K fouled during the 'down', this foul can be tacked on from the succeeding spot, 50yd, and R will get the ball at the K35.
This cannot be the intent, but is exactly what the rule reads currently. Has there been any word to the contrary?
-
This feels like an iphone update. Apple is notorious for sending out an update and then dealing with the glitches as they pop up. This appears to be a glitch in the exception... I suspect an updated exception in the future.
-
I feel certain that this has been overlooked and not the intent of this rule, however, the rule reads during a kick 'down'...not during the kick. Why did they choose the word 'down' in this rule? With that, it means ANY K foul during the 'entire down', not just the kick part.
So, K punts from the K30. R22 catches punt at R20, runs to the R30, where K80 commits a facemask penalty and causes R22 to fumble. R44 recovers the fumble and runs to the 50 where he is tackled.
Because K fouled during the 'down', this foul can be tacked on from the succeeding spot, 50yd, and R will get the ball at the K35.
This cannot be the intent, but is exactly what the rule reads currently. Has there been any word to the contrary?
This was the intent of the rule which is why the rule reads the way it does. Restated, the rule is in effect for ANY Live Ball K foul during the down.
Yes, in your play the succeeding spot is the 50. Enforce the FM foul from there.
The revised interpretation of this play will be, because the foul occurred after the end of the kick, it occurred during a running play, basic spot enforcement which is the end of the related run, the R30.
Note that in your play if R22 had been Face-masked but not fumbled, continued on, and returned the ball to the 50, the FM penalty would also be enforced from the 50.
What am I missing??? What I was missing was the interpretation from the NFHS. I was wrong and I made the corrections.
-
This was the intent of the rule which is why the rule reads the way it does. Restated, the rule is in effect for ANY Live Ball K foul during the down.
Yes, in your play the succeeding spot is the 50. Enforce the FM foul from there.
Note that in your play if R22 had been Facemasked but not fumbled, continued on, and returned the ball to the 50, the FM penalty would also be enforced from the 50.
What am I missing???
That's the way I read it as well. But what I cannot understand is that the intent was to supposedly reduce 're-kicks'. Well, a foul after possession would not be a re-kick anyway. This is quite different from the NCAA rule (not that they were exactly trying to mirror it). Any foul after possession has its own basic spot (end of related run). Now with this, for those fouls it's basically telling us the same spot (succeeding spot)...unless of course like in my example there are more than one post possession related runs. I don't like it at all, but I want to properly understand it before I start teaching it locally to our group. Thanks for the comment.
-
For those of you without your case book handy -- K is punting from their own 4. During the kick, K2 holds in K's end zone. R returns the punt for a TD. Previous options -- accept the penalty and the safety or decline the penalty and take the touchdown.
I believe this is correct that the new rule allows R to have the enforcement spot as the succeeding spot. It is a foul by K during a scrimmage kick down and R is the next to put the ball in play.
Furthermore, the way 8-2-3 is written, R must take the penalty on the try (and not on the ensuing kickoff) if they choose the succeeding spot enforcement as the foul occurred prior to the change of possession (i.e., 8-2-3 doesn't actually apply).
If R accepts the holding foul (occurring in the EZ) the effect is a safety as the enforcement spot is really not the previous spot - it's the spot of the foul. Therefore K would be the next to snap the ball (free kick back to R) which, by rule, would eliminate R's option to tack it on. 8-2-3 requires that, during a TD scoring play, if the opponent of the scoring team fouls, the foul must occur prior to the COP - which in this play, is not the case. What am I missing? :!#
-
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 think some may be trying to over think this new rule.
Perhaps a different simple way to remember this new rule is:
For 10-4-2c to be in effect the following must occur:
1) K must legally kick the football, (this is not the NCAA rule so there is no requirement that the ball cross any line, in fact, in NFHS, it could be blocked for negative yardage) AND,
2) K must commit ANY live ball foul until the end of the kick AT ANY TIME during the Kick down, (this is not the NCAA rule so there is no requirement of when or even where the K foul occurs), AND
3) K is NOT next to put the ball in play!
If all three of these criteria are met, the offended team, R, may choose succeeding spot enforcement with one exception, if R scores a Touchdown.
If R scores a Touchdown, the succeeding spot is the TRY, UNLESS the criteria of 8-2-3 has been met ( ie; the K foul occurred after the final change of possession);
If 8-2-3 applies, R may choose enforcement of the penalty on the TRY or the Subsequent Kickoff.
So... all the options from 2017 are still intact, however, in addition, we can now offer up the "tack-on option" as well.
I hope this helps... pi1eOn
I was incorrect and I made my corrections in RED
-
I feel certain that this has been overlooked and not the intent of this rule, however, the rule reads during a kick 'down'...not during the kick. Why did they choose the word 'down' in this rule? With that, it means ANY K foul during the 'entire down', not just the kick part.
So, K punts from the K30. R22 catches punt at R20, runs to the R30, where K80 commits a facemask penalty and causes R22 to fumble. R44 recovers the fumble and runs to the 50 where he is tackled.
Because K fouled during the 'down', this foul can be tacked on from the succeeding spot, 50yd, and R will get the ball at the K35.
This cannot be the intent, but is exactly what the rule reads currently. Has there been any word to the contrary?
This was the intent of the rule which is why the rule reads the way it does. Restated, the rule is in effect for ANY Live Ball K foul during the down.
Yes, in your play the succeeding spot is the 50. Enforce the FM foul from there.
Note that in your play if R22 had been Facemasked but not fumbled, continued on, and returned the ball to the 50, the FM penalty would also be enforced from the 50.
What am I missing???
Can we go back to this play for just a minute. Just to make sure I understand. Does this mean that during a kicking down, the basic spot has been changed because of this new exception? Before this exception, we would go back to where R22 fumbled and make that the basic spot of enforcement, because that was the end of the run which was related to the foul. But now, what I'm gathering is that for K fouls during a kick down, that is no longer the case. Now, the end of the related run in this scenario would have no significance, because K fouled during a kicking down and the exception states that foul is enforced from the succeeding spot. Is that what we are saying?
-
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?
-
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?
If I understand KWH's post above, it sure is.
K legally kicked the ball - check
K committed a foul at any time during the down - check
K is NOT next to put the ball in play - check
R did not score a TD - check
R can accept the penalty administered from the succeeding spot (R's 20) - check
-
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.
-
No because R would not be next to put the ball in play. K would be kicking off
-
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."
-
See 10-4-2 Exception
-
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".
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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....
tR:oLl tR:oLl tR:oLl tR:oLl tR:oLl (5-man crew)
-
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
-
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....
tR:oLl tR:oLl tR:oLl tR:oLl tR:oLl (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)?
-
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.
-
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."
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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 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.