Penalty enforcement

[tyro01]

A's ball, 4th and 10 from it's own 1 yard line.  4 seconds left in 4th quarter.  A is up 20-17.  A12 intentionally grounds pass in it's own endzone with 1 second left on the clock.  Question: Is Team B forced to accept the results of the play or the enforcement of the penalty?    Why can't Team B have the ball, 1st/10 at A's 1 yard line with 1 second left?

Your thoughts....

Please site rule and/or case book reference.

Thank you. 

[HLinNC]

Yes, because the enforcement spot and the end of the run if declined end in the end zone.  Either way is a safety.  While a team may decline any distance penalty, the awarded score can't be declined. 

See  10-5-4 & Fundamentals X.1, X.7

[Ralph Damren]

Intentional grounding is of the illegal forward pass family and an illegal forward pass is treated as a running play. Declining the penalty results in a running play ending in the endzone = safety. A would need to free kick from their 20 with 1 sec left and the clock starting once the kick is legally touched. If time had expired during the IG, the game would end as untimed downs are not allowed on IFP plays. The rationale of treating IFP as a running play is needed for the occurrence that occurs beyond the line  and the IFP is dropped . If this wasn't treated as a running play, an illegal forward pitch 30 yards beyond the LOS would bring the ball back to the previous spot (LOS) if dropped. (7-5-3 ,10-5-4) Hope this helps to clarify.

[Atlanta Blue]

A's ball, 4th and 10 from it's own 1 yard line.  4 seconds left in 4th quarter.  A is up 20-17.  A12 intentionally grounds pass in it's own endzone with 1 second left on the clock.  Question: Is Team B forced to accept the results of the play or the enforcement of the penalty?    Why can't Team B have the ball, 1st/10 at A's 1 yard line with 1 second left?

As others have told you, B is free to accept or decline the penalty, but the result is the same: safety.

As a coach, I have to ask, why was A throwing the ball at all?  Take the snap, drop back in the end zone, waste 4 seconds, and fall to the ground.  Have your linemen hold like h*ll to make sure no one reaches the QB before time runs out.  I mean every lineman should absolutely bear hug anyone that comes to the LOS.  But no one reaches the QB while he wastes 4 seconds.

So holding gets called.  Now what?  B's only real option is to accept the foul, repeat 4th down, and have an untimed down.  Now A only has to take a knee in the end zone to win the game, there is no time to waste.

[jg-me]

Ralph, I have not worked NF for a while so I'm likely missing something obvious with the following suggestion. If illegal forward passes made by A from in or behind the NZ were included as loose ball play action, would that resolve this rare, albeit plausible, scenario?

[bama_stripes]

Why can't Team B have the ball, 1st/10 at A's 1 yard line with 1 second left?
Thank you.

Because NFHS rules don't allow for that option.  You'd have to ask Ralph, but I don't think that has even come before the Rules Committee for consideration.

If that were an option (and assuming that Team A has run three previous kneel-down plays), I suspect that Team A would have played differently, and would now be punting the ball.

[younggun]

Not trying to compare but I am anyways. It would be the same enforcement under NCAA rules (run play, not loose ball play) EXCEPT the NCAA wrote in an exception for illegal passes thrown from Team A's EZ.

[Rulesman]

See Fed rule 9-5-2c.

[Johnponz]

Isn't telling the linemen to hold on purpose unethical.   You are telling youth it is ok to break the rules if there is no consequences.   This seems not to be in the spirit of the extension of the classroom concept.

Is the message if you are going to win it is ok to break the rules, WIN at all costs.

[Rulesman]

... WIN at all costs.

Coaches think that way, John.

[Johnponz]

I know they do, but I believe that it is our job when we are off the field to question that kind of thinking.  While we are on the field we have to live with it, and of course I would never bring it up on the field (not my place).

[Atlanta Blue]

Isn't telling the linemen to hold on purpose unethical.   You are telling youth it is ok to break the rules if there is no consequences.   This seems not to be in the spirit of the extension of the classroom concept.

Not at all.  I'm telling them they will be committing a foul, and there will be a penalty for it.  But I'm willing to accept that penalty.

Is the message if you are going to win it is ok to break the rules, WIN at all costs.

The message is: learn ALL the rules, and learn that there are times you can use that knowledge to your advantage.

Don't you see intentional fouls in basketball all the time?  As long as you are willing to accept the penalty, it's not unethical at all.

[Johnponz]

We just have a philosophical difference here. 

If you accept that football is a metaphor for life and then use the legitimate argument of taking a concept to the logical extreme what you are saying is that it is ok to commit murder if you are willing to go to jail.

[Atlanta Blue]

We just have a philosophical difference here. 

If you accept that football is a metaphor for life and then use the legitimate argument of taking a concept to the logical extreme what you are saying is that it is ok to commit murder if you are willing to go to jail.

Some heinous criminal brutally rapes and beats my daughter, leaves her for dead, and she is a near vegetable for the rest of her life.  He is released on a technicality.  I kill him, knowing I will spend the rest of my life in jail.

If I'm willing to accept the penalty, then I might be willing to do it.

On a much more realistic note, teams take intentional delay of game penalties in order to set up better angles on kicks, to give the punter more room, or even to run more time off the clock.  Is that unethical?  A player in basketball commits an intentional foul because they have no time outs and need to stop the clock.  Unethical?  A soccer player reaches out and grabs the jersey of a breakaway forward, drawing a foul.  Unethical?

There are MANY instances in may sports where teams will intentionally foul, because they are willing to take the penalty.  That doesn't make those things unethical.

By the way, this was done in a Super Bowl, except they didn't eat up all the time:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000135600/Ravens-play-it-smart

 

[Johnponz]

You cannot compare the NFL to a high school football game.  In the NFL, millions of dollars are at stake every game, and the men playing it are adults.  There is no "extension of the classroom" concept here.  You could make the argument that college ball is analogous, and that is a better argument, but again at least at the DIBCS level there is so much money on the line that the comparison really is not a good one.

The basketball comparison is apples to oranges because you are talking about 2 totally different sports with 2 different histories and traditions.

At the end of the day, this one is about society's value system and whether we as a group view winning is more important than how we win, and unfortunately society has pretty much decided winning is what is important.  I am a little bit of an idealist that questions whether it has to and should be that way particularly at the high school level.  Football for me has always been "bigger than life" and more than a game.

[HLinNC]

Wow- holding, murder, society.  Really!?

How about I just don't "see" the intentional hold or a la Packers vs Seahawks, PI, and world civilization doesn't collapse.

 

[Atlanta Blue]

The basketball comparison is apples to oranges because you are talking about 2 totally different sports with 2 different histories and traditions.

Actually, I think it's very analogous.  But even if you want to stick to football, what about an intentional delay of game foul to run time off the clock, or to give your punter more room?  Same sport, same concept: I'm intentionally fouling, because I'm willing to pay the price.

We teach our QB's:  If you are being sacked and they pull you down by your face mask, drop the ball.  Why?  Because if he is tackled with the ball, it's a running play, the enforcement spot will be at the spot of the foul.  But if he drops the ball, it's a loose ball play, and the enforcement spot is the previous spot.  Unethical?  Of course not, it's knowing the rules.

Idealist or not, there is nothing unethical about using the rules of the game to the best advantage of your team.  To do anything less is not supporting my team as I should.

[Johnponz]

Ok I see your point.  The DOG argument convinced me.  However it's another topic but if I was B, I would decline the yardage penalty in these cases with DOG.

[Atlanta Blue]

  However it's another topic but if I was B, I would decline the yardage penalty in these cases with DOG.

I would as well!  I don't understand why B accepts these penalties, especially if it's to give a punter more room or improve the kicking angle.  Another case of not using the rules to your advantage.

I do understand your ethics point if my foul were being done to hurt an opponent (blocks below the waist, chop blocks, etc.).  Even if willing to accept the penalty, I could never condone that.  But I do see a difference in a foul that causes no harm versus one that can injure an opponent.  Even in basketball, there's a huge difference in an intentional foul done to stop the clock (i.e., grabbing an opponent that is dribbling the ball) versus  one that can harm (pushing a breakaway player going up for a layup).

[Ralph Damren]

Ralph, I have not worked NF for a while so I'm likely missing something obvious with the following suggestion. If illegal forward passes made by A from in or behind the NZ were included as loose ball play action, would that resolve this rare, albeit plausible, scenario?

It would allow the penalty to be enforced under ABO if it occurred behind the LOS and declination bringing the incomplete pass back to the LOS, BUT it would become an EXCEPTION. I don't like : Lima beans, snow in March, and the New York Yankees. The NFHS does not like exceptions. I can't recall of it ever being suggested as a proposed rule change and I can't figure why a team with a slight lead in the waining seconds would choose to pass .

[Ralph Damren]

Because NFHS rules don't allow for that option.  You'd have to ask Ralph, but I don't think that has even come before the Rules Committee for consideration.

If that were an option (and assuming that Team A has run three previous kneel-down plays), I suspect that Team A would have played differently, and would now be punting the ball.

I don't recall of it ever being proposed. As an occasional Monday morning quarterback, I would say taking an intentional safety as the best choice. Punting from deep in your endzone has the potential of it being blocked or R free kicking for a FG off of a fair catch (if the coach knows the rule) to go for a tie. To intentionally intentional ground a pass would rely of the white hat to flag it and not just wounder : "Wow, what a lousy pass" and give the ball to B @ A's 4 .

[prab]

I am impressed that someone was able to work the word "metaphor" into a discussion on penalty enforcement.

[jg-me]

It would allow the penalty to be enforced under ABO if it occurred behind the LOS and declination bringing the incomplete pass back to the LOS, BUT it would become an EXCEPTION. I don't like : Lima beans, snow in March, and the New York Yankees. The NFHS does not like exceptions. I can't recall of it ever being suggested as a proposed rule change and I can't figure why a team with a slight lead in the waining seconds would choose to pass .

I wasn't intending that it would be an exception. It would have to be an actual change to the definition of a loose ball play. Fumbles by A made from behind the line are already included so why not include illegal forward passes. There would be no net enforcement change except if the illegal forward pass made from behind the line was incomplete AND declined.
I agree that no team would intentionally engage in the scenario proposed to start this thread. More likely is a situation where A gets the ball late in the game, leads by three or more points, but cannot run out the clock. The punter is supposed to receive the snap on fourth down and run out of the end zone but the snap is bad. He picks up the loose ball and just gives it a heave as he is under duress. Depending on the score and game time remaining, B would prefer the ball deep in A's end rather than the safety.

[Ralph Damren]

Good point, Jeff, that would certainly be the easiest way to tweak the current rule. I wouldn't be optimistic of it's passage, though, as both A & B fouls behind LOS given previous spot enforcement came out of subcommittee with strong support but failed without even reaching a simple majority on the floor. IMHO, where this would be a very rare occurrence, it wouldn't fair as well

[Bwest]

We teach our QB's:  If you are being sacked and they pull you down by your face mask, drop the ball. 

Better be darn sure the Referee has a flag on the ground.