Missed field goal....

[CalhounLJ]

Calhoun -

Let me try a different approach:
I'm sure you have had the opportunity to hear a TV common-tater say something similar to:  "Remember, a period can not end on an excepted penalty!"

Well, while this statement is not 100% true, across the board, for all fouls, in all levels of football; in NFHS play, it is completely true for accepted Live Ball Fouls except those fouls listed in 3-3-4b.

Since our foul is not listed in 3-3-4b, that makes this simple; it means Rule 3-3-3a applies and, if accepted,  the period must be extended for an untimed down.

So...in our situation...

* If the offended team chooses to accept the penalty for a foul which occurred in regulation time, the penalty is enforced in regulation, and, the period is extended for an untimed down in regulation.
* If the offended team chooses to roll directly into overtime, they SHALL decline the existing penalty to do so.

10-2-2 EXCEPTION is not applicable until Rule 3-3-4 has been satisfied.

This interpretation is supported by both Rule 3-3-4b and NFHS Football Fundamental II. 5.

I understand completely and am onboard with the principle. The problem is the problem the 10-4-2 exception has unintentionally created in this situation. There is no way under current rules we can apply 10-4-2exception in this case because the succeeding spot is not in the regulation game. It’s in the overtime period.

Take away the 10-4-2 exception and I agree wholeheartedly with you.  To get to overtime R would either have to accept K’s penalty with enforcement from previous spot and a replay with untimed down or decline and go to overtime.

As I’ve already stated the third option succeeding spot enforcement is not available to R because to get there we have to begin overtime and we can’t begin overtime if R accepts the foul.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

* this is the part of your interpretation I’m having trouble with. The second * suggests R can take the penalty with succeeding spot enforcement at the 20. I disagree with this because the 20 is not and cannot be the succeeding spot in this play situation. The definition of succeeding spot prohibits it.  I understand and agree with the final statement that R cannot choose to have this foul enforced in overtime. I was wrong about that in my initial response to the question.

Do you see the dilemma? The issue is the language of the 10-4-2 exception. It is impossible for R to apply this exception in this situation.

Your quote:
*R can choose to accept the penalty with enforcement from the previous spot, replay with an untimed down, 4th and 5 for K. (Any official who allows this option deservers a 9-iron to the nards)
* R can choose to accept the penalty with enforcement from the succeeding spot, replay with an untimed down, 1st and 10 for R. (Likely)
* R can choose to decline the penalty and proceed to overtime coin toss. (Possible, but not likely)

What R may NOT choose to do, is carry the penalty enforcement for this particular foul into overtime.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[KWH]

OK Calhoun, we are damned near there, lets break it down:/color]

* this is the part of your interpretation I’m having trouble with. The second * suggests R can take the penalty with succeeding spot enforcement at the 20. I disagree with this because the 20 is not and cannot be the succeeding spot in this play situation. The definition of succeeding spot prohibits it.  I understand and agree with the final statement that R cannot choose to have this foul enforced in overtime. I was wrong about that in my initial response to the question.

Oh, but, by rule, the definition of succeeding spot DOES allow it. 
In our play, by rule, (6-3-1b), the result of the play is a touchback.
But wait, we had an ILF foul on K.
In our play then, by rule, (10-4-5d), the basic spot is the succeeding spot because the final result was a touchback.

Do you see the dilemma? The issue is the language of the 10-4-2 exception. It is impossible for R to apply this exception in this situation.

No.  To retain possession of the ball, R may choose to invoke rule 10-4-2 EXCEPTION to advance the ball from the R-20 (succeeding spot)  to the R-25 yard line and Regulation play is extended for one untimed down as per rule 3-3-3a.  R's ball, 1st and 10 on the R-25 yard line.

Your quote:
* R can choose to accept the penalty with enforcement from the previous spot, replay with an untimed down, 4th and 15 5 for K. (Any official who allows this option deservers a 9-iron to the nards) ( <--- "15" is a Senior moment correction)
* R can choose to accept the penalty with enforcement from the succeeding spot, replay with an untimed down, 1st and 10 for R on the R-25 yard line. (Likely)
* R can choose to decline the penalty and proceed to overtime coin toss. (Possible, but not likely)

What R may NOT choose to do, is carry the penalty enforcement for this particular foul into overtime.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Does that help? 

[CalhounLJ]

OK Calhoun, we are damned near there, lets break it down:/color]

Oh, but, by rule, the definition of succeeding spot DOES allow it. 
In our play, by rule, (6-3-1b), the result of the play is a touchback.
But wait, we had an ILF foul on K.
In our play then, by rule, (10-4-5d), the basic spot is the succeeding spot because the final result was a touchback.

No.  To retain possession of the ball, R may choose to invoke rule 10-4-2 EXCEPTION to advance the ball from the R-20 (succeeding spot)  to the R-25 yard line and Regulation play is extended for one untimed down as per rule 3-3-3a.  R's ball, 1st and 10 on the R-25 yard line.

Does that help? 

Not really. I understand your explanation, but it doesn’t work according to the definition of succeeding spot. The definition of a succeeding spot is where the ball would next be put in play if there were no foul. In this particular situation that is NOT R20, it’s the first play of overtime. If there were no foul in this particular play my U would not spot the ball on the R20. I would hold it up declare the regulation over and we would go to overtime. Then depending on the choices by the coaches, my U would spot the ball on a 10 yd line. That’s the succeeding spot.

That’s my hang up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

As far as the succeeding spot argument goes, to use your suggestion would be the same as saying the succeeding spot on a try by kick to tie the game on the last play is the K40, but we know that’s not true. We can bridge a foul to overtime in that situation because the succeeding spot is the spot of the first play in overtime. Nobody even suggests that the succeeding spot in such a situation is the K 40 because there will never be a kick from there.

Same way in this situation. The succeeding spot cannot be the R20 because there is no normal situation that the ball will EVER be snapped from that spot after the last play of the game.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

I didn't realize I would cause such a firestorm by bringing this topic out of archives    . Without reading all the debates, here's my opinion :

The untimed down rule would apply and R choices are :
(1) accept penalty and enforce from previous spot (dumb choice  ;
(2) accept penalty with tack-on and take ball @ 25 (good choice if going for "Hail Mary"  );
(3) decline penalty and off to O.T. 

IMHO, only dead ball fouls or those treated as such can enforced in overtime.
IMHO, be ready to explain all the options available at the OT coin toss.

FYI, I'm 75 years old.
FYI, I've been a Red Sox fan for 69 of them.
FYI, I don't believe they've beaten the dreaded Yankees in six straight games  !

Life  is  good   

[CalhounLJ]

Well I’m not trying to start a firestorm either or fan the flames with one. I’m simply looking for an explanation as to how we can justify the R20 as a succeeding spot in this situation. I have a fundamental problem with this according to the definition of succeeding spot.

To me, as far as the succeeding spot argument goes, this non scoring field goal situation is no different than a scoring field goal. Both have tack on options if a foul occurs. Only difference is for a scoring field goal the succeeding spot is the first spot in OT while in the non scoring play we have to use another “succeeding spot,” to make it work. This second succeeding spot that has been invented only applies in this one particular situation, and completely goes against the crystal clear definition of succeeding spot in the rulebook.

When you read the special enforcements of the field goal scoring plays, it says that K has a succeeding spot option for fouls by R, but doesn’t give the option to allow K to kick off with an untimed down after enforcement of the penalty on the last play in regulation of a tie game. Their only option is to enforce the penalty in OT. Why?

If the succeeding spot can be the R20 on what would have been a touchback in any other play, why can’t the succeeding spot be the K 40 for what would be the normal succeeding spot on any other play?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, if the penalty was accepted, it would be an untimed down, as it was a live ball foul.

[CalhounLJ]

IMHO, if the penalty was accepted, it would be an untimed down, as it was a live ball foul.

I understand that completely and agree. Normal penalty enforcement would be previous spot replay with untimed down. The option to have succeeding spot enforcement on fouls by K is the problem. According to the definition of succeeding spot, that would be first play in overtime. But because of 3-3-3, we can’t go to overtime. We have to play an untimed down. We can’t do that from the SUCCEEDING spot. KWH suggests the R20 as an alternate succeeding spot in this case. But there is no conceivable world where the ball would be spotted at the R20 after the last play of regulation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

One more statement and I’ll be quiet. As for the 3-3-3 untimed down requirement, we wouldn’t treat any other live ball foul with succeeding spot enforcement this way.

Any other live ball foul with succeeding spot enforcement would be enforced from the spot where we begin the next period and the ensuing play would be the first play of that period.

We would not run the play with an untimed down and then begin the next period. On a succeeding spot penalty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

My Closing Argument :

Fellow forum friends, while Mr. Calhoun is highly respected by me, I beg to differ. My belief is based on the following :
(1) Rule 3-3-4 deals with an untimed down is NOT allowed and only mentions "succeeding spot" in regards to  foul by the opponents of the scoring team where the team can elect to have the penalty enforced on the succeeding spot, the ensuing kickoff, next period.

(2) 3-3-4b states no untimed down for unsportsmanlike or nonplayer fouls. This tack-on foul is neither.

(3) 10-4-2 EXCPTION states that  the exception is not available if K is next to put the ball in play. Depending on the outcome of the toss and choices prior to overtime, K may very well be next to put
the ball in play.

I'm one for keeping the game simple. Declining  K's foul is, IMHO, much easier than trying to explain and enforce the tack-on foul onto the first play of overtime. R could take the tack-on and try for a Hail-Mary,or decline and move to overtime. With that, my fellow forum friends I rest my case.

                                       

[CalhounLJ]

Believe me when I say nobody is more respected on this board by me than Ralph and KWH. their words are like the law of the Medes and Persians. They become law and cannot be changed. Hopefully I did not come across disrespectful or disagreeable while disagreeing. I simply have a philosophical problem with a rule interpretation opinion. Upon reflection, I realize Ralph, KWH, and I agree on two of the three applications in this situation, and like the old song says, "two out of three ain't bad." With that, I surrender.
 

[HLinNC]

Its good to hash out these things.  Sometimes, while frustrating, it can lead to changes in rules or wording necessary to make this situation easier down the road.

[Ralph Damren]

Believe me when I say nobody is more respected on this board by me than Ralph and KWH. their words are like the law of the Medes and Persians. They become law and cannot be changed. Hopefully I did not come across disrespectful or disagreeable while disagreeing. I simply have a philosophical problem with a rule interpretation opinion. Upon reflection, I realize Ralph, KWH, and I agree on two of the three applications in this situation, and like the old song says, "two out of three ain't bad." With that, I surrender.
 

Thanks for the kind words, Calhoun.I'm usure if Medes and his buddies were good guys or not as I didn't take ancient history..On occasion we will pass a rule that comes in conflict with an existing one and we attempt to correct it. 2-41-10 provides the definition of the succeeding spot. Any suggestions to clarify would be welcomed. KWH was the author of the tack-on rule and does a good job of insuring what needs to be tweaked to make the new rule smooth.

[CalhounLJ]

Thanks for the kind words, Calhoun.I'm usure if Medes and his buddies were good guys or not as I didn't take ancient history..On occasion we will pass a rule that comes in conflict with an existing one and we attempt to correct it. 2-41-10 provides the definition of the succeeding spot. Any suggestions to clarify would be welcomed. KWH was the author of the tack-on rule and does a good job of insuring what needs to be tweaked to make the new rule smooth.

Thanks Ralph. I very much would like clarification on the succeeding spot definition as it applies in the situation we’ve been discussing. Let me lay it out my question as clearly as possible.

First let’s start with the definition of succeeding spot:
                      2-41-10
ART. 10 ... The succeeding spot is where the ball would next be snapped or free kicked if a foul had not occurred.

Next, let’s consider the play in question. We have a missed field goal as time expires in the fourth quarter with the game tied in a state with overtime procedures. If this play happens with no foul occurring, where will the ball next be snapped?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

Thanks Ralph. I very much would like clarification on the succeeding spot definition as it applies in the situation we’ve been discussing. Let me lay it out my question as clearly as possible.

First let’s start with the definition of succeeding spot:
                      2-41-10
ART. 10 ... The succeeding spot is where the ball would next be snapped or free kicked if a foul had not occurred.

Next, let’s consider the play in question. We have a missed field goal as time expires in the fourth quarter with the game tied in a state with overtime procedures. If this play happens with no foul occurring, where will the ball next be snapped?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Remembering that 10-4-2 EXCEPTION is an exception, we wouldn't want to add to the complexity. If there wasn't any foul, the period would be over. 3-3-4b doesn't restrict from an UTD so possibly adding to 3-3-3 :"There was an accepted 'tack-on' foul." would help to clear things up.

 

[CalhounLJ]

Remembering that 10-4-2 EXCEPTION is an exception, we wouldn't want to add to the complexity. If there wasn't any foul, the period would be over.
Correct. So we would move to overtime and the succeeding spot would be the B10. Correct?
3-3-4b doesn't restrict from an UTD so possibly adding to 3-3-3 :"There was an accepted 'tack-on' foul." would help to clear things up.

 

Or restricting the application of the exception in this particular case. We've already determined that the best course of action for R is to decline the foul and go to overtime. Also, R still retains the right to accept the penalty with a replay from the previous spot during an untimed down. Just put verbiage in the exception to prohibit succeeding spot application at the end of the period/game because it conflicts with 3-3-3.

 I'm not advocating for a tack on enforcement in this situation. I'm completely on board with the idea of no AN untimed down on an accepted live ball penalty. I'm simply pointing out that the 10-4-2 exception is in conflict with that principle on this particular play.

The solution to that conflict is not to invent another succeeding spot (R20) in conflict with the succeeding spot definition.

That's all I've been saying throughout this process. I'm amazed no one has even acknowledged such a conflict exists.

[Ralph Damren]

As I see it, the confusing part is on 10-4-2 EXCEPTION with the statement : "The basic spot may...be the SUCCEEDING SPOT for fouls..." Probably using "end of kick or run..." would have been less confusing. We often think of SUCCEEDING SPOT as action that occurs after the play has ended. Where the kick or run ends often determines where the succeeding spot will be. The only other succeeding spot fouls that occur while the ball is alive, that come to mind, are : Big ole Bubba, wandering out on the field to see what's happening but doesn't play (3-7-6), sideline interference (9-8-1k,9-8-3 & 9-4-3) and celebrating a TD before ya' git there.

[CalhounLJ]

As I see it, the confusing part is on 10-4-2 EXCEPTION with the statement : "The basic spot may...be the SUCCEEDING SPOT for fouls..." Probably using "end of kick or run..." would have been less confusing. We often think of SUCCEEDING SPOT as action that occurs after the play has ended. Where the kick or run ends often determines where the succeeding spot will be. The only other succeeding spot fouls that occur while the ball is alive, that come to mind, are : Big ole Bubba, wandering out on the field to see what's happening but doesn't play (3-7-6), sideline interference (9-8-1k,9-8-3 & 9-4-3) and celebrating a TD before ya' git there.

Exactly! Maybe use "dead ball spot" or such like with the Roughing the Passer tack on.