RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: bbeagle on August 16, 2012, 10:13:02 AM
-
I learned a new rule today.
Play: 4th and 10 from A's 1 yard line. 3:00 left in 4th quarter. Score tied. Punter A1 receives snap, defensive players too close to punt, all over him, he decides to throw ball away to avoid safety. Flag thrown for intentional grounding.
Defensive coach (Team B) wants to decline the penalty and take the ball on the 1 to try and score a field goal or touchdown (and take time off the clock). He does not want a safety and be only up by 2 points giving the other team an opportunity to win the game on a field goal.
However, Even if Team B declines the penalty, this is a SAFETY as an illegal pass in the end zone is treated like a running play for some odd reason in NFHS (8-5-2c). College is different, the penalty can be declined and Team B can take over at the previous spot.
This is just so dumb. Why does the NFHS do this to us? If we MISSED the call by not throwing a flag, it's an incomplete pass, but by THROWING the flag, we changed how the play is called WITHOUT a flag. It makes very little sense.
-
I'm not sure you're reading 8-5-2c correctly. The operative phrase is that it's a safety when A "...throws an illegal forward pass from his end zone and the penalty is declined in a situation which leaves him in possession at the spot of the illegal pass and with the ball having been forced into the end zone by the passing team."
As I read your play, the bolded condition of this clause is not met. Specifically, the result of this play, an incomplete (illegal) pass, would NOT leave him in possession at the spot of the illegal pass, but rather return him to the previous spot. And loss of down would turn the ball over.
Declining the penalty would give the ball to B, 1/10 from the A1.
8.5.2D is not quite the same play, but it references 8-5-2c.
8.5.2 SITUATION D: Fourth and 15 for A from its own 8-yard line. A1 is in punt formation and receives the snap in his end zone, but fumbles the ball. A1 quickly recovers and throws a forward pass to ineligible A2, who is also in the end zone. A2 muffs the ball and it falls incomplete.
RULING: If B accepts the penalty for A2's illegal touching, it results in a safety. If B declines the penalty for the foul by A2, the result is B's ball first and goal from A's 8-yard line. (5-1-3c; 7-5-13 Penalty; 8-5-2c; 10-5-6)
-
Part I of the 2012 Football exam has this question:
85. If A1 is in his own end zone when he intentionally grounds an illegal forward pass, it is a safety even if B declines the penalty. TRUE
The words 'in a situation which leaves him in possession at the spot of the illegal pass' means that the pass is incomplete (A's ball at the end of the down - illegal pass treated as a running play, NOT a loose-ball play). End of the run is the spot of the pass.
Page 169 of Football Rule Differences 2012:
If the ball is intentionally grounded from team A's end zone:
NFHS: The result is a safety whether the penalty is accepted or declined. Since the ball belongs to the passing team at the spot the pass was thrown and the down counts, team B does not have an option to take the ball at some other spot (7-5-2 Pen, 7-5-3, 8-5-2c)
-
7-5-3 If the penalty for an illegal forward pass is accepted, measurement is from the spot of such forward pass. If the offended team declines the distance penalty, it has a choice of having the down counted at the spot of the incomplete forward pass or (if the illegal forward pass is caught or intercepted) of having the ball put in play as determined by the action which followed the catch.
This is new to me too. The pass was not caught, so the offended team declining the penalty has only one choice - having the down counted at the spot of the incomplete forward pass. This spot is in the endzone. Therefore, safety.
-
Yes, it's a safety regardless if the penalty is accepted or declined. If accepted, that's easy, it's a foul by A in the end zone. But if declined, the ball is dead at the spot of the Illegal Forward Pass, which also happens to be in the end zone.
Doesn't matter, safety.
-
This is just so dumb. Why does the NFHS do this to us? If we MISSED the call by not throwing a flag, it's an incomplete pass, but by THROWING the flag, we changed how the play is called WITHOUT a flag. It makes very little sense.
We don't "change anything" by doing our job. If we don't see any infraction, we don't throw a flag. If we observe and infraction, that we determine is worthy of a flag, and respond accordingly we are doing what we are on the field to do. The result of the infraction is the total responsibility of the player(team) who committed the infraction.
In this case, a player in a scrimmage kick formation does nothing illegal attempting to throw a legal forward pass, whether it's complete or incomplete. He is not permitted to throw an illegal pass, especially when his decision to do so is caused by the legal play of his opponent. Should he choose to do so, he has earned the consequences of his actions, which in this case produce a Safety, whether the penalty is accepted, or not.
-
We don't "change anything" by doing our job.
I'm sorry - what I meant by this is that usually there is a 'result of the play' and a 'penalty' - and our flag which usually denotes a penalty ALSO denotes the result of the play in this particular case.
I think 99% of fans would think that the 'result of the play' from an intentional grounding pass is an incomplete pass. (This is true in college and pros)
This 'result of the play' changes depending on whether we throw the flag or not. I do not know of another case in the rule book where this is true.
-
You do realize that after the safety, A now has to free kick to B? It's now B's job to a) run out the clock with a two point lead, b) score again and make it all moot. It isn't the rule code's job to bail out Coach B's crappy offense.
I fail to see any major problem or inequity in the rule enforcement. Had the IFP been thrown from the 20, B gets it there. Can't start B's new series in the end zone so the rule is applied consistently. Anything else and you now have the dreaded exception to the rule that NFHS doesn't wish to have.
-
I'm not sure you're reading 8-5-2c correctly. The operative phrase is that it's a safety when A "...throws an illegal forward pass from his end zone and the penalty is declined in a situation which leaves him in possession at the spot of the illegal pass and with the ball having been forced into the end zone by the passing team."
As I read your play, the bolded condition of this clause is not met. Specifically, the result of this play, an incomplete (illegal) pass, would NOT leave him in possession at the spot of the illegal pass, but rather return him to the previous spot. And loss of down would turn the ball over.
Declining the penalty would give the ball to B, 1/10 from the A1.
8.5.2D is not quite the same play, but it references 8-5-2c.
Illegal touching does not make the pass illegal. In the case play you cited, the foul is by the lineman, not the passer.
The IG from the EZ is an illegal forward pass. The ball does not return to the previous spot on an IFP. It is a running play and the result is a safety. There's no option.
-
I'm sorry - what I meant by this is that usually there is a 'result of the play' and a 'penalty' - and our flag which usually denotes a penalty ALSO denotes the result of the play in this particular case.
I think 99% of fans would think that the 'result of the play' from an intentional grounding pass is an incomplete pass. (This is true in college and pros)
This 'result of the play' changes depending on whether we throw the flag or not. I do not know of another case in the rule book where this is true.
First, there's nothing dumb about the rule. It's an incomplete ILLEGAL forward pass. The ball does not return to the previous spot on an IFP, only on an incomplete LEGAL forward pass.
Second, Don't worry about what the fans think. No, they're not going to know the rule. They don't know a lot of rules.
Finally, the result of the play is based on a player violating the rules, thereby committing a foul and suffering a penalty, not an official throwing a flag. We're just officiating the game by the rules.
-
First, there's nothing dumb about the rule. It's an incomplete ILLEGAL forward pass. The ball does not return to the previous spot on an IFP, only on an incomplete LEGAL forward pass.
Thank you. That's an excellent explanation.
By rule, the succeeding spot on an incomplete LEGAL pass is the previous spot, and the succeeding spot on an incomplete ILLEGAL forward pass is the spot of the pass.
Why can't the rule book simplify things like this?
-
Why can't the rule book simplify things like this?
Because it's the Fed. ;D
Actually, it does. You just have to dig a little.
7-5-5
If the pass is legal, the passing team next snaps the ball at the previous spot, unless lost after fourth down.
-
You do realize that after the safety, A now has to free kick to B? It's now B's job to a) run out the clock with a two point lead, b) score again and make it all moot. It isn't the rule code's job to bail out Coach B's crappy offense.
In addition, there's no guarantee that B would score from the one even if they got it there. We see that time and again in HS ball.
-
You do realize that after the safety, A now has to free kick to B? It's now B's job to a) run out the clock with a two point lead, b) score again and make it all moot. It isn't the rule code's job to bail out Coach B's crappy offense.
I guess if I changed the play to:
Play: 4th and 10 from A's 1 yard line. 1:00 left in 4th quarter. Team A leading 10-7. Punter A1 receives snap, defensive players too close to punt, all over him, he decides to throw ball away to avoid safety. Flag thrown for intentional grounding.
It would make it more clear that Team B would want 1st and goal from the 1 trailing 10-7 instead of 1st and 10 from their own 40 or so (after the free kick) trailing 10-9.
-
They don't have that option.
The reason A committed the intentional grounding was to avoid the safety. B also had the option to try and not tackle A in the end zone, but in your scenario it does not appear they chose that option.
-
It would make it more clear that Team B would want 1st and goal from the 1 trailing 10-7 instead of 1st and 10 from their own 40 or so (after the free kick) trailing 10-9.
I'm sure they would, but that isn't an option available to them. There are many inequities in FED rules, which I feel are written to the lowest common denominator, because they have to serve so many, and have to be officiated by those that can't dedicate the time and study that a college or NFL official can do.
I am NOT knocking HS officials!!! But as a group, we can't expect them to be at the same level of rules sophistication as NCAA of NFL officials. There is already a shortage of HS officials today. Make it even harder to remember all of the rule variations, and the numbers will thin even more.
And I still feel that the officials that frequent boards like this are in the minority. It's a great minority to be in, and I commend you for trying to learn even more, but that desire for more rules knowledge is not the norm in HS officiating. There are far more for whom it is a part time, August to November hobby.
-
I tend to agree with AB here. This is a poor result, since logic dictates that B *SHOULD* be able to decline the IG, and take over 1st and goal. But, unfortunately, this is what we have to work with, unless NFHS decides to change things.
-
logic dictates that B *SHOULD* be able to decline the IG, and take over 1st and goal
.
I disagree. On any other location on the field, B would get the ball at that spot. Since we can't give them the ball in the endzone, the safety is the result of the play or the foul. Insuring B's alleged victory by allowing them options incongruous with the rule isn't equitable either. B gets two points and the pretty much guarantee of possessing the ball again after the free kick. Its their job to control the clock, score again or play sufficient defense to stop A from scoring later.
Maybe the NCAA is the odd duck in this. Why do they feel the need to make the exception? Just because they are "bigger" doesn't necessarily make them better.
-
4 and 10 from A20. A is in scrimmage kick formation when the kicker receives the ball and throws the ball away into the stands at the A5.
Where is the ball next snapped from if....
a) B accepts the penalty
b) B declines the penalty
Let's see if this clears it up any. Rules to support your case please
-
4 and 10 from A20. A is in scrimmage kick formation when the kicker receives the ball and throws the ball away into the stands at the A5.
Where is the ball next snapped from if....
a) B accepts the penalty
If you mean he threw the ball from the A5, Rule 7-5-3 tells us that the spot of the pass is the enforcement spot - with the loss of the right to replay the down. B's ball 1/10 at A's 5 if accepted
b) B declines the penalty
Since there is no penalty, it simply becomes an incomplete pass; B takes over on downs and snaps the ball from A's 20. Rule 5-1-2b; 5-1-3c
Let's see if this clears it up any. Rules to support your case please
I don't see how this "clears up" the OP. In your scenario, the EZ is not involved; so there is no "Safety" issue to be resolved. If you're trying to use this scenario to prove the Rulesmakers should change 8-5-2, I'd try elsewhere.
-
Sorry - I was just taking the play to the field then progress backwards into the endzone.
-
Your response, Curious, doesn't make sense to me.
If, by declining the penalty for A's illegal forward pass, "it simply becomes an incomplete pass", then this should also work in the OP with the EZ involved. But it doesn't. It's STILL an IFP.
If the IFP is not to be penalized because B declined, then the ball should go over to B at the A5 (spot of the IFP/end of the run).
B declining a penalty doesn't CHANGE what really did happen, it just means the penalty isn't enforced by yardage.
That's why, if B declines a distance penatly for A's USC, that A player STILL gets one counted against him and a DQ if it's his second.
In the above variation by cbrunnjo, if B accepts, they would get first and goal from the 2 1/2 (half the distance from the spot of the foul which is the A5). If B declines, they would get first and goal from the A5 (result of the play).
You can't give B (or A) the option of saying to the officials, "we're declining it because we think it's a bad call and that IFP is now going to be treated as a legal pass." An official called the pass illegal, and unless overruled by a subsequent discussion with fellow officials on the field, that pass is still illegal and treated as a dead ball at the spot of the pass.
-
Thomas G +1
-
This 'result of the play' changes depending on whether we throw the flag or not. I do not know of another case in the rule book where this is true.
Another current thread has another case where JUST THROWING THE FLAG causes a different outcome even if the teams DECLINE the penalty.
At one time, I thought that the teams could do whatever they wanted to on the field, throw forward laterals, kick past the line of scrimmage, have illegal formations, etc. and if the opposing coaches agreed to always decline those penalties, we couldn't do a darn thing.
But it seems for some penalties, just THROWING THE FLAG is enough to change the outcome, regardless of the penalty being accepted or declined.
Here are two I now know of:
1) Just throwing a flag causes a pass to become an 'illegal pass' (what was an incomplete pass if no flag is thrown turns into an 'illegal incomplete pass' after throwing the flag)
2) Just throwing a flag on R after R touches a kick causes first touching to be ignored
Any others?
-
b) B declines the penalty
Since there is no penalty, it simply becomes an incomplete pass; B takes over on downs and snaps the ball from A's 20. Rule 5-1-2b; 5-1-3c
Not true. It's an IFP whether the penalty is accepted or not. It's a running play, not a loose ball. The play ended where the pass was thrown. B takes over on downs but they take the ball at the A5.
An incomplete legal forward pass goes back to the previous spot. An incomplete illegal forward pass does not.
-
Here are two I now know of:
1) Just throwing a flag causes a pass to become an 'illegal pass' (what was an incomplete pass if no flag is thrown turns into an 'illegal incomplete pass' after throwing the flag)
2) Just throwing a flag on R after R touches a kick causes first touching to be ignored
Any others?
bbeagle, I have no idea why you're choosing to think of these plays in this fashion but it serves no purpose.
All plays are changed when a foul is committed. The official throwing the flag does not change the play. The player committing the foul changes the play.
-
Your response, Curious, doesn't make sense to me.
If, by declining the penalty for A's illegal forward pass, "it simply becomes an incomplete pass", then this should also work in the OP with the EZ involved. But it doesn't. It's STILL an IFP.
It's not even an issue in the OP because whether the penalty is accepted or declined, it's a safety. It's a running play and the run ended in the end zone; so there is no succeeding spot from which B can snap the ball. Agree?
If the IFP is not to be penalized because B declined, then the ball should go over to B at the A5 (spot of the IFP/end of the run).
Are you talking about the variation or OP? Agreed on the variation
n the above variation by cbrunnjo, if B accepts, they would get first and goal from the 2 1/2 (half the distance from the spot of the foul which is the A5). If B declines, they would get first and goal from the A5 (result of the play).
Agreed....my head must have been up my butt.
You can't give B (or A) the option of saying to the officials, "we're declining it because we think it's a bad call and that IFP is now going to be treated as a legal pass." An official called the pass illegal, and unless overruled by a subsequent discussion with fellow officials on the field, that pass is still illegal and treated as a dead ball at the spot of the pass.
What does this even mean?
-
bbeagle, I have no idea why you're choosing to think of these plays in this fashion but it serves no purpose.
All plays are changed when a foul is committed. The official throwing the flag does not change the play. The player committing the foul changes the play.
A foul is a foul. I understand that. Our throwing a flag is BECAUSE a foul happened on the field.
However, our throwing a flag DOES change the play.
I have always thought that as a play transpired, we threw our flags for fouls. If the team decided they wanted the play without help from our penalty, they could simply decline our flags and take the play as it is. This is NOT TRUE. In some cases, a team may NOT just decline our penalties and take the play as it occurred.
An incomplete forward pass results in a succeeding spot of the previous spot. Just by throwing our flag for intentional grounding, we have changed what the succeeding spot is. It's a JUDGEMENT call on our part that there are no receivers in the area. Declining our 'penalty' has no bearing on the succeeding spot. Just throwing our flag changed the succeeding spot regardless of accepting or declining the penalty.
On something like a holding call, declining the penalty results in the play exactly the same as it was before -as if we never threw a flag. The succeeding spot is a result of the PLAY, not the flag thrown.
I will call the game according to the rules, because that is what I am paid to do, and I will defend the rule book on the field, and my personal opinions do not take place on the field, but it's just an oddity that I'm pointing out off the field.
-
However, our throwing a flag DOES change the play.
...
On something like a holding call, declining the penalty results in the play exactly the same as it was before -as if we never threw a flag. The succeeding spot is a result of the PLAY, not the flag thrown.
Disagree. Throwing a flag does not usually change the play or anything that happens during the play. The flag has no causal impact, but is merely evidence that a foul occurred during the down (or after, or whatever).
The penalty might or might not be accepted, and that can affect the outcome of the down. When a passer throws an illegal pass, for instance, the succeeding spot is determined by the illegal pass (and the rule), not the flag.
Officials' judgment is part of the story, but it shouldn't be a causal part: when the officials get it right, as they should, their flag simply signals the events that properly determine the outcome of the down.
When they get it wrong, THEN they can affect the outcome causally by either failing to signal events that should have determined the outcome or by signalling events that did not occur. That's partly why it's so important to get it right!
-
bbeagle --
I still don't think you understand one salient point:
Even if B were allowed to decline the penalty and take the ball at the previous spot, there's no guarantee that they would be able to score from there. Granted, that's somewhat unusual, but it's certainly not rare.
Plus, they will (barring a successful on-side kick) get the ball after the safety, thus giving them another chance to score from what should be excellent field position.
-
All illegal forward passes are treated the same.
A's ball on their own 20, 4th down and 10. A12 "scrambles" and then runs to B's 10 yard line and throws an illegal forward pass that is incomplete. If B declines the penalty, it is A's ball 1st and 10 at the B 10 yard line. If B accepts the penalty, it is A's ball 1st and 10 at B's 15 yard line. A always get the result of their run prior to an illegal forward pass, wherever that run may end.