DON"T FORGET to tack on the tack-on......

[Ralph Damren]

Sometimes rule changes cause unintended consequences. This year's Rule 10 change is a prime example, if many of us knew it would require half of the rule to be re-writtenit might not have been so favorable. In 2018, we added the 'tack-on' rule to all kicks (10-4-2c EXCEPTION). The rationale was to penalize a K player whom hit with a cheap shot  while the kick was still rolling. It has other consequences.......

FRIDAY NIGHT : 4th & 10 at 50, K punts while flagged for illegal formation, kick rolls dead @ R's 30, R's coach yells : "We want the ball."
                         Stakes are being set at the 30, my frozen brain dethaws, "TACK-ON FOUL, add the penalty first."

                         R's coach wants 1st & 5, K's coach said he would argue, but th didn't know what to argue about.

                        At halftime, my crew asked if didn't R's coach decline. I responded , "He asked for the ball, the penalty just comes with it."

MORAL OF STORY : bE READY FOR TACK-ON'S AND YOU WON'T HAVE ANY EXPLAINING TO DO. 


AND don't forget a missed FG that goes into EZ ,with K guilty of IF, comes out to the 25 with tack-on

[bossman72]

This is why I don't like "subsequent spot" being used in the tack on rule (or the Fubar table in rule 10).  I'd rather see "where the ball subsequently belongs to Team B".

[Derek Teigen]

this is a very helpful example.  But if R also fouled in this situation they would have to decline K's penalty correct?    or elect to replay the down??
thank you.

[ncwingman]

this is a very helpful example.  But if R also fouled in this situation they would have to decline K's penalty correct?    or elect to replay the down??
thank you.

Correct. If both teams foul during the live ball period, it is a double foul and the down is replayed -- unless there is a change of possession during the down and R/B fouls *after* the change of possession (or PSK), then R/B has the option of declining the foul on K/A and keeping the ball.

For example, K has an illegal formation and R blocks in the back during the return, R can keep the ball if they decline the foul on K OR they could replay the down. However if K has an illegal formation and R is running the 12th man off the field at the snap, R has no options since the illegal substitution foul is not PSK -- double foul, replay the down.

[bama_stripes]

Good example of why fouls at the snap should be exempted from tack-on enforcement.

[CalhounLJ]

Good example of why fouls at the snap should be exempted from tack-on enforcement.

I’m not following the logic. Why is this a good example? In my opinion, this is a good example of using the tack on. Instead of having to kick again, the tack on allows us to be able to enforce the penalty and move on. Which is what these rules changes to kick enforcements were at least partly designed to do.  Psk is a good example of that.

I do agree with bossman, though. The language should be “where the ball subsequently belongs to R at the end of the down.” Because succeeding spot creates …, well, you all know what that does.