Try and Field Goal

[Derek Teigen]

in the 2018 NFHS Football RUles, Section 3 (Try) article 9 on page 67;  and Section 4 (Field Goal) article 2 on pate 67:

....After a try or a field goal, the opponent of the scoring team shall designate which team will kick off.

I was not aware there was a choice, and it is interesting that the opponent of the scoring team is given this choice, as they would always elect to receive the ball and thus designate the scoring team to free kick to them.

Has anybody come across this where the team that was scored on after a try or a field goal, elected to kick off to the team that just scored the try or the field goal?  What is the purpose of this rule I wonder.  Any thoughts or am I misreading this whole thing.

thank you.

[CalhounLJ]

I’ve never had it happen but you are reading it correctly.

[js in sc]

I have heard of it happening when the opposing team was up so far in the score that the opposing coach didn't want to run up the score any more than necessary.

[Derek Teigen]

thanks for the replies.  It must be an archaic rule and never used unless it was in the situation as put forth by js in sc....even so I wonder why they continue to include it.  It would be interesting to know the genesis of this rule and the reasoning why there was a need to include it.

[bossman72]

in the 2018 NFHS Football RUles, Section 3 (Try) article 9 on page 67;  and Section 4 (Field Goal) article 2 on pate 67:

....After a try or a field goal, the opponent of the scoring team shall designate which team will kick off.

I was not aware there was a choice, and it is interesting that the opponent of the scoring team is given this choice, as they would always elect to receive the ball and thus designate the scoring team to free kick to them.

Has anybody come across this where the team that was scored on after a try or a field goal, elected to kick off to the team that just scored the try or the field goal?  What is the purpose of this rule I wonder.  Any thoughts or am I misreading this whole thing.

thank you.

This is a relic from the olden days where field position was king.  Same thing with the option to kickoff at the coin toss.  Leftover from an older time where moving the ball was really tough and you'd rather kickoff, stuff them, then get the ball closer to the goal line.

[Derek Teigen]

Thanks Bossman.   

[Ralph Damren]

We don't ,as a habit, ask the captain to make a bad decision and this probably would be one. I've seen it occur only once. In a state championship game sometime last century :

 In the "pre-mercy rule" era, team W was leading team L 45-0 at halftime....

(1) Team W took the kickoff and marched down the field to score again WITH THEIR STARTERS STILL IN;

(2) Team L's coach summoned me over and said; "They want to score so #@$%^&* much, we'll kickoff to them;

(3) I preceded to W's sideline to inform their coach of the choice ;

(4) He responded, "Gee, I just wanted to give our starters one more drive, will you tell their coach that?";

(5) I answered, "You can tell him that in the post-game handshake line!"

(6) I didn't stick around to see if he did .

I agree with Bossman that this is an unneeded relic, but have only seen it's proposal to remove on the rules change docket once in 26 years. It wasn't in my subcommittee and didn't make it for a floor vote - unsure why. IMHO, the only time it probably would be used as the above and isn't needed.

[Derek Teigen]

That's great stuff.  Thanks for sharing that. 

[ncwingman]

It's never come up in any of my games, but it has happened relatively recently to other officials in my clinic.

In all situations that it's happened around here, Team B is winning by a lot, has their third string D in, and they surrender the shutout so it's now 50-7 with 5 minutes left. Team B elects to kick off to give their backup D more playing time. With 5 minutes left, their offense would have to run enough plays they might accidentally score, or things get chippy, or other unnecessary side effects can happen.

A couple years ago the state instituted a mercy rule running clock, so it's less likely to happen now because that last drive to make it 50-7 probably ends the game.

[Derek Teigen]

thanks ncwingman for the response.  It all makes sense.   

[JasonTX]

NCAA used to have this rule but it was removed several years ago. 

[BIG UMP]

I had a middle school coach who knew about this.  He was losing by a vast number and his opponent ran a reverse and scored again.  He said if he wants to score that bad let him have the ball again.  Before we lined up he did change his mind.

[stevegarbs]

It's never come up in any of my games, but it has happened relatively recently to other officials in my clinic.

In all situations that it's happened around here, Team B is winning by a lot, has their third string D in, and they surrender the shutout so it's now 50-7 with 5 minutes left. Team B elects to kick off to give their backup D more playing time. With 5 minutes left, their offense would have to run enough plays they might accidentally score, or things get chippy, or other unnecessary side effects can happen.

A couple years ago the state instituted a mercy rule running clock, so it's less likely to happen now because that last drive to make it 50-7 probably ends the game.

I'm not a fan of this idea, as it can be seen as patronizing or humiliating to the losing team- "You guys are so much worse than us we are just going to give the ball back to you."


I saw a similar situation years ago when a varsity team jumped out to an early lead, but I think I recall it was only 4 scores, in the second quarter. On the PAT the QB took a knee instead of running a play. It infuriated and fired up the opponents and we had an unnecessarily chippy game to manage the rest of the night.


I think winning coaches should be able to either call simple running plays to eat up the clock, or as some do, let the second and third string players get some quality time running the offense.

[AlUpstateNY]

Sometimes we forget, the second sentence of NFHS 3-1-4, which can be helpful in situations where a lopsided score has "let the air out of the interest in continuing".  It suggests, "By mutual agreement of the opposing coaches and the referee, any remaining period may be shortened at any time or the game terminated."

That seems to happen more frequently when the referee, subtly and privately, suggests to each head coach that the contest has been decided and prolonging the inevitable needlessly risks preventable injuries or abnormal behavior, rather than wait for the coaches to suggest doing so.  If there is a field clock being used, it's important to alert the Timer of the decision, and to strictly follow the referee's signals, which may conflict with standard protocols.

[bbeagle]

I had this happen TWICE in my career so far.

The first one was just like what ncwingman described. The game was something like 55-0. Defensive coach wanted a shutout. Opposing team scores to make it 55-6 with 2 minutes left. He 'penalized' his defense by making them go out there again by kicking off.

The second one was with :20 left. The visiting team scored making it a 3-point game. They were going to attempt an onside kick. He thought that if they recover (his team 'always' lost onside kicks) - they'll have the ball around the 50-45. Just need about 20 yards to attempt a field goal with :20 left. Why not kick it deep to them, they'll get it around their own 20, and need 50-60 yards to attempt a field goal in just :10-:15 seconds. He thought kicking back to them was the better option. (And it was, they got one 20 yard play and then time ran out on the next play)

[Derek Teigen]

That’s a great strategy!

[HLinNC]

That seems to happen more frequently when the referee, subtly and privately, suggests to each head coach that the contest has been decided and prolonging the inevitable needlessly risks preventable injuries or abnormal behavior, rather than wait for the coaches to suggest doing so.  If there is a field clock being used, it's important to alert the Timer of the decision, and to strictly follow the referee's signals, which may conflict with standard protocols.

Under that rule, we were expressly prohibited from bringing the subject up.  We had to wait for one coach, usually the one on the short end, to suggest it, then relay it over to the other sideline and get his ok.  Some of the losing coaches were bound and determined that "my kids are gonna learn not to quit" or worse, I'm going to keep running my 'fling it around the yard offense' that so far has yielded not much in the way of points so far.

The best thing was when NC went to the running clock rule.  No more dancing around the topic, no more pig headed coaches.  When the parameters are met, we invoke.