Rule 10

[Lhaskins]

Does anyone else see a mistake in Rule 10 on this play

This play happened in a HS game last week
We have 1st and 10 at the 40 going out. Team A snaps the ball and the QB he runs around and then is tackled at the 20, but during the tackle we have a Personal Foul - 15 yard face mask. The foul occurred on a running play. 
So we have a B foul behind the basic spot and the end of the run is behind the basic spot .
If we use Table 10 – that would tell me that the penalty is enforced from the Previous spot, so we would go all the way back to the 40 and penalize B 15 yards??!!
Seems like is a major mistake on the NFHS rules committee, Maybe they will change it next year.

What's everyone's thoughts on this?
 

[dammitbobby]

The changes to table 10 are discussed here (and in several other lengthy threads):

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=16646.0

[Lhaskins]

thanks

[CalhounLJ]

Does anyone else see a mistake in Rule 10 on this play

This play happened in a HS game last week
We have 1st and 10 at the 40 going out. Team A snaps the ball and the QB he runs around and then is tackled at the 20, but during the tackle we have a Personal Foul - 15 yard face mask. The foul occurred on a running play. 
So we have a B foul behind the basic spot and the end of the run is behind the basic spot .
If we use Table 10 – that would tell me that the penalty is enforced from the Previous spot, so we would go all the way back to the 40 and penalize B 15 yards??!!
Seems like is a major mistake on the NFHS rules committee, Maybe they will change it next year.

What's everyone's thoughts on this?

Not a mistake. That's intentional.

[Ralph Damren]

The rationale of that change is previously that foul would be treated as a running play, with end of the run enforcement. However If the runner fumbled, it would be treated as a loose ball play with previous spot enforcement. It didn't seem right to have a fumble to have better results. This also covers B holding A's prime reciever resulting in a QB sack with previous spot enforcement. I supported this rule change strongly.             

[bossman72]

Does anyone else see a mistake in Rule 10 on this play

This play happened in a HS game last week
We have 1st and 10 at the 40 going out. Team A snaps the ball and the QB he runs around and then is tackled at the 20, but during the tackle we have a Personal Foul - 15 yard face mask. The foul occurred on a running play. 
So we have a B foul behind the basic spot and the end of the run is behind the basic spot .
If we use Table 10 – that would tell me that the penalty is enforced from the Previous spot, so we would go all the way back to the 40 and penalize B 15 yards??!!
Seems like is a major mistake on the NFHS rules committee, Maybe they will change it next year.

What's everyone's thoughts on this?
 

This is correct.  Defensive live ball fouls will never be enforced from the offensive backfield.

[KWH]

This is correct.  Defensive live ball fouls will never be enforced from the offensive backfield.

Defensive live ball fouls are no longer will never be enforced from the offensive backfield.   

[AlUpstateNY]

Defensive live ball fouls are no longer will never be enforced from the offensive backfield.   

Makes you wonder, if attentive, and rule savvy, offensive linemen (and/or Offensive Coaches) will ever realize that should/when an offensive player in possession of the ball, be forced to retreat further than 10 yards behind the LOS, and seriously threatened, it might be advantageous to risk eliminating the threat by fouling rather than risk the consequences of suffering  a greater loss.

[zebraken]

“ Defensive live ball fouls are no longer will never be enforced from the offensive backfield”
 
Wouldn’t illegal kicking or batting be an exception?

[bama_stripes]

“ Defensive live ball fouls are no longer will never be enforced from the offensive backfield”
 
Wouldn’t illegal kicking or batting be an exception?

Not if by the defense.

[KWH]

Makes you wonder, if attentive, and rule savvy, offensive linemen (and/or Offensive Coaches) will ever realize that should/when an offensive player in possession of the ball, be forced to retreat further than 10 yards behind the LOS, and seriously threatened, it might be advantageous to risk eliminating the threat by fouling rather than risk the consequences of suffering  a greater loss.

Aren't you the same ALF who "Made us wonder" that in a goal to go situation, a defensive player (and/or Defensive Coaches) when seriously threatened would commit DPI since the yardage was minimal and they would simply repeat the down as it might be advantageous to risk eliminating the threat by fouling rather than risk the consequences of suffering  a greater loss?

That concern has yet to happen (on any regular basis)

Oh and Uh, Asking for a friend? 

[zebraken]

Not if by the defense.


10-4-a seems to contradict that

[CalhounLJ]

Not if by the defense.


10-4-a seems to contradict that

10-4-4A. You left out a "4".

FWIW, I tend to agree with you. The rule as written seems to call for an illegal batting or kicking foul by B to be marked off from the spot of the foul, even behind the line of scrimmage. However, since that illegal batting or kicking is most certainly going to be during a loose ball play, and 10-4-2a calls for previous spot enforcement for fouls on a loose-ball play, then the foul would be marked from the previous spot. But then, that contradicts with the intent of the committee to keep illegal batting and kicking as spot fouls...

[zebraken]

Thank you for the rule reference clarification. .Excellent point about it probably going to be a loose ball enforcement anyway. I wasn’t considering that. That helps. Thank you

[CalhounLJ]

Thank you for the rule reference clarification. .Excellent point about it probably going to be a loose ball enforcement anyway. I wasn’t considering that. That helps. Thank you

You're welcome. I will say that under the old code, only fouls by the team in possession behind the basic spot would be marked off from the spot of the foul, so illegal kicking or batting by B would be a basic spot foul. And these fouls by A would be spot fouls. So either way, previous spot enforcement on this penalty is in keeping with the basic philosophy of the intent of the rules.

[ted skoundrianos]

 I agree with ralph on new enforcement why penalized the offense on that play. IF the previous rule was enforce the offense would lose 5 on the penatly. Why reward the defense & have the offense lose 5 yards on the penalty. So it 1st & 15 instead of 1st & 10 from 50.