« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Spot Fouls?  (Read 869 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sczeebra

  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-7
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Spot Fouls?
« on: July 25, 2023, 03:59:28 PM »
From what I gather, Illegal touching behind the line of scrimmage is not a spot foul. Does anyone think that the rules committee missed this one as it seems similar in fashion to the others that are included?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2023, 04:12:39 PM by sczeebra »
Logged

Offline Snapper

  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-2
Re: Spot Fouls?
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2023, 08:12:02 PM »
Quote from: sczeebra on July 25, 2023, 03:59:28 PM
From what I gather, Illegal touching behind the line of scrimmage is not a spot foul. Does anyone think that the rules committee missed this one as it seems similar in fashion to the others that are included?

Personally, I don’t think they missed it.  I think they intended for it to be Previous Spot enforcement.
Logged

Offline lukez

  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
Re: Spot Fouls?
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2023, 09:40:19 PM »
Quote from: sczeebra on July 25, 2023, 03:59:28 PM
From what I gather, Illegal touching behind the line of scrimmage is not a spot foul. Does anyone think that the rules committee missed this one as it seems similar in fashion to the others that are included?

I also think that previous spot is fine for this.  Keep in mind that a particular situation might additionally be intentional grounding, even if there was also illegal touching.
Logged

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 2119
  • FAN REACTION: +301/-25
Re: Spot Fouls?
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2023, 11:40:35 PM »
Quote from: lukez on July 25, 2023, 09:40:19 PM
I also think that previous spot is fine for this.  Keep in mind that a particular situation might additionally be intentional grounding, even if there was also illegal touching.

Conversely, this is why I like it being a spot foul.  It's simpler than piecing together ING, which wouldn't jump out at most HS officials if the ball doesn't hit the ground.  It's also not a blocking foul, which is thematically what we're enforcing at the previous spot.
Logged

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2941
  • FAN REACTION: +134/-1004
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Spot Fouls?
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2023, 06:08:18 AM »
Quote from: bossman72 on July 25, 2023, 11:40:35 PM
Conversely, this is why I like it being a spot foul.  It's simpler than piecing together ING, which wouldn't jump out at most HS officials if the ball doesn't hit the ground.  It's also not a blocking foul, which is thematically what we're enforcing at the previous spot.
Exactly. Goes against the “fouls against the ball vs fouls against a player philosophy.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Logged

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4687
  • FAN REACTION: +865/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Spot Fouls?
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2023, 07:17:05 AM »
Fashing back to prior 2006, illegal touching then was enforced from the spot of the pass and if said pass was touched beyond the LOS by an ineligible, it was OPI - which then carried a loss of down. We then tweaked the act of illegally touching the ball by an ineligible player to carry the same penalty whether the act occurred behind, in or beyond the LOS. The enforcement spot was then moved from the illegal forward pas family (end of run) to the loose ball family (previous spot). I understand their rationale on this.
Logged

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 1275
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-13
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Spot Fouls?
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2023, 08:02:14 AM »
Not to say this is a really strong argument, but illegal touching is enforced from the previous spot in both NCAA and NFL rules as well.

NCAA rules even have AR 7-3-11-II which has a scenario where A70 illegally touches a pass *in his own end zone* and the penalty is enforced from the previous spot -- not a safety.

Quote from: lukez on July 25, 2023, 09:40:19 PM
I also think that previous spot is fine for this.  Keep in mind that a particular situation might additionally be intentional grounding, even if there was also illegal touching.

Acktuchually....

Illegal touching can only done on a legal forward pass. If it is intentional grounding, it is an illegal forward pass and therefore cannot be illegally touched.
Logged

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 2119
  • FAN REACTION: +301/-25
Re: Spot Fouls?
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2023, 08:23:50 AM »
Quote from: ncwingman on July 26, 2023, 08:02:14 AM
Not to say this is a really strong argument, but illegal touching is enforced from the previous spot in both NCAA and NFL rules as well.

NCAA rules even have AR 7-3-11-II which has a scenario where A70 illegally touches a pass *in his own end zone* and the penalty is enforced from the previous spot -- not a safety.

Acktuchually....

Illegal touching can only done on a legal forward pass. If it is intentional grounding, it is an illegal forward pass and therefore cannot be illegally touched.

One of the few times that I think the NFHS rule is better than NCAA.  Previous spot doesn't quite make sense to me.
Logged

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2941
  • FAN REACTION: +134/-1004
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Spot Fouls?
« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2023, 08:29:54 AM »
Quote from: Ralph Damren on July 26, 2023, 07:17:05 AM
Fashing back to prior 2006, illegal touching then was enforced from the spot of the pass and if said pass was touched beyond the LOS by an ineligible, it was OPI - which then carried a loss of down. We then tweaked the act of illegally touching the ball by an ineligible player to carry the same penalty whether the act occurred behind, in or beyond the LOS. The enforcement spot was then moved from the illegal forward pas family (end of run) to the loose ball family (previous spot). I understand their rationale on this.
Thanks for the reminder. I remember the change, and I also agree with the basic spot being previous spot. But up until this year we’ve been under ABO, as so if the touching was behind the basic spot it was a spot foul. Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4687
  • FAN REACTION: +865/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Spot Fouls?
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2023, 08:48:23 AM »
Quote from: CalhounLJ on July 26, 2023, 08:29:54 AM
Thanks for the reminder. I remember the change, and I also agree with the basic spot being previous spot. But up until this year we’ve been under ABO, as so if the touching was behind the basic spot it was a spot foul. Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, the basic spot was previous spot BUT the enforcement spot was the spot of foul (illegal touch) if behind the basic spot. UNTIL NOW ,where the basic spot is the enforcement spot.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »