RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: NCVAReferee on August 28, 2016, 11:06:45 AM
-
A 3/15 @ A-10. Ball ready for play. Prior to snap, A43 curses at B97. B97 curses back at A43. Enforcement?
-
Fouls cancel. A 3/15 @ A10
-
Agree, the fouls cancel. Prior to penalty administration, an equal number of DB personal fouls, nonplayer fouls, and USC (15 yard penalties) cancel each other.
-
The foul by A is not a 15 yard penalty.
-
The foul by A is not a 15 yard penalty.
If you want to go out on that limb, go ahead. Just be aware that I'm not going to join you.
-
I think that was one of the reasons that they changed the ruling on enforcement of these.
-
A 3/15 @ A-10. Ball ready for play. Prior to snap, A43 curses at B97. B97 curses back at A43. Enforcement?
Big deal! We've never heard swearing on the football field before? Just tell them to shut the @$@& up!
-
Big deal! We've never heard swearing on the football field before? Just tell them to shut the @$@& up!
https://youtu.be/QzBmQMyYDBk
-
The foul by A is not a 15 yard penalty.
Yes it is. 10-3-5b -- the distance penalties of equal numbers of USC penalties will offset.
They changed that last year to prevent your exact issue.
-
10-3-5b states an equal number of 15-yard unsportsmanlike fouls will offset. Why the need to clarify an unsportsmanlike foul as being 15 yards in 10-3-5b?
-
Big deal! We've never heard swearing on the football field before? Just tell them to shut the @$@& up!
"One size NEVER fits all". Unless you want to continue dealing with ongoing repeats, and unnecessary problems you need to consider what was said, how well you heard what was said, how it was said, what was the purpose of saying it and whether it might have been a repeat of something similaryou had already cautioned about before.
-
My goal of posting this scenario was to discuss 10-3-5b. Anyone have feedback on why it was necessary in 10-3-5b to clarify that the rule applies to 15-yard unsportsmanlike fouls rather than just unsportsmanlike fouls?
-
We're referring to 10-2-5 correct?
determination is for an equal number of 15 yard penalties, if one of them is a HTD then enforce in the order they occurred.
My interpretation of the rule and then referred to Redding's and this is the way they interpreted as well
-
The following is a NFHS Clarification from August 17, 2015 (underline = addition & strike through = deletions). Note the down ends on the B16 yard line and the 1st DB foul is against B. In past years, the DB foul on B would be enforced 1/2 distance to the 8 followed by the DB foul against A leaving the ball on the 23. With the new rule change, both DB fouls offset and the ball remains on the 16.
I do not have my 2016 Case Book with me but I am curious how 5.1.2 D reads.
Pages 38-39, 5.1.2 SITUATION D:
With fourth and 5 on B’s 20, A1 is downed on B’s 16-yard line. During the down, the coach of B is on the field arguing with a game official. Following the down, A1 uses profanity. RULING: Since A did not gain a first down on the fourth-down run by A1, B has a new series. Enforcement of the The penalties for the foul on the coach of B and on A1 offset, puts the ball on B’s 23- the ball remains on B’s 16-yard line and first and 10 for B. The line to gain is established and the equipment is set. following the administration of the last penalty.
-
This is how the 2016 caseplay reads:
*5.1.2 SITUATION D: With fourth and 5 on B’s 20, A1 is downed on B’s 16-yard line. During the down, the coach of B is on the field arguing with a game official. Following the down, A1 uses profanity. RULING: Since A did not gain a first down on the fourth-down run by A1, B has a new series. Enforcement of the penalties for the foul on the coach of B and for the foul on A1 offset. B will have the ball first and 10 at B’s 16-yard line.
-
That's a good case play, but in that play both fouls are "15 yard" fouls. If A's foul was first, will they both still offset?
-
That's a good case play, but in that play both fouls are "15 yard" fouls. If A's foul was first, will they both still offset?
What do you mean? A's foul does carry a 15 yard penalty. So does Team B's...
-
That's a good case play, but in that play both fouls are "15 yard" fouls. If A's foul was first, will they both still offset?
We (Alabama) are in the understanding that the '15 yard foul' verbiage of the offset language is to describe the fouls being assessed in the offset, not the actual distance penalty being assessed.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
-
The foul by A is not a 15 yard penalty.
Yes it is. This is exactly the inequity the rule change wanted to address when one of these is enforced half the distance and the other is a full 15. These absolutely cancel.
-
That's a good case play, but in that play both fouls are "15 yard" fouls. If A's foul was first, will they both still offset?
The case play is exactly like your scenario since they are at the B16 at the end of the play. B's foul happens first (live ball, non-player, enforced as dead ball), so that should be "half the distance" to the B8, but since A1's dead ball USC occurred, it cancelled out the distance and the ball stays at the B16.
The verbiage of the rule being "15 yard fouls" means fouls that would carry a 15 yard penalty under normal circumstances. The case of a half-the-distance enforcement doesn't change the fact that the foul carries a 15 yard penalty.
In a difference scenario, say that R18 calls for a fair catch, makes the catch then starts running well down the field. There's a dead ball delay of game foul, which is a 5 yard penalty. After R18 finally slows up 40 yards down field, K56 cleans his clock resulting in a 15 yard PF for a late hit. These fouls do not offset because one is 5 yards and the other is 15, and so both would be enforced in the order of occurrence.
-
Yes it is. This is exactly the inequity the rule change wanted to address when one of these is enforced half the distance and the other is a full 15. These absolutely cancel.
Bossman and I wrote this #@%&ing rule. The reference to 15 yards was put in to prevent the misunderstanding that might occur that a false start or encroachment on A would cancel a dead ball PF on B. In part, it was written and approved to prevent the inequitable results that could occur if halving the distance was involved, as in the topic.
It is rumored that Maine's Governor Last Page is preparing a video on things NOT to say. I'll keep you guys advised :).
-
we do need to remember however on the USC that only the distance offsets and if they get a second one, or if it is their second, it is still an ejection. The USC action does not go away with the offset
-
Likewise, even if the yardage offsets, a flagrant DBPF still results in disqualification, as well. The only part cancelled is the yardage.