RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: TxSkyBolt on November 21, 2016, 09:22:09 AM
-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/highschool/ct-spt-1120-prep-fb-plainfield-north-fenwick-20161119-story.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Unfortunate for all concerned. I bet the entire crew feels bad in ways that we can't even imagine.
-
That is very unfortunate, especially after the OK State / Central Michigan game earlier this year that ended the same, incorrect, way.
-
The apology did not resonate with Keller, who wrote on Twitter: "Your sincerest apologies mean nothing, my boys WORKED for 5 months just to have everything we worked for taken away."
Hey, coach, I get that you're HACKED, and rightly so. However, a few tips:
- Don't you guys usually say "Leave no doubt?" If you hadn't left it for the last play, it's not a problem. For that matter, stop a TD *and* two-point conversion and I'm sure you would have been just fine with the apology. What you worked for couldn't have been taken away if you hadn't allowed it.
- Don't commit a foul on the last play of the game and this situation doesn't come up.
- If you're *going* to commit the foul on the last play, then know the rules and your rights under the rules. I'm willing to bet you did not ask for a coach-referee conference to discuss misapplication of a rule because you didn't know it either. Yes, knowing the rules is our job. It's also yours.
- Hopefully, once you've calmed down a bit, you'll recognize that there were classier, more graceful responses you could have made.
-
Don't get me wrong...I'm not making any excuse for this screw-up; but:
Wouldn't be nice if the coaches actually knew the rule (AB would)...or have someone on the sideline who they could call on?
Additionally, rule 3-3-5c allows for the coach to request a coach-referee conference prior to the Referee signalling the game is over - or in this case, before the next snap for the untimed down (3-5-11). If there were ANY doubt in ANYONE'S mind about the call, wouldn't this be the opportune time?
-
If I'm following this article correctly, Mr. Keller is the teenage QB, who threw the ball away rather than take a possible hit and run the clock out, securing his team's win. So the "woe is me tweet" is from a frustrated teenager who made a huge mistake, and sounds like the clock isn't all he was trying to deflect.
But, he's a frustrated and disappointed kid, the jerk who wrote the article, however, is more likely an adult, who knew full well that the tweet content added nothing material to the reporting of what happened, but apparently felt it necessary to highlight the OBVIOUS frustration the QB, and likely the entire team felt about being so close, but short, even if it meant casting the teenage QB in a unflattering and whiny light.
-
Crew got taken off Championship game.... and now this game is going to court.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/highschool/ct-spt-1122-prep-fb-fenwick-follow-20161121-story.html
-
If the Cook County Court decides to take action, I believe that we will all be directly affected in the years to come. You can now sue over a mistake made in game and the courts will "make it right?" Good lord.
-
We'll have to hope that this judge shows the same restraint that others have shown in recognizing the terrible slippery slope that would come if we allowed the court system to intercede in sporting events.
I'm sure the crew is disappointed in themselves. I made a rule error earlier this year and even without it being in the media or directly impacting the outcome of the game it eats at me. Can only imagine what these guys are feeling.
-
Additionally, rule 3-3-5c allows for the coach to request a coach-referee conference prior to the Referee signalling the game is over - or in this case, before the next snap for the untimed down (3-5-11). If there were ANY doubt in ANYONE'S mind about the call, wouldn't this be the opportune time?
I've never had this happen in a game that I worked. I understand some states require the crew to have the rulebook handy if this happens. In FL, we don't have that requirement, so I can imagine this scenario:
The crew conferences and decides incorrectly to award an untimed down.
The coach says "No, that's not right. There's no untimed down after Intentional Grounding."
The crew, having already decided that there IS an untimed down, says "Sorry Coach, you're incorrect."
Anyone been down this road?
-
I too hope the court case is thrown out; but I have an"ethical" question regarding what seems to be a be the trend for everybody to seek legal remedies against a "bad call".
Here's the question: Should an official volunteer, or accept if asked, to "work" for a team to ensure that they are not victims of an game official's mistake?
Follow-up #1: Would it make a difference if the official is hired (paid a game fee for instance) to do this?
Follow-up #2: Should states assign officials to act as "booth rules reviewers" - with the ability to correct enforcement mistakes - in State Tournament games?
-
I too hope the court case is thrown out; but I have an"ethical" question regarding what seems to be a be the trend for everybody to seek legal remedies against a "bad call".
Here's the question: Should an official volunteer, or accept if asked, to "work" for a team to ensure that they are not victims of an game official's mistake?
Follow-up #1: Would it make a difference if the official is hired (paid a game fee for instance) to do this?
Follow-up #2: Should states assign officials to act as "booth rules reviewers" - with the ability to correct enforcement mistakes - in State Tournament games?
I don't believe it is at all ok to have such an official work only on a school-by-school basis. I would open to the idea of an off-field official tasked with rules, etc, but as an extension of the on-field crew. Independent consultants open a whole new can of worms. Maybe a retired official or a coach could do this for a school, but that's a different question. Not an active official. The "working for one school" idea creates conflicts of interest and unintentional loyalties far too quickly.
Booth rules reviewers... We are still trying to cover all of our region's varsity games with a 5-man crew. A short drive into New York, and they are working many 4-man varsity games. I can't support an extra official off the field, really, until we have can get more eyes on the field. There simply aren't enough rules interpretations/questionable enforcements in an average game---even a playoff game to justify it. Also...the obvious inconsistency with instantly available film would make reviews very difficult.
Perhaps the other idea would be opening a protest option for wronged schools. Sure, it would get really messy, but much less damaging that a high school sports governing body being sued over the outcome of a game.
-
Crew got taken off Championship game.... and now this game is going to court.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/highschool/ct-spt-1122-prep-fb-fenwick-follow-20161121-story.html
People tried to do this a few years ago in Texas (?) and the judge threw it out. Hopefully that's a precedent that they will have to follow.
-
People tried to do this a few years ago in Texas (?) and the judge threw it out. Hopefully that's a precedent that they will have to follow.
They don't have to follow it, as it was filed in Cook County Court in Illinois--basically Chicago. But, I agree with you; I hope the court will use the precedent to remove itself from this mess. Due to my day job, I tend to stay up on Illinois court decisions, and this one has me a little nervous.
-
Too bad the coach didn't take the high road. I understand the hard work and the heartbreak. But the truth is, we all learn more through adversity than we do through prosperity. The coach should use this as an educational opportunity on life lessons.
-
Yes, the loss of down precludes a subsequent untimed down by rule. Which means that A had a free pass to commit a loss of down foul.
This is an affront to equity. The decision was as just as it was incorrect, and the rule ought to change.
-
People tried to do this a few years ago in Texas (?) and the judge threw it out. Hopefully that's a precedent that they will have to follow.
Unfortunately, they may have to follow this IHSA precedent:
http://abc7chicago.com/news/fenwick-attorneys-look-to-2009-case-in-effort-to-reverse-football-game-result/1621236/
-
Yes, the loss of down precludes a subsequent untimed down by rule. Which means that A had a free pass to commit a loss of down foul.
This is an affront to equity. The decision was as just as it was incorrect, and the rule ought to change.
A also gets a free pass to commit any live ball foul. The time still goes down during the down and the offense merely has to snap the ball on a replay if the penalty is accepted. Illegal forward passes are not a crazy exception in this situation.
This has nothing to do with equity and although I agree we make mistakes-this is inexcusable and unfortunate due to the press this same situation got earlier this season.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
-
If courts begin to rule that they have authority to change decisions made by the officials, how long before they decide they can also change decisions made by the rules committee?
-
Unfortunately, they may have to follow this IHSA precedent:
http://abc7chicago.com/news/fenwick-attorneys-look-to-2009-case-in-effort-to-reverse-football-game-result/1621236/
Big difference between the IHSA making a ruling and the Courts interceding. I get that Fenwick's attorneys will argue their point (and the IHSA deserves the mess they're in because of that 2009 ruling), but it's not a legal precedent at all.
-
This is a rule that needs to be changed. The rule as it stands allows a team to benefit from committing a foul. I don't think any rules are intended to do that. Based on the situation in the OK St v Cent Michigan game, I submitted a rule change request to my state association for the NFHS to consider such a change.
The officials in this game erred by the book, but I believe that logic may have affected their thinking. Logic would clearly dictate that a team should not gain an advantage by committing a foul.
-
This is a rule that needs to be changed. The rule as it stands allows a team to benefit from committing a foul. I don't think any rules are intended to do that. Based on the situation in the OK St v Cent Michigan game, I submitted a rule change request to my state association for the NFHS to consider such a change.
The officials in this game erred by the book, but I believe that logic may have affected their thinking. Logic would clearly dictate that a team should not gain an advantage by committing a foul.
Please help me understand the "logic" of incorrectly allowing a team to have an extra play after committing a loss of down foul. Is it possible this entire crew has been living under a rock since the CMU/OK State debacle?
As far as other committing a foul not involving a LOD on the final play of a period is concerned, unless it's a scoring play, the offended team needs only to decline the penalty to end the period/game. If there is a scoring play during which the scoring team fouls, the score will be nullified by the acceptance of the foul; and, yes, there will be another play. But it is a far better option than allowing the score; and there is no guarantee the offending team will score again.
-
If courts begin to rule that they have authority to change decisions made by the officials, how long before they decide they can also change decisions made by the rules committee?
Maybe the solution is to require each officiating crew to have a real judge as a member. That way, disputed calls could be resolved on the spot with a simple bench trial. Of course the real judge would have to recuse himself if he was the official making the call (or no call) in dispute. To allow for that possibility, perhaps a local magistrate could be contracted to attend each game to be on standby.
-
This is a rule that needs to be changed. The rule as it stands allows a team to benefit from committing a foul. I don't think any rules are intended to do that. Based on the situation in the OK St v Cent Michigan game, I submitted a rule change request to my state association for the NFHS to consider such a change.
The officials in this game erred by the book, but I believe that logic may have affected their thinking. Logic would clearly dictate that a team should not gain an advantage by committing a foul.
Rogers Redding, NCAA Rules Editor released what I thought was a very solid statement on this:
"Recently the extension of a period (Rule 3-2-3) has been a topic of active
discussion across the football landscape. My purpose here is to give the philosophy and
purpose of the rule.
One can get a hint of the philosophy by looking for the common element in
those circumstances where the period is extended. The thing they have in common is
this: in every case the down just played is repeated. Offsetting fouls, accepted penalties
(not including loss of down), and inadvertent whistle—all of these have the down
repeated. In the case of the inadvertent whistle, there are some other elements that
come into play, but repeating the down is an outcome of several possibilities.
When the down is going to be repeated, that really means that it has not yet
been resolved. Put another way, there is some unfinished business to take care of
before the period is over. And the “do-over” of that last play is what is required to wrap
up that period, to bring it to a close. So we say that we extend the period---and we do
that to take care of that unfinished business: the down that needs to be repeated.
Given that philosophy, it should be easy to see why the period is not extended
when there is an offensive foul whose penalty calls for loss of down. Remember that
“loss of down” is shorthand for “loss of the right to repeat the down.” So with regard to
extending the period, since there will be no repeat of the down, then the business of the
period has been taken care of; hence there is no reason to extend the period--it is truly
over, there is no unfinished business, and we move on to the next period. Of course, if
this takes place in the second or fourth period, the half is over.
There is one little wrinkle that needs clarifying. Suppose the clock runs out
during a down in which there is a personal foul by Team B. The penalty will be tacked
on at the basic spot and the period will be extended for Team A to run a play on first
down. At first blush it looks like the down is not being repeated. But is really is, since it
is unfinished business that needs to be taken care of, even though the number of the
down is not what it would have been. The same thing is true for a foul that doesn’t
include an automatic first down but does leave the ball beyond the line to gain. The
repeated down is first down, because of other rules that determine the number of the
down.
Finally, consider the situation that has generated so much discussion: the clock
runs out during a fourth-down play during which Team A commits a foul whose penalty
includes loss of down. The ball goes over on downs. If this happens in the first or third
period, Team B next puts the ball in play after the change of period, to either second or
fourth.
Many people push back against not extending the second or fourth period in this
case, claiming that it “deprives Team B the right to snap the ball.” But you can see that
no such right exists, given the spirit and intent of the rule for extending. That is,
extending the period is not about running another play; instead, it is about finishing up
the business of the period by extending it so that the previous down can be repeated,
and hence resolved."
-
The request for a Temporary Restraining Order has been denied. Result stands.
-
The request for a Temporary Restraining Order has been denied. Result stands.
A judge with some common sense!
-
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/judge-says-plainfield-north-should-play-in-7a-title-game/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Relevant article. Good read if you have a few minutes.
http://www.si.com/vault/1994/12/26/132955/when-your-dream-dies-after-a-high-school-referee-blew-a-call-that-helped-cost-him-a-chance-to-work-a-championship-football-game-his-life-no-longer-seemed-worth-living
-
Relevant article. Good read if you have a few minutes.
http://www.si.com/vault/1994/12/26/132955/when-your-dream-dies-after-a-high-school-referee-blew-a-call-that-helped-cost-him-a-chance-to-work-a-championship-football-game-his-life-no-longer-seemed-worth-living
I read that a while ago. Hard to believe that would lead a man to suicide.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Rogers Redding, NCAA Rules Editor released what I thought was a very solid statement on this:
"Recently the extension of a period (Rule 3-2-3) has been a topic of active
discussion across the football landscape. My purpose here is to give the philosophy and
purpose of the rule.
One can get a hint of the philosophy by looking for the common element in
those circumstances where the period is extended. The thing they have in common is
this: in every case the down just played is repeated. Offsetting fouls, accepted penalties
(not including loss of down), and inadvertent whistle—all of these have the down
repeated. In the case of the inadvertent whistle, there are some other elements that
come into play, but repeating the down is an outcome of several possibilities.
When the down is going to be repeated, that really means that it has not yet
been resolved. Put another way, there is some unfinished business to take care of
before the period is over. And the “do-over” of that last play is what is required to wrap
up that period, to bring it to a close. So we say that we extend the period---and we do
that to take care of that unfinished business: the down that needs to be repeated.
Given that philosophy, it should be easy to see why the period is not extended
when there is an offensive foul whose penalty calls for loss of down. Remember that
“loss of down” is shorthand for “loss of the right to repeat the down.” So with regard to
extending the period, since there will be no repeat of the down, then the business of the
period has been taken care of; hence there is no reason to extend the period--it is truly
over, there is no unfinished business, and we move on to the next period. Of course, if
this takes place in the second or fourth period, the half is over.
There is one little wrinkle that needs clarifying. Suppose the clock runs out
during a down in which there is a personal foul by Team B. The penalty will be tacked
on at the basic spot and the period will be extended for Team A to run a play on first
down. At first blush it looks like the down is not being repeated. But is really is, since it
is unfinished business that needs to be taken care of, even though the number of the
down is not what it would have been. The same thing is true for a foul that doesn’t
include an automatic first down but does leave the ball beyond the line to gain. The
repeated down is first down, because of other rules that determine the number of the
down.
Finally, consider the situation that has generated so much discussion: the clock
runs out during a fourth-down play during which Team A commits a foul whose penalty
includes loss of down. The ball goes over on downs. If this happens in the first or third
period, Team B next puts the ball in play after the change of period, to either second or
fourth.
Many people push back against not extending the second or fourth period in this
case, claiming that it “deprives Team B the right to snap the ball.” But you can see that
no such right exists, given the spirit and intent of the rule for extending. That is,
extending the period is not about running another play; instead, it is about finishing up
the business of the period by extending it so that the previous down can be repeated,
and hence resolved."
Well, when a team is denied the opportunity to win a game because the other team has committed a foul, intentionally or otherwise, that certainly seems to me that "there is some unfinished business to take care of." In fact, in the game we love that would be the ultimate in "unfinished business".
Let's consider the fact that the replaying of this down would have been heartily defended by the rulesmakers only a few years ago when "the book" would have required the replay of this down. In fact, in line with that, I would further contend that the situation being discussed in this thread is one of those unusual side effects that is often overlooked when a rule change is made.
-
Please help me understand the "logic" of incorrectly allowing a team to have an extra play after committing a loss of down foul. Is it possible this entire crew has been living under a rock since the CMU/OK State debacle?
As far as other committing a foul not involving a LOD on the final play of a period is concerned, unless it's a scoring play, the offended team needs only to decline the penalty to end the period/game. If there is a scoring play during which the scoring team fouls, the score will be nullified by the acceptance of the foul; and, yes, there will be another play. But it is a far better option than allowing the score; and there is no guarantee the offending team will score again.
I'm not defending the crew's error. The rule, as it currently reads, was not applied correctly. As you implied, how a crew of 7 could misapply a rule that had garnered national attention only a few weeks earlier is beyond me. When I refer to logic, I'm considering how such a situation might be resolved if there were no rule to cover it. In such a case we might say to ourselves, "We can't let them get away with that." Letting a team benefit by committing a foul seems contrary to what we are called to do.
-
If there were no LOD provision, the down would be repeated with Team A kneeling to end the game. Either way, game over.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If there were no LOD provision, the down would be repeated with Team A kneeling to end the game. Either way, game over.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And once again, a team would be gaining an advantage by committing a foul. The effort has been made over the years to eliminate such situations. e.g.- if a team is attempting to consume time by continually false starting, the referee may invoke rule 1-1-6 and not start the clock on the ready.
-
For discussion, what's the downside of giving the offended team the option of 1 untimed down if a half or game ended on a play where the fouling team committed a foul that included the loss of down statement? The offended team could then decide if it's to their advantage to have another snap by whichever team had the ball after the penalty enforcement. That (I think) would prevent the team in the lead from intentionally fouling to run out the clock and end the game as should have happened here under the current rule.
Do we open Pandora's box with a such a change?
-
It's situations like these that I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to at least looking into allowing the league, be it the state association or the NCAA, to retroactively change the final score, but only in extreme, obvious, and egregious circumstances, like OK State/Central Michigan or the 5th down game from 1990. This Illinois game included, those are the only three games I can think of that such a provision would apply.
To prevent it from being a slippery slope, I would use the most extreme, hyperbolic language in terms of defining "egregious" for the purpose of such a rule to send the message that this is not to be used for cases of "You missed an obvious block in the back on the game winning touchdown!"
-
It's situations like these that I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to at least looking into allowing the league, be it the state association or the NCAA, to retroactively change the final score, but only in extreme, obvious, and egregious circumstances, like OK State/Central Michigan or the 5th down game from 1990. This Illinois game included, those are the only three games I can think of that such a provision would apply.
To prevent it from being a slippery slope, I would use the most extreme, hyperbolic language in terms of defining "egregious" for the purpose of such a rule to send the message that this is not to be used for cases of "You missed an obvious block in the back on the game winning touchdown!"
Terrible idea. Pandora's box is now opened. You will NEVER be able to define everything egregious. Human beings play the game. Human beings officiate the game. Stuff happens and you won't ever make everyone happy, no matter what the outcome of such a reversal/non-reversal.
-
It's situations like these that I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to at least looking into allowing the league, be it the state association or the NCAA, to retroactively change the final score, but only in extreme, obvious, and egregious circumstances, like OK State/Central Michigan or the 5th down game from 1990. This Illinois game included, those are the only three games I can think of that such a provision would apply.
To prevent it from being a slippery slope, I would use the most extreme, hyperbolic language in terms of defining "egregious" for the purpose of such a rule to send the message that this is not to be used for cases of "You missed an obvious block in the back on the game winning touchdown!"
What's egregious to you might mean something entirely different to someone else. I'm sure Michigan fans today would want the final result of Saturday's games overturned.
No thanks.
-
For discussion, what's the downside of giving Team B the option of 1 untimed down if a half or game ended on a play where Team A committed a foul that included the loss of down statement? Team B could then decide if it's to their advantage to have another snap by whichever team had the ball after the penalty enforcement. That (I think) would prevent Team A while in the lead from intentionally fouling to run out the clock and end the half or the game.
Do we open Pandora's box with a such a change?
-
For discussion, what's the downside of giving Team B the option of 1 untimed down if a half or game ended on a play where Team A committed a foul that included the loss of down statement? Team B could then decide if it's to their advantage to have another snap by whichever team had the ball after the penalty enforcement.
I believe Team B had that option before the rule was changed to its current iteration. If so, the rules makers saw something that needed to be fixed.
-
I believe the rule was changed to prevent the offense from gaining an advantage on a play such as this:
A's ball 4th-and-1 from the 50 with 5 seconds left in the game, A trails by 2.
QB A12 drops back to pass, but is flushed and runs to the B-5 as time expires. He then passes complete to A88 in B's end zone.
Under the old rule, B would accept the IFP penalty (declining it would result in a TD for A), 5 yards from the spot of the foul. The LOD provision wouldn't matter, as A was well past the LTG. A would then have an untimed down and be able to attempt a short FG.
-
Good example. That clearly would not be an acceptable change then. Maybe there's simply no way to fix it.
Just doesn't seem right to end a game on an intentional penalty by the "winning" team although we just saw 8 of them (all holding calls) as an NFL game ended this past week. Don't think I've ever seen that many flags on the field on a live ball play before. :(
-
Couldn't the rule simply state that the period would be extended for an untimed down if the offended team is next to put the ball in play?
That would take care of bama_stripes play because A offended and A is next to put the ball in play. It takes care of the OP because A offended and B is next to put the ball in play.
-
It wouldn't address the NFL holding problem, since A would put the ball in play by a free kick.
Expect to see that play in our games next year! >:D
-
It wouldn't address the NFL holding problem, since A would put the ball in play by a free kick.
Expect to see that play in our games next year! >:D
Fair point. Penalties involving safeties and plays resulting in safeties seem to be a frequent sticking point with unfair results for the offended team. I think that's conceivable a separate issue which needs worked out rather than particularly part of this issue, although they obviously intersect.
-
Just doesn't seem right to end a game on an intentional penalty by the "winning" team although we just saw 8 of them (all holding calls) as an NFL game ended this past week. Don't think I've ever seen that many flags on the field on a live ball play before. :(
One solution is to just extend the game until no foul is committed.
We give an untimed down for the offense if the defense commits a penalty. Give the defense an option if the offense commits a penalty, which doesn't exist in the book right now.
Foul by A on the final play: B, in addition to accepting or declining a penalty, or result of the play, has the option to set the time on the clock to the time at the previous snap.
This would stop the holding play, as the Bengals could elect to set the game clock back to :11 AND decline the slew of holding penalties to take the safety. Then the Ravens would kick off with :11 left.
The intentional grounding high school play would set the clock back to :04, taking the penalty which results in loss of down, and with B getting the ball for the game winning kick.
-
Back in 2008, there was a playoff game in Mississippi that had the final score overturned by the governing body of HS sports, the Mississippi High School Activities Association.
Home team was behind 21-18 with only seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. On the play in which the clock ran out, the QB scrambled down (well past the LOS) the field to around the B 15 yard line. Just before he was tackled, he threw a pass into the end zone for an apparent TD.
The flag was thrown for the illegal pass, but the officials marked off the five yard penalty and replayed the down. The result was a TD pass for A.
On the following Tuesday, the MHSAA declared the winning TD was scored on a play that should never have happened and reversed the outcome.
The home team tried to go to court, (had an attorney filed an injunction) but were unsuccessful in the attempt.
-
Every now and then, common sense prevails.
-
This is a rule that needs to be changed. The rule as it stands allows a team to benefit from committing a foul. I don't think any rules are intended to do that. Based on the situation in the OK St v Cent Michigan game, I submitted a rule change request to my state association for the NFHS to consider such a change.
The officials in this game erred by the book, but I believe that logic may have affected their thinking. Logic would clearly dictate that a team should not gain an advantage by committing a foul.
I agree, Ted, when 3-3-4b(3) was added it's intent was to prevent a team from benefiting from an illegal act. It was prompted by a championship game in Louisiana, where R returned a kickoff via a "rugby scrum" as time expired. As a R player was about to be tackled at K's 15, he hurled the ball toward K's end zone where a teammate caught it. To negate the TD, K accepted the IFP giving the ball to R @ K's 20 with an untimed down and trailing by TWO. In came Hans (the place kicker), thru the pipes went the football and to the NFHS rules committee went the LA rep. Thinking of a potential play of OPI on 4th down, turning the ball over to B (back then OPI=LOD) should allow B to have a play and suggested such.
My suggestion back then didn't go far....
With INTENTIONAL grounding being an INTENTIONAL act and used to benefit from an INTENTIONAL, illegal act; my next suggestion will be in the form of a proposal. At first blush, adding to 3-3-4b(3) : "fouls that specify a loss of down ,UNLESS A CHANGE OF POSSESSION OCCURS." Unless you guys have better ideas.
IMHO, both the NFHS & NCAA crews inadvertently ran into the same rules glitch and did what seemed the common sense thing to do. The docket is already formulated for this year's proposed changes, but it's a good one to keep in mind for next year.
-
With INTENTIONAL grounding being an INTENTIONAL act and used to benefit from an INTENTIONAL, illegal act; my next suggestion will be in the form of a proposal. At first blush, adding to 3-3-4b(3) : "fouls that specify a loss of down ,UNLESS A CHANGE OF POSSESSION OCCURS." Unless you guys have better ideas.
My major issue with this is that it creates an exception to the rules -- in this particular case, the penalty does not cause the down to be repeated, but instead adds an additional down to be played. Additionally, it violates one of the Football Fundamentals -- "No foul causes loss of the ball". We're awarding B the ball and a free play that would not have happened if the foul had not occurred.
How about this as an alternative -- For a foul that specifies loss of down that occurs during a down in which time expires, the clock shall be reset to the time remaining at the snap of the previous (just completed) down and the down replayed. The yardage penalty for the foul will also be enforced. The clock will start with on the snap.
This way A cannot illegal kill the last play of the game and we make them do it again until they do it legally.
-
My major issue with this is that it creates an exception to the rules -- in this particular case, the penalty does not cause the down to be repeated, but instead adds an additional down to be played. Additionally, it violates one of the Football Fundamentals -- "No foul causes loss of the ball". We're awarding B the ball and a free play that would not have happened if the foul had not occurred.
How about this as an alternative -- For a foul that specifies loss of down that occurs during a down in which time expires, the clock shall be reset to the time remaining at the snap of the previous (just completed) down and the down replayed. The yardage penalty for the foul will also be enforced. The clock will start with on the snap.
This way A cannot illegal kill the last play of the game and we make them do it again until they do it legally.
The fundamental is still intact. The foul is not turning the ball over. The fact that 4th down has ended still turns the ball over, as it does at any other point during a game.
I'm in the camp of keeping the foul as is honestly. Yes it's a foul, but in almost every exchange where people say "the officials cost us the game," we retort with "negative, there were X number of minutes and coaching decisions that cost them the game." I think that mantra can still be applied here.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
-
The fundamental is still intact. The foul is not turning the ball over. The fact that 4th down has ended still turns the ball over, as it does at any other point during a game.
I'm in the camp of keeping the foul as is honestly. Yes it's a foul, but in almost every exchange where people say "the officials cost us the game," we retort with "negative, there were X number of minutes and coaching decisions that cost them the game." I think that mantra can still be applied here.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
I agree that the rule is not broken, but that we're seeing a way to bend it in an unusual manner, so leaving it as is would be acceptable to me as well -- as long as we're all in agreement that despite the foul, the game is over.
However, if we were to change it, I would not feel comfortable giving B a free snap. While you can probably make a legally convincing argument that the fundamental is still intact, the fact remains that the only reason that B gets the ball and a free play is because of an A foul. If A had not fouled, B would not get that play as the game would be over.
-
I agree that the rule is not broken, but that we're seeing a way to bend it in an unusual manner, so leaving it as is would be acceptable to me as well -- as long as we're all in agreement that despite the foul, the game is over.
However, if we were to change it, I would not feel comfortable giving B a free snap. While you can probably make a legally convincing argument that the fundamental is still intact, the fact remains that the only reason that B gets the ball and a free play is because of an A foul. If A had not fouled, B would not get that play as the game would be over.
The fundamental isn't violated here anymore than it is violated when there is an illegal forward pass on any other 4th down.
Yes, the foul is generating a play for B that they would not have had absent the foul, but it is not giving them the ball. That is happening due to A failing to reach the line-to-gain.
-
The fundamental isn't violated here anymore than it is violated when there is an illegal forward pass on any other 4th down.
I disagree. The real fundamental that we're talking about here is the primary one of sportsmanship and fair play. There's a major difference here when the passer simply drops back delays as long as possible and fires the ball downfield when not a single receiver has even crossed the NZ, a clear and intentional act directly intended to deprive the opponent of a chance to impact the final outcome of the contest. That clearly is not the same as "any other 4th down".
Multiple football rules codes and other game rules codes have been recently striving to eliminate those types of actions and fouls that give a team a clear advantage when it relates to intentional acts that directly impact the game clock and/or the final results of a game.
My opinion is that if there is a way to fix an identified shortcoming in the rules where the solution doesn't cause a bigger problem than the one we're attempting to fix then we should do our best to address it.
-
I disagree. The real fundamental that we're talking about here is the primary one of sportsmanship and fair play. There's a major difference here when the passer simply drops back delays as long as possible and fires the ball downfield when not a single receiver has even crossed the NZ, a clear and intentional act directly intended to deprive the opponent of a chance to impact the final outcome of the contest. That clearly is not the same as "any other 4th down".
Multiple football rules codes and other game rules codes have been recently striving to eliminate those types of actions and fouls that give a team a clear advantage when it relates to intentional acts that directly impact the game clock and/or the final results of a game.
My opinion is that if there is a way to fix an identified shortcoming in the rules where the solution doesn't cause a bigger problem than the one we're attempting to fix then we should do our best to address it.
First the fundamental we are really talking about is "No foul causes loss of the ball." I'm agreeing that it's not a violation of the fundamental we are talking about to have the rules give B an untimed down as part of the penalty, any more than it would be to give the ball to B after an IFP on any other 4th down. So, I'm fairly sure you agree with that, since it's even more fair for the ball to go over to B on the loss of down here than it is on other 4th down IFP.
-
I disagree. The real fundamental that we're talking about here is the primary one of sportsmanship and fair play. There's a major difference here when the passer simply drops back delays as long as possible and fires the ball downfield when not a single receiver has even crossed the NZ, a clear and intentional act directly intended to deprive the opponent of a chance to impact the final outcome of the contest. That clearly is not the same as "any other 4th down".
Multiple football rules codes and other game rules codes have been recently striving to eliminate those types of actions and fouls that give a team a clear advantage when it relates to intentional acts that directly impact the game clock and/or the final results of a game.
My opinion is that if there is a way to fix an identified shortcoming in the rules where the solution doesn't cause a bigger problem than the one we're attempting to fix then we should do our best to address it.
If this is true then we need to do away with the exception to spike the ball without penalty to stop the clock.
Because the fair and sportsmanlike thing to do would be to toss it up and give both A and B an opportunity to catch it. IMO, while the "intentional" intentional grounding on 4th down seems unfair to the opponent, it is actually nothing more, nothing less than a coach using the rules to his advantage.
-
If this is true then we need to do away with the exception to spike the ball without penalty to stop the clock.
Apples and oranges. Spiking the ball is 100% legal under the rules. Intentional grounding is illegal under the rules. It's real simple - if a rule can be intentionally violated, then if it can be fixed, we need to do our best to fix it in my opinion. Pretty simple concept of sportsmanship and fair play. I'm not a advocate of having any rule that coaches can teach their team to intentionally violate to their advantage.
-
Apples and oranges. Spiking the ball is 100% legal under the rules. Intentional grounding is illegal under the rules. It's real simple - if a rule can be intentionally violated, then if it can be fixed, we need to do our best to fix it in my opinion. Pretty simple concept of sportsmanship and fair play. I'm not a advocate of having any rule that coaches can teach their team to intentionally violate to their advantage.
I respectfully disagree. Spiking the ball is a situation in which an illegal act (intentional grounding) becomes legal by an exception to the rule. Using the intentional grounding rule to your benefit without having to make an exception is a part of the game.
It's no different than a punter illegally kicking the ball out the back of the end zone to avoid the opponent falling on it for a TD. If I were a coach I would teach my punter to do that if he needed to, and would sleep well that night if he did.
-
I respectfully disagree. Spiking the ball is a situation in which an illegal act (intentional grounding) becomes legal by an exception to the rule. Using the intentional grounding rule to your benefit without having to make an exception is a part of the game.
It's no different than a punter illegally kicking the ball out the back of the end zone to avoid the opponent falling on it for a TD. If I were a coach I would teach my punter to do that if he needed to, and would sleep well that night if he did.
You just described why it's different, spiking the ball is legal by rule, kicking a loose ball is illegal by rule.
The point here is a very simple one in my opinion - A sporting event should not end with the winning team committing an intentional illegal act that deprives the opponent an opportunity to win the event.
-
The point here is a very simple one in my opinion - A sporting event should not end with the winning team committing an intentional illegal act that deprives the opponent an opportunity to win the event.
I agree.
Football gives the offense a chance to complete the play if the clock reaches 0:00 during the play, and even gives an option for an extra (untimed) down if the clock is at 0:00.
However, football does NOT give that option to the defense. (EXCEPT, oddly at the NFL level, for a first-touching foul by the kicking team - then the new offense gets the ball even if the clock expired before the foul)
The NFL also has a 10 second run-off if the offense does something illegal to conserve time.
Conversely, there should be a way for the offense to be penalized for illegally consuming time that the defense wants.
A simple solution: Just give the defense the option to put time back on the game clock, along with accepting a penalty or result of the play.
-
You just described why it's different, spiking the ball is legal by rule, kicking a loose ball is illegal by rule.
The point here is a very simple one in my opinion - A sporting event should not end with the winning team committing an intentional illegal act that deprives the opponent an opportunity to win the event.
Let me ask this in a different way. If A were to illegally kick the ball out of the back of the EZ to keep B from falling on it and scoring the gaming winning TD, would you consider that to be the same egregious foul as the intentional grounding foul in the OP? Because he just committed an intentionally illegal act that deprived the opponent an opportunity to win the game. if that were to happen, should the rule be changed to make A have to kick off with an untimed down?
-
So you would be in favor of awarding a TD if, to avoid a td by the defense, illegally kicks the ball out of the back of the EZ? Because he just committed an intentionally illegal act that deprived the opponent an opportunity to score a TD.
No, but I would be in favor of an option of enforcing the Illegal Kicking penalty at the previous spot, and then as part of the penalty enforcement allowing B to have an untimed down.
-
No, but I would be in favor of an option of enforcing the Illegal Kicking penalty at the previous spot, and then as part of the penalty enforcement allowing B to have an untimed down.
Fair enough. I see your point, I just happen to disagree with the principle. In my opinion, while the rules are not perfect they are workable, and I see nothing wrong with a coach/team using those rules to their full advantage. To do as you suggest would change the "all-but-one" principle the NFHS holds so dear, so I doubt that change would go through. I could see the untimed down after a 4th-down LOD penalty by the offense. But, in the hypothetical I posted above your response, that still wouldn't work if the down was anything but 4th down. For example, if it was 3rd down, the defense would obviously not want the previous spot for the foul. They would want the safety. But the offense would still benefit from the illegal kick, preventing the TD.
-
Fair enough. I see your point, I just happen to disagree with the principle. In my opinion, while the rules are not perfect they are workable, and I see nothing wrong with a coach/team using those rules to their full advantage. To do as you suggest would change the "all-but-one" principle the NFHS holds so dear, so I doubt that change would go through. I could see the untimed down after a 4th-down LOD penalty by the offense. But, in the hypothetical I posted above your response, that still wouldn't work if the down was anything but 4th down. For example, if it was 3rd down, the defense would obviously not want the previous spot for the foul. They would want the safety. But the offense would still benefit from the illegal kick, preventing the TD.
And a caveat for that 4th down LOD penalty would have to be included. I just think there is too much exception revolved around changing this rule. Tough thing to deal with but not everything in life is fair. Good life lesson for the coaches to teach :)
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk