RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: JasonTX on February 24, 2017, 11:46:04 AM
-
4th and 18 at the A-22. The score is A28 - B24. A6's punt is rolling on the B-49 when A85 illegally kicks the ball downfield. B44 recovers the ball and advances to the A-1 where he is downed. Time expires in the 4th qtr. during the down. Ruling:
(Note: This is a play from Rom Gilberts site and I don't agree with the ruling.)
-
I would rule B 1/G on the A 1/2 yardline. Extend for one untimed down.
Tack on applies, A foul during a scrimmage kick play.
Although loss of down is in the penalty, it is not in the statement for the part when illegally kicking the loose ball is beyond the NZ during a scrimmage kick.
-
I would rule B 1/G on the A 1/2 yardline. Extend for one untimed down.
Tack on applies, A foul during a scrimmage kick play.
Although loss of down is in the penalty, it is not in the statement for the part when illegally kicking the loose ball is beyond the NZ during a scrimmage kick.
I agree 100%.
-
What is his ruling?
-
Rom's answer, which is currently supported by RR, AFAIK, is that the period is not extended as the penalty statement includes the loss of down language and the foul is by the team in possession. The exception language does not count in determining if the period is extended.
Yes, this should be changed.
-
See http://romgilbert.us/p-1516.htm for more plays (and a suggested rule change) where the current rule is unfair to the non-fouling team.
-
The exception language does not count in determining if the period is extended.
Based on what?
-
The exception language does not count in determining if the period is extended.
Based on what?
RR ruling. Otherwise an illegal forward pass after a COP would result in the period being extended, which is not what the rules makers want. Currently it is enough if the penalty clause includes the magic words "loss of down" for any situation for the period not to be extended.
What makes the current situation even more bizarre is that there is no right to repeat the down to lose when a foul occurs after a COP, so why have complicated language for this? (You do need the exception for scrimmage kicks, as the COP has not happened yet)
-
The way I look at the penalty for illegally kicking the ball there are 2 potential enforcements. 1. If the foul takes place behind the line of scrimmage then it will include a loss of down. 2. If the foul takes place beyond the line of scrimmage it will not have a loss of down.
Hypothetical play: 4th and 10 from the 50. A's punt is muffed by B10 at the B-20. While the ball is loose at the B-20, A80 illegally kicks the ball and it is recovered by A85 in the end zone. Time expired in the 4th Qtr. during the down. The touchdown puts Team A up by 6. Ruling:
-
Hypothetical play: 4th and 10 from the 50. A's punt is muffed by B10 at the B-20. While the ball is loose at the B-20, A80 illegally kicks the ball and it is recovered by A85 in the end zone. Time expired in the 4th Qtr. during the down. The touchdown puts Team A up by 6. Ruling:
Team B would accept the penalty to take the TD off the board, the penalty is enforced at the previous spot. Here it might be more advantageous to team B to not extend since team A will not re-punt, they would either throw a Hail Mary or kneel down. Of course, team B could intercept the Hail Mary and run it for a TD.
-
Hypothetical play: 4th and 10 from the 50. A's punt is muffed by B10 at the B-20. While the ball is loose at the B-20, A80 illegally kicks the ball and it is recovered by A85 in the end zone. Time expired in the 4th Qtr. during the down. The touchdown puts Team A up by 6. Ruling:
Team B accepts the penalty. As the rule language has the magic words "loss of down", the period is not extended. Game ends or go to extra periods.
With Rom's proposed rule change team B would have an option to repeat the down and extend the period, but the penalty would be enforced from the previous spot as team A is in legal possession of the ball when the down ends.
-
RR ruling. Otherwise an illegal forward pass after a COP would result in the period being extended, which is not what the rules makers want. Currently it is enough if the penalty clause includes the magic words "loss of down" for any situation for the period not to be extended.
I disagree. This isn't the same situation. In this case the statement of the penalty says "No loss of down if the foul occurs when a legal scrimmage kick is beyond the neutral zone."
I'm not saying you're wrong (though I think it would go against the intent of the LOD exception to extending the period)- I'm just wondering if and where RR addressed Jason's actual situation.
-
I'm not saying you're wrong (though I think it would go against the intent of the LOD exception to extending the period)- I'm just wondering if and where RR addressed Jason's actual situation.
Feel free to check with either Rom or RR, both respond pretty promptly to emails :)
-
The LOD fouls were hulled out of the untimed down rule several years ago by the NFHS, and I believe nearly simultaneously by the NCAA, as a result of a game-ending play in a Louisiana. The play went sorta' like this:
(1) A scores to go up by 2 with 0:05 remaining in game;
(2) B turns the free kick return into a rugby scrum;
(3) at A's 15, B2 heaves the ball forward as he was about to be tackled;
(4) B3 catches the airborne heave in A's endzone, clock reads 0:00;
(5) A needs to take the IFP penalty to negate a TD;
(6) ball moved to A's 20, B -now A- is given an untimed down;
(7) Hans ,the European exchange student, enters the game and kicks
state championship game winning 37 yd field goal;
(8) Hans gets a date with the prom queen!
IMHO, removing the untimed down from LOD penalty left a buried glitch. It surfaced it's ugly head twice this year - once in in Oka/Mich NCAA game and again in an Ill. NFHS state championship - I believe - and in this OP. IMHO, the easy removal of this glitch is to add to (NFHS) 3-3-4b3 : "....unless the foul causes a change of possession." The officials in the two mentioned games inadvertently enforced common sense solutions that ,by rule, were wrong. Any other suggestions on making those common sense solutions correct by rule???........
-
Maybe use the wording:
"A penalty is accepted for a live-ball foul(s) (Exception: Rule 10-2-5-a). The period is not extended if the foul is by the team in possession and the statement of the penalty includes loss of down (A.R. 3-2-3-VIII). (Exception:: The period is extended if when the ball is dead, it belongs Team B based on Rule 5-1-1-d or 5-1-1-e or 5-1-1-f)"
But maybe then you have an issue with 5-1-1-e-3 and 5-1-1-e-4 as it creates a circular reasoning.
So another possibility would be:
"A penalty is accepted for a live-ball foul(s) (Exception: Rule 10-2-5-a). The period is not extended if the foul is by the team in possession and the statement of the penalty includes loss of down (A.R. 3-2-3-VIII). (Exception:: The period is extended if when the ball is dead, it belongs Team B based on Rule 5-1-1-d or 5-1-1-e or 5-1-1-f. (Exception:: The period is not extended if when the ball is dead, it belongs to Team B only based on Rule 5-1-1-c or 5-1-1-e-3 or 5-1-1-e-4))."
This would maybe 'legally' close the loophole, but it's a complicated bit of wording...
-
This would maybe 'legally' close the loophole, but it's a complicated bit of wording...
A lot easier and equitable is to give the offended team the option to extend or not.
-
A lot easier and equitable is to give the offended team the option to extend or not.
I like that, Kallie, and will plan to submit a proposal to that affect next year. Sometimes real life happenings need to occur to prompt action.
-
A lot easier and equitable is to give the offended team the option to extend or not.
Makes more sense indeed...
-
A lot easier and equitable is to give the offended team the option to extend or not.
Better still: if the penalty results in repeating the down, the period is extended. If it does not, give the offended team the option. If a touchdown run gets called back for a hold or an illegal formation, better that there's one more play. Similarly if a team runs down the clock to kick game winning chip shot field goal and somebody lines up wrong, that shouldn't cost them the game. Back them up 5 yards and kick it again.
-
Better still: if the penalty results in repeating the down, the period is extended. If it does not, give the offended team the option. If a touchdown run gets called back for a hold or an illegal formation, better that there's one more play. Similarly if a team runs down the clock to kick game winning chip shot field goal and somebody lines up wrong, that shouldn't cost them the game. Back them up 5 yards and kick it again.
I suppose Kalle meant giving the option only in those cases where the magic words are mentioned in the penalty statement. Otherwise, why have the rule about the extention altogether?
-
Better still: if the penalty results in repeating the down, the period is extended. If it does not, give the offended team the option.
This is what I (or actually Rom) meant. There is no reason to change rules for situations where the down is repeated, only in situations where currently the down is not repeated (and the period isn't extended).