RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Kleiny on April 23, 2019, 01:21:13 AM
-
Howdy, ladies and gentlemen!
I’m trying to find clarification on linemen (T,G,C,G,T; all ineligible numbers) who are “engaged” in a block that initiated at/near the NZ, but end up a little bit beyond the Expanded Neutral Zone at the time of a forward (downfield) pass. With more and more high schools trying to incorporate the RPO (Run-Pass-Option) it is something that I’ve been noticing more frequently and want to just “freshen up” before the season kicks off. When executed properly, the RPO is a beautiful play and nearly impossible to stop at the high school level, but sometimes the QB misses a key read and the play takes a bit longer to develop...and O-linemen are just churning away (not knowing what the QB is doing) ultimately ending up further and further downfield with each passing second!
First: linemen (ineligible receivers) are prohibited from moving beyond the Expanded Neutral Zone prior to a downfield pass, correct? Correct. Can someone confirm that this means NO MORE THAN THREE YARDS beyond the neutral zone? My brain is still hibernating since last season and I’m being tugged in all sorts of directions because of the differences between NFHS, NCAA, and NFL! Regardless, the Expanded Neutral Zone does not extend beyond the goal line in any of these leagues, but I’d sincerely appreciate someone confirming the rule in NFHS. For the life of me, I just can’t find anything to help give me clarity!
Second: IF my brain isn’t playing tricks on me and the rule is THREE YARDS beyond the NZ (for o-linemen) then how are YOU going to rule on an offensive tackle who is engaged in a block that began at the NZ, but ends up THREE-AND-A-HALF yards beyond the NZ at the time of the forward pass downfield? Is there anything that specifically covers this scenario? Or am I just reading too much into it and the rule is the rule regardless of where the blocker engaged the defensive player? Does it even matter that the O-lineman is “engaged” in a block a yard beyond the ENZ? Why am I so transfixed on the notion of the O-lineman being “engaged” in a block versus not “engaged”? Is the OL treated differently if he’s “engaged” while downfield or something? I don’t recall ever being this uncertain about this rule and I’m unable to find anything specific that will satisfy my annoying uncertainty!!
Third: an ineligible receiver (let’s go with the left offensive guard) explodes downfield at the snap and ends up FIVE YARDS beyond the NZ before he realizes that it’s a passing play! He then retreats back to the NZ and the quarterback then throws the ball downfield AFTER the left guard has made it back to his side of the NZ. Ruling?!
I appreciate the assist on this, my friends! For some reason, I just can’t find much clarity on this particular aspect of the game and it’s driving me nuts! I feel like I’m thinking proper, but there’s a little contrarian voice over my shoulder sowing seeds of doubt! Thanks‼️
-
2.28.2 and 7.5.12 should clear things up for you.
-
NFHS is 2 yards, NCAA is 3 yards, NFL is 1 yard (I believe).
The NFHS confusion is there are two statements in the rule. One says the ineligible player can't go beyond the ENZ before the pass is released. The other statement says they can't go beyond the ENZ if they engage at the LOS. Some argue the second statement overrides the first statement. Some argue the first statement makes the second statement irrelevant. I'm guessing the POE will clarify which interpretation the rules committee wants.
Regardless if the ineligible player goes beyond the 2 yards whether or not they are engaged and a legal forward pass is then thrown beyond the NZ they are guilty of IDP.
-
Third: an ineligible receiver (let’s go with the left offensive guard) explodes downfield at the snap and ends up FIVE YARDS beyond the NZ before he realizes that it’s a passing play! He then retreats back to the NZ and the quarterback then throws the ball downfield AFTER the left guard has made it back to his side of the NZ. Ruling?!
To answer this part of the question, isn't the key flag/no flag decision here based on the actual position of the ineligible player when a legal forward pass actually crosses the NZ? Does how far downfield he was before the pass actually matter?
-
Quote from: Kleiny on Today at 01:21:13 AM
Third: an ineligible receiver (let’s go with the left offensive guard) explodes downfield at the snap and ends up FIVE YARDS beyond the NZ before he realizes that it’s a passing play! He then retreats back to the NZ and the quarterback then throws the ball downfield AFTER the left guard has made it back to his side of the NZ. Ruling?!
To answer this part of the question, isn't the key flag/no flag decision here based on the actual position of the ineligible player when a legal forward pass actually crosses the NZ? Does how far downfield he was before the pass actually matter?
Case Book 7.5.12 SITUATION A:
At the snap, interior lineman A1 moves about 3 yards downfield and finding no one to block, retreats behind the neutral zone and blocks for A2 who eventually throws a forward pass which crosses the neutral zone.
RULING: A1 is an ineligible illegally downfield. The prohibition against ineligibles downfield for A starts at the snap, and the fact A1 was no longer downfield when the pass was thrown has no bearing on the ruling.
-
A question for the Magician. Where in the rules, and by that I assume you mean rulebook is there verbage on being engaged?
-
Remember, guys, that a planned screen pass that deflects off a receiver's hands and crosses the LOS, untouched by B, is considered a forward downfield pass.
-
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Lhj1aYpv5S9jbnQU6
Hope this link works. A classic example of the incomplete screen. Watch the block from the wideout. Blindside?
-
A question for the Magician. Where in the rules, and by that I assume you mean rulebook is there verbage on being engaged?
Last sentence of 7-5-12
ART. 12 . . . lneligible A players may not advance beyond the expanded neutral
zone on a legal forward pass play before a legal forward pass that crosses the
neutral zone is in flight. lf B touches the pass in or behind the neutral zone, this
restriction is terminated. An ineligible is not illegally downfield if, at the snap, he
immediately contacts a B lineman and the contact does not continue beyond the
expanded neutral zone.
-
Last sentence of 7-5-12
ART. 12 . . . lneligible A players may not advance beyond the expanded neutral
zone on a legal forward pass play before a legal forward pass that crosses the
neutral zone is in flight. lf B touches the pass in or behind the neutral zone, this
restriction is terminated. An ineligible is not illegally downfield if, at the snap, he
immediately contacts a B lineman and the contact does not continue beyond the
expanded neutral zone.
Correct. And the first statement is the one I was referencing. Based on that statement there is no requirement for them to be engaged to go into the expanded neutral zone. If that's the case the last statement isn't necessary. The first statement already says they can be there with no reference to engagement. This is how we have always interpreted it, but I'm sure others say they have to engaged first based on the last statement. I'm hoping this POE clarifies what the rules committee wants. I'm hoping the engagement won't be required because that is consistent with NCAA rules (other than distance).
-
2.28.2 and 7.5.12 should clear things up for you.
A quick lesson in NFHS Football writing edicate for future use...
This is a common mistake and certainly not intended to offend.
When writing a reference to Rule number; The Rule, Section, and Article are separated by a "Dash" as in 2-28-2
Accordingly, when writing a reference to a Case Book Situation, The Rule, Section, and Article are separated by a "Decimal" as in 2.28.2
Source: 2018 Case Book, Page 2, under "CASE BOOK FORMAT"
-
No offense, how would I be able to correct any mistakes unless pointed out. Thanks!
-
Thank you, my friends! I wish the rules for “basic football 101” were more uniform throughout the three main leagues (NFHS, NCAA, and NFL) because most of the “questions” or hesitations I have regarding rules stems from the fact that so many (of the rules) are NOT uniform!
Also, does anyone else find it odd that there isn’t a rule specifically written in the (rule) book that simply says something like: THE ENZ EXTENDS TO TWO YARDS BEYOND THE BALL FOR FORWARD PASS PLAYS.
It kinda feels like we have to infer that it’s TWO YARDS rather than simply being told that it’s two yards.
Anyways...thanks again for all of the comments!
Cheers!
-
Also, does anyone else find it odd that there isn’t a rule specifically written in the (rule) book that simply says something like: THE ENZ EXTENDS TO TWO YARDS BEYOND THE BALL FOR FORWARD PASS PLAYS.
It kinda feels like we have to infer that it’s TWO YARDS rather than simply being told that it’s two yards.
Isn't this what you're looking for?
RULE 2 - SECTION 28 NEUTRAL ZONE
ART. 1 . . . The neutral zone is the space between the two free-kick lines during a free-kick down and between the two scrimmage lines during a scrimmage down. For a free-kick down, the neutral zone is 10 yards wide and for a scrimmage down it is as wide as the length of the football. It is established when the ball is marked ready for play.
ART. 2 . . . The neutral zone may be expanded following the snap up to a maximum of 2 yards behind the defensive line of scrimmage, in the field of play, during any scrimmage down.
-
Thank you, my friends! I wish the rules for “basic football 101” were more uniform throughout the three main leagues (NFHS, NCAA, and NFL) because most of the “questions” or hesitations I have regarding rules stems from the fact that so many (of the rules) are NOT uniform!
Football is a highly competitive game, involving serious physical contact, between participants possessing considerably progressive talents, capabilities and maturity. Development of often subtle differences in basic rule concepts, at different levels, tailored to address these significant talent and maturity differences as well as additional level specific objectives that have evolved over time have resulted in "level specific" modifications.
Considering that American Football rules apply to (NFHS) iNTERSCHOLASTIC participants ranging from (approximately age 8/10 through 17/19), (NCAA) COLLEGIATE participants with higher physical talents and maturity (age 17/19 through Mid-20s) and (NFL) PROFESSIONAL athletes (age 20s through 50s) with exceptional physical talents, adult maturity & needs, it seems reasonable the rules governing each level would adjust to meet the different requirements and capabilities necessary and practical for each level.
Because of the significant (capability, skill, maturity) differences WITHIN each level, additional modifications are deemed necessary to better relate to level specific participants ( Youth Football using NFHS rules, Division Level modifications within NCAA, Individual league modifications at the Professional/Semi Pro levels applying NFL rules).
American Football Rules is a perfect example of, "One size will NEVER/EVER fit all".
-
For the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule to apply to an offensive lineman he must engage the defender he is blocking at the snap and not be beyond the 2-yard Expanded Neutral Zone when the pass is thrown across the LOS. If he disengages after that initial block then there's no foul. If he goes downfield looking to engage someone he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield if the pass crosses the LOS. If he goes downfield and then retreats back behind the LOS, technically he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield. Use your common sense. Don't confuse the Free Blocking Zone Rule with the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule and know how it applies to Scrimmage Kicks in regards to K-First Touching.
-
For the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule to apply to an offensive lineman he must engage the defender he is blocking at the snap and not be beyond the 2-yard Expanded Neutral Zone when the pass is thrown across the LOS. If he disengages after that initial block then there's no foul. If he goes downfield looking to engage someone he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield if the pass crosses the LOS. If he goes downfield and then retreats back behind the LOS, technically he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield. Use your common sense. Don't confuse the Free Blocking Zone Rule with the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule and know how it applies to Scrimmage Kicks in regards to K-First Touching.
So when snapper A-50 who is head up at the snap attempts to block "blitzing" linebacker B-51 who is on the LOS at the snap takes a couple of steps upfield with B-51 who delays and then backs out into coverage, you're going to have a flag for IDP if there is no contact? Isn't this another case where simple common sense and judgment come into play? And if A-50 is in fact back in the NZ as the forward pass crosses the LOS who is making that call?
-
For the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule to apply to an offensive lineman he must engage the defender he is blocking at the snap and not be beyond the 2-yard Expanded Neutral Zone when the pass is thrown across the LOS. If he disengages after that initial block then there's no foul. If he goes downfield looking to engage someone he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield if the pass crosses the LOS. If he goes downfield and then retreats back behind the LOS, technically he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield. Use your common sense. Don't confuse the Free Blocking Zone Rule with the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule and know how it applies to Scrimmage Kicks in regards to K-First Touching.
I disagree. The rule states:
ART. 12 . . . lneligible A players may not advance beyond the expanded neutral zone on a legal forward pass play before a legal forward pass that crosses the neutral zone is in flight. lf B touches the pass in or behind the neutral zone, this restriction is terminated. An ineligible is not illegally downfield if, at the snap, he immediately contacts a B lineman and the contact does not continue beyond the expanded neutral zone.
The first sentence alone does not require there to be contact. The last sentence is unnecessary because it doesn't require contact based on the first sentence. I was hoping the rules committee was going to clarify this either by getting rid of the first sentence or the last sentence. Most interpretations I've heard around the country subscribe to the first sentence.
-
I disagree. The rule states:
The first sentence alone does not require there to be contact. The last sentence is unnecessary because it doesn't require contact based on the first sentence. I was hoping the rules committee was going to clarify this either by getting rid of the first sentence or the last sentence. Most interpretations I've heard around the country subscribe to the first sentence.
Our state has instructed us to not penalize unless the ineligible is past the expanded neutral zone. (2 yards)
-
Our state has instructed us to not penalize unless the ineligible is past the expanded neutral zone. (2 yards)
I think that's the more common interpretation but some obviously focus more on the 3rd sentence and ignore the first. As long as everyone (officials and coaches and players) are all on the same page it doesn't matter, but if any of those groups in the same region/association don't see it the same way you'll have issues.
-
Wasn't there supposed to be a clarification / POE on this issue this year? What happened to that?
-
In a general sense, it's FAR LESS problematic to judge how the play conforms to and fits the rule, rather than try and adjust the ruleso that it fits the play.
-
Wasn't there supposed to be a clarification / POE on this issue this year? What happened to that?
That's what the press release said but I didn't see anything in the actual rule or editorial changes or POE. I was hoping they would come down on one side or another. I wonder if they didn't come down on the side of requiring contact and there was push back on that from coaches so they didn't include it.
-
That's what the press release said but I didn't see anything in the actual rule or editorial changes or POE. I was hoping they would come down on one side or another. I wonder if they didn't come down on the side of requiring contact and there was push back on that from coaches so they didn't include it.
I'll look into it's absence. I tell our guys to think of the spirit of the rule, which is : could the ineligible receiver be mistaken as eligible by the defense ? IMHO, an ineligible driving a D-lineman off the LOS could not. An ineligible wandering a couple of yards beyond the LOS without attempting to block anyone, could. Flag ,em.
-
I'll look into it's absence. I tell our guys to think of the spirit of the rule, which is : could the ineligible receiver be mistaken as eligible by the defense ? IMHO, an ineligible driving a D-lineman off the LOS could not. An ineligible wandering a couple of yards beyond the LOS without attempting to block anyone, could. Flag ,em.
That is one of the two interpretations out there, but I believe it's a minority interpretation across the county. If the committee wants the interpretation to match yours they need to get rid of the first sentence in the rule and add it as a POE or a case play to clarify.
-
….. An ineligible wandering a couple of yards beyond the LOS without attempting to block anyone, could. Flag ,em.
We've been given very clear "guidance" that the U should do his best to get to 2-3 yards from the NZ on pass plays and when a legal forward pass crosses the NZ to do the quick scan to make sure that no ineligibles are at your level or beyond. With all of the pre-defined responsibilities of a 5 man crew, who is actually watching to make sure that no ineligibles are "downfield" a yard or 2 without ever engaging in a block with a defender? And more importantly IMHO how would you enforce that consistently during an entire game?
-
Into all of this comes the order of priorities. IMHO, in 4 or 5 man, the ump's sNiCkErS most important responsibilities are : (1) did the pass go over the LOS ?; (2) was the passer over the LOS when he passed ? After that, a quick glance to spot any big ole' Bubba who is all by his lonely several yards downfield. Remember, it's U's call if the attempted screen pass went beyond the LOS , for if it didn't anyone can be anywhere.
-
Getting back to the original intent of the poster's question - whenever A runs an "RPO," the key for our wings in 5 man is the tackle - if he "run-blocks," they read run and hold the line. Assuming this is the case on an RPO, the wings should be able to help the U with ineligible downfield. If the QB holds the read long enough for linemen to get downfield beyond the extended NZ, should be an easy call. If the tackle drops in pass protection, and the wings have to look downfield, they can still help, but primarily the U has it. We try to train the offside wing to help the U.
-
I'm in the camp that would let the buffalo roam 2 yards down field whether or not they are engaged with a defender. We don't need IDP fouls going up 10 fold
-
I'm in the camp that would let the buffalo roam 2 yards down field whether or not they are engaged with a defender. We don't need IDP fouls going up 10 fold
Retweet
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
We've been given very clear "guidance" that the U should do his best to get to 2-3 yards from the NZ on pass plays and when a legal forward pass crosses the NZ to do the quick scan to make sure that no ineligibles are at your level or beyond.
Into all of this comes the order of priorities. IMHO, in 4 or 5 man, the ump's sNiCkErS most important responsibilities are : (1) did the pass go over the LOS ?; (2) was the passer over the LOS when he passed ? After that, a quick glance to spot any big ole' Bubba who is all by his lonely several yards downfield. Remember, it's U's call if the attempted screen pass went beyond the LOS , for if it didn't anyone can be anywhere.
I would advise doing this in the opposite order. I had a few IDP early in my career where I did this and the big ol lineman was 5-6 yards downfield when I saw him. Then I watched the video and he was within 2 yards when the ball was released (the time when their location is relevant). When I noticed a lineman is now downfield, I then take a quick peak back to see where the ball is. If the QB still has it then I drop a flag if he ultimately throws a legal pass beyond the NZ. If he has released it or is completing his passing motion there is no foul. This is also helpful because a lineman could go beyond and then retreat. If you did it in the order above he may be legal when you see him but he had already committed the foul. When you do it this way you'll have a lot fewer IDP fouls.
-
The best way to manage IDP as a U is if you see a suspect lineman downfield, note his location and mentally drop a pin on the field where he is when you see the ball in the air. Then, run to that spot and compare where you are with the down box (or better yet, memorize the previous LOS yard line). If you're >2 down field, throw your flag. This is useful for teams that run the RPO. The normal pass plays where the buffalo roam down field you can generally pick up without any crafty system. Just turn up your awareness. You'll miss 100% of the IDP's you're not checking for.
I've never worked 5 man, so this may or may not work if you have other responsibilities like whether the pass crossed the LOS or not, but I think it's worth a try.
-
The best way to manage IDP as a U is if you see a suspect lineman downfield, note his location and mentally drop a pin on the field where he is when you see the ball in the air.
There are a somewhat limited number of specific mechanic recommendations for using a bean bag, as well as an unlimited opportunity to use a beanbag to memorialize a "spot", that may not be "officially recommended" or required, that may be deemed beneficial, and helpful, when making a subsequent decision. Better to simply retrieve a bean bag down, that may subsequently prove to be unnecessary, than to regret not throwing one to mark a subsequently critical spot.
Should such bean bag use produce an occasional, unsolicited, request for an explanation, it is totally the option, of the official dropping the bag, to decide whether, and/or to what extent an explanation is merited.
-
For the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule to apply to an offensive lineman he must engage the defender he is blocking at the snap and not be beyond the 2-yard Expanded Neutral Zone when the pass is thrown across the LOS. If he disengages after that initial block then there's no foul. If he goes downfield looking to engage someone he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield if the pass crosses the LOS. If he goes downfield and then retreats back behind the LOS, technically he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield. Use your common sense. Don't confuse the Free Blocking Zone Rule with the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule and know how it applies to Scrimmage Kicks in regards to K-First Touching.
Thank you, my friend. I appreciate your simplicity in explaining how you understand this particular aspect of the game/rules. Clarity was what I was initially seeking (regarding this specific rule) and clarity is what I feel like I have received. Thank you...everyone!
Regarding my comments about a desire for more uniformity in the rules:
I was referring to what I would call “Basic Football 101” type stuff and, to me, basic football 101 involves stuff like marking off a (offensive) holding penalty from the LOS rather than the spot of the foul if it occurred behind the LOS. In my humble opinion, the skill level of the participants has nothing to do with stuff like this. I was simply making a comment and uttering a small wish aloud. It still makes absolutely no sense at all that an offensive holding penalty by a o-lineman can result in 15...or 17...or MORE yards if he was penalized 5, 7, or more yards behind the LOS. That is an example of “Basic Football 101” that I was eluding to. I hope this makes sense as much can be lost in translation of a message board comment. Personally, I am very grateful that I stumbled upon this awesome message board/website and only wish I would’ve stumbled upon it much earlier in my career as an official because this year will be my last for Friday night officiating for the foreseeable future.
Also...referring to the post above, I don’t think he was actually talking about throwing a bean bag. He said “drop a mental pin”, which is a pretty good bit of advice if I say so myself! Well said, sir! I like it and will certainly recommend that to our umpire this season.
Thanks again, ladies and gentleman. It’s nice to have a place to go where a simple question can be asked without being made to feel like a fool. Good luck this season, my brothers.
-
[quote author=Kleiny link=topic=14402.msg147024#msg147024 date=1562665367
It still makes absolutely no sense at all that an offensive holding penalty by a o-lineman can result in 15...or 17...or MORE yards if he was penalized 5, 7, or more yards behind the LOS. That is an example of “Basic Football 101” that I was eluding to.
[/quote]
The other side of this particular coin raises the question; when the defense gains an honest advantage by driving the offense deep behind it's LOS, why encourage the offense to foul, knowing any penalty detected will be enforced from the original LOS, rather than the actual point the infraction occurred at. Doing so provides the offense with an unearned advantage of suffering no consequence for being forced to retreat, whatever additional distance the defense has caused.
Arbitrarily eliminating that additional distance lost, by enforcing the penalty from the original LOS, alters the risk/reward relationship of fouling and increases the value of fouling by removing the additional ground lost from the penalty consequence.
-
…….. It still makes absolutely no sense at all that an offensive holding penalty by a o-lineman can result in 15...or 17...or MORE yards if he was penalized 5, 7, or more yards behind the LOS. That is an example of “Basic Football 101” that I was eluding to. I hope this makes sense as much can be lost in translation of a message board comment. ….
It's important to understand the NFHS rationale in enforcing this type of penalty and not to discount their reasoning because other rules codes enforce this differently. The basis of this is twofold:
1. The primary goal of any penalty is to prevent (hopefully) continuing reoccurrences of the same illegal act, and
2. To fairly penalize the guilty team to offset the potential advantage gained by the illegal act.
A team A holding foul on any play 8-10 yards behind the LOS potentially prevented the team B player from making a tackle for a substantial loss of yards. It can clearly (IMHO) be argued that a potential 10 yard penalty from the previous spot is not really a penalty at all but simply leaves the ball about where it would have been, but also allows team A to replay the down. A tack-on 10 yards is a much more effective deterrent in educating the player that he should learn how to block within the rules.
-
It's important to understand the NFHS rationale in enforcing this type of penalty and not to discount their reasoning because other rules codes enforce this differently. The basis of this is twofold:
1. The primary goal of any penalty is to prevent (hopefully) continuing reoccurrences of the same illegal act, and
2. To fairly penalize the guilty team to offset the potential advantage gained by the illegal act.
A team A holding foul on any play 8-10 yards behind the LOS potentially prevented the team B player from making a tackle for a substantial loss of yards. It can clearly (IMHO) be argued that a potential 10 yard penalty from the previous spot is not really a penalty at all but simply leaves the ball about where it would have been, but also allows team A to replay the down. A tack-on 10 yards is a much more effective deterrent in educating the player that he should learn how to block within the rules.
I would argue 1st and 20 is very difficult to overcome so it's still a significant penalty. The number of series where the offense overcomes that is significantly small. 1st and 25 or 1st and 30 is significantly more difficult. A previous spot penalty in this example is sufficient. It also makes sense the other way (i.e. facemask by B during a sack).
-
It's also to keep the All-but-one principle in-tact when possible. As others have stated, if you want holding to be previous spot, then you have to make an exception to the rule. But then, if you have holding in the end zone, you don't want that to be previous spot, you want that to be a safety. So you have an exception to the exception (which is the original rule). Then you have to make it clear you only want this to happen prior to a change of possession.
So you can see how complicated it can get. All but one is simple.
I've proposed changing what the basic spot is to help alleviate it somewhat. I proposed that if the run ends behind the neutral zone, the basic spot is the previous spot. This helps with defensive fouls being enforced from the LOS, but offensive fouls still will be spot fouls. The change is mainly to clean up the definitions. So basically the only time you have a loose ball play is on legal passes and kicks. No distinction when you fumble behind or beyond the LOS. They're all RUNS! Simple.
-
I would argue 1st and 20 is very difficult to overcome so it's still a significant penalty. The number of series where the offense overcomes that is significantly small. 1st and 25 or 1st and 30 is significantly more difficult. A previous spot penalty in this example is sufficient. It also makes sense the other way (i.e. facemask by B during a sack).
For consequences to work, to eliminate the continuation of prohibited risk, they should provide more discomfort, than potential reward offered by taking the risk. The additional severity posed by the NFHS penalty enforcement is (and should be) greater inducement to avoid choosing the risk. "If you don't want to do the time, DON'T DO THE CRIME".
-
It's also to keep the All-but-one principle in-tact when possible. As others have stated, if you want holding to be previous spot, then you have to make an exception to the rule. But then, if you have holding in the end zone, you don't want that to be previous spot, you want that to be a safety. So you have an exception to the exception (which is the original rule). Then you have to make it clear you only want this to happen prior to a change of possession.
So you can see how complicated it can get. All but one is simple.
I've proposed changing what the basic spot is to help alleviate it somewhat. I proposed that if the run ends behind the neutral zone, the basic spot is the previous spot. This helps with defensive fouls being enforced from the LOS, but offensive fouls still will be spot fouls. The change is mainly to clean up the definitions. So basically the only time you have a loose ball play is on legal passes and kicks. No distinction when you fumble behind or beyond the LOS. They're all RUNS! Simple.
:thumbup Fully agree, Bossman, we've tried to pass this several times but with the objection of doing away with A-B-O on fouls behind the LOS on A along with it. This occurred sometime in my murky past :
(1) Early in the game, on 1st down, visitor's QB sacked 17 yards behind LOS by PFFM;
(2) penalty made situation 1-12, visitor's coach call time and wanted me to explain;
(3) I said : "Even though the play netted a -2, it's better than a -17 AND you got to replay the down !"
(4) Coach accepted my explaining;
(5) 3rd period, home up 30, scrambling home QB grabbed by PFFM and fumbles 10+ behind LOS, B recovers;
(6) after informing U to begin his trot from LOS, I felt obliged to inform the V coach of the diff;
(7) I approached the coach and began : "....Coach, I want to explain the difference....";
(8) you can get away with a lot more with a :) than a >:(...Coach : "Oh, I know the difference, :) this was the HOME QB :) !"
(9) I responded, with a :) , the difference;
(10) He returned : "It's a bad rule, isn't it? "
(11) I agreed : " In this situation, YES, BUT IT IS THE RULE."
(12) He accepted that and said : "We're getting crushed by BAD blocks, BAD tackles and BAD PLAYS; NOT by bad rules. You guys are doing a good job. Keep it up."
IMHO, both fouls along with fouls by B downfield when A is sacked behind , should carry previous spot enforcement....BUT not at the cost of adding exceptions to our A_B_O.
-
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Lhj1aYpv5S9jbnQU6
Hope this link works. A classic example of the incomplete screen. Watch the block from the wideout. Blindside?
I know I’m bumping an old topic but I absolutely needed to come here for some clarification on this and saw this post. Lol. We played Spartanburg when I was a coach. If you wanna see some great examples of exactly this go back and look at South Pointe (since SC teams are being shown). Before I understood being a ref I remember going crazy asking the ref to please explain how the WR’s were allowed to block and also blindside my defensive guys before the pass was even thrown. Eventually I backed all of my DBs off about 8 yards to the passing strength to bait the screen and told the ref I was going to do it. Finally got some yellow on the green lol. This was a while back, though and it was all new and pretty unclear and grey.