RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Jetref on May 01, 2020, 08:56:15 PM
-
I’m new to this forum and I could use some help. I apologize if this topic has been discussed before. Here’s the play situation (NFHS rules): Late in the 4th qtr the score is 21-15 in favor of Team A. There are you not 15 seconds remains in the game. Team A has the ball 4/15 at their own 4 yard line. Team A lines up to punt with the punter standing deep in his own end zone in position to receive the long snap. The Team A punter mishandles the snap and the ball is rolling on the ground directly in front of him. He quickly picks up the ball and tries to run around the right side in hopes of getting the ball out of the end zone. He soon realizes that he is about to get tackled about 4 yards deep in his own end zone and decides to throw the ball 12 yards downfield into an area where there are obviously no eligible receivers in the the area. The Referee has a flag in the end zone for intentional grounding. What options should be given to Team B? Can Team B decline the penalty and take the ball 1st and 10 from the previous spot since they need to quickly score a touchdown in order to win the game? Can anyone please give a rulebook/casebook reference?
-
I’m new to this forum and I could use some help. I apologize if this topic has been discussed before. Here’s the play situation (NFHS rules): Late in the 4th qtr the score is 21-15 in favor of Team A. There are you not 15 seconds remains in the game. Team A has the ball 4/15 at their own 4 yard line. Team A lines up to punt with the punter standing deep in his own end zone in position to receive the long snap. The Team A punter mishandles the snap and the ball is rolling on the ground directly in front of him. He quickly picks up the ball and tries to run around the right side in hopes of getting the ball out of the end zone. He soon realizes that he is about to get tackled about 4 yards deep in his own end zone and decides to throw the ball 12 yards downfield into an area where there are obviously no eligible receivers in the the area. The Referee has a flag in the end zone for intentional grounding. What options should be given to Team B? Can Team B decline the penalty and take the ball 1st and 10 from the previous spot since they need to quickly score a touchdown in order to win the game? Can anyone please give a rulebook/casebook reference?
I'll try.
Either way, it is a safety and Team A will free kick from the 20.
Since the play you describe is a running play by definition, the penalty, if accepted, is assessed from the end of the run, the end zone. The penalty includes a loss of down provision.
If the penalty is declined, it is still a safety because the end of the run is in the end zone.
7-5-2; Table 7-5; 8-5-2c; 10-1-6; 10-4-6; 2-33-2; 2-41-9;
-
Short answer- no. The ball can't be placed at the previous spot since the run ended in the endzone when he threw the ilegal pass.
-
Agree with GA Umpire. Remember, previous spot enforcement is for a loose ball play. This requires a legal kick, fumble, backward pass, or LEGAL forward pass. Since the pass here is illegal, it is a running play. The spot of the foul is the end of the run, in the end zone.
-
It looks like 8-5-2c doesn't give any options - it is a safety whether the penalty is accepted or declined.
-
Assuming the the illegal forward pass was thrown from the 2 yard line, would Team B be able to decline the penalty and take the ball at the previous spot?
-
Assuming the the illegal forward pass was thrown from the 2 yard line, would Team B be able to decline the penalty and take the ball at the previous spot?
No, but why would they want to? ???
The penalty for an illegal forward pass is 5 yards from the spot the pass was thrown from AND loss of the right to repeat the down. It would be Team B's ball, 1st and goal, at the one yard line.
7-5-3
-
Forgive me for muddying the waters by introducing NCAA into this discussion. (I know nothing about NFHS rules.) However, in NCAA, if Team B declines the penalty for an illegal pass thrown from the end zone, by rule, the ball is placed at the previous spot for the next down, whatever it might be. Of course, 1st thru 3rd down, why would Team B give up the 2 points and give Team A an opportunity to get out of a jam with some sort of a great play? Late in the game, if Team B was behind by 3 or more points, they might want to gamble that they could play tough the next couple of downs and force a punt to get good field position for a field goal or TD. But that would be a big gamble, and would be rare, especially considering they could have 2 points plus an opportunity for decent field position following the free kick after the safety. But the opportunity is there.
However, 4th down is a different story. If this happens on 4th down, by declining the penalty, they get the ball at the previous spot, and, as the Wizard said, "That's a horse of a different color." Depending on time remaining, they might gladly give up 2 points and decent field position for 1/10 inside the A-20 (more likely, inside the A-10).
If the NFHS doesn't have this provision, they should probably think about it, even as rare as it would be.
-
He's asking for Fed so let's keep it there. NFHS hates exceptions, except when they don't.
The foul in this play is enforced from the end of the run, no matter where the run ends. Any previous spot is not going to matter.
-
If the NFHS doesn't have this provision, they should probably think about it, even as rare as it would be.
They won't for simplicity's sake.
In NFHS, if you throw an incomplete LEGAL forward pass, you put the ball at the previous spot.
If you throw an incomplete ILLEGAL forward pass, you put the ball at the spot of the pass.
-
Well, forgive me if I muddied the waters. But, I offered the NCAA ruling in case someone was overlooking an ‘exception’ in the NFHS rules to the same effect. This appears to be another point on which the rules makers for each code have simply chosen different paths. It was worth the discussion, I think.
-
It was the poster's 2nd post, I took them to be new to the biz or a non-official.
-
The rationale of illegal forward pass treated as a running play :
(1) On fouls like intentional grounding, the enforcement spot needs to be where the pass was dumped to prevent a sack there.
(2) On an illegal forward pass beyond the LOS , should the pass be dropped, the enforcement spot should be where the runner was when his IFP was thrown not the previous.
.....there may be others.
-
While not using the word ‘exception’ could it be said that the NF is making one in 8-5-2-c?
The first clause of 8-5-2-c says that if there is a penalty that is 1) accepted and that 2) the enforcement spot is in the end zone it would result in a safety. That statement, just by itself, implies that this is true in ALL cases.
So just based on this first clause Team B could decline any penalty that met the two criteria and take the result of play if the result of the play is somehow was more advantageous for them than a Safety would be.
The second clause essentially seems to give an exception to the first by saying that if a penalty is declined for an illegal forward pass foul from the end zone then it’s still going to be a safety. So the second clause takes the option away from Team B from getting the ball at the B4.
If it was a holding foul, along with some others, in the end zone with an incomplete legal forward pass then they could decline the penalty and take the ball with B 1/10 @ B4.
But this can’t be the outcome for B if the foul was an illegal forward pass.
If it’s viewed that this is an actual problem then it would seem that if the second clause was simply removed then it would solve it.
8-5-2-c would just read:
It’s a Safety when….A player on offense commits any foul for which the penalty is accepted and the enforcement is from a spot in the end zone.
Changing it might have some unintended consequence that would prohibit it but none the less. 7-5-3 might need to be looked as well.
-
^its because the distance portion of a penalty is the only thing that can be declined by either team
-
The rationale of illegal forward pass treated as a running play :
(1) On fouls like intentional grounding, the enforcement spot needs to be where the pass was dumped to prevent a sack there.
(2) On an illegal forward pass beyond the LOS , should the pass be dropped, the enforcement spot should be where the runner was when his IFP was thrown not the previous.
.....there may be others.
For #2, the way it made sense to me is that if you declined the penalty for IFP, where would you put the ball?
That's why it's a run play. If not, then you can get a 50 yard run and the incomplete pass would put the ball back at the previous spot, which would make no sense. So, legal forward passes go back to the previous spot. Illegal forward passes go back to the spot of the pass. Then you do your penalties.
-
If the punter's pass was caught by the center at the A4, with no legal receivers in the area, there should still be flags for intentional grounding and illegal touching, correct? At that point, assuming the center was tackled short of the line to gain (say the A6), team B could decline both penalties, accept the result of the play, and then have the ball first and goal from the A6?
-
^its because the distance portion of a penalty is the only thing that can be declined by either team
This is not exactly correct. A team can decline the entirety of the penalty, which includes not only the distance, but the replay of the down as well. Example: Holding against A. If B likes the results of the play, they not only decline the distance, but the right of A to replay the down.
In the case of the play at hand, to decline the penalty for the IFP still leaves A in possession behind the goal because of the spot.
-
If the punter's pass was caught by the center at the A4, with no legal receivers in the area, there should still be flags for intentional grounding and illegal touching, correct? At that point, assuming the center was tackled short of the line to gain (say the A6), team B could decline both penalties, accept the result of the play, and then have the ball first and goal from the A6?
Based on 7-5-3 it would seem so.
If the penalty for an illegal forward pass is accepted, measurement is from the spot of such forward pass. If the offended team declines the distance penalty it has the choice of having the down counted at the spot of the the illegal forward pass or (if the illegal forward pass was caught or intercepted) of having the ball put in play as determined by the action which followed the catch.
-
Maybe an easy way of thinking about is.....
AN ILLEGAL FORWARD PASS IS CONSIDERED A RUNNING PLAY
IF THE PENALTY IS ACCEPTED, IT IS FROM THE END OF THE RUN (the spot of the IFP)
IF THE PENALTY IS DECLINED, THE BALL IS SPOTTED AT THE END OF THE RUN.
-
Maybe an easy way of thinking about is.....
AN ILLEGAL FORWARD PASS IS CONSIDERED A RUNNING PLAY
IF THE PENALTY IS ACCEPTED, IT IS FROM THE END OF THE RUN (the spot of the IFP)
IF THE PENALTY IS DECLINED, THE BALL IS SPOTTED AT THE END OF THE RUN.
Hate to pepper pick a bit, but this is only true in a situation like the original scenario where you have an *incomplete* illegal forward pass.
Change the scenario slightly:
4th and 10 at the A2 -- A1 takes the snap in the shotgun (standing in his end zone), and pitches the ball forward to a jet-sweeping A32. A32 is still in his endzone when he then throws a forward pass, completed to TE A87. A87 is then tackled at the A10.
B can decline the penalty for the IFP and take the result of the play, short of the line to gain, turnover on downs. B's ball at the A10.
-
Well, forgive me if I muddied the waters. But, I offered the NCAA ruling in case someone was overlooking an ‘exception’ in the NFHS rules to the same effect. This appears to be another point on which the rules makers for each code have simply chosen different paths. It was worth the discussion, I think.
Very much worth the discussion. I use this rule as an example in teaching new officials that the rules are not necessarily the same for High School and College (complete with having them read out of both rulebooks). Also, as an example that we need to know our rules. I know some guys who mistakenly applied the college rule for this in a High School game and affected the outcome.
-
- Safety if accepted, 7-5-3, 8-5-2c
- Safety if declined, 7-5-3, 10-5-4
-
I believe in regards to 7-5-3 and declining the penalty the rule states, in part, "If the offended team declines the distance penalty, it has the choice of having the down counted at the spot of the illegal incomplete forward pass or (if the illegal forward pass is caught or intercepted) of having the ball put in play as determined by the action which followed the catch." In this situation, team B could decline the penalty (safety) and take the ball as it was short of the line to gain on a fourth down play, or am I missing something?
-
I believe in regards to 7-5-3 and declining the penalty the rule states, in part, "If the offended team declines the distance penalty, it has the choice of having the down counted at the spot of the illegal incomplete forward pass or (if the illegal forward pass is caught or intercepted) of having the ball put in play as determined by the action which followed the catch." In this situation, team B could decline the penalty (safety) and take the ball as it was short of the line to gain on a fourth down play, or am I missing something?
If you’re referring to the OP, it was a pass thrown into an area with no eligible receivers. We all took that to mean that the pass was incomplete, although it was specifically stated. If the pass was indeed completed, even if illegal, then you are correct.
-
Hate to pepper pick a bit, but this is only true in a situation like the original scenario where you have an *incomplete* illegal forward pass.
Change the scenario slightly:
4th and 10 at the A2 -- A1 takes the snap in the shotgun (standing in his end zone), and pitches the ball forward to a jet-sweeping A32. A32 is still in his endzone when he then throws a forward pass, completed to TE A87. A87 is then tackled at the A10.
B can decline the penalty for the IFP and take the result of the play, short of the line to gain, turnover on downs. B's ball at the A10.
Declining the penalty would put the ball at the end of A87's run. If the IFP was intercepted, the ball would be placed at the end of B's run if penalty was declined.
-
Declining the penalty would put the ball at the end of A87's run. If the IFP was intercepted, the ball would be placed at the end of B's run if penalty was declined.
That's the problem I have with this rule in NFHS. For a legal forward pass, if it's incomplete, the ball is placed at the previous spot with the down advancing.
An illegal forward pass can be caught and advanced by the offense, it can be intercepted by the defense. And the results of the play are the SAME as a legal forward pass if the penalty is declined.
But why is there a DIFFERENT rule when the pass is incomplete? Instead of ruling that both illegal and legal forward passes are officiated the SAME, NFHS rules effectively have an 'exception' that an incomplete illegal forward pass is officiated differently. WHY?
It's much easier if the rule was the SAME for any passes thrown behind the line of scrimmage. It just makes our lives as officials harder. Coaches and fans think we're 'nuts' if they effectively cannot decline the penalty and take an incomplete pass, and we all have to remember this 'exception'.
-
A LEGAL forward incomplete pass, includes the consequence, to the passer, of the down counting, from the previous spot. An ILLEGAL forward pass (Complete or incomplete) provides the same same consequence, in addition to a 5 yard penalty, but considering the foul happened during the running play action, specifies the spot of the foul is from the end of the run (spot of the pass).
NFHS 7-5-2 provides the offended team with the additional option, "It has the choice of having the down counted at the spot of the illegal incomplete pass or (if the illegal pass is caught or intercepted) of having the the ball put in play as determined by the action which followed the catch Which adds significant potential additional risk, and consequence, to the Illegal passer's decision to throw a forward pass, ILLEGALLY.
-
Except for a situation where the result is the same for both accepting and declining a penalty due to math is this 8-2-5-c situation the only one where accepting or declining the penalty gives the offended team the same result?
The first clause of 8-2-5-c says that it’s a safety only if the penalty for the foul is accepted. So if the penalty is declined the offended team can in effect turn down the safety and get the result of the play if they want.
Does anybody have insight as to why there is an exception made to that if the foul is for an illegal forward pass? In other words why is a foul for holding in the end zone treated differently than if it’s a foul for an illegal forward pass?
-
A LEGAL forward incomplete pass, includes the consequence, to the passer, of the down counting, from the previous spot. An ILLEGAL forward pass (Complete or incomplete) provides the same same consequence, in addition to a 5 yard penalty, but considering the foul happened during the running play action, specifies the spot of the foul is from the end of the run (spot of the pass).
No, an illegal forward pass does NOT provide the same consequence.
The rule considers an illegal forward pass that is incomplete to be the end of a running play, NOT a pass.
The rule considers an illegal forward pass that is complete to be a PASS, not a running play. (The PENALTY would be enforced as a running play - or an all-but-one, but not the play itself)
That is where there is inconsistency. 'Oh, the pass didn't happen if it is incomplete' is basically what the rules are saying. Oh, allow time to tick off the clock while the ball is in the air, oh, and stop the clock when the ball hits the ground like a legal incomplete pass. So, the play ended already at the spot of the illegal pass if 3 seconds later we find out the pass hits the ground, but any other penalty, like holding in the end zone, the play doesn't end right there, it is allowed to take it's normal football conclusion.
That's inconsistent, and to me, wrong.
-
How does a downfield official not kill this play if you are suggesting the ball should be live after it hits the ground? Especially on a pass from beyond LOS? Guess what, the play would end with an inadvertent whistle when the ball hits the ground almost every time. As I downfield official I’m either still “on my key” or in zone, and neither of them has me watching the QB, and even if I were watching the QB no way I could tell if pass was thrown beyond LOS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
How does a downfield official not kill this play if you are suggesting the ball should be live after it hits the ground? Especially on a pass from beyond LOS? Guess what, the play would end with an inadvertent whistle when the ball hits the ground almost every time. As I downfield official I’m either still “on my key” or in zone, and neither of them has me watching the QB, and even if I were watching the QB no way I could tell if pass was thrown beyond LOS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The ball hitting the ground kills the play whether the pass is legal or illegal. I beleive his comment that the play does not end with an incomplete illegal pass is that the pass itself does not end the play but the result of the pass. You would blow it dead when it hits the ground in both instances.
-
No, an illegal forward pass does NOT provide the same consequence.
The rule considers an illegal forward pass that is incomplete to be the end of a running play, NOT a pass.
The rule considers an illegal forward pass that is complete to be a PASS, not a running play. (The PENALTY would be enforced as a running play - or an all-but-one, but not the play itself)
That is where there is inconsistency. 'Oh, the pass didn't happen if it is incomplete' is basically what the rules are saying. Oh, allow time to tick off the clock while the ball is in the air, oh, and stop the clock when the ball hits the ground like a legal incomplete pass. So, the play ended already at the spot of the illegal pass if 3 seconds later we find out the pass hits the ground, but any other penalty, like holding in the end zone, the play doesn't end right there, it is allowed to take it's normal football conclusion.
That's inconsistent, and to me, wrong.
It's not inconsistent. If you put all incomplete passes back to the LOS for the sake of consistency, what happens when a runner goes for a 50 yard gain and throws an illegal forward pass? You putting it back at the previous spot? No, you put it at the end of the run. He gained all of those yards legally.
Illegal forward passes are runs, whether they're complete or incomplete. Nothing that applies to legal forward passes applies to illegal forward passes (DPI/OPI, IDP, ITP, eligibility, etc).
Plus, from a practicality standpoint, it would be impossible to treat illegal forward passes like fumbles. PABJNR gave a great example of exactly why we can't.
-
NFHS doesn't enjoy exceptions. IMHO, having two separate enforcement spots if the IFP occurred behind or beyond the LOS would = exception = another rule to learn. Holding in one's end zone on a play whose run ended in one's end zone would also have the same results if accepted or declined.
-
I agree with Bossman. As one who intentionally decided to only study/learn NFHS rules, this particular rule is not confusing or inconsistent to me. Simply call it as written, and move on.
-
this particular rule is not confusing or inconsistent to me
Play: 4th and 10 from Team A's 5 yard line. Punt team in. Snap is errant, punter recovers ball in end zone and is surrounded by defense, he scrambles and throws the ball away while still in the end zone. Ball hits the ground uncaught.
No flag down - Team B gets the result of the play - ball on Team A's 5 yard line.
Flag down - Team B has no choice but to take a safety. They cannot choose the original 'result of the play' - because that changed to a safety ONLY because a flag was thrown.
Why is an illegal forward pass (that is incomplete) the ONLY penalty that changes the result of the play?
If a hold, facemask, clip, illegal kick, etc. penalty flag is thrown in the end zone, they can all be declined - and the result of the play doesn't change based on these flags being thrown. Only a flag for an illegal forward pass changes the result of the play.
If the flag is picked up (waved off), then the defense gets what they wanted. Normally, picking up a flag is the same as declining the penalty, but NOT in the case of an illegal forward pass flag.
Now, you can mince words and say that throwing the flag did not cause the play to change - the illegal forward pass did. But that's not true. Only an illegal forward pass that is recognized by the officials WITH A FLAG changes the play. An illegal forward pass unnoticed by officials has the same rules as a regular forward pass.
-
Why is an illegal forward pass (that is incomplete) the ONLY penalty that changes the result of the play?
So you want an incomplete IFP that happens 50 yards down field on a run to be put back at the previous spot too?
-
Bbeagle, you’re conveniently bypassing the consequences of a safety. The defense gets two points AND they get the ball in what is almost always very advantageous field position. In fact, I’d venture that the actual award for a safety is somewhere around 4.5 to 5 points. That’s probably very close to the average number of points scored when a HS team has 1st-and-goal.
OK, there may be a specific situation (defense trails by 5+ with very little time remaining) where the defense would want the ball at the previous spot. My answer to that: Play better for the previous 47 minutes so you don’t get so far behind.
-
Bbeagle, you’re conveniently bypassing the consequences of a safety.
No, I am definitely not.
A safety is 2 points. 1st and Goal for good varsity teams is at least 3 points, possibly 7 or 8 points.
I bet if the rule for a safety were choice of (a) 2 points and the ball at midfield or (b) 1st and goal at the 5, I bet most teams would take 1st and goal at the 5.
-
If the punter's pass was caught by the center at the A4, with no legal receivers in the area, there should still be flags for intentional grounding and illegal touching, correct? At that point, assuming the center was tackled short of the line to gain (say the A6), team B could decline both penalties, accept the result of the play, and then have the ball first and goal from the A6?
I know I'm late to the party, but isn't illegal touching a LOD foul? No reason for B to decline the illegal touching since they'd get the ball at the three (half the distance from the enforcement spot, then the LOD.)
-
Play: 4th and 10 from Team A's 5 yard line. Punt team in. Snap is errant, punter recovers ball in end zone and is surrounded by defense, he scrambles and throws the ball away while still in the end zone. Ball hits the ground uncaught.
No flag down - Team B gets the result of the play - ball on Team A's 5 yard line.
Flag down - Team B has no choice but to take a safety. They cannot choose the original 'result of the play' - because that changed to a safety ONLY because a flag was thrown.
Why is an illegal forward pass (that is incomplete) the ONLY penalty that changes the result of the play?
If a hold, facemask, clip, illegal kick, etc. penalty flag is thrown in the end zone, they can all be declined - and the result of the play doesn't change based on these flags being thrown. Only a flag for an illegal forward pass changes the result of the play.
If the flag is picked up (waved off), then the defense gets what they wanted. Normally, picking up a flag is the same as declining the penalty, but NOT in the case of an illegal forward pass flag.
Now, you can mince words and say that throwing the flag did not cause the play to change - the illegal forward pass did. But that's not true. Only an illegal forward pass that is recognized by the officials WITH A FLAG changes the play. An illegal forward pass unnoticed by officials has the same rules as a regular forward pass.
There is nothing confusing or inconsistent about anything you posted. We're still playing by basic pass rules, even though the pass is illegal. If it's incomplete, the outcome of any penalty is the same as a "normal" pass play. If the pass were legal, we would have previous spot basic spot, with spot of foul behind the basic spot, so the penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul. Same outcome with the illegal forward pass. Although technically considered a "running play," the outcome of the penalty is still the same. spot of foul in the endzone behind the basic spot, it's a safety. If it's complete, B still has the option of declining the penalty and taking the result of the play. If they happened to intercept and score, I'm sure they would take this option. If they choose to take the penalty, we mark off from spot of foul, just like in every other situation.