RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: animalspooker on October 13, 2020, 12:23:17 PM
-
Coach asked me a couple of weeks ago about this situation. A has a long run (50 yards) down to B's 10, but A holds on the 15. B face masks on the tackle at B's 10. Double foul, replay the down. The coach that asked me says thats unfair to him with the long run negated. I told him that what he should have done was decline the face mask and get the ball on the 25, 1st and 10. He took my response to our 'Rules Interpreter' and they told him he doesn't have that option. Says 'NO DECLINING OF A PENALY' in a double foul situation. I disagree. Rule 10-1-1, I think, says otherwise. What you say???
-
A couple of questions. #1 what kind of play was it? You mention A then R then K. Was this a kick? If so, what kind of kick? #2 are you sure R had a long run to R’s 10? That would be a backward run toward his own goal. Did you mean K 10?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Apologies....It was a run play. I had just typed another kicking situation question. Make all the K's mean A and all the R's mean B. This was a run play. It's fixed.
-
Rule 10-1 . . . In the case of a double foul, the designated representative is not consulted since the penalties offset. . . .
Neither team is given the option to decline.
I should add, there is a change of possession exception to this.
-
Then your interpreter was right. Team A cannot decline B's foul and have their penalty marked off on a play like this. For that to happen, there must be a change of possession and the foul by the team last in possession must occur after the change of possession. 10-2-2
-
Okay, but it just seems odd to me that any team cannot decline a penalty at any time. What is the purpose of rule?
And the coach is right. He is getting jilted in this situation. His teams holding penalty did not get them those yards. In my opinion they were obtained legally.
-
If his team didn't benefit from the foul, then you shouldn't throw the flag. His team didn't get jilted, they got penalized because they fouled. if they hadn't fouled, it would be their ball with a tack-on face mask. But because they didn't have "clean hands" themselves, we replay the down.
-
I think that what A’s coach (and the OP) have a problem with is this:
Without B’s subsequent foul, A would have had the ball at the B-25 1/10 after enforcement of the holding penalty. Instead, they are forced to replay the down from the 50. B benefits by fouling, which seems contrary to FED philosophy.
-
Conversely you can point out that had the hold occurred back up field or especially behind the LOS, he'd be thankful he was getting to have a "do-over".
-
I think that what A’s coach (and the OP) have a problem with is this:
Without B’s subsequent foul, A would have had the ball at the B-25 1/10 after enforcement of the holding penalty. Instead, they are forced to replay the down from the 50. B benefits by fouling, which seems contrary to FED philosophy.
Why would you want to give A a unique option to ignore their penalty? NFHS 10-1, clearly states, "In the case of a double foul, the designated representative is NOT CONSULTED since the penalties offset". However, A does receive consideration by being allowed to repeat the down.
You might want to personally reference, and refer the A coach to, NFHS 10-2-1 through 6, for a detailed explanation of both "Double" and "Multiple" fouls.