RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: sczeebra on August 09, 2023, 07:14:19 PM
-
K punts and they commit first touching of the ball down field, then R scoops up the ball runs a few yards then fumbles and K recovers. During the kick an official flags R's coach for being outside of the team box (9-8-3). It doesn't seem correct that R would lose the right of first touching with this type of foul. Am I missing something?
-
Since this is a non player foul, it is enforced as a dead ball foul -- from the succeeding spot. As such, I would contend that such fouls would not qualify as a foul "during the down" since it is not enforced as a live ball foul and R's right to take the ball at the spot of first touching remains.
However, I'm not 100% convinced since I'm wondering what I would do if a player commits a USC foul instead.
-
Enforcement procedure would have nothing to do with the ball status. The foul occurred "during the down". What if we had a 3-7-6 violation where we had a substitute enter but not participate? The rule states "during a down...." It is a nonplayer foul also.
-
K punts and they commit first touching of the ball down field, then R scoops up the ball runs a few yards then fumbles and K recovers. During the kick an official flags R's coach for being outside of the team box (9-8-3). It doesn't seem correct that R would lose the right of first touching with this type of foul. Am I missing something?
It may not seem right, but it's reality. It's still a live ball foul, even though it's enforced from the succeeding spot.
**K's ball after enforcement at succeeding spot.
Sorry, read the OP wrong. Was thinking the foul was on K instead of R.
-
If the foul on R was committed after they touched the ball wouldn?t they lose the right to retain the ball at the first touching spot whether K accepts the penalty or not?
-
There is a tantalizing scenario option about if R fouls *before* touching the ball due to the wording of the rule, but it's immediately cancelled out by the follow up that R cannot take a spot of first touching if *any penalty is accepted* during the down. I think the goal of this is that a spot of first touching cannot be a basic or enforcement spot for a foul -- the basic spot must be the previous spot, end of the kick or end of the run.
Secondly, R cannot use the first touching spot as a Get Out Of Jail Free card to nullify their own foul. R can take the spot of first touching if they decline a foul on K, but not if they accept one.
Finally, unlike the last group of threads, I think this is a case where "succeeding spot" actually works in a technical sense. "First touching" is a violation of the rules by K. They're not allowed to do that, but the "penalty" is giving R the ball at that spot. Ergo, if we're considering the spot where the ball would be put in play next *had the violation not occurred*, we must disregard a spot of first touching when identifying the succeeding spot.
To that end, I get the argument I made previously that you could make a subcategory of fouls that wouldn't apply in this scenario, but then we've got exceptions so it's "better" to go global and have a couple fringe cases where the ruling is "Yeah, that seems harsh, but maybe follow the rules next time?"
Fun fact -- At least in the NFL, but probably other codes, first touching used to be an actual "foul" by the rules. This means that if K downs a punt as the last play in a period, the period would be extended by an untimed down since there was an "accepted foul" on the play. This has, obviously, since been changed. There was an NFL films clip I remember from the... early 90's?... where they highlighted this as a "weird play" and asked a bunch of players/coaches if they knew the rule.
-
There is a tantalizing scenario option about if R fouls *before* touching the ball due to the wording of the rule, but it's immediately cancelled out by the follow up that R cannot take a spot of first touching if *any penalty is accepted* during the down. I think the goal of this is that a spot of first touching cannot be a basic or enforcement spot for a foul -- the basic spot must be the previous spot, end of the kick or end of the run.
Secondly, R cannot use the first touching spot as a Get Out Of Jail Free card to nullify their own foul. R can take the spot of first touching if they decline a foul on K, but not if they accept one.
Finally, unlike the last group of threads, I think this is a case where "succeeding spot" actually works in a technical sense. "First touching" is a violation of the rules by K. They're not allowed to do that, but the "penalty" is giving R the ball at that spot. Ergo, if we're considering the spot where the ball would be put in play next *had the violation not occurred*, we must disregard a spot of first touching when identifying the succeeding spot.
To that end, I get the argument I made previously that you could make a subcategory of fouls that wouldn't apply in this scenario, but then we've got exceptions so it's "better" to go global and have a couple fringe cases where the ruling is "Yeah, that seems harsh, but maybe follow the rules next time?"
Fun fact -- At least in the NFL, but probably other codes, first touching used to be an actual "foul" by the rules. This means that if K downs a punt as the last play in a period, the period would be extended by an untimed down since there was an "accepted foul" on the play. This has, obviously, since been changed. There was an NFL films clip I remember from the... early 90's?... where they highlighted this as a "weird play" and asked a bunch of players/coaches if they knew the rule.
Using "succeeding spot" properly according to the definition in the rule book is important. As this sitution clearly points out...
-
It may not seem right, but it's reality. It's still a live ball foul, even though it's enforced from the succeeding spot. If R wants to keep the ball, they must decline the penalty and take the spot of first touching.
The foul is on R they can either accept or decline the foul on themselves. Is the penalty enforcement still from the FT Spot with either a Sideline Warning or Sideline Interference marked off from the Spot of FT?
-
The foul is on R they can either accept or decline the foul on themselves. Is the penalty enforcement still from the FT Spot with either a Sideline Warning or Sideline Interference marked off from the Spot of FT?
R can decline a foul that R commits? Or am I misunderstanding where you?re going with this?
The first touching spot is not a spot of enforcement for any foul.
-
That was supposed to Neither.
If I am reading the scenario correct the foul happened during the "kick" so I am assuming the ball was still in kick status. So R did not gain possession with "clean hands". The enforcement spot would be the previous spot with replay of the down.
Maybe this is what everyone has been saying and I have not read your responses correct.
-
That was supposed to Neither.
If I am reading the scenario correct the foul happened during the "kick" so I am assuming the ball was still in kick status. So R did not gain possession with "clean hands". The enforcement spot would be the previous spot with replay of the down.
Maybe this is what everyone has been saying and I have not read your responses correct.
That?s what I have as well. K can decline the foul and take the result of the play, of course. If they accept the foul, because it is a live ball foul happening during the loose ball play portion, the only enforcement spot is the previous spot.
It seems a bit harsh that a nonplayer foul would have that effect, but?. Stay in the team box, and R doesn?t have to worry about it.
Edited after ncwingman ?s post below.
-
Thanks ValJ for the response. Been reading the discussions for many years and decided to join. Enjoy all the officials that post on this board. 22nd year calling in Oklahoma and have learned much ready the posts. Ready to start the season with the first scrimmage tomorrow night trying to help a few new officials. Lord knows we need them desperately!
-
That?s what I have as well. K can decline the foul and take the result of the play, of course. If they accept the foul, because it is a live ball foul happening during the loose ball play portion, the only enforcement spot is the previous spot.
It seems a bit harsh that a nonplayer foul would have that effect, but?. Stay in the team box, and R doesn?t have to worry about it.
Assuming we didn't change the play while I wasn't looking, the proposed foul is a non-player foul which is enforced from the succeeding spot. Previous spot enforcement and re-kick is not an option in this case.
K recovered the fumble with clean hands and the foul on R eliminates the possibility of returning to the first touching spot. It'll be K's ball at the dead ball spot (unspecified in the original post) assuming it was a "no yards" sideline warning.
-
Assuming we didn't change the play while I wasn't looking, the proposed foul is a non-player foul which is enforced from the succeeding spot. Previous spot enforcement and re-kick is not an option in this case.
K recovered the fumble with clean hands and the foul on R eliminates the possibility of returning to the first touching spot. It'll be K's ball at the dead ball spot (unspecified in the original post) assuming it was a "no yards" sideline warning.
That?s a great point. Can we carry the nonplayer foul through when it happened during the loose ball portion of the play?
Thinking it through, though, I think you?ve got the right of it. If the R coach had implied inappropriate relations between the official and the official?s mother, we?d surely tack that on. Good catch.
-
So this thread is IMHO lost at sea. There is no clear time lines to the actual events here and the "penalty" if a first offense sideline interference is not clearly identified in time as BEFORE the first touching. I'm lost as to what the H**L is going on here. The OP IMHO is fatally flawed.
-
So this thread is IMHO lost at sea. There is no clear time lines to the actual events here and the "penalty" if a first offense sideline interference is not clearly identified in time as BEFORE the first touching. I'm lost as to what the H**L is going on here. The OP IMHO is fatally flawed.
Since we're looking at a live ball foul that's enforced as a dead ball foul, the order of events is irrelevant. The play goes on until the ball is dead and then we enforce the penalty from that spot.
Furthermore, the right for R to take the spot of first touching is cancelled if any penalty is accepted during the down. This is not a "clean hands" consideration. If R commits any foul at any time during the down, the ball cannot be awarded to R and returned to a first touching spot. We could go back to a spot that's the "end of the (related) run", but not a spot of first touching.
There do exist technical possibilities for K to decline a pre-"touching by R" foul and give the ball back to R at a first touching spot, but it would never be at their advantage to do so -- similar to B committing DPI then intercepting the pass. A *could* decline the foul and give B the ball, but they never would.
-
OK now I m confused again. Been texting with a couple of guys in my association and they are convinced that since it is a live ball foul administered as a dead ball foul it is still R's ball at the spot of first touching. I use 6-2-5 where it says R touches the kick and thereafter during the down commits a foul or if the penalty is accepted for ANY foul committed during the down the spot of first touching is cancelled. Once and for all am I correct or are they?
-
While the non-player or USC fouls are live-ball-enforced-as-dead-ball fouls, they are still live ball fouls that occur during the down.
6-1-7 and 6-2-5 state that the right to the first touching spot is cancelled if the penalty is accepted for "any foul committed during the down" which is the definition of a live-ball foul in 2-16-2d. Similarly, 2-16-2f specifies that noncontact or unsportsmanlike fouls can occur during a dead ball period OR during the down.
There is no caveat or exception in 6-1-7/6-2-5 for succeeding spot enforcement, only the status of the ball as "live" when the foul occurred.
-
I've been thinking K's coach is the one who was flagged. I'll see myself out...
-
From the time that I first began this passion I had always been told that non-player and unsportsmanlike penalties are enforced as dead ball fouls. I posted this play as to question that principal. The only time that I find the word treated in the rule book is in the coaches code of ethics page 103. We should stay away from misnomers like this because the fact is, it's not true as you can all see.
-
I don?t know why there?s any confusion on this play. R fouled during the down, which cancels their right to take the ball at the FT spot. The foul is a non-player foul, which is penalized from the succeeding spot.
-
From the time that I first began this passion I had always been told that non-player and unsportsmanlike penalties are enforced as dead ball fouls. I posted this play as to question that principal. The only time that I find the word treated in the rule book is in the coaches code of ethics page 103. We should stay away from misnomers like this because the fact is, it's not true as you can all see.
I think you've actually supported the principle. This is a live-ball foul, so that takes away spot of first touching. However, it's enforced as dead-ball, which means succeeding spot at the end of down.
*Here's the bigger question: If K had also fouled during the down, would we mark both off? Or would they cancel, and we replay the down?
-
So still trying to get enough to tell my officials the correct ruling on this scenario.
What is your ruling. Rule 6-2-5 states first touching is cancelled at the time R touches the ball. Everyone is saying succeeding spot but not clear on who is next to snap the football.
K's ball 1st and ten or goal after penalty enforcement?
I need clear clarification for my defense on this to prove why they are wrong!
Many Thanks
-
K punts and they commit first touching of the ball down field, then R scoops up the ball runs a few yards then fumbles and K recovers. During the kick an official flags R's coach for being outside of the team box (9-8-3). It doesn't seem correct that R would lose the right of first touching with this type of foul. Am I missing something?
1. We have a scrimmage kick. R fouls during the scrimmage kick by being in the restricted area. This is a succeeding spot foul.
2. K first touches the kick, but because R fouled, and we assume K accepts the foul, First touching goes away.
3. The penalty is enforced from the succeeding spot, where K's run ended. So, First and 10 for K after enforcement of the penalty.
Does this help?
-
Very much! I still do not think I can convince my guys this is the correct call but will try. May send the play to our state rules expert and see how he rules on the scenario.
Again Many Thanks and have a great Saturday. Going to be 109 here today and 100 at the start of the scrimmage. It's Football time!!!
-
As I agree with what has been discussed but I still need more fire power to convince these guys.
Mr Ralph Damren would you please give your ruling on this scenario? Since you are on the NFHS rules committee your input has major weight?
If anyone know this gentleman please contact him.
Thanks
-
Honestly, I'd probably ask for rule/case citations that suggest otherwise. If their only argument is "Well, it doesn't *seem* right..." hopefully you can emphasize that that's not how we officiate the game. (Offer not valid for Rule 10-4...)
I mean, my first post in the thread suggested the same as your colleagues (although not fully convinced), so I started digging in the rule book and realized I was mistaken. A general philosophy in the rule book is that Exceptions Are Bad (except for the exceptions), therefore you shouldn't insert any sort of informal exception when none exists.
Furthermore, "Live ball enforced as dead ball" is not a defined phrase/category of foul in the rule book. It's short hand/mnemonic for our purposes for live ball fouls that come with succeeding spot enforcement. They are not, by definition, dead ball fouls and should not be conflated.
-
I still do not think I can convince my guys this is the correct call but will try.
Maybe they should read this: (6-1-7)
?The right of R to take the ball at the spot of first touching by K is cancelled if...the penalty is accepted for any foul committed during the down.? (emphasis mine)
-
Since we're looking at a live ball foul that's enforced as a dead ball foul, the order of events is irrelevant. The play goes on until the ball is dead and then we enforce the penalty from that spot.
Furthermore, the right for R to take the spot of first touching is cancelled if any penalty is accepted during the down. This is not a "clean hands" consideration. If R commits any foul at any time during the down, the ball cannot be awarded to R and returned to a first touching spot. We could go back to a spot that's the "end of the (related) run", but not a spot of first touching.
There do exist technical possibilities for K to decline a pre-"touching by R" foul and give the ball back to R at a first touching spot, but it would never be at their advantage to do so -- similar to B committing DPI then intercepting the pass. A *could* decline the foul and give B the ball, but they never would.
What is the result if the "first touching" occured before the ball had touched the ground?
-
Maybe they should read this: (6-1-7)
?The right of R to take the ball at the spot of first touching by K is cancelled if...the penalty is accepted for any foul committed during the down.? (emphasis mine)
But isn't section 6-1 applicable exclusively to free kicks? I believe that you're looking for 6-2-5?
-
But isn't section 6-1 applicable exclusively to free kicks? I believe that you're looking for 6-2-5?
Technically, you're correct. However, with the exception of the comments about the neutral zone, the first touching explanations are identical.
-
WOW even our State Rules Interpreter says it is R's ball at spot of first touching. Enhancing the scenario...
State 6A championship game Score is 21-19 with K behind with 2:00 minutes left in game. K has 3 timeouts left.
K punts ball. Ball touches K at the R15. R possesses ball at the R10 and fumbles at the R15. K recovers at the R20 and is down there..
During the play R coach in his excitement during the play is in the Restricted area and furiously flinging his arms accidentally hits the HL in the face knocking him out"big muscled coach and average size official". It is R's first sideline warning. During the play on the HL side R player holds and slings K's star WR to the ground breaking his Collarbone. The HL is the only one who could have seen this as all other 4 officials have their area of concentration and players to watch.
This how I see the conversation going with K's HC and I am purposely leaving out the expletives:
Coach: Our ball! Offense!
Official:No coach it is not your ball, it was a non player foul. So R has the ball at the first touching spot as the Succeeding spot.
Coach:"I know the Coach doesn't know the rules but let's pretend he does." But 6-2-5 states if R touches the ball and commits ANY foul during the down the spot of first touching goes away.
Official: Yes but live ball non-player fouls are treated as dead ball fouls. The foul had no effect on the play.
Coach: Nowhere is that in the rule book. 10-4-5c says non-player fouls are succeeding spot. 6-2-5 states the succeeding spot should be the end of the down with my player in possession of the football. And didn't affect the play my star WR was injured because the official on that side was unconscious because of the foul.
Official: You are correct it is not in the rule book, it is phrase we made up after the debacle of 2014 when a touchdown was taken away after an R coach was flagged for being in the restricted zone so no crew would make that mistake again.
Coach: So under 6-2-5 ANY foul during the play doesn't mean ANY foul just so called player fouls that happen on the field. So you just pick and choose which fouls apply and those that don't.
Official: Coach I am just telling you what our State rules interpreter said. This is how we are to rule on a play like this.
Coach: Well get me the State Rules interpreter down here I want to speak with him and have him show me in the Rule Book references on why this is ruled in this manner or this game is going to be another debacle and going to court for rule misapplication!
-
WOW even our State Rules Interpreter says it is R's ball at spot of first touching. Enhancing the scenario...
State 6A championship game Score is 21-19 with K behind with 2:00 minutes left in game. K has 3 timeouts left.
K punts ball. Ball touches K at the R15. R possesses ball at the R10 and fumbles at the R15. K recovers at the R20 and is down there..
During the play R coach in his excitement during the play is in the Restricted area and furiously flinging his arms accidentally hits the HL in the face knocking him out"big muscled coach and average size official". It is R's first sideline warning. During the play on the HL side R player holds and slings K's star WR to the ground breaking his Collarbone. The HL is the only one who could have seen this as all other 4 officials have their area of concentration and players to watch.
This how I see the conversation going with K's HC and I am purposely leaving out the expletives:
Coach: Our ball! Offense!
Official:No coach it is not your ball, it was a non player foul. So R has the ball at the first touching spot as the Succeeding spot.
Coach:"I know the Coach doesn't know the rules but let's pretend he does." But 6-2-5 states if R touches the ball and commits ANY foul during the down the spot of first touching goes away.
Official: Yes but live ball non-player fouls are treated as dead ball fouls. The foul had no effect on the play.
Coach: Nowhere is that in the rule book. 10-4-5c says non-player fouls are succeeding spot. 6-2-5 states the succeeding spot should be the end of the down with my player in possession of the football. And didn't affect the play my star WR was injured because the official on that side was unconscious because of the foul.
Official: You are correct it is not in the rule book, it is phrase we made up after the debacle of 2014 when a touchdown was taken away after an R coach was flagged for being in the restricted zone so no crew would make that mistake again.
Coach: So under 6-2-5 ANY foul during the play doesn't mean ANY foul just so called player fouls that happen on the field. So you just pick and choose which fouls apply and those that don't.
Official: Coach I am just telling you what our State rules interpreter said. This is how we are to rule on a play like this.
Coach: Well get me the State Rules interpreter down here I want to speak with him and have him show me in the Rule Book references on why this is ruled in this manner or this game is going to be another debacle and going to court for rule misapplication!
Not sure how helpful your rant is, but this situation is definitely live ball. No way R gets the ball if K accepts this penalty: "During the play on the HL side R player holds and slings K's star WR to the ground breaking his Collarbone."
-
A agree but the holding and PF were not called because none of the other officials saw it. The only flag on the field is for the sideline interference. I know i took liberty with exaggeration of the scenario.
-
What is the result if the "first touching" occured before the ball had touched the ground?
Not sure I understand what you're getting at here.
If K touches a kick in flight, it could be KCI (unless R is not in a position to receive the kick) in which case it would not be first touching -- or rather the foul supersedes the first touching. If R's coach was outside the team box, this would not be a double foul as per 10-2-1 since the foul on R is a nonplayer foul.
-
After sending the scenario our rules interpreter said it brought up a valid question on 6-2-5 and was going to do research and talk to some experts to get a ruling on the non player fouls during the play that involved first touching of a scrimmage kick.
-
Not that it?s particularly relevant, but if a coach in the restricted area knocks out my wing man, it?s Sideline Interference, not just a warning.
-
Definitely sideline interference! 15 yards from SS. Again I took great liberty in enhancing and exaggerating the scenario and hope that would never happen. It's just people in my association are having problems seeing non player fouls as not being part of the ANY R fouls. They keep arguing that any entails only the 11 players on the field. Hopefully I will find out the ruling we will follow today and share later.
-
Not that it?s particularly relevant, but if a coach in the restricted area knocks out my wing man, it?s Sideline Interference, not just a warning.
This is true. I've been studying this for a couple of days, and still come back to the idea that even though the foul (sideline warning, interference, whatever) is enforced as a dead ball foul, it occurred during the down, and if K accepts, first touching goes away and K keeps the ball after enforcement.
Also, philosophically, there is nothing wrong with the idiom "live ball foul enforced as a dead ball foul." Works every time these fouls occur. Demetriou even uses the term in the Redding Guide. He states that even though the term is not used in the rule book, the principle is valid. I agree with him.
-
Also, philosophically, there is nothing wrong with the idiom "live ball foul enforced as a dead ball foul." Works every time these fouls occur. Demetriou even uses the term in the Redding Guide. He states that even though the term is not used in the rule book, the principle is valid. I agree with him.
Wholeheartedly agree, but I think this is where the folks in OK are getting tripped up.
In almost every instance, enforcement for such a foul is temporarily set aside until all live ball action is dealt with. *Then* we proceed to enforce the LBFTADBF. But in the case of First Touching, R loses its right to choose if it commits *any* foul during live ball action after the FT (even one such as Sideline Interference) that would be penalized later.
PS: We need a better acronym for this enforcement!😜
-
This is true. I've been studying this for a couple of days, and still come back to the idea that even though the foul (sideline warning, interference, whatever) is enforced as a dead ball foul, it occurred during the down, and if K accepts, first touching goes away and K keeps the ball after enforcement.
Also, philosophically, there is nothing wrong with the idiom "live ball foul enforced as a dead ball foul." Works every time these fouls occur. Demetriou even uses the term in the Redding Guide. He states that even though the term is not used in the rule book, the principle is valid. I agree with him.
Except that in a Referee magazine article (June 1, 2021) George Demetriou clearly stated "Treating a foul as a dead-ball foul essentially means the penalty is enforced from the succeeding spot (usually the dead-ball spot) with no impact on the previous play or the number of the next down. Although the term live-ball fouls enforced as dead-ball fouls does not appear in NFHS rules, nonplayer fouls and all unsportsmanlike conduct fouls are in that category." The succeeding spot of the actual play has not been determined until live ball actions including in this case the first touching has been completed. What are we doing if we have a USC on a R player instead of a non-player is this play?
-
The rationale of treating some ''naughty acts" that may occur during a live ball to be treated as dead ball fouls is that they had no impact of the play. Refer to 2-16-2f. I vote for allowing first touching option and penalty enforced from succeeding spot.
-
The rationale of treating some ''naughty acts" that may occur during a live ball to be treated as dead ball fouls is that they had no impact of the play. Refer to 2-16-2f. I vote for allowing first touching option and penalty enforced from succeeding spot.
Instead of coach outside the team box, B56 picks up the ball after the first touching, then it gets knocked out of his hands by K88. Instead of trying to recover the fumble, B56 calls K88 a bunch of names you can't say on TV. A different K player then recovers the ball and is downed.
Are you giving the ball back to B at the spot of first touching?
What if B56 punches K88 instead of calling him nasty names?
This was my problem with inserting a "well, except for succeeding spot fouls" exception that isn't in the rule book. If you do it for one, you do it for all.
I'd be all for amending the first touching rule for nonplayer fouls that aren't UNS, but it doesn't say that now.
-
ncwingman
Those are great examples and the reason it says "any" foul on R is so R does not get away with "Naughty" tricks thinking because K had first touching they think they have a free pass to do any non-player fouls or UNS fouls they desire and still will have the football just with penalty's and not losing the ball. As in the scenario end of the game or playoff game and K is behind by 7 or less points with a chance to win the game could make a big difference.
-
The rationale of treating some ''naughty acts" that may occur during a live ball to be treated as dead ball fouls is that they had no impact of the play. Refer to 2-16-2f. I vote for allowing first touching option and penalty enforced from succeeding spot.
Then change the rule. As it stands now, any foul negates the FT option.
-
Just received text from our State Rules Interpreter. Below is what he stated:
After multiple texts between Mr George Demetriou and I, this is our conclusion for the scenario you have described.
We believe that the current 2023 language indicates that the unintentional contact foul that occurred "during the down" does in fact negate team R's opportunity to keep the ball at the spot of first touching - so team K does in fact retain possession! - we also are in agreement that this foul treated as a dead-ball foul should NOT impact the first-touching aspect of the play, but as George said "that's not what it says"! - therefore, we must go with what it does say and plan to submit a rule change proposal for 2024 to address this very issue!
IT is important to know that the exact same issue would apply had this been a free kick with first-touching involved.
Fortunately, we are dealing with a situation that would be an extremely rare occurrence if it happened at all.
End of text.
My observation is yes it is a very rare occurrence but it must of have happened at one time in football. I used the example of if it happened in a State Championship game just to give emphasis to if a ruling is administered incorrectly and costing a team a Gold Ball trophy. We didn't think what happened in 2014 with a touchdown being called back that put a team ahead because the crew took the TD away and brought it back to the SOF and it caused a delay in the playoffs until a judge could rule on it. Surprise alert if you don't know or remember the game was finished under protest(which we all know protests of NFHS rules are not recognized" and the judge ruled sorry the penalty enforcement was administered incorrectly but game over.
-
So you're celebrating something that will likely be buggered up badly once the editorial committee gets a hold of it.
Super.
Be careful what you wish for.
-
U'm I don't see anyone celebrating. Is not our job to get the penalty enforcement correct every time.
From the Officials Code of Ethics
OFFICIALS shall master both the rules of the game and mechanics necessary to enforce the rules.
I and the others on this forum took no joy pointing out that the rule book needed some changes on this to make it SAY what everybody was saying or implying so that the non-player or UNS foul on R did not count against them not losing the first touching spot.
I never disagreed that "all live ball non-player or UNS fouls are treated as dead ball fouls".
Although to your point, I still do not understand how you fouling helps you keep the football. I read somewhere and cannot find it but it said "no foul committed by that team shall give that team an advantage". When they do change it next year I believe this is exactly what it will do.
-
"Um", you didn't just discover fire nor invent the wheel. And my ethics are just fine , thank you.
-
I was not questioning yours or anyone's ethics and never would and apologize if you took it that way.
-
I still do not understand how you fouling helps you keep the football. I read somewhere and cannot find it but it said "no foul committed by that team shall give that team an advantage". When they do change it next year I believe this is exactly what it will do.
First Touching is a violation, not a foul.
-
Agree but after FT and you foul gives the ball back to you would be an advantage as if you had not fouled you would not have the football.
-
I had typed another scenario with might happen with the new rule change where non player and UNS fouls were exempt from R losing the spot of FT but need to do some more thinking on it. And dont know how to just delete the whole post!
-
Furthermore, "Live ball enforced as dead ball" is not a defined phrase/category of foul in the rule book. It's short hand/mnemonic for our purposes for live ball fouls that come with succeeding spot enforcement. They are not, by definition, dead ball fouls and should not be conflated.
Let’s chew on this a little more. I was reading the fundamentals a moment ago, and was reminded that the period will be extended for a live ball foul accepted during the last play, except for…and it includes a non player foul, along with all the other dead balls. So does that have any impact on this situation?
-
As I agree with what has been discussed but I still need more fire power to convince these guys.
Mr Ralph Damren would you please give your ruling on this scenario? Since you are on the NFHS rules committee your input has major weight?
If anyone know this gentleman please contact him.
Thanks
While I respect George Demetriou's and many of your opinions, I feel that this falls under 2-16-2f where it had no baring on the play. IMHO, the play would stand which would allow R to take the spot of FT. The USC or non-player foul would have no baring on the outcome of the play and would be treated as such with succeeding spot enforcement. If time had expired during the play, the enforcement would be applied to first play of the succeeding period.
IF WE ALL AGREED ON EVERYTHING, IT WOULD BE MORE LIKE A TEA PARTY AND LESS LIKE A FOOTBALL RULES FORUM :sTiR: tR:oLl aBdUcT
-
While I respect George Demetriou's and many of your opinions, I feel that this falls under 2-16-2f where it had no baring on the play. IMHO, the play would stand which would allow R to take the spot of FT. The USC or non-player foul would have no baring on the outcome of the play and would be treated as such with succeeding spot enforcement. If time had expired during the play, the enforcement would be applied to first play of the succeeding period.
IF WE ALL AGREED ON EVERYTHING, IT WOULD BE MORE LIKE A TEA PARTY AND LESS LIKE A FOOTBALL RULES FORUM :sTiR: tR:oLl aBdUcT
I tend to agree. I've been chewing on it a while now, and am changing my mind. If this happens to me on Friday night, I'm giving R the ball at spot of first touching, administering the sideline foul, and playing the next down. If that down is in the next period, so be it.
BTW, I gave you a [cheer]. FlAg1
-
Not disagreeing with either of you in the previous two posts. My only question is if you ruled on this play like you stated and it went to court (with the present rule book), would you have enough to convince a judge to rule in your favor.
in 2-16-2f - what constituents "does not influence play"? It's not the 22 players on the field. So an official running into a coach and missing a major foul did not have an influence on the play?
6-2-5 says "any" and Football Fundamentals IV. 7. First touching of a kick by K is "always" ignored if the penalty is accepted for a foul during the kick.
Not a lawyer but with the present rule book without some clarification that will be forthcoming in this instance the present rule book would not support that penalty administration. JMO and people can boo me doesn't really change my life or do I lose sleep over them. FlAg1
-
K punts and they commit first touching of the ball down field, then R scoops up the ball runs a few yards then fumbles and K recovers. During the kick an official flags R's coach for being outside of the team box (9-8-3). It doesn't seem correct that R would lose the right of first touching with this type of foul. Am I missing something?
This is the case play we are working off of. Because this foul (being outside the team box) is considered a dead ball foul for enforcement purposes, It's not considered as occurring "during the down." Therefore, the spot of first touching is still in play. If R chooses the spot of first touching, that spot becomes the succeeding spot. Then, the penalty distance (if any) is enforced.
This is in keeping with the philosophy of keeping nonplayer fouls in the category of dead-ball, succeeding spot. That's what sold it for me.
-
Let’s chew on this a little more. I was reading the fundamentals a moment ago, and was reminded that the period will be extended for a live ball foul accepted during the last play, except for…and it includes a non player foul, along with all the other dead balls. So does that have any impact on this situation?
Short answer, no.
Fundamentally, I agree that a nonplayer foul probably shouldn't impact the ability for R to take the ball at a spot of first touching. However, that's not what the rule currently states since it specifies "any foul". There is no "except for..." in 6-1-7 or 6-2-5 like there is a 3-3-3a to extend the period.
-
Short answer, no.
Fundamentally, I agree that a nonplayer foul probably shouldn't impact the ability for R to take the ball at a spot of first touching. However, that's not what the rule currently states since it specifies "any foul". There is no "except for..." in 6-1-7 or 6-2-5 like there is a 3-3-3a to extend the period.
Ok, so answer me this. Instead of R committing a simple restricted area violation, let's say K's coach is on the field cussing an official. Clearly a UNS. Would R lose the right of first touching in that situation? If so, then as the other poster suggested, K would benefit from their own foul by getting to keep the ball.
-
Fundamentally, I agree that a nonplayer foul probably shouldn't impact the ability for R to take the ball at a spot of first touching. However, that's not what the rule currently states since it specifies "any foul". There is no "except for..." in 6-1-7 or 6-2-5 like there is a 3-3-3a to extend the period.
But we shouldn't be treating it like a live ball for purposes of first touching but not in any other scenario. That doesn't make sense. We don't offset other live ball fouls with UNS, so why would we cancel first touching?
-
Ok, so answer me this. Instead of R committing a simple restricted area violation, let's say K's coach is on the field cussing an official. Clearly a UNS. Would R lose the right of first touching in that situation? If so, then as the other poster suggested, K would benefit from their own foul by getting to keep the ball.
R can decline the penalty to keep the ball. K's coach can still be disqualified.
But we shouldn't be treating it like a live ball for purposes of first touching but not in any other scenario. That doesn't make sense. We don't offset other live ball fouls with UNS, so why would we cancel first touching?
I want to reiterate that I'm not trying to justify this as the way it *should* be -- just it's the way it currently is. Maybe we should change it to prevent this from happening.
-
R can decline the penalty to keep the ball. K's coach can still be disqualified.
*But, provided it's not at the ejectable level, (he doesn't cuss the official, just comes onto the field to argue), now we have a situation in which a UNS can't be enforced because R wants to keep the ball. Plus, that goes against the "leave no foul unpunished" philosophy, especially unsportsmanlike fouls, which should always be enforced.
-
But we shouldn't be treating it like a live ball for purposes of first touching but not in any other scenario. That doesn't make sense. We don't offset other live ball fouls with UNS, so why would we cancel first touching?
ah nevermind. My point was invalid.
-
*But, provided it's not at the ejectable level, (he doesn't cuss the official, just comes onto the field to argue), now we have a situation in which a UNS can't be enforced because R wants to keep the ball. Plus, that goes against the "leave no foul unpunished" philosophy, especially unsportsmanlike fouls, which should always be enforced.
Again, not saying it's right. Just saying what it is.
I will not object if you want to amend 6-1-7 and 6-2-5 to say "except for nonplayer or unsportsmanlike fouls", but until that happens the rule reads "any foul".
-
Again, not saying it's right. Just saying what it is.
I will not object if you want to amend 6-1-7 and 6-2-5 to say "except for nonplayer or unsportsmanlike fouls", but until that happens the rule reads "any foul".
I wish I could amend it. That's surely what it needs. But just to clarify, it does say, "any foul DURING THE DOWN," which could loosely be interpreted as "a live ball foul treated as a live ball foul."
But technically, according to the actual language in the book, you are right.
-
Again, not saying it's right. Just saying what it is.
I will not object if you want to amend 6-1-7 and 6-2-5 to say "except for nonplayer or unsportsmanlike fouls", but until that happens the rule reads "any foul".
Clearly an oversight and I would not interpret the rule this way. Doesn't make sense they would exclude UNS from offsetting fouls but not first touching.
-
Clearly an oversight and I would not interpret the rule this way. Doesn't make sense they would exclude UNS from offsetting fouls but not first touching.
A grammatical oversight leading to an unintended, confusing rule interpretation in my rule book?
I say! What a scandal!
-
A grammatical oversight leading to an unintended, confusing rule interpretation in my rule book?
I say! What a scandal!
Careful, you may get on the [boo] list. I think this has been in the book for years, hasn't it? I guess the debacle created this year must have brought increased scrutiny.
-
One final thought before I put all this to bed.
Until several years ago, a legal formation by the offense needed to have at least seven linemen (and therefore no more than four backs). The rule was written such that the number of linemen was specified -- they needed seven, at least. Since interior linemen are not eligible receivers by position, having seven on the line means that you had two ends + three backs that could receive a pass from the player who received the snap. Defenses could plan for and expected no more than five potential eligible receivers.
Now, when the offense puts themselves at a disadvantage by not having 11 players on the field, it was not uncommon that the "missing" player was (or should have been) a lineman. Only having six linemen because there's only 10 players on the field does not give the offense an advantage -- they don't get an extra receiver and they're missing a blocker. However, it was a foul on the offense. We'd march them back five yards because Bubba forgot he was in the game and let his QB get sacked because of a missed blocking assignment.
Philosophically, this doesn't make sense. Why would we continue to penalize the offense when they're playing at a disadvantage? The intent and philosophy of the formation rule was to prevent the offense from getting an extra eligible receiver (or six). Many officials recognized the absurdity of the situation, but we still flagged the illegal formation because that's how the rule was written. Only once the rule was changed to redefine the formation in terms of backs did our enforcement change. How many officials do you know that would have said "Well, I know the rule *says* seven on the line, but I'm going to let it slide because they only had 10 on the field"? We would have called them out for inventing their own rules and interpretations not in line with what the rule book says.
This is where I am with this whole topic -- I know it's absurd and doesn't make philosophical sense, but it's they way the rule is currently written and therefore the rule should be changed. Until it does, we have to throw the flag for "six on the line".
The difference in these two scenarios is that a nonplayer or UNS foul by R during a play with first touching by K where R would want to take the ball at the spot of first touching, rather than the result of the play, is exceedingly rare (at least in comparison to a six man line because A only has 10 on the field), so there's little momentum to address the issue -- or even awareness that there is an issue. Since it is so rare and unexpected, it's very tempting to go 1-1-6 on the play and do what you think feels right, but that's not in keeping with the rule book as it is currently written.
-
One final thought before I put all this to bed.
Until several years ago, a legal formation by the offense needed to have at least seven linemen (and therefore no more than four backs). The rule was written such that the number of linemen was specified -- they needed seven, at least. Since interior linemen are not eligible receivers by position, having seven on the line means that you had two ends + three backs that could receive a pass from the player who received the snap. Defenses could plan for and expected no more than five potential eligible receivers.
Now, when the offense puts themselves at a disadvantage by not having 11 players on the field, it was not uncommon that the "missing" player was (or should have been) a lineman. Only having six linemen because there's only 10 players on the field does not give the offense an advantage -- they don't get an extra receiver and they're missing a blocker. However, it was a foul on the offense. We'd march them back five yards because Bubba forgot he was in the game and let his QB get sacked because of a missed blocking assignment.
Philosophically, this doesn't make sense. Why would we continue to penalize the offense when they're playing at a disadvantage? The intent and philosophy of the formation rule was to prevent the offense from getting an extra eligible receiver (or six). Many officials recognized the absurdity of the situation, but we still flagged the illegal formation because that's how the rule was written. Only once the rule was changed to redefine the formation in terms of backs did our enforcement change. How many officials do you know that would have said "Well, I know the rule *says* seven on the line, but I'm going to let it slide because they only had 10 on the field"? We would have called them out for inventing their own rules and interpretations not in line with what the rule book says.
This is where I am with this whole topic -- I know it's absurd and doesn't make philosophical sense, but it's they way the rule is currently written and therefore the rule should be changed. Until it does, we have to throw the flag for "six on the line".
The difference in these two scenarios is that a nonplayer or UNS foul by R during a play with first touching by K where R would want to take the ball at the spot of first touching, rather than the result of the play, is exceedingly rare (at least in comparison to a six man line because A only has 10 on the field), so there's little momentum to address the issue -- or even awareness that there is an issue. Since it is so rare and unexpected, it's very tempting to go 1-1-6 on the play and do what you think feels right, but that's not in keeping with the rule book as it is currently written.
I think everyone agrees with you on principle. The dilemma is what are you going to do Friday night? The rules as written won't work, so do you just not call the penalty? Or enforce the rule the wrong way?
Also, completely unrelated to the topic, but relevant to your post about eligible receivers, technically there is a potential for 6 eligible receivers on any given play. 4 in the backfield (including the player who receives the snap and two on the ends with eligible numbers. There is nothing preventing a lineman from throwing a pass, provided he possesses the ball in a legal manner first.
I agree before you post, that's probably not going to happen either, but it's possible.