RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Coach17 on October 14, 2024, 12:00:28 PM
-
I have two questions on rule enforcement, both happen to involve roughing the passer.
Play 1 - During the play Team A is called for offensive holding during a pass play. On the throw Team B is called for roughing the passer and also defensive pass interference on the pass which fell incomplete. It was 3rd and 13 at the start of the play from Team B's 25 yard line. Do the penalties all off set, or does the roughing the passer tack on somehow?
Play 2 - On the last play of the game Team A is called for an illegal shift at the snap and team B is subsequently called for roughing the passer. My understanding is that if any penalty is accepted there is another down, and team A of course would accept the roughing the passer penalty on the defense. Should there be another play? Would these calls offset?
Thanks for any insight.
-
At the end of the NFHS game (or any period) you can't get on the PATIO yet...
Penalty Accepted
Touchdown
Inadvertent whistle
Offsetting Fouls
There are accepting to PA (results in a safety or LOD)
In both of your plays 1 or more live ball Fouls by each team are Offsetting Fouls - extend the period
-
I have two questions on rule enforcement, both happen to involve roughing the passer.
Play 1 - During the play Team A is called for offensive holding during a pass play. On the throw Team B is called for roughing the passer and also defensive pass interference on the pass which fell incomplete. It was 3rd and 13 at the start of the play from Team B's 25 yard line. Do the penalties all off set, or does the roughing the passer tack on somehow?
Play 2 - On the last play of the game Team A is called for an illegal shift at the snap and team B is subsequently called for roughing the passer. My understanding is that if any penalty is accepted there is another down, and team A of course would accept the roughing the passer penalty on the defense. Should there be another play? Would these calls offset?
Thanks for any insight.
ON Question 1, if there are fouls by both teams, ALL penalties offset and we have to replay the down.
Same thing on question 2. In this instance, neither team has the option to decline the opponents foul and accept their own. Instead, the penalites offset and we replay one untimed down.
The option to decline the opponents foul and have your foul enforced is only available on a down in which there is a change of possession.
-
At the end of the NFHS game (or any period) you can't get on the PATIO yet...
Penalty Accepted
Touchdown
Inadvertent whistle
Offsetting Fouls
There are accepting to PA (results in a safety or LOD)
In both of your plays 1 or more live ball Fouls by each team are Offsetting Fouls - extend the period
Not to try and take the topic elsewhere but let's say there's 5 seconds left on the clock, 4th down. Team A takes the snap and throws the ball out of bounds and is called for intentional grounding as time expires. Team B can either decline the penalty (game over) or they can accept the penalty and loss of down, but because it's a loss of down penalty the game would be over. Is that correct?
-
Not to try and take the topic elsewhere but let's say there's 5 seconds left on the clock, 4th down. Team A takes the snap and throws the ball out of bounds and is called for intentional grounding as time expires. Team B can either decline the penalty (game over) or they can accept the penalty and loss of down, but because it's a loss of down penalty the game would be over. Is that correct?
Thanks. I wasn't sure if the roughing penalties carried some different weight. Logically you could see them being handled differently because they're related to player safety. They are tack on penalties in other situations, so it would make some sense that they get applied differently, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
-
Coach 17, you seem to know the rules much better than many coaches that I know :thumbup. Don't get our rules code confused with Sunday afternoon (NFL) where if you have a 15 on one team and a 5 on the other, you forget the 5 yarder. If you ever tire of coaching, consider officiating as we are shorthanded everywhere.
-
At the end of the NFHS game (or any period) you can't get on the PATIO yet...
Penalty Accepted
Touchdown
Inadvertent whistle
Offsetting Fouls
I thought for a touchdown, the game is only extended if the extra point would decide the game or if total points are a tie-breaker for standings purposes.
-
Not to try and take the topic elsewhere but let's say there's 5 seconds left on the clock, 4th down. Team A takes the snap and throws the ball out of bounds and is called for intentional grounding as time expires. Team B can either decline the penalty (game over) or they can accept the penalty and loss of down, but because it's a loss of down penalty the game would be over. Is that correct?
This is a bone of contention with me. You are correct, either way the game is over. Here's my problem. This scenario has cropped up in a college game and in a high school game in our state (PA) in recent years. As you describe it, the offensive team threw the ball high in the air and way out of bounds right off the snap. In both games I mentioned, the crews incorrectly gave the offended team an untimed down. In the college game, it led to a winning score. Can't remember what happened in the high school game. The college crew was suspended.
Here's my issue. The way the rule stands, the violating team benefits from committing a foul. Common sense dictates that this should never happen. Rules, however, can, on occasion, not make sense. I submitted a rule change request to NFHS several years, which was summarily ignored. All I asked is that this phrase be added at the beginning of the section "Unless B is next to snap the ball..." To me, there is no logic in allowing a team to gain an advantage by committing a foul. Yet, as the rule still stands, a team can benefit from doing so.
-
nevermind//// i was confused, sorry
-
This is a bone of contention with me. You are correct, either way the game is over. Here's my problem. This scenario has cropped up in a college game and in a high school game in our state (PA) in recent years. As you describe it, the offensive team threw the ball high in the air and way out of bounds right off the snap. In both games I mentioned, the crews incorrectly gave the offended team an untimed down. In the college game, it led to a winning score. Can't remember what happened in the high school game. The college crew was suspended.
Here's my issue. The way the rule stands, the violating team benefits from committing a foul. Common sense dictates that this should never happen. Rules, however, can, on occasion, not make sense. I submitted a rule change request to NFHS several years, which was summarily ignored. All I asked is that this phrase be added at the beginning of the section "Unless B is next to snap the ball..." To me, there is no logic in allowing a team to gain an advantage by committing a foul. Yet, as the rule still stands, a team can benefit from doing so.
Yo, Ted-
I'm all for your idea of change, but we need to change the wordage, The LOD exception on UTD was added to prevent a game-ending play that occurred in a Louisiana championship game to prevent such. ...
(1) K free kicked after going up by 2 with few seconds left.
(2) Return turned into rugby scrum.
(3) At K's 10 ,R1 throws IFP towards K's EZ.
)4) R2 catches pass, time expires.
(5) K needs to take penalty to cancel TD.
(6) R,now B/K kicks winning FG,
We would need wordage to prevent this. How about : 3-3-4b3 " Fouls that specify a loss of down UNLESS FOUL BY A OR K"
OPINIONS, PLEASE......
-
My proposal will be:
3-3-4b3 (rewrite) Fouls by B or R that specify a loss of down.
UNLESS YOU GUYS CAN COME UP WITH BETTER WORDAGE.... tiphat:
-
If you're really brave:
At the option of the offended team, any foul that when completed gives the offending team a clear advantage shall be declared a Loss of Down foul regardless if the foul is accepted, or declined.
Just tossing out an idea.
-
If you're really brave:
At the option of the offended team, any foul that when completed gives the offending team a clear advantage shall be declared a Loss of Down foul regardless if the foul is accepted, or declined.
Just tossing out an idea.
Thanks, Bobby, but then we would need to define 'clear advantage'. ::) :o ???
-
i guess you could give the offended team the option of taking the loss of down or replaying it on a penalty carrying a lod provision. In most cases, they would take the loss of down, but in this instance they might want to take the replay.