RefStripes.com

Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: bmem66 on October 28, 2017, 07:40:04 AM

Title: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: bmem66 on October 28, 2017, 07:40:04 AM
On the final play of the first half, Team A completes a 25 yard pass to Bís 20 yard line and time is expired.   During the play, B lineman is flagged for PF for hands to the A linemanís face mask and has his head bent all the way back.  First, should this have been a PF or a illegal use of hands on B?   Second, we told the coach that they could take the penality and move 15 from the LOS and have an untimed down from the 30 or they could decline and the half would be over.    Should we have enforced the PF from the end of the catch and an untimed down from the 10?   Would it be different if we called it an illegal use of hands instead of a PF? 
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: NoVaBJ on October 28, 2017, 08:12:44 AM
IUH or PF is a "you had to be there" type of situation.

The proper enforcement is not. Did the foul (whatever it was) happen before or after the pass was completed? It makes a difference.
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: NVFOA_Ump on October 28, 2017, 01:15:18 PM
Have to know when the foul occurred in relation to the pass?
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: js in sc on October 28, 2017, 01:52:28 PM
Why is this not a PF facemask?
Title: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: CalhounLJ on October 28, 2017, 02:10:35 PM
He probably didn’t grasp the face mask. Assuming this happened before or during the pass, the options u gave appear to be be correct. Replay with untamed down, or decline and half is over.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: sir55 on October 28, 2017, 02:30:45 PM
We do not have "illegal hands to the face" as a penalty in Fed rules. We do not have "illegal use of the hands" as a penalty in Fed rules. If he made contact with the player above the shoulders with his hand, arm, etc., we could have targeting. If he grabbed the face mask, it could be a 5 or 15 yard penalty. The enforcement would depend on when the foul happened. If it was during the pass, to get an untimed down, they would have to accept the penalty and enforce from the previous spot. If they decline the penalty, half or game is over. If it happened after the pass, during the run, they could accept the penalty with enforcement from the end of the run and get an untimed down.
Title: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: PABJNR on October 28, 2017, 03:26:15 PM
Really no illegal use of hands in fed rules?
9-2-2 titled illegal use of hands and holding
ART 3...A Defensive player shall not:
a. Use a technique not permissible by rule. (2-3-2,2-3-4)
2-3-2.b Open hand technique. The hand(s) shall be:
3. Inside the frame of the opponent’s body, except when the opponent turns his back to the blocker during the block or after the blocker is committed to his charge. The frame of the opponent’s body is at the shoulders or below other than the back.

9-2-2 PENALTY Arts 3a - Illegal use of hands or arms (S42) - 10 yards


Now PF and targeting are possibilities, but I would personally need to see the play to determine which one to call, but illegal use of the hands IS an option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: CalhounLJ on October 28, 2017, 03:58:25 PM
And no matter which one, if the foul occurred before or during the pass, the options would be the same, although the distances would be different. Mark off penalty from previous spot and untimed down, or decline and half is over.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: ChicagoZebra on October 28, 2017, 04:18:58 PM
Roughing the passer is the only personal foul with tack on. Also, all personal fouls against the passer are considered roughing the passer.
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: ncwingman on October 28, 2017, 04:32:42 PM
Roughing the passer is the only personal foul with tack on. Also, all personal fouls against the passer are considered roughing the passer.

During a loose ball play, that is.

A personal foul by B during a running play is always a tack on.

EDIT -- I realize there might be a differing definition of "tack on". If you mean enforced from the dead ball spot or succeeding spot, then the running play PF isn't a "tack on" as it is enforced from the end of the related run, not the dead ball spot/succeeding spot. However, there are several other non-player PFs that are always enforced as dead ball, "tack on" like contact with a coach in the restricted area.
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: ChicagoZebra on October 28, 2017, 05:43:25 PM
You are right. Just my personal semantics but I dont consider a foul enforced from the end of the related run as a tack on.
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: bmem66 on October 28, 2017, 11:29:20 PM
It happened from the time the ball was snapped until the ball was thrown and in the air and before the catch was made. 
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: bama_stripes on October 29, 2017, 07:09:44 AM
I would always consider a foul for "hands to the face" a PF.  First, it's dangerous.  Second, if not called it could easily lead to retaliatory conduct by the opponent.

Would I consider targeting?  Probably not, unless it was a violent blow or jab.
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: ncwingman on October 29, 2017, 10:04:06 AM
It happened from the time the ball was snapped until the ball was thrown and in the air and before the catch was made.

The foul occurred during a loose ball play. The basic spot for a loose ball play is the previous spot. Any foul by B is not a "but one", therefore the previous spot is the enforcement spot for the foul.

Therefore, you enforced it correctly.
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: AlUpstateNY on October 29, 2017, 12:27:36 PM
We do not have "illegal hands to the face" as a penalty in Fed rules. We do not have "illegal use of the hands" as a penalty in Fed rules.
[/i][/u]

Perhaps a typo, or you might check NFHS 9-2 "Illegal use of the hands and holding".
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: Ralph Damren on October 30, 2017, 08:03:43 AM
QUICK QUIZ....

IF the clock read 0:02 at he end of the play, could A use our spiffy new timing rule, decline the foul to gain more yardage and star on the snap??
Title: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: CalhounLJ on October 30, 2017, 09:16:34 AM
  No. To invoke the rule the penalty must be accepted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: Ralph Damren on October 30, 2017, 10:41:49 AM
  No. To invoke the rule the penalty must be accepted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 aWaRd tiphat:
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: ncwingman on October 30, 2017, 12:13:07 PM
QUICK QUIZ....

IF the clock read 0:02 at he end of the play, could A use our spiffy new timing rule, decline the foul to gain more yardage and star on the snap??

A second hypothetical --

It's 4th and goal from the 3, with the ball in the middle of the field, 5 seconds left, A down by 3. A7 completes a pass to A87 where he is immediately tackled by the facemask at the 1 -- in bounds, with 1 second left on the clock.

Can A elect to accept the penalty but decline the yardage (keeping the ball in the middle of the field at the 3), and have the clock start on the snap to attempt a tying FG?
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: NVFOA_Ump on October 30, 2017, 12:26:30 PM
I don't believe that declining the yardage would change the spot from the inbounds spot.  It would end up 1st and goal on the inbounds hash mark nearest the DB spot.
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: bossman72 on October 30, 2017, 12:33:35 PM
It's Illegal Use of the Hands per 9-2-1a and 2-3-2-b2.  10 yards.

Previous spot enforcement since it happened before the pass was completed.
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: ncwingman on October 30, 2017, 12:39:00 PM
I don't believe that declining the yardage would change the spot from the inbounds spot.  It would end up 1st and goal on the inbounds hash mark nearest the DB spot.

I realized my scenario might have a flaw -- I was trying to go for a loose ball play foul with previous spot enforcement. If you accept the penalty, the ball is first moved to the enforcement spot of the foul then the penalty yardage is applied. If the yardage is declined, the ball remains at the enforcement spot to replay the down. If you wanted the dead ball spot, you would have to decline the penalty entirely and you don't get to change the clock status.
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: bmem66 on October 31, 2017, 09:14:38 AM
Just so I fully understand the correct ruling here, because it was part of a loose ball play, the penalty is enforced at the previous spot.    Had the foul occurred after the catch was made, the foul would be enforced at the end of the run (after the catch).  There was no targeting on this play so I am not sure how that got in the mix.   Would the best call on this be illegal use of the hands or PF on the defense for having the hands inside and/or on the facemask and bending the offensive lineman head all the way back?   To me I believe it depends on the severity of the action and that's why I called a PF.   
Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: AlUpstateNY on October 31, 2017, 09:45:40 AM
Just so I fully understand the correct ruling here, because it was part of a loose ball play, the penalty is enforced at the previous spot.    Had the foul occurred after the catch was made, the foul would be enforced at the end of the run (after the catch).  There was no targeting on this play so I am not sure how that got in the mix.   Would the best call on this be illegal use of the hands or PF on the defense for having the hands inside and/or on the facemask and bending the offensive lineman head all the way back?   To me I believe it depends on the severity of the action and that's why I called a PF.   /quote]

Sounds right to me.  The judgment between Illegal Use of Hands and Personal Foul is ENTIRELY YOUR's to make based on what YOU observed.  NFHS 9-4-3G references ANY contact deemed "unnecessary or excessive and which incites roughness".

I agree that adding "Targeting" would be a gratuitous example of "piling on".

Title: Re: I believe I screwed this up....
Post by: Ralph Damren on October 31, 2017, 01:43:53 PM
The latitude we always know on penalty enforcement, being 5,10, or 15.

The longitude (where to step the penalty is stepped off from) sometimes is forgotten but is very important in play-calling strategy.

THREE THINGS TO REMEMBER :

PREVIOUS SPOT = UMP sNiCkErS TRACKS THIS WITH HIS UNSTICKY FINGERS  sNiCkErS.

END OF RUN = EASY ,WHERE THE RUN ENDED - IF IN SIDE ZONE, MOVE TO HASH -IF MORE THEN ONE RUN, MARK EACH WITH BEANBAG.

ALL-BUT-ONE = MOVE FLAG TO SPOT OF FOUL- IF IN SIDE ZONE,MOVE FLAG TO HASH.

...And remember free kick OOB = award is placed on hash mark ...this isn't one of the seven times when they can choose.