Unsportsman like

[KDJBBBJ]

I can't get my mind straight or find it in the rules or case book for sure and no past threads i could find so I am asking th eexperst. 

On a scoring play if the scoring team comitts an USC foul, such as the ball carrier looking back and pointing at the defenders chasing him, and he hasnt drossed the goal line yet. Does the score count and we go to the succeding spot, try, for the enforcement of the yardage? 

I want to say that is correct but somthing keeps nagging at me and make sure you know where it happens, live ball vs dead ball, but i don't think it matters with USC since they are always treated as deadball fouls.

Thanks for your expertise on this matter.

[NorCalMike]

Here is the rule 8-2-4

ART. 4 . . . If either team commits an unsportsmanlike conduct or a nonplayer foul during a down in which a touchdown is scored, the opponent may accept the results of the play and choose enforcement of the penalty:

a. On the try, or

b. On the subsequent kickoff.

So the score counts. The penalty can be assessed on the try or the kickoff.

[FLAHL]

Yes, the score counts under NFHS rules.  USC is a live ball foul enforced like a dead ball foul.

[zebrastripes]

This is one of those “don’t confuse NFHS with NCAA” situations.

[KDJBBBJ]

But I don't want to accept the result of the play!   

Thanks. 
 

[Magician]

But I don't want to accept the result of the play!   

Thanks. 
 

But you have to. Until a big HS game ends with a runner doing this and that score plays a major factor in deciding the outcome or this becomes very common I doubt we'll see this change happen. I can only think of 3 or 4 UNS calls I've seen in my games and I get to work with some of the likely culprits of this activity.

[Mad Mike]

I seem to remember a playoff game in Oklahoma a few years ago in which the crew called back a long touch down run and enforced a penalty for a coach being in the restricted area and contacting an official who was covering the run down the same sideline. Needless to say, the crew go this one wrong. They should have counted the score and then given the opponents the choice of when to have it enforced.

[KWH]

I seem to remember a playoff game in Oklahoma a few years ago in which the crew called back a long touch down run and enforced a penalty for a coach being in the restricted area and contacting an official who was covering the run down the same sideline. Needless to say, the crew go this one wrong. They should have counted the score and then given the opponents the choice of when to have it enforced.

Yes that happened and Yes the officials enforced it incorrectly.
In NFHS this is a non-player foul! Non-player fouls are enforced from the succeeding spot - 8-2-4, 9-4-8, 10-4-5c

*

[FLAHL]

I seem to remember a playoff game in Oklahoma a few years ago in which the crew called back a long touch down run and enforced a penalty for a coach being in the restricted area and contacting an official who was covering the run down the same sideline. Needless to say, the crew go this one wrong. They should have counted the score and then given the opponents the choice of when to have it enforced.

If I remember correctly, this ended up in court.

[Ralph Damren]

As the ole' saying goes : "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"; the action had no baring on the outcome of the play. The play should stand with the penalty enforced on the succeeding spot.

[NVFOA_Ump]

As the ole' saying goes : "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"; the action had no baring on the outcome of the play. The play should stand with the penalty enforced on the succeeding spot.

I don't necessarily disagree here but in an environment where the sportsmanship issue seems far more focused (NFHS vs. NCAA) the idea that a clear and flagrant USC while the ball is still clearly live should be enforced as a DB foul seems counter to all of the guidance in the "high level" NFHS text.  IMHO it would be a far better deterrent if the penalty against the a player was enforced at the spot of the foul AND include a loss of down.

[Magician]

I don't necessarily disagree here but in an environment where the sportsmanship issue seems far more focused (NFHS vs. NCAA) the idea that a clear and flagrant USC while the ball is still clearly live should be enforced as a DB foul seems counter to all of the guidance in the "high level" NFHS text.  IMHO it would be a far better deterrent if the penalty against the a player was enforced at the spot of the foul AND include a loss of down.

You have hit the two different philosophies here. One is the action generally has no impact on the actual play and thus succeeding spot makes sense. But the NCAA felt it wasn't enough of a deterrent and they wanted to get those acts completely out of the game thus making them live ball fouls. You definitely don't see it often so it appears to have worked. I don't think it's a huge problem in HS football so I'm fine with succeeding spot.

[bawags06]

Here is the rule 8-2-4

ART. 4 . . . If either team commits an unsportsmanlike conduct or a nonplayer foul during a down in which a touchdown is scored, the opponent may accept the results of the play and choose enforcement of the penalty:

a. On the try, or

b. On the subsequent kickoff.

So the score counts. The penalty can be assessed on the try or the kickoff.

As both an official and a professional writer, the "may" in this rule adds to the potential confusion. The opponent doesn't have any choice but to accept the results of the play, which makes "may" a poor word choice. The "may" should be placed before "choose enforcement..."  Perhaps a better version would be something like:

"If either team commits an unsportsmanlike conduct or a nonplayer foul during a down in which a touchdown is scored, the touchdown stands and the opponent may choose enforcement of the penalty:..."

In fact, 8-2-2, 8-2-3, and 8-2-4 could all stand to have this change made.

[ilyazhito]

Unless we propose to the NFHS that unsportsmanlike conduct by the scoring team should nullify the score, as in NCAA. In that case, the rule would read:
ART. 4. If either team commits an unsportsmanlike conduct or a nonplayer foul during a down in which a touchdown is scored, the opponent may accept the results of the play and choose enforcement of the penalty:

a. On the try or,
b. On the subsequent kickoff

This does not apply to player unsportsmanlike conduct fouls by the scoring team. If the penalty for an unsportsmanlike conduct foul by the scoring team is accepted, the score will be cancelled and the penalty will be enforced from the goal line.

In a high school game, would you rather have that rule, or the NCAA rule where unsportsmanlike conduct penalties by players is enforced as a live-ball foul? This rule change proposal could be promoted as increasing sportsmanship.

[SCline]

I’m okay with the NFHS rule as is. A) it doesn’t happen that often. B) the unsporting action did not give an “advantage” for the scoring team so let the score stand and punish the poor behavior with yardage/dq.

[Ralph Damren]

With our rule , a chip-shot PAT turns into a 35 yard FG - far from automatic - or a kickoff from K's 25, with probable field position similar to the free kick following a safety. I have a feeling that the guilty player will get an earful from his coach and remember that the USC puts him on double-secret probation!

[hef333]

Double Secret Probation!  Love it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tfK_3XK4CI

[VALJ]

I for one would LOVE to see a USC on the scoring team take points off the board. If the Fed wants to get taunting on those plays out of the game, start taking points off the board, and that will fix it right quick.

That said, I don't see this as an issue big enough for Fed to warrant adding an exception to the normal USC enforcement; and we all know how much Fed hats having exceptions in the rule book to begin with...

[bama_stripes]

I for one would LOVE to see a USC on the scoring team take points off the board. If the Fed wants to get taunting on those plays out of the game, start taking points off the board, and that will fix it right quick.

That said, I don't see this as an issue big enough for Fed to warrant adding an exception to the normal USC enforcement; and we all know how much Fed hats having exceptions in the rule book to begin with...

It’s not THAT much of an exception.  Using ABO should be pretty easy to remember.