Author Topic: New 10-4-2-b (Read 11767 times)

sj · « **on:** June 19, 2024, 04:22:19 PM »

Play - A 2/8 @ A22. QB takes a quick drop and throws to A80 and it is incomplete. B3 is flagged for defensive holding A80 at the A27 yard line.

We know this will be enforced from the previous spot. So wIth the new wording to 10-4-2-b what rule(s) would be used to show that this penalty will be enforced from the previous spot?

New 10-4-2-b - The basic spot is the previous spot unless 8-5-2-c applies for:.... b)A foul which occurs behind the line of scrimmage during a loose ball play as defined in 10-3-1.

Asking for a friend.

bama_stripes · « **Reply #1 on:** June 20, 2024, 06:07:02 AM »

Not sure what you’re getting at. The PS was the A-22 and the foul occurred at the A-27. That’s not behind the LOS.

sj · « **Reply #2 on:** June 20, 2024, 10:14:29 PM »

Since this foul for the DH was beyond the LOS it doesn't seem like you can point to the new 10-4-2-b to tell you that it will be enforced from the previous spot since the new 10-4-2-b applies to situations where the foul occurs behind the LOS. So now what rule or rules would be used? I know that's what were going to do but just wondering.

Fatso · « **Reply #3 on:** June 21, 2024, 07:29:35 AM »

Isn't this simply a foul by B during a loose ball play? Basic spot is previous spot.

sj · « **Reply #4 on:** June 21, 2024, 09:52:29 AM »

Quote from: Fatso on June 21, 2024, 07:29:35 AM

Isn't this simply a foul by B during a loose ball play? Basic spot is previous spot.

Yes. So now what rule or rules would be cited to support that?

In years previous, it would be 10-4-2-b which said that the previous spot would be used for: "A foul which occurs during a loose ball play as defined in 10-3-1...."

But they've added the wording highlighted in bold to the new 10-4-2-b and it now says: "The basic spot is the previous spot unless 8-5-2-c applies for:.... b) A foul which occurs behind the line of scrimmage during a loose ball play as defined in 10-3-1...."

dammitbobby · « **Reply #5 on:** June 21, 2024, 10:13:55 AM »

Not my rule code, but can I offer an independent thought on what this means?

"The basic spot is the previous spot unless 8-5-2-c applies for:.... b) A foul which occurs behind the line of scrimmage during a loose ball play as defined in 10-3-1."

I think the key word for this situation is 'unless.'

The basic spot is the previous spot

UNLESS

8-5-2-C applies, (comma added for clarity)

for ...b) a foul which occurs behind the line of scrimmage during a loose ball play.

As I read it, it's saying that unless it's a foul behind the LOS, the basic spot is the previous spot.

Just my interp... definitely could be off, just happy to have something football related to think about!

Fatso · « **Reply #6 on:** June 21, 2024, 11:07:22 AM »

Quote from: sj on June 21, 2024, 09:52:29 AM

Yes. So now what rule or rules would be cited to support that?

In years previous, it would be 10-4-2-b which said that the previous spot would be used for: "A foul which occurs during a loose ball play as defined in 10-3-1...."

But they've added the wording highlighted in bold to the new 10-4-2-b and it now says: "The basic spot is the previous spot unless 8-5-2-c applies for:.... b) A foul which occurs behind the line of scrimmage during a loose ball play as defined in 10-3-1...."

I don't have the 2024 rules book. i don't want you to type out the entire 10-4 section.. Is the new 10-4-2-b the only sub-section that refers to fouls during a loose ball play?

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #7 on:** June 21, 2024, 02:43:34 PM »

I don't believe that any "new 2024 wording" has any impact on this play. IMHO this is simply a previous spot enforcement. I note with the increasing use of the word "unless" apparently to avoid using the bad word "exception" in the rules is just confusing the format of the rile book. IMHO it would be much more consistent and would simplify reading and understanding to say EXCEPT when the foul occurs behind the previous spot.

bossman72 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 22, 2024, 11:53:46 AM »

Quote from: NVFOA_Ump on June 21, 2024, 02:43:34 PM

I don't believe that any "new 2024 wording" has any impact on this play.

I think he's just pointing out how poorly the wording is.
We know from years past that this is previous spot.
However if you've never watched or officiated football before and used what the book says, it will steer you in a different direction.

I agree with Bobby's breakdown above.

sj · « **Reply #9 on:** August 06, 2024, 03:40:49 PM »

Scratch this for now. Thanks.

Fatso · « **Reply #10 on:** August 07, 2024, 07:43:46 AM »

Quote from: sj on June 19, 2024, 04:22:19 PM

The basic spot is the previous spot unless 8-5-2-c applies for:.... b)A foul which occurs behind the line of scrimmage during a loose ball play as defined in 10-3-1.

10-4-2 is correct, just the wording is botched.... "The basic spot is the previous spot unless 8-5-2c applies for: a, b, c, etc...." (They're intending to say with the exception of 8-5-2c plays, it's previous spot for a-g. Wording is terrible).

It should be written as "Unless 8-5-2c applies, the basic spot is the previous spot for...a, b, c,...etc. " or something like that.

refjeff · « **Reply #11 on:** August 11, 2024, 09:06:56 PM »

Quote from: sj on June 19, 2024, 04:22:19 PM

Play - A 2/8 @ A22. QB takes a quick drop and throws to A80 and it is incomplete. B3 is flagged for defensive holding A80 at the A27 yard line.

We know this will be enforced from the previous spot. So wIth the new wording to 10-4-2-b what rule(s) would be used to show that this penalty will be enforced from the previous spot?

New 10-4-2-b - The basic spot is the previous spot unless 8-5-2-c applies for:.... b)A foul which occurs behind the line of scrimmage during a loose ball play as defined in 10-3-1.

Asking for a friend.

Maybe 10-4-2-d. Nothing else remotely comes close.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #12 on:** August 12, 2024, 10:23:26 AM »

They screwed it up even worse than it was. Now there is no rule support in the rule enforcement section for any foul occurring beyond the line of scrimmage during a loose ball play, including pass interference. The exception for 8-5-2c deals with a safety, and is an exclusion, not a condition, meaning that we can't read 8-5-2c into 10-4-2.
The only support we have for previous spot enforcement on a foul beyond the line of scrimmage on a loose-ball play is table 7-5, which doesn't include the defensive hold, but does include pass interference. That table has the enforcement spot as the previous spot. 9-2, which deals with defensive holding/illegal use of hands, is no help re: the spot of enforcement for defensive holding, as it gives the penalty yardage, but no hint at the spot. So, as of today, there is no guidance or support as to the enforcement spot of a defensive hold beyond the line of scrimmage on a loose-ball play. The only thing we have to go on is our past, commonsense experience and knowledge of the rules the way they used to be.

It is beyond time for the rules committee to admit the abject failure of this rewrite, go back to the most sensible ABO, and give us support we can use to enforce the rules of football. It is completely asinine to have to set aside the rulebook to enforce the rules.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #13 on:** August 12, 2024, 04:33:44 PM »

Quote from: bama_stripes on June 20, 2024, 06:07:02 AM

Not sure what you’re getting at. The PS was the A-22 and the foul occurred at the A-27. That’s not behind the LOS.

He's pointing out that since they added the "behind the line of scrimmage" to 10-4-2b, they have created a situation in which there is no rule enforcement guidance for the situation he posted. He's right.

bama_stripes · « **Reply #14 on:** August 13, 2024, 06:30:28 AM »

Take out your pen and cross out “behind the line of scrimmage.” Now we have what the RC intended.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #15 on:** August 13, 2024, 09:06:21 AM »

Quote from: bama_stripes on August 13, 2024, 06:30:28 AM

Take out your pen and cross out “behind the line of scrimmage.” Now we have what the RC intended.

Which is entirely the point. We shouldn't have to "cross anything out." Officials shouldn't have to edit the rule book to be able to enforce the rules properly. It's the committee's job to develop and publish the rules correctly.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #16 on:** August 13, 2024, 10:51:17 AM »

Quote from: CalhounLJ on August 13, 2024, 09:06:21 AM

Which is entirely the point. We shouldn't have to "cross anything out." Officials shouldn't have to edit the rule book to be able to enforce the rules properly. It's the committee's job to develop and publish the rules correctly.

bama_stripes · « **Reply #17 on:** August 14, 2024, 07:33:07 AM »

Quote from: CalhounLJ on August 13, 2024, 09:06:21 AM

Which is entirely the point. We shouldn't have to "cross anything out." Officials shouldn't have to edit the rule book to be able to enforce the rules properly. It's the committee's job to develop and publish the rules correctly.

I’ve said for years that the RC should vet all new rules language through RefStripes. I’ll never live to see it.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #18 on:** August 14, 2024, 07:44:22 AM »

Quote from: bama_stripes on August 14, 2024, 07:33:07 AM

I’ve said for years that the RC should vet all new rules language through RefStripes. I’ll never live to see it.

I'm in complete agreement. While I don't know the history of every member on the committee, our representative is on there because of his position, not his experience or knowledge of the rules. He has never officiated a single game of football, but yet he is the "director of officials." That's akin to appointing a TV commentator to be the Coordinator of Officials in the SEC... I suspect there is at least one, if not more who sit on that committee in the same position. What they are missing is that there is a wealth of rules knowledge in the rank and file if they would just reach out and utilize it.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #19 on:** August 14, 2024, 08:42:00 AM »

Quote from: CalhounLJ on August 14, 2024, 07:44:22 AM

I'm in complete agreement. While I don't know the history of every member on the committee, our representative is on there because of his position, not his experience or knowledge of the rules. He has never officiated a single game of football, but yet he is the "director of officials." That's akin to appointing a TV commentator to be the Coordinator of Officials in the SEC... I suspect there is at least one, if not more who sit on that committee in the same position. What they are missing is that there is a wealth of rules knowledge in the rank and file if they would just reach out and utilize it.

I also believe from Ralph's prior posts and presentations that I've attended where the MA rep was present, that the "final language" and how it is folded into the actual rulebook is not vetted by any true QC/proofing process before the books are printed/issued. And by QC process, I mean a group of senior on-field officials who have time to read, digest, and provide feedback on the actual wording before it's finalized and sent out to the masses.

ncwingman · « **Reply #20 on:** August 14, 2024, 04:24:10 PM »

Quote from: NVFOA_Ump on August 14, 2024, 08:42:00 AM

I also believe from Ralph's prior posts and presentations that I've attended where the MA rep was present, that the "final language" and how it is folded into the actual rulebook is not vetted by any true QC/proofing process before the books are printed/issued. And by QC process, I mean a group of senior on-field officials who have time to read, digest, and provide feedback on the actual wording before it's finalized and sent out to the masses.

Yes, this is what I got from the conversation last year as well. The rules committee doesn't vote on the actual rule, but just the intent of the rule change. Once a rule is passed, a subcommittee then writes the actual language after everybody has gone home and nobody gets to see the new rule or vet the language until the rule books are published.

The process is absurd. The rules committee needs to vote on the specific language of the rule to prevent these sorts of shenanigans. The only downside to this is that the rules committee will then never pass another rule change, since people will get hung up on grammar and punctuation and stall the whole process.

This year's edit to 10-4 wasn't even a formal rule change, just an "editorial change" that had no vote. I would like to know what the process is for instigating an editorial change and how much leeway specific people/subcommittees get.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #21 on:** August 19, 2024, 12:56:19 PM »

Please don't shoot the messager as I was a strong proponnent of last year's rule change. As Dr. Frankenstein, I felt it was unfair to a QB sacked by a facemask to be enforced from the spot of the foul or if his prime reciever was held resulting in a sack WHILE if the QB had fumbled the enforcement would result in previous spot. I did not feel it would create the monster that evolved.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #22 on:** August 19, 2024, 03:11:40 PM »

Quote from: Ralph Damren on August 19, 2024, 12:56:19 PM

Please don't shoot the messager as I was a strong proponnent of last year's rule change. As Dr. Frankenstein, I felt it was unfair to a QB sacked by a facemask to be enforced from the spot of the foul or if his prime reciever was held resulting in a sack WHILE if the QB had fumbled the enforcement would result in previous spot. I did not feel it would create the monster that evolved.

Don't worry Ralph, we know that you're innocent. I believe that we all know that the state reps suggest rules changes and when "approved" people sit in a darkened room, write the language, force fit it into the rulebook, and viola publish it. It is 100% clear that no senior level experienced officials get a chance to review a draft copy for usability and correctness. Again, as with many of the previous year's changes, it looks like it will take a few more years to smooth out this mess.