How is this penalty enforced?

[BG5]

Team a scores on a 55 yard run and the player spikes the ball in end zone.  During the run an official runs into team b coach and makes contact. 

So how is this ruled on field.

Thank you for your help.

[Atlanta Blue]

The TD stands.  A can decide to have the foul on the B coach enforced on the try or the kickoff.  Then B can decide the same thing for the spike.  They are not "offsetting" fouls during a dead ball period.  The penalties may wind up offsetting if they both choose kickoff. 

[sir55]

Running into the coach by the official is a 15 yard nonplayer foul. Spiking the ball by the player is a 15 yard USC foul by the player. 10-2-5 states that an equal number of 15 yard nonplayer and USC fouls off set. They were both committed prior to the administration of the penalties. They should off set.

[ncwingman]

AB is correct in that both teams get their choice as to where to enforce, try or kickoff. If they both choose the same option, they'd offset.

This would be important on the try, as if A picks try and B says kickoff, you'd get half the distance enforcement. If they both pick try you wouldn't enforce 15 one way and half the distance the other -- they would offset.

[Stinterp]

NFHS rule change last year, offset.10-2-5-b

[Curious]

AB is correct in that both teams get their choice as to where to enforce, try or kickoff. If they both choose the same option, they'd offset.

This would be important on the try, as if A picks try and B says kickoff, you'd get half the distance enforcement. If they both pick try you wouldn't enforce 15 one way and half the distance the other -- they would offset.

The TD stands.  A can decide to have the foul on the B coach enforced on the try or the kickoff.  Then B can decide the same thing for the spike.  They are not "offsetting" fouls during a dead ball period.  The penalties may wind up offsetting if they both choose kickoff.

With respect, are we sure these fouls do not off-set? While not exactly on point, Case Book play 10.4.5F indicates that "the dead ball (personal) foul by B and the unsportsmanlike foul by the coach of A will cancel" since the second dead ball foul occurred before the administration of the first.

I haven't been able to find the exact scenario in either the CB or Reddings, In Reddings (pg 154 under Live Ball Fouls Treated As Dead Ball Fouls), it says, in part, "Unless the fouls off-set" and then refers us to an Example on Pg 174 which, again, is not exactly on point but has similar characteristics:

EXAMPLE (paraphrased): 1/10 at A10. during A's long run which winds up at B's 10, we have a ("penalizable") foul on A's coach, followed by a DBPF by B. The ruling indicates the fouls off-set.

I realize that neither of these scenarios involve a score; but my concern is that I haven't been able to find, if By Rule the penalties off-set, why either team would have a choice of where the ball would next be put in play!  Reddings indicates (pg 153 Example 11-2)) that "the next play....will be as if the fouls had not occurred".

   

[Atlanta Blue]

You are correct.  I was basing my answer on the foul by B's coach NOT being a dead ball foul, and only dead ball fouls offset.  But the rule actually says dead ball fouls OR non-player personal fouls (which is what this is) offset if the penalty administration has not been complete.

Sorry, I didn't realize the second part of that was part of the new rule.  Since the emphasis was always on "dead ball fouls offset", I didn't consider live ball non-player personal fouls as part of the equation.

[KWH]

You are correct.  I was basing my answer on the foul by B's coach NOT being a dead ball foul, and only dead ball fouls offset.  But the rule actually says dead ball fouls OR non-player personal fouls (which is what this is) offset if the penalty administration has not been complete.

Sorry, I didn't realize the second part of that was part of the new rule.  Since the emphasis was always on "dead ball fouls offset", I didn't consider live ball non-player personal fouls as part of the equation.

Yep!
Now AB is correct!

[Ralph Damren]

Part of the rationale in rewriting 10-2-5b was remove the potential confusion of enforcing a situation as in the OP. "Who fouled first? Which captain chooses first? What impact will the first choice have on the second choice ?" have been removed with : "The fouls cancel, let's get on with the try."

OLE' MAINER PROVERB: "IF YA' SEND YOUR HUNTING DAWG TO THE STORE FOR A LOAF OF BREAD, HE'S APT TO COME BACK WITH A BOTTLE OF ALLEN'S COFFEE BRANDY"

[bama_stripes]

OLE' MAINER PROVERB: "IF YA' SEND YOUR HUNTING DAWG TO THE STORE FOR A LOAF OF BREAD, HE'S APT TO COME BACK WITH A BOTTLE OF ALLEN'S COFFEE BRANDY"

Good dog!