Scrimmage Kick-Illegal Touching-Score by A-Foul by B

[ElvisLives]

Perhaps the most complex rules in NCAA football are related to situations when Team A commits illegal touching during a scrimmage kick, then re-gains legal possession and scores a touchdown, and there is a Team B foul during the down. To summarize those situations, when Team A commits an illegal touching violation during a legal scrimmage kick play of a down, Team B will have the option to invoke their privilege to take possession of the ball at the spot of illegal touching.
Fouls by Team B can complicate the ruling. An accepted penalty for a “major” foul (15-yard penalty) by Team B would cancel Team B’s illegal touching privilege, allowing Team A to keep the score and have the penalty enforced on the Try or succeeding kickoff. However,  “minor” fouls (5 and 10-yard penalties) are declined by rule, so Team B’s illegal touching privilege remains, and will cancel Team A’s score, with Team B taking possession of the ball at the spot of illegal touching.

A complete review of those situations, with examples, is attached.
Discussion welcome.

[dammitbobby]

So if I am reading this correctly (haven't studied it in depth yet, but I def will, 3a and 3b are interesting, in that relatively minor fouls allow B to be awarded the ball, while a major foul allows A to retain possession (and the ensuing score).

I can't think of another any other scenario where the severity of the foul determines possession.

[ElvisLives]

That’s why these are complex situations, and require some level of rote knowledge, more than ‘principles.’ That requires repetitive study (for most of us, anyway). Hope this helps.

[bossman72]

People in study groups always got hung up on the 5's and 10's being declined by rule.
The reason that is in the rule book is because there are situations where it's impossible to enforce those fouls.
Example:  Team B commits defensive holding on a running play that scores a touchdown.
Even if you wanted to accept the foul, the end of the run is in the end zone.  You can't give them any more yardage.  Therefore, declined by rule.

Where people got hung up is when these fouls are actually enforceable when occurring on a touchdown scoring play.
Example:  Punt is illegally touched by A, recovered/returned by B, fumbled, recovered by A and returned for a touchdown.  During B's return, there was a hold.
You're NOT required to decline this, since the foul does indeed have an enforcement spot.  Team B will have the ball when it's all said and done at either the illegal touching spot or where the penalty leaves it.
This was more of a heated debate before Rogers put an editorial in there saying that illegal touching of a kick enables you to enforce 5s and 10s.

Bobby brings up an interesting point about personal fouls allowing the TD to stand.
I'm sure when they wrote the carry-over rule, they didn't intend for it to apply to this play.  However, that's the way the rule was written and interpreted and therefore that's the way it is.
The classic scenario they wanted to rectify was when Team B commits a personal foul (like roughing the passer) on a normal non-kicking TD scoring play to let them enforce it on the try or kickoff.
So then there's plays like where Team A chop blocks prior to throwing an interception that is returned for a touchdown.  Was the intent of writing this rule to make this foul able to be carried over?  Probably not.  They probably just wanted to correct the "unenforceable" scenario I mentioned above.  But sometimes in rule writing you get "collateral damage plays", where you fix the thing you wanted to fix but it screws up another scenario.  Then you have to decide if it's worth it.
This play is one of them along with the punt plays Bobby mentioned.  I'm sure they didn't intend on the exact same punt play being a TD if B blocks below the waist but giving the ball back to Team B if it was a hold in the exact same place at the exact same time.  But that's the way it works out.

[Kalle]

Also it is slightly difficult for team B to commit a 5- or 10-yarder during the fumble return by team A. Team B players are allowed to grab opponets or push them in the back when they are attempting to reach the runner, so most "holdings" and "blocks in the back" are not fouls. I'm hard pressed to think of a pull-and-shoot situation during a fumble return. Is there a video of a foul that would qualify for this?

Now that I think of it, is there a foul that a team B could commit during the return by team A that would result in a five yard penalty? Is the language just a holdover from back when NCAA used to have the 5-yard face mask?

[ElvisLives]

Sorry for the duplication of text in the original post. Just noticed it. Fixed.

[ElvisLives]

Also it is slightly difficult for team B to commit a 5- or 10-yarder during the fumble return by team A. Team B players are allowed to grab opponets or push them in the back when they are attempting to reach the runner, so most "holdings" and "blocks in the back" are not fouls. I'm hard pressed to think of a pull-and-shoot situation during a fumble return. Is there a video of a foul that would qualify for this?

Now that I think of it, is there a foul that a team B could commit during the return by team A that would result in a five yard penalty? Is the language just a holdover from back when NCAA used to have the 5-yard face mask?

Kalle, the minor penalties don't have to occur during A's return - the foul only needs to be live ball. The apparent touchdown forces the penalty to be declined by rule. Because of that, the illegal touching (ITK) privilege for Team B remains available to Team B, which they, obviously, will accept, to cancel the TD. Since the TD is canceled, now Team A can have the 'minor' penalties enforced.

There are a few Illegal Substitution fouls that could happen any time during the down, with 5-yard penalties, that would fit this discussion. And technically, there is the "3-on-1 defensive linemen on an apparent field goal attempt all contacting an A lineman" foul, as well (although the world might be coming to an end if this ever actually happened). Those are all previous spot enforcement. Without the ITK, the Team B penalty would be declined by rule. But, the ITK "restores" Team A's ability to have those fouls penalized. Team A won't get the TD, but the five-yard penalty fouls will give Team A the ball back at the previous spot to repeat the down, or have a first down, if the yardage is enough.

The only 5-yard Basic Spot/3 & 1 penalty that I know about, could actually happen during B's advance: "assisting the runner." That would give the ball to Team B where the penalty leaves it, 1/10.

Team B fouls with 10-yard penalties (any time during the down) will be enforced per 3 & 1, giving the ball to Team B where the penalty leaves it, 1/10. 

[Kalle]

Kalle, the minor penalties don't have to occur during A's return - the foul only needs to be live ball. The apparent touchdown forces the penalty to be declined by rule. Because of that, the illegal touching (ITK) privilege for Team B remains available to Team B, which they, obviously, will accept, to cancel the TD. Since the TD is canceled, now Team A can have the 'minor' penalties enforced.

I was only commenting on the 3.B case of your memo, which is the interesting one, IMO. Fouls by team B before team A (last) gains possession are relatively straightforward to me.

[ElvisLives]

I was only commenting on the 3.B case of your memo, which is the interesting one, IMO. Fouls by team B before team A (last) gains possession are relatively straightforward to me.

Yeah, as unusual as they would be, Illegal Substitution fouls would be the most realistic ‘minor’ fouls that B could/would commit during A’s run. A Block in the Back is, technically, possible, but, as you allude, that would have to be so blatantly unrelated to an attempt to get to the ball carrier that we might upgrade that to a UNR or UNS foul.

[sj]

Good stuff Robert. Just for discussion, I’m not saying that it needs to be fixed but if they wanted to do so could they take a cue from the NF book? Rewording it a bit to reflect NCAA language, the NF rule concerning illegal touching says that, “The right of B to take the ball at the spot of illegal touching by A is canceled if B touches the kick and thereafter during the down commits a foul….”

With that in place now solve plays 2B and 3B

2B - 4/10, A-30. The ball, from A’s legal punt, is rolling at the B-30 when A99 muffs the ball while
attempting to ‘down’ (recover) it. The ball continues rolling and B80 recovers it at the B-20 and
legally advances to the B-25, where he fumbles. A89 recovers the ball and legally advances across B’s goal line. During B80’s run, B90 illegally assisted the ball carrier by lifting and carrying B80 from the B-20 to the B-25.


3B - 4/10, A-30. The ball, from A’s legal punt, is rolling at the B-30 when A99 muffs the ball while
attempting to ‘down’ (recover) it. The ball continues rolling and B80 recovers it at the B-20 and
legally advances to the B-25, where he fumbles. A89 recovers the ball and legally advances across B’s goal line. During A89’s run, B90 illegally blocked A77 in the back at the B-15.

[ElvisLives]

Good stuff Robert. Just for discussion, I’m not saying that it needs to be fixed but if they wanted to do so could they take a cue from the NF book? Rewording it a bit to reflect NCAA language, the NF rule concerning illegal touching says that, “The right of B to take the ball at the spot of illegal touching by A is canceled if B touches the kick and thereafter during the down commits a foul….”

I can’t solve them based on your language. And, understanding NCAA is hard enough. I don’t want to try to understand NF rules, too. But, it looks like NF makes no distinction between ‘major’ and ‘minor’ fouls (?). It’s the ‘minor’ fouls that complicate things in NCAA.

With that in place now solve plays 2B and 3B

2B - 4/10, A-30. The ball, from A’s legal punt, is rolling at the B-30 when A99 muffs the ball while
attempting to ‘down’ (recover) it. The ball continues rolling and B80 recovers it at the B-20 and
legally advances to the B-25, where he fumbles. A89 recovers the ball and legally advances across B’s goal line. During B80’s run, B90 illegally assisted the ball carrier by lifting and carrying B80 from the B-20 to the B-25.


3B - 4/10, A-30. The ball, from A’s legal punt, is rolling at the B-30 when A99 muffs the ball while
attempting to ‘down’ (recover) it. The ball continues rolling and B80 recovers it at the B-20 and
legally advances to the B-25, where he fumbles. A89 recovers the ball and legally advances across B’s goal line. During A89’s run, B90 illegally blocked A77 in the back at the B-15.

[ElvisLives]

I just had a moment of … well, I don’t know. You be the judge.

Maybe this is the way to think of these situations. After illegally touching a scrimmage kick, if Team A manages to get legal possession of the ball AND score a TD, and Team B commits a “minor” foul during the down, then, for all intents and purposes, the “run” by Team A, and any Team B minor fouls during that run, never happened. Team B fouls before Team A possession get penalized as though the spot where A gained possession is the dead-ball spot.

Hmm. I think that works.

[Kalle]

I just had a moment of … well, I don’t know. You be the judge.

Maybe this is the way to think of these situations. After illegally touching a scrimmage kick, if Team A manages to get legal possession of the ball AND score a TD, and Team B commits a “minor” foul during the down, then, for all intents and purposes, the “run” by Team A, and any Team B minor fouls during that run, never happened. Team B fouls before Team A possession get penalized as though the spot where A gained possession is the dead-ball spot.

Hmm. I think that works.

I think I agree

[ElvisLives]

I think I agree

👍