Illegal touching play

[azsteam]

I need some help on this play with illegal touching & batting of a ball over the goal line.

A 4/10 @ A40.  A3 punts the ball to the B2 as the ball bounces over the goal line, A88 bats the ball back to the B3 where B7 picks up the ball and runs to the B10 and fumbles the ball.  A55 picks up the ball and runs for a touchdown.  During B10's run B58 was called for block below the waist at the B8.  Would the answer change if B is called for block below the waist during the kick at the B16?

[younggun]

Correct me if I am wrong. I dont have my book with me right now. But all of the crap after the illegal touch does not matter. Once the ball broke the GL B can go back and say we want the TB.

[Kalle]

This is an interesting play situation. The rule (and the relevant A.R.) says that for PSK and team A fouls the illegal touching in team B's end zone is not cancelled, causing a problem in the second case.

The first case is easy: touchdown for team A. Enforce the 15 yard PF penalty on the try or the kickoff. The illegal touching privilege is cancelled.

The second case is complicated: by rule, the illegal touching privilege is not cancelled by accepting a penalty for the team B PSK foul. Thus, team B may take the ball at B-20 and have the PF penalty enforced. 1st and 10 for team B at B-8 (spot of the foul is behind the basic spot).

[Hawkeye]

The second case is complicated: by rule, the illegal touching privilege is not cancelled by accepting a penalty for the team B PSK foul. Thus, team B may take the ball at B-20 and have the PF penalty enforced. 1st and 10 for team B at B-8 (spot of the foul is behind the basic spot).

I believe that the second case is intended to have the same result, but with the B foul happening at a different time.  Thus in both scenarios, team A scores a TD and there is a team B personal foul.  The timing of the personal foul, in my reading of the rules is irrelevant.

I have the same result in both scenarios: 10-2-5-a-1 governs because in both cases, we have a personal foul penalty that happens during a down which ends in a TD, thus the offended team has the option of accepting the penalty on the try or succeeding kickoff. 6-3-11 makes no mention about PSK fouls, other than the fact that the B-20 is the PSK spot.

If team A doesn't score in the second scenario, then I agree with your ruling.

[jg-me]

Perhaps I'm missing something but in the second scenario there is no PSK. Team A has the ball when the play ends. The only viable enforcement spot is the PS.
  6-3-11 may be the most confusing and poorly worded rule we have. My method of remembering it is that the rule only applies for B fouls that meet PSK and for A fouls that qualify for tack on enforcement.

[Kalle]

Perhaps I'm missing something but in the second scenario there is no PSK.

Yes, you and Hawkeye are absolutely right. No PSK -> violation is cancelled by an accepted penalty -> TD, in both scenarios.

[azsteam]

I don't believe the TD would stand for any scenario if A illegally touches the ball in the end zone.  6-3-11 states that this is a special case of illegal touching and a violation is not canceled by any accepted penalty(only for offsetting fouls).

[Kalle]

I don't believe the TD would stand for any scenario if A illegally touches the ball in the end zone.  6-3-11 states that this is a special case of illegal touching and a violation is not canceled by any accepted penalty(only for offsetting fouls).

Except A.R. 6-3-11-III gives at least one situation where the privilege is cancelled by a team B foul.

[jg-me]

Except A.R. 6-3-11-III gives at least one situation where the privilege is cancelled by a team B foul.

That is correct. AND, the last sentence of that ruling is the clearest statement in the book that 6-3-11 only applies to B fouls that meet PSK rules. Not really sure why this rule is so vaguely written.

[DallasLJ]

I thought we have been through this before.  In the first scenario, Touchdown for A -- the illegal touch privilege is cancelled because you have an accepted penalty -- against B, post-change of possession.

  However, no touchdown in the other scenario.  If Team A declines the penalty, then the illegal touch is enforced.  Team A will not get to keep the ball.   

[Kalle]

  However, no touchdown in the other scenario.  If Team A declines the penalty, then the illegal touch is enforced.  Team A will not get to keep the ball.

Why would team A decline the penalty? A personal foul against the non-scoring team during a touchdown down is enforced on the try or the kickoff. No need to decline a PF to get the score.

[DallasLJ]

Why would team A decline the penalty? A personal foul against the non-scoring team during a touchdown down is enforced on the try or the kickoff. No need to decline a PF to get the score.

  Because in the second scenario, the Team B foul occurred before the change of possession.  It would not be a tack on foul.  So, if Team A declines the penalty in an attempt to keep the ball -- the illegal touch gets enforced.

[Kalle]

  Because in the second scenario, the Team B foul occurred before the change of possession.  It would not be a tack on foul.  So, if Team A declines the penalty in an attempt to keep the ball -- the illegal touch gets enforced.

The enforcement in 10-2-5-a-1 trumps all other enforcements. Note the language "during a down that ends", not "during a play that ends". If your interpretation would be correct, in both cases it would not be a touchdown, as the foul happens before team A last gained possession.

[bossman72]

I don't believe the TD would stand for any scenario if A illegally touches the ball in the end zone.  6-3-11 states that this is a special case of illegal touching and a violation is not canceled by any accepted penalty(only for offsetting fouls).

This is a goofy rule - but we need to understand the spirit of the rule to properly enforce these plays.  The spirit of this rule was to be able to tack on A fouls when the play results in a touchback, or use the 20 as the PSK spot for B fouls when the play results in a touch back.

For example: Team A illegally touches in the end zone and downs the ball at the 3.  During the kick there was a personal foul by A.

If we didn't have this rule, we would have to decline the personal foul and take the illegal touching spot at the B20 to give B 1/10 @ B20.  If the foul was enforced, it would be B 1/10 @ B18.  So essentially the PF goes unpunished.

Same with PSK.  If we didn't have this rule and there was a foul on B instead of A, we would have to enforce it from the B3 (end of the kick)... so the illegal touching would essentially go unpunished.

Since we do have this rule, we can accept the foul and use the 20 yard line as a basic spot in those scenarios I have given.

In the original play in this thread, since B is not getting the ball at the 20, we WOULD cancel the illegal touching with the accepted penalty.

Does that clear it up at all?

[bossman72]

The enforcement in 10-2-5-a-1 trumps all other enforcements. Note the language "during a down that ends", not "during a play that ends". If your interpretation would be correct, in both cases it would not be a touchdown, as the foul happens before team A last gained possession.

Correct.  Any PF that is committed by the opponent of the scoring team at ANY TIME during the down can be carried over.

Common example:

B intercepts a pass.  Before the pass was thrown, Team A is called for a chop block...... This can be enforced on the try or the kickoff even though it took place before the change of possession.

[ljudge]

Why isn't it B 1/10 at B4?  The foul happened at the 8 and is behind the basic spot.  I suppose I'm missing something. 

[sj_31]

ljudge, that's what I have.

Second scenario with PF/BBW, I have TD for Team A and enforcement on try/KO per 10-2-5-a-1. Clear language as stated before ..."during a down that ends touchdown..."

First scenario, B 1/10 @ B-4. Snap. A lot of us will remember the editorial change to 10-2-5-a-2 from a few years ago where RR added the words, "...unless enforcement is made possible by illegal touching of the kick during the down." This used to not be in the rulebook. It used to be that if Team A were to score on a play such as this that the fouls by the non-scoring team were declined by rule so not only would Team A not score but they would have to deal with the spot of illegal touching, end of story. By adding the above words, Team A still does not get the TD, but at least they have a chance to decide which is most advantageous to them: the spot of illegal touching or the spot where the penalty leaves the ball after enforcement. In this case, accepting the penalty backs Team B up to the B-4, whereas before it would have been B 1/10 @ B-20 due to ITK and 6-3-11.
Change this play to Team A batting the ball back at the B-1 instead of the end zone and now the spot of ITK is better for them so they should decline the penalty.

[Kalle]

First scenario, B 1/10 @ B-4. Snap. A lot of us will remember the editorial change to 10-2-5-a-2 from a few years ago where RR added the words, "...unless enforcement is made possible by illegal touching of the kick during the down."

Rule 10-2-5-a-2 change applies to non-PF type fouls, which used to be declined by the rule and screwing team A by not having the team B hold or BIB enforced at all and giving the ball back to team B. The change did not affect 10-2-5-a-1. Still a touchdown in both cases, as both fouls are personal fouls.

ljudge, my reasoning is this:

1. Rule 10-2-5-a-2 says that all personal fouls by the opponents of the scoring team during a touchdown down are enforced on the try or on the kickoff.

2. Rule 6-3-11 contradicts this by saying that the illegal touching in team B's end zone is not cancelled by an accepted penalty.

3. A.R. 6-3-11-III resolves the conflict by saying that the 6-3-11 exception applies only to PSK fouls (and team A fouls during the kick play).

4. PSK does not apply in this case as team A is in legal team possession when the down ends.

[dvasques]

I've been trying to make sense out of all this, while finding out how little I actually know of rules and how much I still need to study to get to a confrotable point (which I love!)

So, basically, 6-3-11 and AR 6-3-11-III say opposite things. The rule says illegal touching is NOT canceled by an accepted penalty and the AR says it IS canceled by an accepted B penalty...

It really is crazy how 6-3-11 can be so poorly written

[copedaddy]

It seems there is a lot of different points of view on these situations. And have been for years. Granted these situations don't occur real often, but when they do, it needs to be done right. Trying to explain it to the coaches is close to impossible in  understandable terms. One going to be happy and not care what you say, the other will only think you are making it up as you go. Perhaps RR needs to be urged to clean this rule up and make it more understandable

[dvasques]

Wait... I got it all confused in my mind now.

I read Rule 6-3-2 and it states that the privilege for the illegal touching is canceled if there is an accepted penalty
Then I read 10-2-5 and it says a penalty by the non scoring team is declined by rule, unless it can be enforced via illegal touching violation

But, by 6-3-2, the violation privilege is canceled by an accepted penalty!!!!!

6-3-2 should say the privilege is not canceled if there is a penalty and a touchdown on the same down.

Also, what's is the difference between AR 6-3-2-III and IV?
I know that on III the foul by B happens on the touchdown run and on IV it happens during the return run by B. But why is the penalty not enforced on III if it is by the non scoring team during a down which ends in touchdown?

My head is spinning right now!

[Kalle]

Let me try to clear things up for you.

An illegal touching is a violation (6-3-2-a). Normally a violation does not offset a foul (2-10-2 and 6-3-2-b). However, the illegal touching in team B's end zone is deemed to be a special case of illegal touching and it should not be cancelled for most fouls happening during the kick. The rules attempt to say this in 6-3-11 and the A.R's, but don't make a very good job of it (the A.R. appears to be in a direct conflict with the rule, which should not happen).

My guess as to the logic of this is that the team A illegal touches in the end zone are usually actually bats, and by the normal rule should be considered fouls. So, team A gets a break for not committing a foul and team B gets a break by having that violation not be offset by a foul.

6-3-11 should really include language like: "Team B's privilege for this violation is not cancelled by an accepted penalty for a foul during the kick" (specifically team B PSK fouls and team A tack-ons).

In A.R. 6-3-2-III there is no spot to enforce the foul from, as it happened after the team B run. What rule 10-2-5-a-1 says is that even in the special case of an illegal touching by team A and a foul by team B after the kick has ended, only fouls during the team B run can be enforced. Any (non-PF) foul after that is declined by the rule.

[ljudge]

Good dialogue, men.  I like how you applied your logic, Kalle.  I had B's ball at the 4 because of that (I believe) editorial change they made a few years ago (2009/10?).  Perhaps I'm just being a tad dense.  That language in 10-2-5-a-2 "unless enforcement is made possible..." just throws me off on this one.  I can accept TD being the ruling.
 

[TXMike]

Anyone want to change their opinion now that we have seen the revised 6-3-11 and AR's?

[BenG]

Anyone want to change their opinion now that we have seen the revised 6-3-11 and AR's?

I didn't read this topic 1st time around - but I've just read through it and the revised rule & ARs and I'm just confused !!!!