Options to Captain/Coach

[Ump33]

Down is being replayed.  Do not muddy the conversation. 

I am sure the same play was in the casebook when DPI included an automatic first down.

It was ... From the 2010 Case Book.
6.5.4 SITUATION: R1 signals for a fair catch beyond the neutral zone on K’s 40. K2 interferes with R1’s opportunity to make the catch. R chooses an awarded catch and to put the ball in play with a snap. During the down: (a) A1 gains 15 yards and the coach of B is charged with an unsportsmanlike foul; or (b) B2 commits pass interference; or (c) an inadvertent whistle sounds during A1’s forward pass.
RULING: In (a), the unsportsmanlike foul during the down does not give A
another choice to snap or free kick. However in (b), A may snap or free kick following
penalty enforcement. In (c), the down is replayed and A has the option to
snap or free kick. (10-4-4a)

[bama_stripes]

She can certainly wear a dress under her uniform.

[Atlanta Blue]

FYI - Most recent question from a coach : "A girl wants to try out for the team but her religion requires that she always wears a dress when outside. Can she wear a dress while playing?"....ANSWERS,PLEASE

State issue, but they need to make reasonable accommodations or run afoul of the law.  We have girls in Georgia that play basketball in skirts, as well as hajibs (head coverings).  Why not football as well?  If she wears pants with all the proper padding and happens to have a skirt over that, who cares?  Seems like a reasonable accommodation to me.

Not to mention lacrosse where ALL the girls wear skirts!

[AlUpstateNY]

State issue, but they need to make reasonable accommodations or run afoul of the law.  We have girls in Georgia that play basketball in skirts, as well as hajibs (head coverings).  Why not football as well?  If she wears pants with all the proper padding and happens to have a skirt over that, who cares?  Seems like a reasonable accommodation to me.

Not to mention lacrosse where ALL the girls wear skirts!

It would seem clear, that unless, or until NF 1-5-2 is expanded or amended, a "dress" does is NOT included as auxiliary equipment, nor is it listed as an approved "uniform adornment" in NF 1-5-3-a-5., or c-6. 

"Reasonable" is another word that is clearly resident, "In the eye of the beholder".

[Atlanta Blue]

It would seem clear, that unless, or until NF 1-5-2 is expanded or amended, a "dress" does is NOT included as auxiliary equipment, nor is it listed as an approved "uniform adornment" in NF 1-5-3-a-5., or c-6. 

"Reasonable" is another word that is clearly resident, "In the eye of the beholder".

Federal law supersedes the FED rule book.

[VALJ]

And we want the state being the ones sued for violating her religious beliefs, not us.  Kick that bad boy to the state association and stay the heck out of it. 

[Atlanta Blue]

And we want the state being the ones sued for violating her religious beliefs, not us.  Kick that bad boy to the state association and stay the heck out of it.

Exactly right.

[AlUpstateNY]

Federal law supersedes the FED rule book.

I'm still more than a few credits short of my Law degree, so I'll stick with the Fed Rule Book, or follow Bama Stripes idea, that what is worn UNDER the required uniform is beyond my jurisdiction.

[Atlanta Blue]

I'm still more than a few credits short of my Law degree,

I'm not (UGA, 1982).  Yes, I fully believe that any coach with a player in this situation should go to the state office BEFORE the season starts and head off any issues.  But if you ban a "reasonable accommodation" relying purely on the FED rule book, you're asking for trouble in the form of a lawsuit.

It's done regularly:

[AlUpstateNY]

I'm not (UGA, 1982).  Yes, I fully believe that any coach with a player in this situation should go to the state office BEFORE the season starts and head off any issues.  But if you ban a "reasonable accommodation" relying purely on the FED rule book, you're asking for trouble in the form of a lawsuit.

It's done regularly:

Sounds like rational advice for a Coach, Athletic Director or School Superintendent, given the opportunity to address such an issue with appropriate advance notice, but for an Interscholastic football game official at, or immediately before the start of a game, such a issues seems WAY BEYOND the scope of our responsibility, and authority, and the FED rule book seems like a logical, and limiting, reference.

[NorCalMike]

Why isn't this a new series thus not replay the down? The pass resulted in 1st and ten add the roughing yardage. How can this be replay the down? Isn't the first down the result of the play?

bigjohn this is what I explained to my guys when they asked this same question: Rule 10-1-6 specifies three fouls that include the right to replay a down a) Illegally handing the ball forward, b) Illegal forward pass, and c) Illegal touching of a forward pass by an ineligible. Since roughing the passer is not mentioned then A gets to replay the down. 

If you notice in the casebook play that is referenced the foul is for DPI. Even though this is not an automatic first down anymore in the casebook play the penalty enforcement results in a first down as it was 1 and 10. The casebook says that A has the same options.

[Ralph Damren]

I'm still more than a few credits short of my Law degree, so I'll stick with the Fed Rule Book, or follow Bama Stripes idea, that what is worn UNDER the required uniform is beyond my jurisdiction.

Issue settled...the girl has decided to play field hockey .

[bkdow]

OK, I fully admit that I ran out of time to read all of the comments on this so I am going to ask this question:  Why are we saying the down is being replayed?  Roughing the QB awards a new series, not a replay of the previous first down.

What am I missing here?

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, pure semantics. "Replaying the down" is, I assume, shorthand for : "Enforcing the foul from the basic enforcement spot without the down counting". In the Op, as with any enforcement that would create a new series, it's really a moot issue. It would be different than "after the down" as it would with a dead ball foul.

[AlUpstateNY]

OK, I fully admit that I ran out of time to read all of the comments on this so I am going to ask this question:  Why are we saying the down is being replayed?  Roughing the QB awards a new series, not a replay of the previous first down.

What am I missing here? 

It's the rule. NF 6-5-4:" These choices (a-c) remain if a dead-ball foul occurs prior to the down, or a foul or an inadvertent whistle occurs during the down and the down is replayed.". The resulting 1st Down is a consequence of the penalty, which includes "replaying" the down (NF: 9-4-4).

NF: 6-5-4 provides governance related to FC, and awarded FC, and the penalties proscribed relate specifically to FC situations.  The Key provision of this rule is that the FC team retains the option of choosing to snap or free kick, when a penalty (ANY LIVE BALL PENALTY) interrupts or negates the original choice, the team making the FC made, and is part of their agreement to their terms of making a FC. 

[prab]

2-7-1 defines "down"

2-7-2 defines "loss of down" and includes (BUT DOES NOT DEFINE) the term "right to replay a down".

Methinks that it might be useful to have 2-7 include a definition of "replay the down".  Such a definition would clear this issue right up.

[AlUpstateNY]

2-7-1 defines "down"

2-7-2 defines "loss of down" and includes (BUT DOES NOT DEFINE) the term "right to replay a down".

Methinks that it might be useful to have 2-7 include a definition of "replay the down".  Such a definition would clear this issue right up. 

Repeatedly clarifying things that have existed for decades and are generally understood as they are, may be helpful for some, but those repeated additions will produce a 1000 page rule book, that really doesn't change, clarify or improve, anything.

It's good to correct legitimate confusion, but expounding over every, even suspected, drop of fly waste will eventually close down even most efficient Pepper Factory.

Is there REALLY something legitimately confusing by, the final sentence in 6-5-4, "These choices (a-c) remain if a dead-ball foul occurs prior to the down, or a foul or an inadvertent whistle occurs during the down and the down is replayed.".

The resulting 1st Down is a consequence of the penalty, which in this specific situation ONLY, adds the unique provision of extending the previous option of choosing to snap, or free kick when "replaying" the down (NF: 9-4-4).

[prab]

Is there REALLY something legitimately confusing by, the final sentence in 6-5-4, "These choices (a-c) remain if a dead-ball foul occurs prior to the down, or a foul or an inadvertent whistle occurs during the down and the down is replayed.".

There are over 60 responses to the OP on this topic.  (Granted that some have strayed off the topic.)  If there was no confusion, thtn all we would have needed was the OP itself and your take on it.  The rest of us would not have had to waste time and energy discussing what you have already determined is generally well known.  "legitimately confusing" seems to be a bit condescending.   Suggesting that the rules be amended to include a definition of the term "replayed" will not (IMO) lead to the rule book becoming to voluminous to carry.

I guess that it would be safe to say that we are unlikely to be on each other's Christmas card list this year.   

[AlUpstateNY]

I guess that it would be safe to say that we are unlikely to be on each other's Christmas card list this year.   

Actually, there was no intent to be condescending, although it may not have been my most tactful response.  We do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time (sometimes) parsing words down to the gnat's eyelash level, which at times can be helpful, but other times not.

I may However, now when I consider you may be thinking of a two word response to something I've said, my first thought will be you wishing me, "Merry Christmas".

[NorCalMike]

OK, I fully admit that I ran out of time to read all of the comments on this so I am going to ask this question:  Why are we saying the down is being replayed?  Roughing the QB awards a new series, not a replay of the previous first down.

What am I missing here?

This thing did get pretty long. Never expected it to go this long. Maybe we should have a rule that the OP must right a summary after the initial 45 answers. 

[Johnponz]

In my opinion the thread is dead, as we are starting to rehash things that are already stated. 

Somehow we even talked about players in dresses when it started out asking about whether or not we should give options to coaches with regard to a fair catch.

[Ralph Damren]

Can we all agree to disagree on this ?

IMHO, we reflect 3 points of view :

(1) Some, such as me, that want to explain options/ramifications in detail.

(2) Many that prefer a basic "accept or decline" option.

(3) Knowledgeable coaches (AB) that know the rules as well as/ better than many officials and want the edge that their studies gives them.

IMHO, all 3 points of view are fine...if we all were the same it would be a boring world

[Bwest]

There are over 60 responses to the OP on this topic.  (Granted that some have strayed off the topic.)  If there was no confusion, thtn all we would have needed was the OP itself and your take on it.  The rest of us would not have had to waste time and energy discussing what you have already determined is generally well known.  "legitimately confusing" seems to be a bit condescending.   Suggesting that the rules be amended to include a definition of the term "replayed" will not (IMO) lead to the rule book becoming to voluminous to carry.

I guess that it would be safe to say that we are unlikely to be on each other's Christmas card list this year.   

I agree that it's not clearly defined in the rule book, but the case book does make it clear that the rule makers intend for the free kick option to remain.

[Rulesman]

In my opinion the thread is dead, as we are starting to rehash things that are already stated. 

Your wish is my command.