Philosophy of foul enforcement after scores

[ncwingman]

I'm sure most of us are well versed in where to enforce fouls that occur after scoring plays and how A/K might have options, but I'm curious if there's a particular philosophy behind the inconsistency.

On a touchdown scoring play, certain fouls have the option of being enforced on the try or on the kickoff.

On a successful try or field goal, any foul has the option of being enforced from the previous spot (replay the down) or at the succeeding spot (not just "the kickoff").

This leads to an odd scenario: 4th quarter, 3 seconds left, team B is winning 21-14. A7 throws a 40 yard pass for a touchdown as time expires. B56 roughs the quarterback A7 after the throw. Since there is no subsequent kickoff, A must enforce the penalty on the try (or decline it entirely).

During the successful try (which ties the game at 21, sending it to OT), B56 roughs the kicker. This penalty can be enforced at the start of OT (succeeding spot) -- unless A wants to quarter the distance and go for 2 and the win, of course.

What makes the second foul so different than the first that it has different enforcement rules? Was it deliberate or might the inconsistency be "fixed" in the future?

I can kind of see that after a TD, there is still an untimed down in regulation where the foul can be enforced and so a foul in regulation must be enforced in regulation, akin to extending the period by an untimed down -- but why would that not be true after the 2nd quarter? Or all quarters? Of course, that philosophy is inconsistent with the foul enforcement on the try/FG being extended to the succeeding spot regardless.

[pjsaul]

My lay man opinion is that you have the underlying philosophy right. Penalties on the TD must be completed in the associated regulation/OT period - nothing to read into it more than that. However, if a try is at the end of the regulation/OT period, then there is no other way to enforce it but to have it carry over to the next one.

This thinking is actually how I make sure to remember this properly on the field.

I think ideally these penalties would only apply to 15 yard personal fouls, like NCAA, but NFHS eliminates that distinction for simplicity.

[riffraft]

my understanding has to do with the penalty being enforced at the succeeding spot. In the normal course of a game is there two possible succeeding spots, the try and the free kick, thus either can be chosen. However in the case of "maybe" the game will go into OT, there is only one sure succeeding spot, the try. Where on a successful try that ties the game there is a succeeding spot, that start of the OT. 

[Ralph Damren]

A trip down memory lane......

 1989 -The try becomes a succeeding spot for nonplayer and unsportsmanlike fouls during
          a touchdown play or penalty for player fouls during a scoring play.

 2002- Defensive fouls on teams can be penalized from the succeeding kickoff or to an
          overtime period.

 2003 - Fouls committed by the defense during a touchdown or successful field goal may
           now be penalized from the succeeding spot.

 2007 - When there is a foul by the opponent of the team scoring a touchdown, the
           offended team can accept the result of the play; choose to have the penalty
           enforced on the try; or choose to have the penalty enforcement on the
           free kick.

 2009 - Three rules were amended and another article created to allow penalties on and
           after scoring plays to carry to the subsequent kickoff for fouls by opponents of
           the scoring team.

As you can see, there has been much activity on this rule. The original philosophy was to prevent anyone to get away with a "cheap shot" that would be declined to keep the score. We have briefly discussed the inconsistency of a foul by B on a TD not being able to carry over to OT and the general feeling was that if the success/failure of the try was going to determine if OT would be necessary, that's where the penalty should be enforced.

[bossman72]

There is no guarantee of an overtime, so the try is the only place you can enforce it from (so technically there is no other succeeding spot other than the try).  After a successful try, there is now a succeeding spot to use (first play in OT), so you can carry that over.

Here is a helpful chart:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1xcoPfzCkGIx2s-vFTpwPsCcZ2GEQCWHuNnAQMZTIFcA

[KWH]

Gentlemen
I believe the confusion is simply explained by the fact that the applicable rules do not refer to "The succeeding spot" as some of you have suggested.
Rather, the applicable rules (8-2-2, 3, 4, and 5) allow the offended team the choice of having the penalty enforced:
a. On the try, or
b. On the subsequent kickoff

Quite simply put, When there is no subsequent kickoff, that option does not exist.
This is a special enforcement as per Rule 10-5-1e.

[ncwingman]

A trip down memory lane......

That's sort of what I was wondering. Most of those rule changes were well before my time. Why not re-add the 2002 rule about potentially taking the penalty to an overtime spot? That's really the only situation where it makes a difference anyway.

There is no guarantee of an overtime, so the try is the only place you can enforce it from (so technically there is no other succeeding spot other than the try).

However, A/K can always decline the distance portion of the foul, so they're gambling with the result of the try. If the outcome of the try means there's no OT, then they've simply declined the foul. There's no situation where B can force A into making that choice, it's always A's decision.

Quite simply put, When there is no subsequent kickoff, that option does not exist.
This is a special enforcement as per Rule 10-5-1e.

I'm not arguing about what the rule says, I'm more questioning why the rule says what it does. Why isn't it consistently "succeeding spot" or "kickoff"?

[bossman72]

However, A/K can always decline the distance portion of the foul, so they're gambling with the result of the try. If the outcome of the try means there's no OT, then they've simply declined the foul. There's no situation where B can force A into making that choice, it's always A's decision.

OT does not exist until the try is successful.  You have to make your penalty decision immediately.  You cannot enforce the foul on a down that doesn't exist.

That's like scoring a TD on the last play of the game to make the score 45-6.  You can't say "I'll enforce it after the try."  That doesn't exist.

[Eastshire]

OT does not exist until the try is successful.  You have to make your penalty decision immediately.  You cannot enforce the foul on a down that doesn't exist.

That's like scoring a TD on the last play of the game to make the score 45-6.  You can't say "I'll enforce it after the try."  That doesn't exist.

Absolutely correct. It doesn't have to be this way though. There is no reason why the rules could not be changed so a penalty could be deferred to a kickoff which may or may not occur. As ncwingman said, if you elected to defer the enforcement of the penalty and the kickoff does not occur (since there ended up not being an OT), you have just effectively declined the penalty, which you already have the right to do.

Does it make sense to make this change? I have no idea. But it's not a crazy thought.

[AlUpstateNY]

Is there really something material broken here, that requires fixing?