Misapplication of Rules Costs Team Win

[ncwingman]

The fundamental is still intact. The foul is not turning the ball over. The fact that 4th down has ended still turns the ball over, as it does at any other point during a game.

I'm in the camp of keeping the foul as is honestly. Yes it's a foul, but in almost every exchange where people say "the officials cost us the game," we retort with "negative, there were X number of minutes and coaching decisions that cost them the game." I think that mantra can still be applied here.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I agree that the rule is not broken, but that we're seeing a way to bend it in an unusual manner, so leaving it as is would be acceptable to me as well -- as long as we're all in agreement that despite the foul, the game is over.

However, if we were to change it, I would not feel comfortable giving B a free snap. While you can probably make a legally convincing argument that the fundamental is still intact, the fact remains that the only reason that B gets the ball and a free play is because of an A foul. If A had not fouled, B would not get that play as the game would be over.

[Eastshire]

I agree that the rule is not broken, but that we're seeing a way to bend it in an unusual manner, so leaving it as is would be acceptable to me as well -- as long as we're all in agreement that despite the foul, the game is over.

However, if we were to change it, I would not feel comfortable giving B a free snap. While you can probably make a legally convincing argument that the fundamental is still intact, the fact remains that the only reason that B gets the ball and a free play is because of an A foul. If A had not fouled, B would not get that play as the game would be over.

The fundamental isn't violated here anymore than it is violated when there is an illegal forward pass on any other 4th down.

Yes, the foul is generating a play for B that they would not have had absent the foul, but it is not giving them the ball. That is happening due to A failing to reach the line-to-gain.

[NVFOA_Ump]

The fundamental isn't violated here anymore than it is violated when there is an illegal forward pass on any other 4th down.

I disagree. The real fundamental that we're talking about here is the primary one of sportsmanship and fair play.  There's a major difference here when the passer simply drops back delays as long as possible and fires the ball downfield when not a single receiver has even crossed the NZ, a clear and intentional act directly intended to deprive the opponent of a chance to impact the final outcome of the contest.  That clearly is not the same as "any other 4th down".

Multiple football rules codes and other game rules codes have been recently striving to eliminate those types of actions and fouls that give a team a clear advantage when it relates to intentional acts that directly impact the game clock and/or the final results of a game.

My opinion is that if there is a way to fix an identified shortcoming in the rules where the solution doesn't cause a bigger problem than the one we're attempting to fix then we should do our best to address it.

[Eastshire]

I disagree. The real fundamental that we're talking about here is the primary one of sportsmanship and fair play.  There's a major difference here when the passer simply drops back delays as long as possible and fires the ball downfield when not a single receiver has even crossed the NZ, a clear and intentional act directly intended to deprive the opponent of a chance to impact the final outcome of the contest.  That clearly is not the same as "any other 4th down".

Multiple football rules codes and other game rules codes have been recently striving to eliminate those types of actions and fouls that give a team a clear advantage when it relates to intentional acts that directly impact the game clock and/or the final results of a game.

My opinion is that if there is a way to fix an identified shortcoming in the rules where the solution doesn't cause a bigger problem than the one we're attempting to fix then we should do our best to address it.

First the fundamental we are really talking about is "No foul causes loss of the ball." I'm agreeing that it's not a violation of the fundamental we are talking about to have the rules give B an untimed down as part of the penalty, any more than it would be to give the ball to B after an IFP on any other 4th down. So, I'm fairly sure you agree with that, since it's even more fair for the ball to go over to B on the loss of down here than it is on other 4th down IFP.

[CalhounLJ]

I disagree. The real fundamental that we're talking about here is the primary one of sportsmanship and fair play.  There's a major difference here when the passer simply drops back delays as long as possible and fires the ball downfield when not a single receiver has even crossed the NZ, a clear and intentional act directly intended to deprive the opponent of a chance to impact the final outcome of the contest.  That clearly is not the same as "any other 4th down".

Multiple football rules codes and other game rules codes have been recently striving to eliminate those types of actions and fouls that give a team a clear advantage when it relates to intentional acts that directly impact the game clock and/or the final results of a game.

My opinion is that if there is a way to fix an identified shortcoming in the rules where the solution doesn't cause a bigger problem than the one we're attempting to fix then we should do our best to address it.

If this is true then we need to do away with the exception to spike the ball without penalty to stop the clock.
Because the fair and sportsmanlike thing to do would be to toss it up and give both A and B an opportunity to catch it. IMO, while the "intentional" intentional grounding on 4th down seems unfair to the opponent, it is actually nothing more, nothing less than a coach using the rules to his advantage.

[NVFOA_Ump]

If this is true then we need to do away with the exception to spike the ball without penalty to stop the clock.

Apples and oranges.  Spiking the ball is 100% legal under the rules.  Intentional grounding is illegal under the rules.  It's real simple - if a rule can be intentionally violated, then if it can be fixed, we need to do our best to fix it in my opinion.  Pretty simple concept of sportsmanship and fair play. I'm not a advocate of having any rule that coaches can teach their team to intentionally violate to their advantage.

[CalhounLJ]

Apples and oranges.  Spiking the ball is 100% legal under the rules.  Intentional grounding is illegal under the rules.  It's real simple - if a rule can be intentionally violated, then if it can be fixed, we need to do our best to fix it in my opinion.  Pretty simple concept of sportsmanship and fair play. I'm not a advocate of having any rule that coaches can teach their team to intentionally violate to their advantage.

I respectfully disagree. Spiking the ball is a situation in which an illegal act (intentional grounding) becomes legal by an exception to the rule. Using the intentional grounding rule to your benefit without having to make an exception is a part of the game.
It's no different than a punter illegally kicking the ball out the back of the end zone to avoid the opponent falling on it for a TD. If I were a coach I would teach my punter to do that if he needed to, and would sleep well that night if he did.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I respectfully disagree. Spiking the ball is a situation in which an illegal act (intentional grounding) becomes legal by an exception to the rule. Using the intentional grounding rule to your benefit without having to make an exception is a part of the game.
It's no different than a punter illegally kicking the ball out the back of the end zone to avoid the opponent falling on it for a TD. If I were a coach I would teach my punter to do that if he needed to, and would sleep well that night if he did.

You just described why it's different, spiking the ball is legal by rule, kicking a loose ball is illegal by rule.

The point here is a very simple one in my opinion - A sporting event should not end with the winning team committing an intentional illegal act that deprives the opponent an opportunity to win the event.

[bbeagle]

The point here is a very simple one in my opinion - A sporting event should not end with the winning team committing an intentional illegal act that deprives the opponent an opportunity to win the event.

I agree.

Football gives the offense a chance to complete the play if the clock reaches 0:00 during the play, and even gives an option for an extra (untimed) down if the clock is at 0:00.

However, football does NOT give that option to the defense. (EXCEPT, oddly at the NFL level, for a first-touching foul by the kicking team - then the new offense gets the ball even if the clock expired before the foul)

The NFL also has a 10 second run-off if the offense does something illegal to conserve time.

Conversely, there should be a way for the offense to be penalized for illegally consuming time that the defense wants.

A simple solution: Just give the defense the option to put time back on the game clock, along with accepting a penalty or result of the play.

[CalhounLJ]

You just described why it's different, spiking the ball is legal by rule, kicking a loose ball is illegal by rule.

The point here is a very simple one in my opinion - A sporting event should not end with the winning team committing an intentional illegal act that deprives the opponent an opportunity to win the event.

Let me ask this in a different way. If A were to illegally kick the ball out of the back of the EZ to keep B from falling on it and scoring the gaming winning TD, would you consider that to be the same egregious foul as the intentional grounding foul in the OP?  Because he just committed an intentionally illegal act that deprived the opponent an opportunity to win the game. if that were to happen, should the rule be changed to make A have to kick off with an untimed down?

[NVFOA_Ump]

So you would be in favor of awarding a TD if, to avoid a td by the defense, illegally kicks the ball out of the back of the EZ? Because he just committed an intentionally illegal act that deprived the opponent an opportunity to score a TD.

No, but I would be in favor of an option of enforcing the Illegal Kicking penalty at the previous spot, and then as part of the penalty enforcement allowing B to have an untimed down.

[CalhounLJ]

No, but I would be in favor of an option of enforcing the Illegal Kicking penalty at the previous spot, and then as part of the penalty enforcement allowing B to have an untimed down.

Fair enough. I see your point, I just happen to disagree with the principle. In my opinion, while the rules are not perfect they are workable, and I see nothing wrong with a coach/team using those rules to their full advantage. To do as you suggest would change the "all-but-one" principle the NFHS holds so dear, so I doubt that change would go through. I could see the untimed down after a 4th-down LOD penalty by the offense. But, in the hypothetical I posted above your response, that still wouldn't work if the down was anything but 4th down. For example, if it was 3rd down, the defense would obviously not want the previous spot for the foul. They would want the safety. But the offense would still benefit from the illegal kick, preventing the TD.

[ALStripes17]

Fair enough. I see your point, I just happen to disagree with the principle. In my opinion, while the rules are not perfect they are workable, and I see nothing wrong with a coach/team using those rules to their full advantage. To do as you suggest would change the "all-but-one" principle the NFHS holds so dear, so I doubt that change would go through. I could see the untimed down after a 4th-down LOD penalty by the offense. But, in the hypothetical I posted above your response, that still wouldn't work if the down was anything but 4th down. For example, if it was 3rd down, the defense would obviously not want the previous spot for the foul. They would want the safety. But the offense would still benefit from the illegal kick, preventing the TD.

And a caveat for that 4th down LOD penalty would have to be included. I just think there is too much exception revolved around changing this rule. Tough thing to deal with but not everything in life is fair. Good life lesson for the coaches to teach

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk