Author Topic: How would this apply to NFHS  (Read 1327 times)

Offline bmem66

  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-1
How would this apply to NFHS
« on: September 25, 2017, 11:21:59 AM »
In the Steelers vs  Bears game on Sunday, the Bears blocked a Steelers FG attempt and ran it all the way back to the Steelers 1 yard line where the player fumbled and the ball went into the end zone.  In the end zone, the Steelers player illegally batted the ball out the back of the end zone.   As all of this is happening, time runs out for the first half.  I would have bet my life it would have been a safety since the foul took place in the end zone but the officials put the ball on the 1 yard line and then penalized half the distance to the goal and did an untimed down.   Why not a safety and how would this be handled under NFHS rules?   

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1217
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: How would this apply to NFHS
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2017, 12:01:58 PM »
Sounds like they handled the situation the same way we should in High School:  this was a running play and the force that put the ball into the Steelers' (now on defense) EZ was the Bears' fumble.  Therefore the end of the Beas' player's run would be the enforcement spot for the Steelers foul (i.e., the Steelers' 1 yard line) - half the distance.  The untimed down was also correctly administered as this was an accepted live ball foul during the last timed down in which time expired

Offline bawags06

  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-2
  • When old players go blind, they become officials.
Re: How would this apply to NFHS
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2017, 12:02:37 PM »
My take, and I could be wrong:
Rule 8-5-2b applies, and a safety would be the call when the penalty is declined. (It says muff, bat, or illegal kick, so I presume the same would apply to an illegal bat.) As a foul during a loose ball following a running play, penalties by K in this case would be enforced from the end of the run if accepted, so half the distance from the 1 for an illegal bat and an untimed down.  Or decline the penalty and take the safety.

With zeros on the clock before halftime, take the chance to score a touchdown.

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 520
  • FAN REACTION: +29/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: How would this apply to NFHS
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2017, 12:39:25 PM »
In the video, Clete Blakeman explains it very well (at ~40 seconds in) and the explanation is the same in Fed rules as well.

Chicago's fumble is the force that put the ball into the end zone, where it became dead. With no foul, this is a touchback -- not a safety.

The foul was by the team not last in possession during a loose ball, so the basic spot is the end of the related run (spot of the fumble) and ABO does not apply (kinda) since it was the team not in possession that committed the foul -- so the enforcement spot is the basic spot.

Since time expired during the down which a foul occurred, the period is extended by an untimed down. In Fed it wouldn't matter who fouled, if the penalty was accepted. In the NFL, it is extended because it was the defense fouling.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 12:40:56 PM by ncwingman »

Offline shadow

  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
foul adiministration
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2017, 01:13:09 PM »
How would the incident in the Steeler/Bear game be administered in NFHS. Blocked FG ran back by R(or B)to 1 yard line where it is fumbled into endzone. K(or A) then illegally bats the ball out of then endzone end line

Offline bawags06

  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-2
  • When old players go blind, they become officials.
Re: foul adiministration
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2017, 01:44:45 PM »
Check out the NFHS discussion board on the same topic here:

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=13508.0


In short, it would be enforced the same way.


Edit: This was a response to the above question asked in a General Discussion Board. I know it looks a link to this same thread, but it was originally posted in a different one.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 02:17:17 PM by bawags06 »

Offline VA Official

  • *
  • Posts: 156
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-5
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: How would this apply to NFHS
« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2017, 02:47:13 PM »
My take, and I could be wrong:
Rule 8-5-2b applies, and a safety would be the call when the penalty is declined. (It says muff, bat, or illegal kick, so I presume the same would apply to an illegal bat.) As a foul during a loose ball following a running play, penalties by K in this case would be enforced from the end of the run if accepted, so half the distance from the 1 for an illegal bat and an untimed down.  Or decline the penalty and take the safety.

With zeros on the clock before halftime, take the chance to score a touchdown.

Re-read 8-5-2b once more. The key to ANY play involving force is determining what force caused the ball to cross the goal line from the field of play into the EZ. A "new force" inside the end zone is inconsequential. See 2-13-1. Force only matters at the goal line and only in one direction, from the field of play into the EZ. What forced the ball across the goal line here? The fumble. Penalty being declined gives us a touchback.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 02:50:05 PM by VA Official »

Offline bawags06

  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-2
  • When old players go blind, they become officials.
Re: How would this apply to NFHS
« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2017, 02:52:19 PM »
Re-read 8-5-2b once more. The key to ANY play involving force is determining what force caused the ball to cross the goal line from the field of play into the EZ. A "new force" inside the end zone is inconsequential. See 2-13-1. Force only matters at the goal line and only in one direction, from the field of play into the EZ. What forced the ball across the goal line here? The fumble. Penalty being declined gives us a touchback.

Thank you!

I read "...forces a loose ball from the field of play to or across his goal line..." and skipped over the "to," which changed the meaning quite a bit.

This is why I love these discussions. Today I learned something.