Author Topic: Double Illegal participation?  (Read 1645 times)

Offline jmckb99

  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Double Illegal participation?
« on: October 25, 2017, 11:25:40 AM »
Can a player without a helmet illegally participate twice on the same play? e.g. helmet comes off, he blocks.....then QB throws a pick and then he pursues and makes the tackle. Is this two separate fouls or one foul with multiple enforcement spots?

Online js in sc

  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-3
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Double Illegal participation?
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2017, 12:33:30 PM »
IMHO, you have a player illegally participating in the down.  Regardless of what what he does during the down, it should only be considered one participation, so there should only be one foul.  Since the participation began during a loose ball play, the penalty would be from the previous spot.  B would obviously decline and keep the ball, but I can not see adding the penalty to the end of B's run, as it started before the change of possession.

Offline BIG UMP

  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-1
Re: Double Illegal participation?
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2017, 02:35:46 PM »
IMO, this is one foul but probably multiple markers on the ground by multiple officials at multiple locations.

Loose ball foul, previous spot, obviously declined.
Big Ump
aka Shawn

"EVERY JOB IS A SELF-PORTRAIT OF THE PERSON WHO DID IT.  AUTOGRAPH YOUR WORK WITH EXCELLENCE."~unknown

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2804
  • FAN REACTION: +333/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Double Illegal participation?
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2017, 08:50:38 AM »
 :sTiR: While we all agree that we have IP, the question is how many?
 :sTiR: IMHO, this would become a multiple foul as he participated twice. B would then choose the IP that occurred at the end of B's run.

 :sTiR: :sTiR: IF the hatless Bubba was the only A player 'tween the runner and paydirt, Would you consider applying 9-10-1 and..

 ^TD ^TD ^TD ^TD ^TD (5 -man crew)


 :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1333
  • FAN REACTION: +67/-22
Re: Double Illegal participation?
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2017, 09:48:09 AM »
I don't see how you can participate twice.  Once you're participating without a helmet, that's it.

It's like a hold that starts at the 2 yard line and continues into the end zone.  We throw the flag at the 2 - there's only one spot.

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1238
  • FAN REACTION: +29/-44
Re: Double Illegal participation?
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2017, 10:02:24 AM »
:sTiR: While we all agree that we have IP, the question is how many?
 :sTiR: IMHO, this would become a multiple foul as he participated twice. B would then choose the IP that occurred at the end of B's run.

 :sTiR: :sTiR: IF the hatless Bubba was the only A player 'tween the runner and paydirt, Would you consider applying 9-10-1 and..

 ^TD ^TD ^TD ^TD ^TD (5 -man crew)


 :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR
I believe this scenario is nothing more than a MULTIPLE FOUL.  IMHO, there is only 1 IP foul here, for DOING anything during the down after he became "hatless",  :sTiR:: Then, any subsequent live ball foul he may have commit (facemask/ illegal block/etc) would carry its own penalty - as it would for any MULTIPLE FOUL.  The offended team would have consider which foul to accept; but, in Ralph's scenario, the IP foul could carry the most severe of penalties - awarding of a TD ^TD. I would have no problem, under the right circumstances, offering that option to the offended team.

eAt& Ralph



Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 594
  • FAN REACTION: +34/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Double Illegal participation?
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2017, 10:03:17 AM »
^TD ^TD ^TD ^TD ^TD (5 -man crew)

All five guys?

If my sNiCkErS is  ^TD ... I think he's out of position  nAnA

However, I agree that since they'd both be live ball fouls, it'd be a multiple foul scenario and you could only enforce one anyway.

I don't see how you can participate twice.  Once you're participating without a helmet, that's it.

It's like a hold that starts at the 2 yard line and continues into the end zone.  We throw the flag at the 2 - there's only one spot.

It's also not a foul for IP if you lose your helmet during play and you're still involved in continuing action. If you disengage from the initial action, then start pursuing again, it's IP. You need this "stop" in the middle for it to be a foul -- therefore it would be theoretically possible to lose your helmet, "stop", illegally participate, "stop" again and then illegally participate again. I would definitely have to see it to know that the player really did disengage from the play between all of those events, and I'd definitely give them the benefit of the doubt (for the second one, at least), but it's theoretically possible.

Online CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 691
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-21
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Double Illegal participation?
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2017, 10:28:47 AM »
I don't see how you can participate twice.  Once you're participating without a helmet, that's it.

It's like a hold that starts at the 2 yard line and continues into the end zone.  We throw the flag at the 2 - there's only one spot.
Apples and oranges. A more accurate example would be A32 committing a hold at the 32, then running downfield and committing another hold at the 11. Same player, two separate fouls. In this case, the headless player could participate in one area of the field, stop, and the participate in another area. Same player, two fouls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3475
  • FAN REACTION: +263/-504
Re: Double Illegal participation?
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2017, 12:52:06 PM »
The appropriate foul is Illegal Participation (NFHS 9-6-4g)  suggesting the violation is for "a player whose helmet comes completely off during a down to continue to participate beyond the the immediate action in which the player is engaged."  Penalty is enforced from the basic spot.

It seems the foul is for continuing to participate, not specifically tied to how, where or how many times there is specific participation.  9.6.5 (UNC) provides significant  judgment leeway for ANY behavior deemed unsportsmanlike, but would be a separate infraction, enforced from the "succeeding spot".

Offline gmgiesey

  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Double Illegal participation?
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2017, 02:13:19 PM »

 :sTiR: :sTiR: IF the hatless Bubba was the only A player 'tween the runner and paydirt, Would you consider applying 9-10-1 and..

 ^TD ^TD ^TD ^TD ^TD (5 -man crew)

I think I would ^TD if Bubba was carrying his hat, threw it at the runner, and succeeded in bringing the runner down (9-4-3f & 9-10-5).

Online TampaSteve

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1365
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-11
Re: Double Illegal participation?
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2017, 04:25:27 PM »
Sorry, I read this and my mind went to "souble-secret probation".
Nevertheless, I'm on the same boat of onpy participating once per down.