RPO and “ineligible downfield linemen”!

[NVFOA_Ump]

…..  An ineligible wandering a couple of yards beyond the LOS without attempting to block anyone, could. Flag ,em.

We've been given very clear "guidance" that the U should do his best to get to 2-3 yards from the NZ on pass plays and when a legal forward pass crosses the NZ to do the quick scan to make sure that no ineligibles are at your level or beyond.  With all of the pre-defined responsibilities of a 5 man crew, who is actually watching to make sure that no ineligibles are "downfield" a yard or 2 without ever engaging in a block with a defender?  And more importantly IMHO how would you enforce that consistently during an entire game?

[Ralph Damren]

Into all of this comes the order of priorities. IMHO, in 4 or 5 man, the ump's most important responsibilities are : (1) did the pass go over the LOS ?; (2) was the passer over the LOS when he passed ? After that, a quick glance to spot any big ole' Bubba who is all by his lonely several yards downfield. Remember, it's U's call if the attempted screen pass went beyond the LOS , for if it didn't anyone can be anywhere.

[CalhounLJ]

Getting back to the original intent of the poster's question - whenever A runs an "RPO," the key for our wings in 5 man is the tackle - if he "run-blocks," they read run and hold the line. Assuming this is the case on an RPO, the wings should be able to help the U with ineligible downfield. If the QB holds the read long enough for linemen to get downfield beyond the extended NZ, should be an easy call. If the tackle drops in pass protection, and the wings have to look downfield, they can still help, but primarily the U has it. We try to train the offside wing to help the U.

[bossman72]

I'm in the camp that would let the buffalo roam 2 yards down field whether or not they are engaged with a defender.  We don't need IDP fouls going up 10 fold

[CalhounLJ]

I'm in the camp that would let the buffalo roam 2 yards down field whether or not they are engaged with a defender.  We don't need IDP fouls going up 10 fold

Retweet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Magician]

We've been given very clear "guidance" that the U should do his best to get to 2-3 yards from the NZ on pass plays and when a legal forward pass crosses the NZ to do the quick scan to make sure that no ineligibles are at your level or beyond.

Into all of this comes the order of priorities. IMHO, in 4 or 5 man, the ump's most important responsibilities are : (1) did the pass go over the LOS ?; (2) was the passer over the LOS when he passed ? After that, a quick glance to spot any big ole' Bubba who is all by his lonely several yards downfield. Remember, it's U's call if the attempted screen pass went beyond the LOS , for if it didn't anyone can be anywhere.

I would advise doing this in the opposite order. I had a few IDP early in my career where I did this and the big ol lineman was 5-6 yards downfield when I saw him. Then I watched the video and he was within 2 yards when the ball was released (the time when their location is relevant). When I noticed a lineman is now downfield, I then take a quick peak back to see where the ball is. If the QB still has it then I drop a flag if he ultimately throws a legal pass beyond the NZ. If he has released it or is completing his passing motion there is no foul. This is also helpful because a lineman could go beyond and then retreat. If you did it in the order above he may be legal when you see him but he had already committed the foul. When you do it this way you'll have a lot fewer IDP fouls.

[bossman72]

The best way to manage IDP as a U is if you see a suspect lineman downfield, note his location and mentally drop a pin on the field where he is when you see the ball in the air.  Then, run to that spot and compare where you are with the down box (or better yet, memorize the previous LOS yard line).  If you're >2 down field, throw your flag.  This is useful for teams that run the RPO.  The normal pass plays where the buffalo roam down field you can generally pick up without any crafty system.  Just turn up your awareness.  You'll miss 100% of the IDP's you're not checking for.

I've never worked 5 man, so this may or may not work if you have other responsibilities like whether the pass crossed the LOS or not, but I think it's worth a try.

[AlUpstateNY]

The best way to manage IDP as a U is if you see a suspect lineman downfield, note his location and mentally drop a pin on the field where he is when you see the ball in the air. 

There are a somewhat limited number of specific mechanic recommendations for using a bean bag, as well as an unlimited opportunity to use a beanbag to memorialize a "spot", that may not be "officially recommended" or required, that may be deemed beneficial, and helpful, when making a subsequent decision. Better to simply retrieve a bean bag down, that may subsequently prove to be unnecessary, than to regret not throwing one to mark a subsequently critical spot.

Should such bean bag use produce an occasional, unsolicited, request for an explanation, it is totally the option, of the official dropping the bag, to decide whether, and/or to what extent an explanation is merited.

[Kleiny]

For the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule to apply to an offensive lineman he must engage the defender he is blocking at the snap and not be beyond the 2-yard Expanded Neutral Zone when the pass is thrown across the LOS. If he disengages after that initial block then there's no foul. If he goes downfield looking to engage someone he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield if the pass crosses the LOS. If he goes downfield and then retreats back behind the LOS, technically he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield. Use your common sense. Don't confuse the Free Blocking Zone Rule with the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule and know how it applies to Scrimmage Kicks in regards to K-First Touching.

Thank you, my friend.  I appreciate your simplicity in explaining how you understand this particular aspect of the game/rules.  Clarity was what I was initially seeking (regarding this specific rule) and clarity is what I feel like I have received.  Thank you...everyone!



Regarding my comments about a desire for more uniformity in the rules:

I was referring to what I would call “Basic Football 101” type stuff and, to me, basic football 101 involves stuff like marking off a (offensive) holding penalty from the LOS rather than the spot of the foul if it occurred behind the LOS.  In my humble opinion, the skill level of the participants has nothing to do with stuff like this.  I was simply making a comment and uttering a small wish aloud.  It still makes absolutely no sense at all that an offensive holding penalty by a o-lineman can result in 15...or 17...or MORE yards if he was penalized 5, 7, or more yards behind the LOS.  That is an example of “Basic Football 101” that I was eluding to.  I hope this makes sense as much can be lost in translation of a message board comment.  Personally, I am very grateful that I stumbled upon this awesome message board/website and only wish I would’ve stumbled upon it much earlier in my career as an official because this year will be my last for Friday night officiating for the foreseeable future. 

Also...referring to the post above, I don’t think he was actually talking about throwing a bean bag.  He said “drop a mental pin”, which is a pretty good bit of advice if I say so myself!  Well said, sir!  I like it and will certainly recommend that to our umpire this season.

Thanks again, ladies and gentleman.  It’s nice to have a place to go where a simple question can be asked without being made to feel like a fool.  Good luck this season, my brothers.

[AlUpstateNY]

[quote author=Kleiny link=topic=14402.msg147024#msg147024 date=1562665367

 It still makes absolutely no sense at all that an offensive holding penalty by a o-lineman can result in 15...or 17...or MORE yards if he was penalized 5, 7, or more yards behind the LOS.  That is an example of “Basic Football 101” that I was eluding to. 
[/quote]

The other side of this particular coin raises the question; when the defense gains an honest advantage by driving the offense deep behind it's LOS, why encourage the offense to foul, knowing any penalty detected will be enforced from the original LOS, rather than the actual point the infraction occurred at.  Doing so provides the offense with an unearned advantage of suffering no consequence for being forced to retreat, whatever additional distance the defense has caused.

Arbitrarily eliminating that additional distance lost, by enforcing the penalty from the original LOS, alters the risk/reward relationship of fouling and increases the value of fouling by removing the additional ground lost from the penalty consequence.

[NVFOA_Ump]

……..  It still makes absolutely no sense at all that an offensive holding penalty by a o-lineman can result in 15...or 17...or MORE yards if he was penalized 5, 7, or more yards behind the LOS.  That is an example of “Basic Football 101” that I was eluding to.  I hope this makes sense as much can be lost in translation of a message board comment. ….

It's important to understand the NFHS rationale in enforcing this type of penalty and not to discount their reasoning because other rules codes enforce this differently.  The basis of this is twofold:

1.  The primary goal of any penalty is to prevent (hopefully) continuing reoccurrences of the same illegal act, and
2.  To fairly penalize the guilty team to offset the potential advantage gained by the illegal act.

A team A holding foul on any play 8-10 yards behind the LOS potentially prevented the team B player from making a tackle for a substantial loss of yards.  It can clearly (IMHO) be argued that a potential 10 yard penalty from the previous spot is not really a penalty at all but simply leaves the ball about where it would have been, but also allows team A to replay the down.  A tack-on 10 yards is a much more effective deterrent in educating the player that he should learn how to block within the rules.

 

[Magician]

It's important to understand the NFHS rationale in enforcing this type of penalty and not to discount their reasoning because other rules codes enforce this differently.  The basis of this is twofold:

1.  The primary goal of any penalty is to prevent (hopefully) continuing reoccurrences of the same illegal act, and
2.  To fairly penalize the guilty team to offset the potential advantage gained by the illegal act.

A team A holding foul on any play 8-10 yards behind the LOS potentially prevented the team B player from making a tackle for a substantial loss of yards.  It can clearly (IMHO) be argued that a potential 10 yard penalty from the previous spot is not really a penalty at all but simply leaves the ball about where it would have been, but also allows team A to replay the down.  A tack-on 10 yards is a much more effective deterrent in educating the player that he should learn how to block within the rules.

I would argue 1st and 20 is very difficult to overcome so it's still a significant penalty. The number of series where the offense overcomes that is significantly small. 1st and 25 or 1st and 30 is significantly more difficult. A previous spot penalty in this example is sufficient. It also makes sense the other way (i.e. facemask by B during a sack).

[bossman72]

It's also to keep the All-but-one principle in-tact when possible.  As others have stated, if you want holding to be previous spot, then you have to make an exception to the rule.  But then, if you have holding in the end zone, you don't want that to be previous spot, you want that to be a safety.  So you have an exception to the exception (which is the original rule).  Then you have to make it clear you only want this to happen prior to a change of possession.

So you can see how complicated it can get.  All but one is simple.

I've proposed changing what the basic spot is to help alleviate it somewhat.  I proposed that if the run ends behind the neutral zone, the basic spot is the previous spot.  This helps with defensive fouls being enforced from the LOS, but offensive fouls still will be spot fouls.  The change is mainly to clean up the definitions.  So basically the only time you have a loose ball play is on legal passes and kicks.  No distinction when you fumble behind or beyond the LOS.  They're all RUNS!  Simple.

[AlUpstateNY]

I would argue 1st and 20 is very difficult to overcome so it's still a significant penalty. The number of series where the offense overcomes that is significantly small. 1st and 25 or 1st and 30 is significantly more difficult. A previous spot penalty in this example is sufficient. It also makes sense the other way (i.e. facemask by B during a sack).

For consequences to work, to eliminate the continuation of prohibited risk, they should provide more discomfort, than potential reward offered by taking the risk.  The additional severity posed by the NFHS penalty enforcement is (and should be) greater inducement to avoid choosing the risk.  "If you don't want to do the time, DON'T DO THE CRIME".

[Ralph Damren]

It's also to keep the All-but-one principle in-tact when possible.  As others have stated, if you want holding to be previous spot, then you have to make an exception to the rule.  But then, if you have holding in the end zone, you don't want that to be previous spot, you want that to be a safety.  So you have an exception to the exception (which is the original rule).  Then you have to make it clear you only want this to happen prior to a change of possession.

So you can see how complicated it can get.  All but one is simple.

I've proposed changing what the basic spot is to help alleviate it somewhat.  I proposed that if the run ends behind the neutral zone, the basic spot is the previous spot.  This helps with defensive fouls being enforced from the LOS, but offensive fouls still will be spot fouls.  The change is mainly to clean up the definitions.  So basically the only time you have a loose ball play is on legal passes and kicks.  No distinction when you fumble behind or beyond the LOS.  They're all RUNS!  Simple.

Fully agree, Bossman, we've tried to pass this several times but with the objection of doing away with A-B-O on fouls behind the LOS on A along with it. This occurred sometime  in my murky past :

(1) Early in the game, on 1st down, visitor's QB sacked 17 yards behind LOS by PFFM;
(2) penalty made situation 1-12, visitor's coach call time and wanted me to explain;
(3) I said : "Even though the play netted a -2, it's better than a -17 AND you got to replay the down !"
(4) Coach accepted my explaining;
(5) 3rd period, home up 30, scrambling home QB grabbed by PFFM and fumbles 10+ behind LOS, B recovers;
(6) after informing U to begin his trot from LOS, I felt obliged to inform the V coach of the diff;
(7) I approached the coach and began : "....Coach, I want to explain the difference....";
(8) you can get away with a lot more with a  than a  ...Coach : "Oh, I know the difference,  this was the HOME QB  !"
(9) I responded, with a  , the difference;
(10) He returned : "It's a bad rule, isn't it? "
(11) I agreed : " In this situation, YES, BUT IT IS THE RULE."
(12) He accepted that and said : "We're getting crushed by BAD blocks, BAD tackles and BAD PLAYS; NOT by bad rules. You guys are doing a good job. Keep it up."

IMHO, both fouls along with fouls by B downfield when A is sacked behind , should carry previous spot enforcement....BUT not at the cost of adding exceptions to our A_B_O.

[WhatsTheCall]

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Lhj1aYpv5S9jbnQU6

Hope this link works. A classic example of the incomplete screen. Watch the block from the wideout. Blindside?

I know I’m bumping an old topic but I absolutely needed to come here for some clarification on this and saw this post. Lol. We played Spartanburg when I was a coach. If you wanna see some great examples of exactly this go back and look at South Pointe (since SC teams are being shown). Before I understood being a ref I remember going crazy asking the ref to please explain how the WR’s were allowed to block and also blindside my defensive guys before the pass was even thrown. Eventually I backed all of my DBs off about 8 yards to the passing strength to bait the screen and told the ref I was going to do it. Finally got some yellow on the green lol. This was a while back, though and it was all new and pretty unclear and grey.