Author Topic: Illegal Touching Enforcement  (Read 1021 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1341
  • FAN REACTION: +34/-31
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Illegal Touching Enforcement
« Reply #25 on: November 18, 2019, 06:48:45 PM »
The All but one principle is ALWAYS a factor in penalty enforcement. There is never a time when it is not applied. ALL fouls are enforced from the basic spot except 1. The foul by the team in possession at the time of the foul. The basic spot can change because of exceptions, etc., but the ABO never goes away.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline Derek Teigen

  • *
  • Posts: 151
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-0
  • Committed to the game; safety and sportsmanship
Re: Illegal Touching Enforcement
« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2019, 07:33:53 PM »
Ok thanks guys ABO always in effect but only applied if penalty occurs behind the basic spot.  For pass plays the basic spot is the previous spot and for running plays the basic spot is the end of the run or associated run if a fumble.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1341
  • FAN REACTION: +34/-31
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Illegal Touching Enforcement
« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2019, 07:35:56 PM »
Ok thanks guys ABO always in effect but only applied if penalty occurs behind the basic spot.  For pass plays the basic spot is the previous spot and for running plays the basic spot is the end of the run or associated run if a fumble.
Not quite. The ABO is ALWAYS applied. Either the basic spot element is applie  OR the SPOT of the foul element is applied. Both are part of the ABO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline Derek Teigen

  • *
  • Posts: 151
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-0
  • Committed to the game; safety and sportsmanship
Re: Illegal Touching Enforcement
« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2019, 07:36:16 PM »
Beyond the basic spot....abo in effect if foul is beyond the basic spot....

Offline Derek Teigen

  • *
  • Posts: 151
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-0
  • Committed to the game; safety and sportsmanship
Re: Illegal Touching Enforcement
« Reply #29 on: November 18, 2019, 07:37:48 PM »
Ok thatís helpful.  Thanks

Offline Morningrise

  • *
  • Posts: 570
  • FAN REACTION: +24/-5
Re: Illegal Touching Enforcement
« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2019, 09:15:14 AM »
The All but one principle is ALWAYS a factor in penalty enforcement. There is never a time when it is not applied. ALL fouls are enforced from the basic spot except 1. The foul by the team in possession at the time of the foul. The basic spot can change because of exceptions, etc., but the ABO never goes away.

Isn't KCI an exception to ABO enforcement?

Come to think of it, isn't KCI an exception to "No penalty causes loss of the ball"?

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 765
  • FAN REACTION: +39/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Illegal Touching Enforcement
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2019, 10:06:42 AM »
Isn't KCI an exception to ABO enforcement?

Come to think of it, isn't KCI an exception to "No penalty causes loss of the ball"?

KCI is an exception to ABO -- pretty much anything specified in 10-5-1 as having special enforcement provisions. (Also Football Fundamental X.3)

It's not a violation of Fundamental I.6, however, if we split some hairs about some definitions that are the reasoning behind PSK and the like. If Team K legally kicks the ball and it travels beyond the neutral zone, they have willingly surrendered the ball to Team R. Therefore, it is not inappropriate to state that any foul during the scrimmage or free kick (like KCI) happened when R was in possession and enforced as such. Secondly, the foul *itself* did not cause the change of possession -- the possession change happened because of the legal kick. There was simply a foul that occurred during the otherwise legal change of possession.

Yes, *by rule*, R is not in team possession until R recovers the ball (or the ball becomes dead by rule), but by philosophy, K has relinquished team possession during the legal kick, so the ball is in some undefined state during the kick.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 3185
  • FAN REACTION: +386/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Illegal Touching Enforcement
« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2019, 11:38:45 AM »
The rationale of the All-But-One is simple : The foul by the team in possession may have enabled them to gain more yardage....ie..a hold @ 50 may have freed the runner to advance to B's 30 as the player that was held was about to make the tackle. IMHO, the most unequitable situation is when the QB is sacked by the face mask with the penalty is enforced from the end of the run, where if he FUMBLES or throws an incomplete pass, it's previous spot. With Bossman's help, I've tried to propose a change to correct that, but found that support could be gained ONLY IF fouls by A behind the LOS would receive previous spot, too. I'm supportive of ABO and am not willing  to make that concession.

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 765
  • FAN REACTION: +39/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Illegal Touching Enforcement
« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2019, 12:31:52 PM »
I'm supportive of ABO and am not willing  to make that concession.

Would you be willing to support making the basic spot the previous spot for any running play that ends behind the LOS? You'd still have ABO, but it would mean that the offensive holding in the backfield is only ever applied from the spot of the foul and not the end of the run -- 1st down, ball snapped at the A30, A56 holds at the A28, A7 escapes pressure, but then runs backwards and is tacked at the A20 -- B would have the option of 2nd down at the A20 or replay 1st at the A18... but the holding isn't enforced from the A20 (end of the run). A certainly didn't gain any advantage from the hold if the result of the play was a 10 yard loss.


Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 3185
  • FAN REACTION: +386/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Illegal Touching Enforcement
« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2019, 01:48:36 PM »
Would you be willing to support making the basic spot the previous spot for any running play that ends behind the LOS? You'd still have ABO, but it would mean that the offensive holding in the backfield is only ever applied from the spot of the foul and not the end of the run -- 1st down, ball snapped at the A30, A56 holds at the A28, A7 escapes pressure, but then runs backwards and is tacked at the A20 -- B would have the option of 2nd down at the A20 or replay 1st at the A18... but the holding isn't enforced from the A20 (end of the run). A certainly didn't gain any advantage from the hold if the result of the play was a 10 yard loss.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, but would say that if the runner lost yardage behind his teammate's hold, it wasn't a very good hold !  :) I believe that wording was close to the proposal that I (with Bossman's help) had, but was shot down by those that felt the ABO shouldn't apply to A'a foul behind LOS, too.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3768
  • FAN REACTION: +285/-552
Re: Illegal Touching Enforcement
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2019, 02:52:49 PM »
I wouldn't have a problem with that, but would say that if the runner lost yardage behind his teammate's hold, it wasn't a very good hold !  :) I believe that wording was close to the proposal that I (with Bossman's help) had, but was shot down by those that felt the ABO shouldn't apply to A'a foul behind LOS, too.

If the enforcement spot, for A penalties behind the LOS was changed to the previous spot, wouldn't that negate any consequence for fouling when the defense had legitimately caused the offense to retreat 10 yards, or more, behind the LOS?  Accepting the penalty would limit the offense to a 10 yard loss, but minimize the consequence by providing repetition of the down. 

That offset could be eliminated by combining the previous spot enforcement with "Loss of Down" or simply leaving the consequences as is.