Declining the penalty for an illegal forward pass

[Jetref]

I’m new to this forum and I could use some help. I apologize if this topic has been discussed before. Here’s the play situation (NFHS rules): Late in the 4th qtr the score is 21-15 in favor of Team A. There are you not 15 seconds remains in the game. Team A has the ball 4/15 at their own 4 yard line. Team A lines up to punt with the punter standing deep in his own end zone in position to receive the long snap. The Team A punter mishandles the snap and the ball is rolling on the ground directly in front of him. He quickly picks up the ball and tries to run around the right side in hopes of getting the ball out of the end zone. He soon realizes that he is about to get tackled about 4 yards deep in his own end zone and decides to throw the ball 12 yards downfield into an area where there are obviously no eligible receivers in the the area. The Referee has a flag in the end zone for intentional grounding. What options should be given to Team B? Can Team B decline the penalty and take the ball 1st and 10 from the previous spot since they need to quickly score a touchdown in order to win the game? Can anyone please give a rulebook/casebook reference?

[GA Umpire]

I’m new to this forum and I could use some help. I apologize if this topic has been discussed before. Here’s the play situation (NFHS rules): Late in the 4th qtr the score is 21-15 in favor of Team A. There are you not 15 seconds remains in the game. Team A has the ball 4/15 at their own 4 yard line. Team A lines up to punt with the punter standing deep in his own end zone in position to receive the long snap. The Team A punter mishandles the snap and the ball is rolling on the ground directly in front of him. He quickly picks up the ball and tries to run around the right side in hopes of getting the ball out of the end zone. He soon realizes that he is about to get tackled about 4 yards deep in his own end zone and decides to throw the ball 12 yards downfield into an area where there are obviously no eligible receivers in the the area. The Referee has a flag in the end zone for intentional grounding. What options should be given to Team B? Can Team B decline the penalty and take the ball 1st and 10 from the previous spot since they need to quickly score a touchdown in order to win the game? Can anyone please give a rulebook/casebook reference?

I'll try.
Either way, it is a safety and Team A will free kick from the 20.

Since the play you describe is a running play by definition, the penalty, if accepted, is assessed from the end of the run, the end zone.  The penalty includes a loss of down provision.

If the penalty is declined, it is still a safety because the end of the run is in the end zone.

7-5-2; Table 7-5; 8-5-2c; 10-1-6; 10-4-6; 2-33-2; 2-41-9;

[HLinNC]

Short answer- no.  The ball can't be placed at the previous spot since the run ended in the endzone when he threw the ilegal pass.

[js in sc]

Agree with GA Umpire.  Remember, previous spot enforcement is for a loose ball play.  This requires a legal kick, fumble, backward pass, or LEGAL forward pass.  Since the pass here is illegal, it is a running play.  The spot of the foul is the end of the run, in the end zone.

[SDR]

It looks like 8-5-2c doesn't give any options - it is a safety whether the penalty is accepted or declined.

[Jetref]

Assuming the the illegal forward pass was thrown from the 2 yard line, would Team B be able to decline the penalty and take the ball at the previous spot?

[GA Umpire]

Assuming the the illegal forward pass was thrown from the 2 yard line, would Team B be able to decline the penalty and take the ball at the previous spot?

No, but why would they want to? 
The penalty for an illegal forward pass is 5 yards from the spot the pass was thrown from AND loss of the right to repeat the down.  It would be Team B's ball, 1st and goal, at the one yard line.

7-5-3

[ElvisLives]

Forgive me for muddying the waters by introducing NCAA into this discussion.  (I know nothing about NFHS rules.) However, in NCAA, if Team B declines the penalty for an illegal pass thrown from the end zone, by rule, the ball is placed at the previous spot for the next down, whatever it might be.  Of course, 1st thru 3rd down, why would Team B give up the 2 points and give Team A an opportunity to get out of a jam with some sort of a great play? Late in the game, if Team B was behind by 3 or more points, they might want to gamble that they could play tough the next couple of downs and force a punt to get good field position for a field goal or TD.  But that would be a big gamble, and would be rare, especially considering they could have 2 points plus an opportunity for decent field position following the free kick after the safety.  But the opportunity is there.
However, 4th down is a different story.  If this happens on 4th down, by declining the penalty, they get the ball at the previous spot, and, as the Wizard said, "That's a horse of a different color." Depending on time remaining, they might gladly give up 2 points and decent field position for 1/10 inside the A-20 (more likely, inside the A-10).

If the NFHS doesn't have this provision, they should probably think about it, even as rare as it would be.

[HLinNC]

He's asking for Fed so let's keep it there.  NFHS hates exceptions, except when they don't.

The foul in this play is enforced from the end of the run, no matter where the run ends.  Any previous spot is not going to matter.

[bossman72]

If the NFHS doesn't have this provision, they should probably think about it, even as rare as it would be.

They won't for simplicity's sake.

In NFHS, if you throw an incomplete LEGAL forward pass, you put the ball at the previous spot.
If you throw an incomplete ILLEGAL forward pass, you put the ball at the spot of the pass.

[ElvisLives]

Well, forgive me if I muddied the waters.  But, I offered the NCAA ruling in case someone was overlooking an ‘exception’ in the NFHS rules to the same effect.  This appears to be another point on which the rules makers for each code have simply chosen different paths. It was worth the discussion, I think.

[HLinNC]

It was the poster's 2nd post, I took them to be new to the biz or a non-official.

[Ralph Damren]

The rationale of illegal forward pass treated as a running play :

(1) On fouls like intentional grounding, the enforcement spot needs to be where the pass was dumped to prevent a sack there.

(2) On an illegal forward pass beyond the LOS , should the pass be dropped, the enforcement spot should be where the runner was when his IFP was thrown not the previous.

.....there may be others.

[sj]

While not using the word ‘exception’ could it be said that the NF is making one in 8-5-2-c?

The first clause of 8-5-2-c says that if there is a penalty that is 1) accepted and that 2) the enforcement spot is in the end zone it would result in a safety. That statement, just by itself, implies that this is true in ALL cases.

So just based on this first clause Team B could decline any penalty that met the two criteria and take the result of play if the result of the play is somehow was more advantageous for them than a Safety would be.

The second clause essentially seems to give an exception to the first by saying that if a penalty is declined for an illegal forward pass foul from the end zone then it’s still going to be a safety. So the second clause takes the option away from Team B from getting the ball at the B4.

If it was a holding foul, along with some others, in the end zone with an incomplete legal forward pass then they could decline the penalty and take the ball with B 1/10 @ B4.

But this can’t be the outcome for B if the foul was an illegal forward pass.

If it’s viewed that this is an actual problem then it would seem that if the second clause was simply removed then it would solve it.

8-5-2-c would just read:

It’s a Safety when….A player on offense commits any foul for which the penalty is accepted and the enforcement is from a spot in the end zone.

Changing it might have some unintended consequence that would prohibit it but none the less. 7-5-3 might need to be looked as well.

[SCline]

^its because the distance portion of a penalty is the only thing that can be declined by either team

[bossman72]

The rationale of illegal forward pass treated as a running play :

(1) On fouls like intentional grounding, the enforcement spot needs to be where the pass was dumped to prevent a sack there.

(2) On an illegal forward pass beyond the LOS , should the pass be dropped, the enforcement spot should be where the runner was when his IFP was thrown not the previous.

.....there may be others.

For #2, the way it made sense to me is that if you declined the penalty for IFP, where would you put the ball? 
That's why it's a run play.  If not, then you can get a 50 yard run and the incomplete pass would put the ball back at the previous spot, which would make no sense.  So, legal forward passes go back to the previous spot.  Illegal forward passes go back to the spot of the pass.  Then you do your penalties.

[Willis]

If the punter's pass was caught by the center at the A4, with no legal receivers in the area, there should still be flags for intentional grounding and illegal touching, correct?  At that point, assuming the center was tackled short of the line to gain (say the A6), team B could decline both penalties, accept the result of the play, and then have the ball first and goal from the A6?

[CalhounLJ]

^its because the distance portion of a penalty is the only thing that can be declined by either team

This is not exactly correct. A team can decline the entirety of the penalty, which includes not only the distance, but the replay of the down as well. Example: Holding against A. If B likes the results of the play, they not only decline the distance, but the right of A to replay the down.

In the case of the play at hand, to decline the penalty for the IFP still leaves A in possession behind the goal because of the spot.

[sj]

If the punter's pass was caught by the center at the A4, with no legal receivers in the area, there should still be flags for intentional grounding and illegal touching, correct?  At that point, assuming the center was tackled short of the line to gain (say the A6), team B could decline both penalties, accept the result of the play, and then have the ball first and goal from the A6?

Based on 7-5-3 it would seem so.

If the penalty for an illegal forward pass is accepted, measurement is from the spot of such forward pass. If the offended team declines the distance penalty it has the choice of having the down counted at the spot of the the illegal forward pass or (if the illegal forward pass was caught or intercepted) of having the ball put in play as determined by the action which followed the catch.

[Ralph Damren]

Maybe an easy way of thinking about is.....

  AN ILLEGAL FORWARD PASS IS CONSIDERED A RUNNING PLAY
  IF THE PENALTY IS ACCEPTED, IT IS FROM THE END OF THE RUN (the spot of the IFP)
  IF THE PENALTY IS DECLINED, THE BALL IS SPOTTED AT THE END OF THE RUN.

[ncwingman]

Maybe an easy way of thinking about is.....

  AN ILLEGAL FORWARD PASS IS CONSIDERED A RUNNING PLAY
  IF THE PENALTY IS ACCEPTED, IT IS FROM THE END OF THE RUN (the spot of the IFP)
  IF THE PENALTY IS DECLINED, THE BALL IS SPOTTED AT THE END OF THE RUN.

Hate to pepper pick a bit, but this is only true in a situation like the original scenario where you have an *incomplete* illegal forward pass.

Change the scenario slightly:

4th and 10 at the A2 -- A1 takes the snap in the shotgun (standing in his end zone), and pitches the ball forward to a jet-sweeping A32. A32 is still in his endzone when he then throws a forward pass, completed to TE A87. A87 is then tackled at the A10.

B can decline the penalty for the IFP and take the result of the play, short of the line to gain, turnover on downs. B's ball at the A10.

[justbill13]

Well, forgive me if I muddied the waters.  But, I offered the NCAA ruling in case someone was overlooking an ‘exception’ in the NFHS rules to the same effect.  This appears to be another point on which the rules makers for each code have simply chosen different paths. It was worth the discussion, I think.

Very much worth the discussion.  I use this rule as an example in teaching new officials that the rules are not necessarily the same for High School and College (complete with having them read out of both rulebooks).  Also, as an example that we need to know our rules.  I know some guys who mistakenly applied the college rule for this in a High School game and affected the outcome.

[KWH]

• Safety if accepted, 7-5-3, 8-5-2c
• Safety if declined, 7-5-3, 10-5-4
  

[Badger1]

I believe in regards to 7-5-3 and declining the penalty the rule states, in part, "If the offended team declines the distance penalty, it has the choice of having the down counted at the spot of the illegal incomplete forward pass or (if the illegal forward pass is caught or intercepted) of having the ball put in play as determined by the action which followed the catch." In this situation, team B could decline the penalty (safety) and take the ball as it was short of the line to gain on a fourth down play, or am I missing something?

[bama_stripes]

I believe in regards to 7-5-3 and declining the penalty the rule states, in part, "If the offended team declines the distance penalty, it has the choice of having the down counted at the spot of the illegal incomplete forward pass or (if the illegal forward pass is caught or intercepted) of having the ball put in play as determined by the action which followed the catch." In this situation, team B could decline the penalty (safety) and take the ball as it was short of the line to gain on a fourth down play, or am I missing something?

If you’re referring to the OP, it was a pass thrown into an area with no eligible receivers.  We all took that to mean that the pass was incomplete, although it was specifically stated.  If the pass was indeed completed, even if illegal, then you are correct.