Author Topic: The light finally came on  (Read 668 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1451
  • FAN REACTION: +84/-73
  • The rules are there if you need them.
The light finally came on
« on: May 11, 2020, 02:15:40 PM »
AR 6-3-2-IV

Not gonna quote the whole AR, but the sentence, "Because the illegal touching provides an enforcement spot, the penalty for Team B's foul may be enforced, per Rule 5-2-4" has had me scratching my head for years (you can see the almost bald spot ;D).  But I just 'got it.' A bit of semantics, it seems.  I kept seeing the word "...provides..." and thought it meant that the illegal touching literally provided an enforcement spot (i.e., the spot of the touching).  But neither the rule nor the rest of the AR aligned with that thinking.
OHHHHH! (The light came on.) The 'violation' means that there is no way that Team A was going to get to keep the score.  And, if no score, then the automatic declination of 5 and ten yard penalties no longer applies.  So, the holding penalty may now be enforced, if Team A accepts the penalty (which they will, unless, somehow, the spot of illegal touching is more advantageous). So, by virtue of the illegal touching violation, the penalty, and its enforcement spot are now "restored."  Ah. The opportunity to enforce the penalty is RESTORED. That's what he meant by "provides."
OK.  I get it, now.

   

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1603
  • FAN REACTION: +112/-23
Re: The light finally came on
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2020, 09:17:16 AM »
AR 6-3-2-IV

Not gonna quote the whole AR, but the sentence, "Because the illegal touching provides an enforcement spot, the penalty for Team B's foul may be enforced, per Rule 5-2-4" has had me scratching my head for years (you can see the almost bald spot ;D).  But I just 'got it.' A bit of semantics, it seems.  I kept seeing the word "...provides..." and thought it meant that the illegal touching literally provided an enforcement spot (i.e., the spot of the touching).  But neither the rule nor the rest of the AR aligned with that thinking.
OHHHHH! (The light came on.) The 'violation' means that there is no way that Team A was going to get to keep the score.  And, if no score, then the automatic declination of 5 and ten yard penalties no longer applies.  So, the holding penalty may now be enforced, if Team A accepts the penalty (which they will, unless, somehow, the spot of illegal touching is more advantageous). So, by virtue of the illegal touching violation, the penalty, and its enforcement spot are now "restored."  Ah. The opportunity to enforce the penalty is RESTORED. That's what he meant by "provides."
OK.  I get it, now.

   


It helps to understand why 5's and 10's are declined by rule too.  They're declined by rule when there's literally no way to enforce the foul.  Say for example we have a run play and the U calls DH on the nose guard pulling the center down who is trying to get to the second level to block.  The RB runs for a touchdown.  The enforcement spot for that DH is the end of the run.  The end of the run is in the end zone.  Even if you wanted to accept the foul, you couldn't, because there's no more yardage for you to gain since you scored.  So, we have to decline it by rule.

On some of these punt plays and other COP plays, if you indeed have a possible enforcement spot for your foul, don't apply the "declined by rule" rule.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 09:36:14 AM by bossman72 »

Offline Legacy Zebra

  • *
  • Posts: 691
  • FAN REACTION: +45/-9
Re: The light finally came on
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2020, 10:11:01 AM »
That logic doesnít really hold up though. You could say the same thing about a personal foul by the defense. That would normally be applied at the end of the run as well. But we have a rule that makes an exception for major fouls (PF and UNS) because the rule makers want those fouls to not go unpunished since they are conduct and safety fouls. The real reason 5 and 10 yarders arenít enforced is because they are procedural or advantage fouls and obviously the fouling team didnít gain anything because they still gave up a score so thereís nothing to punish. With PF and UNS fouls, they want the penalty enforced anyway as an extra deterrent and punishment 

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1603
  • FAN REACTION: +112/-23
Re: The light finally came on
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2020, 09:40:03 AM »
That logic doesnít really hold up though. You could say the same thing about a personal foul by the defense. That would normally be applied at the end of the run as well. But we have a rule that makes an exception for major fouls (PF and UNS) because the rule makers want those fouls to not go unpunished since they are conduct and safety fouls. The real reason 5 and 10 yarders arenít enforced is because they are procedural or advantage fouls and obviously the fouling team didnít gain anything because they still gave up a score so thereís nothing to punish. With PF and UNS fouls, they want the penalty enforced anyway as an extra deterrent and punishment 

Before the try or kickoff "bridge" rule, those 15 yarders were also declined by rule too (because there was nowhere to enforce them from).  Then they made the special exception to that rule so you can carry them over.  So the logic holds up.

Offline dvasques

  • *
  • Posts: 504
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-2
Re: The light finally came on
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2020, 12:59:32 PM »
That is some poor writing all around in this AR.
"Five and 10-yard penalties are not administered on the try or succeeding kickoff." That information is irrelevant since the AR just said the score does not count.
And the score does not count because of the illegal touch.

Maybe say something like
Five- and 10-yard penalties are not administered on the try or succeeding kickoff (or leave that out). Because of the illegal touch, the score does not count and Team B will have the ball either at the spot of the violation, if Team A declines the penalty, or at the spot after the enforcement if Team A accepts the penalty (Rules 10-2-2 and 10-2-5-a-2).

But I guess the first sentence could just be removed from the AR

Offline Morningrise

  • *
  • Posts: 581
  • FAN REACTION: +24/-7
Re: The light finally came on
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2020, 09:01:33 AM »
Team A commits illegal touching, Team B fumbles, Team A recovers and runs...

Team A can still keep the ball following illegal touching, if Team B commits a foul while Team A has the ball, since such a foul would be penalized from the end of the run... as long as there exists an end of the run.

But if A88 takes the ball to the house, across the goal line and down the tunnel like Forrest Gump, then there is no end of the run. Any Team B foul committed during that run would not be penalizable, unless it was a PF/UNS. Because there is no possible point to enforce it from.

Here is a contrived example of when, in the words of 10-2-5-a-2, "enforcement is made possible by illegal touching of a kick," and when it isn't.

A punts. A0 illegally touches the rolling kick at the B-20. B0 recovers the kick at the B-20 and runs to the B-45 where he fumbles.
Then A11 recovers the fumble, but fumbles at the B-40.
Then A22 recovers that fumble, but fumbles at the B-30.
Then A33 recovers that fumble, but fumbles at the B-20.
Then A44 recovers that fumble, but fumbles at the B-10.
Then A55 recovers that fumble, and a) is tackled at the B-2, or b) scores a touchdown.
And, B99 committed some kind of holding foul at some point during these shenanigans.

Normally, B99's non-PF non-UNS penalty would be declined by rule. But here, enforcement could be "made possible by illegal touching of a kick." When and how?

If B99 fouled during A11's running play, A can accept the penalty. The end of the run is the B-40. It will be A's 1/10 @ B-30.

Same deal if B99 fouled during A22's running play, A33's running play, or A44's running play. It's A's ball after marching off 10 yards or half the distance from the end of whichever run.

If B99 fouled during A55's running play, then in a), it's the same story. The penalty can be accepted. A's 1/G @ B-1.

Only in b) can the penalty not be accepted at all. Because A55's run did not end. There's no place to enforce the penalty from. Instead, it's declined by rule, and Team A doesn't get the ball at all. It's B's ball at the spot of the illegal touching.

It's not very intuitive, with or without the ARs. The upshot is: the only time A gets screwed is during the very last run, the one that scores the TD. During any previous running play, there's a place where we can enforce the penalty.

(It's not very equitable for A to lose the ball altogether just because A55 succeeded instead of failed at crossing the goal line, is it? But that's another story.)

Offline dvasques

  • *
  • Posts: 504
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-2
Re: The light finally came on
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2020, 01:47:21 PM »
Normally, B99's non-PF non-UNS penalty would be declined by rule. But here, enforcement could be "made possible by illegal touching of a kick."

Only if the play ends in touchdown, right? Otherwise, as you write in the other examples, any penalty is very much enforceable.


Only in b) can the penalty not be accepted at all. Because A55's run did not end. There's no place to enforce the penalty from. Instead, it's declined by rule, and Team A doesn't get the ball at all. It's B's ball at the spot of the illegal touching.

It's not very intuitive, with or without the ARs. The upshot is: the only time A gets screwed is during the very last run, the one that scores the TD. During any previous running play, there's a place where we can enforce the penalty.

Yeah but the AR says Team B can have the ball at the spot of the illegal touching OR enforce the penalty from the end of their run.
I understand the first part of the result. You have a non-PF non-UNS foul during a play that ends in offended team touchdown. Penalty will be declined by rule.

In this case, you have illegal touch by A, which will cancel the score and give B the ball at the spot of touching. But canceling the touchdown will bring back the penalty. And now we can enforce it from the end of B's run.

If the foul was during A's run for TD we'd have the same result only without a possibility of enforcing the penalty so B would have the ball at illegal touching spot.

I still think there should be a better way of wording the AR

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2954
  • FAN REACTION: +103/-34
Re: The light finally came on
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2020, 02:30:16 PM »
Yeah but the AR says Team B can have the ball at the spot of the illegal touching OR enforce the penalty from the end of their run.
I understand the first part of the result. You have a non-PF non-UNS foul during a play that ends in offended team touchdown. Penalty will be declined by rule.

In this case, you have illegal touch by A, which will cancel the score and give B the ball at the spot of touching. But canceling the touchdown will bring back the penalty. And now we can enforce it from the end of B's run.

If the foul was during A's run for TD we'd have the same result only without a possibility of enforcing the penalty so B would have the ball at illegal touching spot.

Well, the OR is for team A to decide which of the results is better for them. I think the easiest way to think about this is:

1. Team B commits a 5 or 10 yard foul during a down which team A scores a touchdown (with no other fouls during the down).
2. Temporarily decline the penalty by rule.
3. If nothing else complicates things, TD.
4. If there is an illegal touching violation, cancel the score and put the penalty back on board.
5. If the foul was committed during the last team A run, decline it (again). Team B gets the ball at the IT spot.
6. Otherwise check with team A if they want to enforce the penalty as usual or decline it with team B taking the ball at the IT spot.