Federation Test Question #74

[twref]

From the "absolutely no chance this will ever occur" file:

Question #74 from 2020 Federation Test: True or False: If A1 in his own end zone when he intentionally grounds a forward pass, it is a safety even if B declines the penalty

By definition, Intentional Grounding is an illegal forward pass

8.5.2.c "A player on offense commits any foul for which a penalty is accepted and enforcement is from a spot in his end zone, or throws and illegal forward pass from his end zone and the penalty is declined in a situation which leaves him in possession at the spot of the illegal pass and with the ball having been forced into the end zone by the passing team"

Intentional Grounding fouls assumes the ball was not caught by B, fumble in which B recovers or any other change of possession, etc.

In what scenario/play would Team B decline an Intentional Grounding Foul that occurs in the EZ? Multiple foul on A (Holding) where the spot of the foul is also in the EZ? Declining the ING would still result in a safety enforcement from the holding foul.  4th down play with seconds to go in the game and B is trailing by more than 2 points? 

The question verbiage insinuates an ING foul that occurs in the EZ will result in a safety-whether or not the penalty is accepted. 

Thoughts?

[CalhounLJ]

"The question verbiage insinuates an ING foul that occurs in the EZ will result in a safety-whether or not the penalty is accepted."

I think this is the point of the entire question. In NFHS, when a passer intentionally grounds the football, it's treated as a running play. In other words, the succeeding spot is the point from where he threw the ball. In this instance, the result of the play is a safety either way. If B accepts the penalty, then we have an enforcement spot in the EZ, which by rule is a safety. If, in the highly unlikely event B were to decline the penalty, we still have A in possession of the ball behind his own end zone, with him forcing the ball there. Therefore, it's a safety either way.

[Derek Teigen]

"The question verbiage insinuates an ING foul that occurs in the EZ will result in a safety-whether or not the penalty is accepted."

I think this is the point of the entire question. In NFHS, when a passer intentionally grounds the football, it's treated as a running play. In other words, the succeeding spot is the point from where he threw the ball. In this instance, the result of the play is a safety either way. If B accepts the penalty, then we have an enforcement spot in the EZ, which by rule is a safety. If, in the highly unlikely event B were to decline the penalty, we still have A in possession of the ball behind his own end zone, with him forcing the ball there. Therefore, it's a safety either way.

yes, I agree with Calhoun that it is a safety no matter how you slice it.  You are correct that Rule 8-5-2-c covers that.

[Derek Teigen]

In what scenario/play would Team B decline an Intentional Grounding Foul that occurs in the EZ? Multiple foul on A (Holding) where the spot of the foul is also in the EZ? Declining the ING would still result in a safety enforcement from the holding foul.  4th down play with seconds to go in the game and B is trailing by more than 2 points? 

Thoughts?

So I read Rule 2-16-F that says that if 'two or more live-ball fouls (other than non player or unsportsmanlike) are committed during the same down by the same team at such a time that the offended team is permitted a choice of penalties.'

So first of all I don't see TEAM A going for it on 4th down deep in their own end with just a little time remaining in the game.  So they would punt or give up the 2 point if they don't trust their kicking game.
IF team B has a choice of penalties to decline then they could decline a holding for example but this would not change TEAM A's strategy and they would do exactly what they did before and they would run an extra play and burn more time .

So if I were team B I would take the 2 points and hope there is enough time on the clock for them to run back the free kick.

The other thing TEAM A risks in this is that their 'illegal forward pass' is not called by the officials and so TEAM B would take over on downs.....

[twref]

Rule 10-3.  Interesting, but logical.  I always considered all passes-both legal and illegal-to be loose ball plays. 

[HLinNC]

I don't think the scenario is that far fetched if A is behind late in the game or if they were ahead by more than 2 points.  They would not necessarily having to be snapping from the shadow of their own goal post.  Say they're on their own 15 or 20 and a heavy rush forces the QB to scramble around to where he winds up in his EZ and then just chucks it out of desperation to avoid the sack.  Or the coach just tells the QB to run around and burn time off the clock with a lead.

Taking a safety on purpose is not an everyday occurrence but isn't outside the realm of probability nor is a teenage boy doing something stupid.

[bama_stripes]

Wonder if A (now K) would ever consider an onside kick after the safety?  Maybe ahead by 4 and time for only one scrimmage play and they don’t want to risk a long KO return for a TD?