scrimmage kick--fg attempt

[CalhounLJ]

Ruling: R can decline this foul and go to overtime. Or they can accept the foul with enforcement from the previous spot and replay the down. Or they can accept the foul using the 10-4-2 exception with enforcement from the succeeding spot. Which is the first play in overtime. Which is in conflict with 3-3-3a


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

I’ve asked every one of the referees I’m my association what they would do in this situation. Every single one said to apply 10-4-2 would mean the first play in overtime. That’s what the clear common sense reading of 10-4-2 exception says. Clearly there’s confusion whether we want to admit it or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KDJBBBJ]

Why if R accepts the penalty do we not extend the period for an accepted penalty during the last timed down of the period?  They have three options. 
1)Decline the penalty go to OT
2)Accept the penalty at the succeding spot of the 20 one untimed down.

It has always been my understanding that the only penalties that go over to OT are dead ball or ones treated as dead ball.  Ones that would not extend the period. 

[CalhounLJ]

There has been a lengthy discussion of this on a previous thread. My position is not the fact that we should play an untimed down. I agree with that completely.

My problem is the succeeding spot in that situation is not the R 20. The definition of succeeding spot is where the ball would next be put in play iIF THERE WAS NO FOUL. In this situation, that would be the first play in overtime, not the R20.

My opinion is that R does indeed have two VALID options.
1 decline and go to overtime.
2. Accept and replay from previous spot.

10-4-2 exception, 3-3-3a, and 2-41-10 are in conflict in this situation.

*A simple fix would be to change the language of 10-4-2 exception to read similar to the Roughing the passer enforcement.

EXCEPTION: The basic spot may, at the option of the offended team, be the DEAD BALL spot for fouls by K during a legal free or scrimmage kick down (other than kick catch interference) prior to the end of the kick when K will not be next to put the ball in play.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ttown44]

Let's remember that carry over penalties apply when a foul is committed by the opponent of the scoring team.  Whereas this is a missed field goal, there is no scoring team and thus carrying over the penalty is not an option.  What we do have is a live ball foul.  Therefore, we have an untimed down (as Ralph stated) if accepted.  R could elect to have the penalty accessed on the succeeding spot, which would be the 20 yard line as the result of the play was a touchback.  This is a phenomenal play for preseason discussion as it incorporates three components of penalty enforcement:  Carry-over, Untimed down, and Kick Play enforcement.

[CalhounLJ]

Let's remember that carry over penalties apply when a foul is committed by the opponent of the scoring team.  Whereas this is a missed field goal, there is no scoring team and thus carrying over the penalty is not an option.  What we do have is a live ball foul.  Therefore, we have an untimed down (as Ralph stated) if accepted.  R could elect to have the penalty accessed on the succeeding spot, which would be the 20 yard line as the result of the play was a touchback.  This is a phenomenal play for preseason discussion as it incorporates three components of penalty enforcement:  Carry-over, Untimed down, and Kick Play enforcement.

You're way behind in the discussion. The issue is the succeeding spot. The rulebook definition of succeeding spot is where the ball would next be put in play IF THERE HAD BEEN NO FOUL. In this situation, that spot would be the first play in overtime, not the R20. And, this of course is in conflict with 3-3 and playing an untimed down.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Had some discussion on this with our "senior" R's on our board and the clear consensus here is that since we have a penalty to enforce that would trigger an untimed down then effectively we have not completed the 4th quarter yet and reading the language " ... if there had been no foul." to result in a carryover to OT would be inappropriate in this case. We would treat as any other play that still had time left, and enforce with the untimed down in this specific case.  By no means is that a definitive answer but seems to be a common sense approach to resolving the apparent rules conflict.  Certainly the wording could be improved but it appears to the majority here that we believe that the intent is clear enough.

[CalhounLJ]

Had some discussion on this with our "senior" R's on our board and the clear consensus here is that since we have a penalty to enforce that would trigger an untimed down then effectively we have not completed the 4th quarter yet and reading the language " ... if there had been no foul." to result in a carryover to OT would be inappropriate in this case. We would treat as any other play that still had time left, and enforce with the untimed down in this specific case.  By no means is that a definitive answer but seems to be a common sense approach to resolving the apparent rules conflict.  Certainly the wording could be improved but it appears to the majority here that we believe that the intent is clear enough.

Ok. Would we do that at the end of the first quarter as well? K misses a field goal and commits a foul. If R accepts the penalty we give R the ball on the 20 and play an untimed down in the first quarter? Because we wouldn’t do it with any other succeeding spot foul.

I agree the common sense solution is to play an untimed down, but this completely destroys the concept of succeeding spot enforcement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, while most succeeding spot enforcements are either dead ball or live-ball ,treated as dead ball, fouls with the rationale the act did not have a baring on the play. The tack-on rule is applied at the end of the play, as it is a live ball foul but without end-of-run potential ,as there may not be any return or possession by R to apply such. Every play has a succeeding spot and this is a rare live-ball enforcement.

[bossman72]

IMHO, while most succeeding spot enforcements are either dead ball or live-ball ,treated as dead ball, fouls with the rationale the act did not have a baring on the play. The tack-on rule is applied at the end of the play, as it is a live ball foul but without end-of-run potential ,as there may not be any return or possession by R to apply such. Every play has a succeeding spot and this is a rare live-ball enforcement.

This is why I don't like it saying "succeeding spot" because that makes it seem like a live ball treated as dead ball foul, which these aren't.

I think that's why the NCAA rulebook says "where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B" instead of "succeeding spot" to avoid the potential confusion.  I'd like to see that as an editorial change.

[KWH]

This is why I don't like it saying "succeeding spot" because that makes it seem like a live ball treated as dead ball foul, which these aren't.

I think that's why the NCAA rulebook says "where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B" instead of "succeeding spot" to avoid the potential confusion.  I'd like to see that as an editorial change.

I like it. Only problem is the cut off date for rule changes is always November 1.
Too late for this year but certainly a good discussion topic for the January meeting.

[CalhounLJ]

Finally…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bossman72]

I like it. Only problem is the cut off date for rule changes is always November 1.
Too late for this year but certainly a good discussion topic for the January meeting.

Even for editorial changes?  This is definitely editorial.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Haven't had time to do a true detailed research project on this but it appears from a quick look that this issue basically evolved over time as sections of the rules were added and/or changed without putting all of the related pieces together to see what the "final result" would be.  What other problems would be introduced if we change the wording in the definition of succeeding spot to read "The succeeding spot is where the ball would next be snapped or free kicked prior to any penalty enforcement." ?

[CalhounLJ]

Haven't had time to do a true detailed research project on this but it appears from a quick look that this issue basically evolved over time as sections of the rules were added and/or changed without putting all of the related pieces together to see what the "final result" would be.  What other problems would be introduced if we change the wording in the definition of succeeding spot to read "The succeeding spot is where the ball would next be snapped or free kicked prior to any penalty enforcement." ?

Nothing really, except it wouldn't solve the problem in this instance. In the instance of a missed field goal during a tied game on the last play of regulation, the spot where the ball would next be snapped or free kicked prior to any penalty enforcement would still be the first play in overtime.

[CalhounLJ]

The simple solution is to change the wording in the 10-4-2 exception to read "where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B." Because the option at the end of a period cannot be the succeeding spot. I looked up every time the phrase "succeeding spot" came up in the case book, and every time it was the spot where the ball would next be put into play if there had been no foul. We go to that spot, and then, if applicable, enforce a penalty from that spot.

[PABJNR]

Ok. Would we do that at the end of the first quarter as well? K misses a field goal and commits a foul. If R accepts the penalty we give R the ball on the 20 and play an untimed down in the first quarter? Because we wouldn’t do it with any other succeeding spot foul.

I agree the common sense solution is to play an untimed down, but this completely destroys the concept of succeeding spot enforcement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It will be at least the 25.  10-4-2 exception.  I know that wasn’t the point of the post….but I couldn’t resist .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

Nothing really, except it wouldn't solve the problem in this instance. In the instance of a missed field goal during a tied game on the last play of regulation, the spot where the ball would next be snapped or free kicked prior to any penalty enforcement would still be the first play in overtime.

But is it really the last play in regulation?  By rule the ball "belongs to B" when the whistle blows and don't the rules also say that a down has not "ended" until all penalties have been completed?

[CalhounLJ]

"The succeeding spot is where the ball would next be snapped or free kicked prior to any penalty enforcement." ?

If we are talking succeeding spot, the answer is yes. Take a look at your suggestion and consider the play in question. Once the play was over, according to the present definition, the succeeding spot would be the first play in overtime, because that’s where the ball would next be snapped if there had been no foul. Using your suggestion, once the play was over, the spot would still be the first play in overtime., because that’s the spot where the ball would next be snapped prior to enforcement. There is no situation in which, after a missed field goal at the end of regulation in a tied game when we would ever spot the ball at the R20. It would always be at the succeeding spot, which would be the first play in OT.

If we go with the other suggestion, by rule the dead ball spot for a scrimmage kick in the end zone is the R20. So we place the ball at the dead ball spot with R in possession and play an untimed down. Problem solved. The succeeding spot philosophy is intact, and we have solved the untimed down issue. I like it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ncwingman]

The simple solution is to change the wording in the 10-4-2 exception to read "where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B."

I don't disagree with what you're trying to do, but that wording sets up a bit of a timing problem.

When does Team B gain possession of a scrimmage kick that goes out of bounds or crosses the goal line? One could make an argument that when the ball becomes dead, it's still in Team A's possession and only becomes Team B ball after evaluation of the play. Therefore, the ball becomes dead in Team A possession and doesn't meet your criteria. It may be a bit of fly poop in the pepper, but I don't think it's as straightforward as you're hoping.

[HLinNC]

Perhaps just an added case play with a ruling, similar to or just use this example.

[CalhounLJ]

I don't disagree with what you're trying to do, but that wording sets up a bit of a timing problem.

When does Team B gain possession of a scrimmage kick that goes out of bounds or crosses the goal line? One could make an argument that when the ball becomes dead, it's still in Team A's possession and only becomes Team B ball after evaluation of the play. Therefore, the ball becomes dead in Team A possession and doesn't meet your criteria. It may be a bit of fly poop in the pepper, but I don't think it's as straightforward as you're hoping.

Not trying to pass the buck here, but that’s the actual language in the ncaa version of this rule, as suggested by bossman just a few posts earlier.  I’m assuming they have an answer to your proposed argument.

Additionally, I see your problem solved in much the same way as the philosophy behind PSK. Since a field goal is a scrimmage kick that can score, we consider possession changed for penalty enforcement as soon as the ball is in the air beyond the line. So technically, as far as penalty enforcement goes, it belongs to B/R at that point. That’s exactly how we would treat a foul by R in this case. Why not K?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

Perhaps just an added case play with a ruling, similar to or just use this example.

This is not a solution. It’s simply ignoring the problem. I don’t know of any rule in the book that creates a situation where you have ignore one part of a rule to be able to enforce another. If we just say “ in this particular instance, ignore the last phrase of the definition of succeeding spot, put the ball on the R20, and run an untimed down,” we have ignored a significant portion of the definition of succeeding spot.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

I don't disagree with what you're trying to do, but that wording sets up a bit of a timing problem.

When does Team B gain possession of a scrimmage kick that goes out of bounds or crosses the goal line? One could make an argument that when the ball becomes dead, it's still in Team A's possession and only becomes Team B ball after evaluation of the play. Therefore, the ball becomes dead in Team A possession and doesn't meet your criteria. It may be a bit of fly poop in the pepper, but I don't think it's as straightforward as you're hoping.

You could also use this argument not to apply the exception. If, at the end of the down A/K is still technically in possession, then 10-4-2 exception would not apply, and B/R would have to accept a 5yd from previous spot with untimed down, or decline and go to overtime. Which would be ideal. 

But still, that wouldn’t work either,  because the exception states that k is not the next to put the ball in play. So, because R will be the next to put the ball in play, the exception still applies. But, where is R going to put the ball in play? If it’s the succeeding spot, it’s the first play in overtime, but that depends on how the coin toss plays out. So, technically we can’t even apply succeeding spot enforcement here because we don’t know who will have the ball. That’s why succeeding spot language is bad in the exception. Much better to use the language suggested.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

So back to a previously discussed question.  Isn't it correct under NFHS rules to say that a half cannot end until all live ball fouls have been completed?