Penalties Enforcement Question

[MechsMan]

This play has generated a good bit of discussion in our local association.  A1 turns and taunts B1 prior to scoring a TD.  After the score, B1 follows A1 into the end zone and tackles him.  We know we have a live ball unsportsmanlike conduct foul on A1, enforced like a dead ball foul.  And we know we have a dead ball personal foul on B1.  We know A1 gets to keep the score.  The difference in opinions stems from do we enforce the distance penalties in the order of occurrence of each foul (per 10-2-5a), on the try or subsequent kick off; or do we simply offset the distance penalties (per 10-2-5b).

[HLinNC]

No.  B will have the first option to enforce on the try or subsequent kickoff.  Then A will have the options for the DBPF by B.  It may work out as a wash but not automatic. See 8-2-4 and 8-2-5.

[CalhounLJ]

I beg to differ. Since both fouls are treated as dead-ball fouls and both carry a 15-yard penalty, they cancel and we move to the try. 10.4.5 Situation F.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I beg to differ. Since both fouls are treated as dead-ball fouls and both carry a 15-yard penalty, they cancel and we move to the try. 10.4.5 Situation F.

 . I'll have to seriously consider treating the DB tackle as a UNS since the intent and the flagrant act is 100 % unsportsmanlike.  Or, if your hung up on the NFHS UNS being "non-contact" rule it flagrant.  In this case the unsportsmanlike intent IMHO is clear and we need more that a DB 15

[sir55]

Calhoun is correct. See Rule 10-2-5b. Dead Ball, UNS, and Non Player fouls, if 15 yards, an equal number of each off set. There can be no UNS foul for federation fouls if there is contact.

[HLinNC]

I stand corrected.  Case play 10.2.5g, which is the reverse of this (live ball PF by B followed by USC by A), explains it pretty well.

[refjeff]

. I'll have to seriously consider treating the DB tackle as a UNS since the intent and the flagrant act is 100 % unsportsmanlike.  Or, if your hung up on the NFHS UNS being "non-contact"

Like it or not, that's the rule. 

rule it flagrant.  In this case the unsportsmanlike intent IMHO is clear and we need more that a DB 15

Except it's not flagrant.  "A foul so severe or extreme that it places an opponent in danger of serious danger of serious injury, and/or it involves violations that are extremely or persistently vulgar or abusive conduct."

If everybody does what they think is best then they're just suggestions, not rules.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Except it's not flagrant.  "A foul so severe or extreme that it places an opponent in danger of serious danger of serious injury, and/or it involves violations that are extremely or persistently vulgar or abusive conduct."

Except the judgement as to flagrant or not belongs exclusively with the calling official(s).  No video available here but my "flagrant threshold" would be pretty tight here. 

[CalhounLJ]

Except the judgement as to flagrant or not belongs exclusively with the calling official(s).  No video available here but my "flagrant threshold" would be pretty tight here.

I think it’s difficult if not impossible to rule “followed him into the end zone and tackled him” as flagrant on face value. If we had something that rose to the level of targeting or a blindside block or some other cheap shot committed dead ball, maybe, but not what we would consider a “normal” tackle. Give him the 15 for a late hit and move on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MechsMan]

In Case Book plays 10.2.5 A-F, all multiple fouls occur after the ball is dead, so no problem offsetting the distance penalties.  Case Book plays 10.2.5 G-H are basically the opposite of the original post: a live ball personal foul on the defending team and an unsportsmanlike foul (during or after the score) by the scoring team.  In both plays, the Case Book says "these fouls should be enforced separately and in order of occurrence" and further says "10-2-5 does not apply as the personal foul was not dead ball."

Where the difference of opinion lies with our group is per the original play: A1's foul prior to the score is UNS, B follows up with dead ball PF.  Some of our group opine the UNS is a "live ball" foul by definition, even though it is enforced like a dead ball foul.  Therefore 10-2-5 does not apply.  Others opine that since the UNS is treated like a dead ball, and the PF is a dead ball, we offset the distance penalties. 

[ncwingman]

I think it’s difficult if not impossible to rule “followed him into the end zone and tackled him” as flagrant on face value. If we had something that rose to the level of targeting or a blindside block or some other cheap shot committed dead ball, maybe, but not what we would consider a “normal” tackle. Give him the 15 for a late hit and move on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would agree. Anytime I've seen such a late hit, it's been a shove out of frustration, not a deliberate attempt to injure. I think most of us can tell the difference between "tackled late in the end zone" and "tried to give a punishing blow late in the end zone".

In a similar vein, it's like knowing when a player uses his hands to shove and when he uses his hands to punch.

[Ralph Damren]

10-2-5b allows an USC foul to offset with another USC or DBPF on the opponents , as an USC foul occurres during a play it is assumed not to have any impact on the play, itself. Sorta' like "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me."  I proposed this rule change in 2015 and it was accepted.  My problem with 'in order of occurrence enforcement' was several-fold :

(1) If matching USC/DBPF fouls occurr inside either 30, having the distance if the first flag on B wouldn't be fair.

(2) If said fouls occurred on a TD play ,OOO enforcement can provide 6 choices, too complex, even for us  ,

(3) This one happened in my game once, 3/7 @ 50 :
   - A1 tackled @ LOS, then DBPF by B1;
   -A1 then throws ball @ B1 =USC;

OLD WAY : Told U  to put his 'walking shoes on and hike to B's 35. I'd signal #7,38, 8. Ump then does pirouette and returns to 50 where  I now signal #7,,27,.8.  Some may not understand why A gained a new series but the chains did't move 

TODAY'S WAY : Leave ball  @ 50, signal # 7,,38,27,,10 -4/10
                                                                                   ......AND LET THE BAND PLAY ON 

NOTE: YOU CAN STILL HAVE "OOO' ENFORCEMENT IF A 5-YD COUPLES WITH A 15-YD DB FOUL= Encrouchment on A, followed by DBPF on B = A gains 10 yards.
          IF YOU HAVE AN UNEVEN 3 OF DB FOULS, ALL WILL BE ENFORCED + 2 DBPF on A, 1 DBPF on B = A loses 15.

                                                                                                                           Hope this helps

[ncwingman]

          IF YOU HAVE AN UNEVEN 3 OF DB FOULS, ALL WILL BE ENFORCED + 2 DBPF on A, 1 DBPF on B = A loses 15.

I'm going to have to disagree with you slightly there, just for the Axiom of Unintended Consequences -- and because it's the wording of 10-2-5b.

Equal numbers cancel out and then you enforce the rest. If you enforce ALL, you'd have to do so in order of occurrence, which could bring back the halving the distance problem again. In this case, one for A and one for B cancel out and you only enforce A's extra one penalty.

If the play ends at B-10 and you get 2 fouls on A and one on B, as your situation, the next play should be at the B-25. If you enforce all penalties, it could be at the B-35 (B then A then A) or B-27.5 (A then B then A) or still the B-25 (A then A then B).

[Ralph Damren]

I'm going to have to disagree with you slightly there, just for the Axiom of Unintended Consequences -- and because it's the wording of 10-2-5b.

Equal numbers cancel out and then you enforce the rest. If you enforce ALL, you'd have to do so in order of occurrence, which could bring back the halving the distance problem again. In this case, one for A and one for B cancel out and you only enforce A's extra one penalty.

If the play ends at B-10 and you get 2 fouls on A and one on B, as your situation, the next play should be at the B-25. If you enforce all penalties, it could be at the B-35 (B then A then A) or B-27.5 (A then B then A) or still the B-25 (A then A then B).

In 2014, I submitted this rule change with the NCAA version of cancelling all 15 yarders even if there was an uneven number. It failed , as several members were conserned that that would let some players go unpunished ( even if said players were ejected). I returned in 2015 with this version that would enforce any/all uneven fouls. It strongly passed. Where I wrote the rule, I know its intent, cancel all except an uneven number of foul(s) and tack that onto succeeding spot. The order of occurance wouldn't come into play, as only the uneven fouls would be enforced. I agree that "Any remaining penalities will be enforce seperately and in the order of occurrance" is too wordy as any excess penalities would be only on one team and fully enforced. Example: FIGHT + 6 A players and 4 B players tossed = 30 yards enforced against  A.   Hope that clairifies.

[ncwingman]

In 2014, I submitted this rule change with the NCAA version of cancelling all 15 yarders even if there was an uneven number. It failed , as several members were conserned that that would let some players go unpunished ( even if said players were ejected). I returned in 2015 with this version that would enforce any/all uneven fouls. It strongly passed. Where I wrote the rule, I know its intent, cancel all except an uneven number of foul(s) and tack that onto succeeding spot. The order of occurance wouldn't come into play, as only the uneven fouls would be enforced.

I know you probably know that, but just pointing it out to avoid confusion for others.

I'm also not a big fan of the everything cancels out NCAA rule. I think it leads to lazy officiating in that situation. As long as they call *something* on both teams, they don't have to care about who did what. A play I saw a few years ago highlighted this -- play ends on the defense's sideline, followed by a late hit and the ball carrier gets up aggressively in response, but doesn't attack or hit anybody. Since it's on B's sideline, he's immediately swarmed by 20 guys and a big scrum ensues while A is just trying to get out of there.

Instead of trying to figure out who did what, especially if it involved non-players, they called DBPFs on both A and B, cancelled everything out and just moved on. In hindsight, A was probably not guilty of a DBPF, but then you'd have to figure out how many fouls there were on B.

The only situation where I'd be willing to overlook specific numbers is if you have an "equal" scrum with ejectable actions -- players off the bench, punches thrown, etc.. Then, focus on the ejections and cancel out the yardage even if it's 10 fouls on A and 12 on B.

[CalhounLJ]

In Case Book plays 10.2.5 A-F, all multiple fouls occur after the ball is dead, so no problem offsetting the distance penalties.  Case Book plays 10.2.5 G-H are basically the opposite of the original post: a live ball personal foul on the defending team and an unsportsmanlike foul (during or after the score) by the scoring team.  In both plays, the Case Book says "these fouls should be enforced separately and in order of occurrence" and further says "10-2-5 does not apply as the personal foul was not dead ball."

Where the difference of opinion lies with our group is per the original play: A1's foul prior to the score is UNS, B follows up with dead ball PF.  Some of our group opine the UNS is a "live ball" foul by definition, even though it is enforced like a dead ball foul.  Therefore 10-2-5 does not apply.  Others opine that since the UNS is treated like a dead ball, and the PF is a dead ball, we offset the distance penalties.

The “live ball treated as dead ball” dilemma solves itself with the last phrase. It’s treated as a dead ball foul. So you have two fouls that are both treated as dead ball fouls. They are equal distances so they offset.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk