Offsetting Penalties....why?

[animalspooker]

I know that once you have offsetting penalties, there are no other options for either team except to replay the down.  Why is this? 

Last week at a sub-varsity game, a play was ran in which a D-lineman illegally used his hands to the face of an O lineman (flag).  The running back then ran the ball nearly 80 yards where, as he was tackled, tried to pitch the ball and ended up pitching it forward.  Offsetting penalties!  However, if the offense had been able to decline the illegal hands to the face, they would've gained 70 yards on the play.

Why is this not an option?  They gained all of that yardage legally and without penalty.  Feels like they're being overly penalized.  Thoughts?

[CalhounLJ]

I know that once you have offsetting penalties, there are no other options for either team except to replay the down.  Why is this? 

Last week at a sub-varsity game, a play was ran in which a D-lineman illegally used his hands to the face of an O lineman (flag).  The running back then ran the ball nearly 80 yards where, as he was tackled, tried to pitch the ball and ended up pitching it forward.  Offsetting penalties!  However, if the offense had been able to decline the illegal hands to the face, they would've gained 70 yards on the play.

Why is this not an option?  They gained all of that yardage legally and without penalty.  Feels like they're being overly penalized.  Thoughts?

Why can’t B decline A’s penalty and have theirs marked off? Who gets to pick which team gets to decline the others foul!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[refjeff]

Why can’t B decline A’s penalty and have theirs marked off? Who gets to pick which team gets to decline the others foul!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Order of occurrence.

[CalhounLJ]

Order of occurrence.

I can’t even begin to wrap my mind around that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

I can’t even begin to wrap my mind around that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Curious]

Calhoun (rhetorically, with a dab of sarcasm) gave you the answer...

There IS one situation where fouls by both teams MAY or MAY NOT off-set. 

That is when there is a change of possession during the down in which each team commits live ball fouls.  If the team in final possession fouls following the COP, they are considered to have gained possession with "clean hands". Therefore, by rule, that team will have the first choice and MAY accept or decline A's foul.  If they decline their opponent's foul they will retain possession, but the team NOT in possession will undoubtedly accept the team now in possession's foul.  The team in possession will next snap the ball following enforcement of their foul.  If the team in final possession accepts their opponent's foul, and the team not possession accepts the team in final possession's foul, we have a DOUBLE FOUL and will replay the down.

Finally, unsportsmanlike and non-player fouls CANNOT be off-set with an opponent's foul.

[Ralph Damren]

Rule 10 is by far the most complicated rule in our book. While we don't need to add to its complexity by allowing teams to pick and choose on double foul situations, there are times when it doesn't appear fair. We had a game once where we had illegal formation on A , roughing the passer on B, completed pass, plus receiver was tackled by face mask. A's coach asked : "30 yards in penalties against them and only 5 against us... that can't be right  ?". I could only respond: "Coach, it may not seem right, BUT it is the rule  ".

Unsure if NCAA has a solution to this. NFL will cancel a 5 yarder if there's a 15 yarder on opponents.

IDEAS, ANYONE...

 

[ElvisLives]

Unsure if NCAA has a solution to this.

The solution is for the teams to not foul. That sounds patronizing, I know. But, if a team doesn’t want to get the short end of the stick on such situations, don’t put themselves into those situations. On numerous occasions, coaches have complained about UNS calls (diving into end zone, dancing, correographed actions, etc.), i.e., “You should use better judgment,” “Oh, they were just having fun.” Well, if you don’t want to risk having us make a judgment against you, do your job and coach your players not to do that stuff. Same here. If you don’t want to risk having a big play called back by a foul on you, or with offsetting fouls, learn the rules and don’t foul. Simple.

[refjeff]

I can’t even begin to wrap my mind around that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  B fouled first, so A is given their options first.  Then go ask B.

I'm not saying it is a good idea, but is a way to decide "Who gets to pick which team gets to decline the others foul!"  Which is what you asked.

[CalhounLJ]

  B fouled first, so A is given their options first.  Then go ask B.

I'm not saying it is a good idea, but is a way to decide "Who gets to pick which team gets to decline the others foul!"  Which is what you asked.

I'm glad you didn't say it is a good idea, because it's not. That would blow my foundational philosophy of penalty enforcement to smithereens. It's on the same plane as adding a new definition to succeeding spot. I just can't fathom it.. 

[Ralph Damren]

SO FAR, i FEEL i LIKE ELVIS'S IDEA THE BEST  .....

DON'T FOUL 

   AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY 

[CalhounLJ]

SO FAR, i FEEL i LIKE ELVIS'S IDEA THE BEST  .....

DON'T FOUL 

   AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY 

YES, YES, YES.. 

[refjeff]

I'm glad you didn't say it is a good idea, because it's not. That would blow my foundational philosophy of penalty enforcement to smithereens. It's on the same plane as adding a new definition to succeeding spot. I just can't fathom it..

Well, that is disconcerting.

[NVFOA_Ump]

  B fouled first, so A is given their options first.  Then go ask B.
I'm not saying it is a good idea, but is a way to decide "Who gets to pick which team gets to decline the others foul!"  Which is what you asked.

So if there's more than 2 live ball fouls do we have to determine the exact order of occurrence and then go back and forth between teams to get all of the enforcement options and I'm guessing that enforcement spots would get pretty muddled?   

IMHO if you look at all of the possible scenarios here it's pretty clear why the rule is what it is.

[refjeff]

So if there's more than 2 live ball fouls do we have to determine the exact order of occurrence and then go back and forth between teams to get all of the enforcement options and I'm guessing that enforcement spots would get pretty muddled?   

IMHO if you look at all of the possible scenarios here it's pretty clear why the rule is what it is.

Again, I just answered a question.  I never said it was a good idea.  You have no argument from me.

[jason]

So if there's more than 2 live ball fouls do we have to determine the exact order of occurrence and then go back and forth between teams to get all of the enforcement options and I'm guessing that enforcement spots would get pretty muddled?   

IMHO if you look at all of the possible scenarios here it's pretty clear why the rule is what it is.

That's actually hilarious to think about the extremes of such a play. Taking rules to the extreme scenario is often a good way to understand why a rule is a rule.

[SCline]

So if there's more than 2 live ball fouls do we have to determine the exact order of occurrence and then go back and forth between teams to get all of the enforcement options and I'm guessing that enforcement spots would get pretty muddled?   

IMHO if you look at all of the possible scenarios here it's pretty clear why the rule is what it is.

 

[Ralph Damren]

When I authored the change in 10-2-5 back in 2015, an underlying reason was tp prevent the 'in order of occurance' possibility on dueling dead ball fouls on a TD.  The complexity would be simular if we treated double fouls the same. Let's just keep it simple :WHEN YOU FOUL YOU MAY NOT LIKE THE RESULTS.

[AlUpstateNY]

That's actually hilarious to think about the extremes of such a play. Taking rules to the extreme scenario is often a good way to understand why a rule is a rule.

Absolutely agree that revising this rule, as suggested, would open a "Pandora's Box" of endless "creative interpretations" that would only add confusion  and needless delay to what NOW is a consistent and logical approach to a rational, balanced consequence to each team fouling.

[ncwingman]

So if there's more than 2 live ball fouls do we have to determine the exact order of occurrence and then go back and forth between teams to get all of the enforcement options and I'm guessing that enforcement spots would get pretty muddled?   

IMHO if you look at all of the possible scenarios here it's pretty clear why the rule is what it is.

Clearly the correct solution to this non-problem is to change the football fundamental and make it so any live ball foul causes the ball to become dead. That way, you cannot have two live ball fouls on a single play. Problem solved. Easy Peasy.

 

[animalspooker]

I do understand the reasoning, but I also understand the coaches argument that he gained all that yardage without 'cheating' (lol) and now he loses it because of something done at the end of the run. 

[ncwingman]

I do understand the reasoning, but I also understand the coaches argument that he gained all that yardage without 'cheating' (lol) and now he loses it because of something done at the end of the run.

That's the fundamental reasoning behind the all but one principle, especially on a running play. If a hold takes places 5 yards downfield, you "award" the offense the five yards they earned without "cheating" and then penalize from there. If the defense fouls instead, you award the offense the yards they earned (all of them) and the enforce from the end of the run. However, when both teams foul, you now have (the potential for) two different enforcement spots and then chaos can ensue from there. Instead of trying to sort out a barrage of insanity, we just say "You both dun' goofed. Try that play again!"

There are definitely some situations where the outcome can be simple, but a lot more where it's much more convoluted. Because the line between simple and convoluted is not clear, it doesn't make sense to have two different enforcement rules that would only lead to controversy over why one rule was used over another.

[AlUpstateNY]

I do understand the reasoning, but I also understand the coaches argument that he gained all that yardage without 'cheating' (lol) and now he loses it because of something done at the end of the run.

That's why there are specific rules, rather than  require (allow) each specific situation as an opportunity to debate some abstract version of "equity" to dictate resolution.  As previously suggested, "When you foul, you are subject to stated (consistent) penalty, that may not always apply equal consequences to EVERY (unique) situation. 

[CalhounLJ]

That's the fundamental reasoning behind the all but one principle, especially on a running play. If a hold takes places 5 yards downfield, you "award" the offense the five yards they earned without "cheating" and then penalize from there. If the defense fouls instead, you award the offense the yards they earned (all of them) and the enforce from the end of the run. However, when both teams foul, you now have (the potential for) two different enforcement spots and then chaos can ensue from there. Instead of trying to sort out a barrage of insanity, we just say "You both dun' goofed. Try that play again!"

There are definitely some situations where the outcome can be simple, but a lot more where it's much more convoluted. Because the line between simple and convoluted is not clear, it doesn't make sense to have two different enforcement rules that would only lead to controversy over why one rule was used over another.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

There are definitely some situations where the outcome can be simple, but a lot more where it's much more convoluted. Because the line between simple and convoluted is not clear, it doesn't make sense to have two different enforcement rules that would only lead to controversy over why one rule was used over another.