Rule 8 Editorial Changes

[BetweenTheLines]

What were the reasonings behind the editorial changes in 8-2-2,3,4,5? Were they made to give the offended team the option to carry these fouls into overtime? If so, why then no change to the definition of succeeding spot?

[bossman72]

What were the reasonings behind the editorial changes in 8-2-2,3,4,5? Were they made to give the offended team the option to carry these fouls into overtime? If so, why then no change to the definition of succeeding spot?

Can you (or anyone) post the rule change or a screen shot?  We don't have our books yet in PA.

[BetweenTheLines]

I hope the attachment comes through!

[bossman72]

Typical brainiacs on the editorial committee.  They literally don't know the rules. 

The try and the succeeding spot are the SAME THING on a normal touchdown scoring play.  WTF?!

[ncwingman]

Typical brainiacs on the editorial committee.  They literally don't know the rules. 

The try and the succeeding spot are the SAME THING on a normal touchdown scoring play.  WTF?!

I think 2-41-10 saves them (unless they edited that too) - "When a foul occurs during a down in which a touchdown is scored, as in Rules 8-2-2, 8-2-3, 8-2-4 and 8-2-5, the succeeding spot may, at the option of the offended team, be the subsequent kickoff"

Now, I would argue that this does NOT change the overtime options. The succeeding spot is the try OR 2-41-10 allows the kickoff, which is there not one in overtime. I think this editorial change fixed the wording glitch that 2-41-10 said the succeeding spot may be the kickoff, but in the 8-2-x rules, it didn't actually say the "succeeding spot" was an option, it just explicitly listed the two options.

I agree with bossman that this is now redundant in 8-2-x, since "a. On the try" is included in "b. On the succeeding spot", so one can choose Option B by choosing Option A.

[BetweenTheLines]

If addressing the problem with overtime was the intent of the editorial change it seems to me that "subsequent down" would have worked better than succeeding spot.

[ncwingman]

I don't think this was done with any thought of overtime. It seems like somebody pointed out "Hey, 2-41-10 defines the succeeding spot in relation to the 8-2-x rules, but you never use the phrase succeeding spot in 8-2-x" and the editorial committee made this change. Succeeding spot is a defined phrase in Rule 2, "subsequent down" isn't, so you'd just be inviting more confusion by introducing a new term.

I would hope (and maybe Ralph can confirm) that a purely editorial change shouldn't alter the interpretation of a rule, just clarify wording. Since it couldn't bridge to OT before, it still can't now.

[BetweenTheLines]

That's exactly what we are being told here in SC that this change is so that these fouls can be bridged to OT. Not only from the 4th quarter to OT but in between overtime periods as well. As far as my rationale for the term "subsequent down", we've had the terms subsequent and down for a long time. The subsequent kickoff is in fact a subsequent down. Now you have the ability to snap the ball. I love this part of the season, we get a chance to debate what the debaters have already debated.

[ncwingman]

As written/amended, I don't see support for bridging fouls to OT. After a touchdown, the succeeding spot is the try, however 2-41-10 allows for penalties to be enforced on the subsequent kickoff instead. There still remains no language that allows the first play of overtime to be the succeeding spot after a touchdown.

If you're being told to bridge to OT, I'm not going to dispute that, but that's not what the rule says.

I don't believe a purely editorial change is actually debated, since they shouldn't be changing any rules. The editorial committee just does what it wants, it seems.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Bridging to overtime is a real stretch given the wording.  If the rules makers really wanted an option to be 1st play in OT all they had to do would be add an option c.  On the first play in OT.  Also agree that what is an editorial change is not supposed to change the rule and bridging to OT IMHO is in fact a rule change.