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.

[sj]

Has anyone heard anything definitive on this from the NF?

I have two dependable sources that believe this does mean they could be carried over into and in overtime periods. A couple others don't think so.

The Redding guide has put out an errata sheet for the 2026 book which says they can carry over. See the attached and here's the last entry.

p. 168, 1st col. Last para:

NOTE: An editorial revision to 8-2-2 thru 8-2-5 changed “subsequent kickoff” to “subsequent spot” which
allows a penalty to be carried over in situations when the succeeding spot is not a kickoff. The primary
impact is when there is a touchdown on the last timed down in regulation play and a successful try results
in overtime. Additionally, a penalty can be carried over within an overtime period or from one overtime
period to the next overtime period.

EXAMPLE 11-72: Team A trails Team B by seven points with two seconds left in the game. As time
expires, A21 scores a touchdown and B42 pulls him to the ground with a horse-collar tackle. RULING:
Team B’s penalty could enforced on the try or Team A could opt to have it enforced at the start of overtime
if the try ties the game.

[ncwingman]

Has anyone heard anything definitive on this from the NF?

I have two dependable sources that believe this does mean they could be carried over into and in overtime periods. A couple others don't think so.

The Redding guide has put out an errata sheet for the 2026 book which says they can carry over. See the attached and here's the last entry.

p. 168, 1st col. Last para:

NOTE: An editorial revision to 8-2-2 thru 8-2-5 changed “subsequent kickoff” to “subsequent spot” which
allows a penalty to be carried over in situations when the succeeding spot is not a kickoff. The primary
impact is when there is a touchdown on the last timed down in regulation play and a successful try results
in overtime. Additionally, a penalty can be carried over within an overtime period or from one overtime
period to the next overtime period.

EXAMPLE 11-72: Team A trails Team B by seven points with two seconds left in the game. As time
expires, A21 scores a touchdown and B42 pulls him to the ground with a horse-collar tackle. RULING:
Team B’s penalty could enforced on the try or Team A could opt to have it enforced at the start of overtime
if the try ties the game.

I honestly do not see the wording in the rule that allows this to be true. People may want it to be true, and are trying to wish it into existence, but it's just not there.

Without a penalty involved, after a touchdown the succeeding spot is the try and only the try. When a foul occurs during a touchdown scoring play, 2-41-10 allows the succeeding spot to be the subsequent kickoff - and that rule explicitly says "subsequent kickoff" still, not "the first down after the try".

If the intent of this edit was to make that change, this should have been a rules committee vote (not an editorial decision) and announced in the same press release as the other rules changes. To put a fine point on it, I think Redding is incorrect in their interpretation.

[toma]

The editorial change in says succeeding spot. there is no mention of KO.
2.41.10 The succeeding spot is where the ball would next be snapped or free kick... Rules 8-2-2, 8-2-3, 8-2-4, 8-2-5 the succeeding spot may, at the option of the offended team be subsequent KO
RESOLVING TIED GAMES
5-1-1 covers the succeeding spot carry over
3-1-1 SITUATION B covers the succeeding spot carry over
it would appear the rules committee have covered the options

[BetweenTheLines]

The editorial change in says succeeding spot. there is no mention of KO.
2.41.10 The succeeding spot is where the ball would next be snapped or free kick... Rules 8-2-2, 8-2-3, 8-2-4, 8-2-5 the succeeding spot may, at the option of the offended team be subsequent KO
RESOLVING TIED GAMES
5-1-1 covers the succeeding spot carry over
3-1-1 SITUATION B covers the succeeding spot carry over
it would appear the rules committee have covered the options

It does so appear!

[ncwingman]

I just got forwarded the amended Rules Interpretations from my regional supervisor, and others may have gotten it as well.

Long story short, the official stance is that anything related to overtime is a state adoption, including bridging a foul to overtime. Therefore, your state may allow it, but my state may not (hypothetically as my state has not yet released specific guidance).

Fun times ahead!

[NVFOA_Ump]

I just got forwarded the amended Rules Interpretations from my regional supervisor, and others may have gotten it as well.

Long story short, the official stance is that anything related to overtime is a state adoption, including bridging a foul to overtime. Therefore, your state may allow it, but my state may not (hypothetically as my state has not yet released specific guidance).

Fun times ahead!

Not sure that the " .... anything related to overtime is a state adoption ..." is technically correct since under NFHS rules overtime, for rules enforcement purposes, is considered part of the 4th period.  Has that changed?

[ncwingman]

Not sure that the " .... anything related to overtime is a state adoption ..." is technically correct since under NFHS rules overtime, for rules enforcement purposes, is considered part of the 4th period.  Has that changed?

The amended ruling for Case Play 8.2.2 Sit C includes:

Procedures regarding overtime (if any) are adopted by the state association. State association consideration may determine that the play should be treated as a normal in-game play and allow for the penalty to be enforced from the succeeding spot in overtime. Those procedures could also state that only dead-ball or unsportsmanlike fouls after the final play in regulation carry to overtime, or some other variant for those last plays in regulation. [...] therefore, state association overtime procedures should clearly state whether or not the option can be given to penalize the foul on the first play of overtime per 10-4 NOTE, or if enforcing the penalty may only be done on the try.

That may have been slight hyperbole, but for this issue it feels like that's what they're leaning into at least.

[bossman72]

Looks like they just put something out. (attached)

[Snapper]

Looks like they just put something out. (attached)

Wow, nothing to do with the Rule 8 editorial changes that you’re talking about; but the 2.15.2 Situation (c) rewrite is poorly written.  He’s in the air after possessing a pass, while still in the air at the 3, he’s hit and “fumbles” the ball?  And they call that a fumble forward oob?  Because no way is that correct.

Or are they changing the play to a running play?  And in that case, why would they group it with the other sub-situations?  That’s dumb and confusing.

Or maybe he comes down and completes the catch, then goes back up in the air and is hit and fumbles?

Maybe I’m dense, but to me that’s just not good writing.

[ncwingman]

Wow, nothing to do with the Rule 8 editorial changes that you’re talking about; but the 2.15.2 Situation (c) rewrite is poorly written.  He’s in the air after possessing a pass, while still in the air at the 3, he’s hit and “fumbles” the ball?  And they call that a fumble forward oob?  Because no way is that correct.

Or are they changing the play to a running play?  And in that case, why would they group it with the other sub-situations?  That’s dumb and confusing.

Or maybe he comes down and completes the catch, then goes back up in the air and is hit and fumbles?

Maybe I’m dense, but to me that’s just not good writing.

The 2-4-1 definition of a catch doesn't require the player to "land" if his forward progress is stopped by a player who is inbounds themselves. The catch is completed when A1 is contacted in the air by B1, at which point he is allowed to fumble the ball by rule.

In reality, if A1 loses possession of the ball in midair after contact, we should probably rule that he didn't have full possession of the ball and it was incomplete. However, in hypothetical case play land, it becomes another example of a forward fumble out of bounds.

[Snapper]

The 2-4-1 definition of a catch doesn't require the player to "land" if his forward progress is stopped by a player who is inbounds themselves. The catch is completed when A1 is contacted in the air by B1, at which point he is allowed to fumble the ball by rule.

In reality, if A1 loses possession of the ball in midair after contact, we should probably rule that he didn't have full possession of the ball and it was incomplete. However, in hypothetical case play land, it becomes another example of a forward fumble out of bounds.

Interesting, thanks!

That's wild that they consider the pass complete, but progress not stopped and therefore a fumble possible.

I no longer try to figure out or outguess either the Fed or NCAA.  Too many grey hairs already!!

[NVFOA_Ump]

The 2-4-1 definition of a catch doesn't require the player to "land" if his forward progress is stopped by a player who is inbounds themselves. The catch is completed when A1 is contacted in the air by B1, at which point he is allowed to fumble the ball by rule.

In reality, if A1 loses possession of the ball in midair after contact, we should probably rule that he didn't have full possession of the ball and it was incomplete. However, in hypothetical case play land, it becomes another example of a forward fumble out of bounds.

We can strongly disagree here in that the catch is not completed until we judge that A has actual possession and control of the ball.  That cannot occur immediately upon contact by B but at some time after that initial contact.  Also, IMHO 2-4-1 also says that if we determine that A has secured that possession and is under control of and being "carried back" by B that we by rule at that point have a DB forward progress call.

[ncwingman]

We can strongly disagree here in that the catch is not completed until we judge that A has actual possession and control of the ball.  That cannot occur immediately upon contact by B but at some time after that initial contact.  Also, IMHO 2-4-1 also says that if we determine that A has secured that possession and is under control of and being "carried back" by B that we by rule at that point have a DB forward progress call.

In the real world, I'm not disputing any of that. I was just explaining how the case play makes technical legal sense, even if it's never a scenario we would realistically see.

Edit -- To elaborate slightly, how many case plays are there that are predicated on a clear-as-day new force on the ball, especially on a loose ball? That is just being stipulated for rule purposes so that the final ruling is relevant. In reality, how many times have you ever ruled that a new force was put on a loose ball? It's unlikely that you'd ever really see it, but the case play is there to explain what to do in that unlikely scenario. Similarly, it's unlikely that we would rule this as a legitimate catch and fumble, *but if it was*, this case play describes how to handle the situation.

[theride]

You can't take a foul by the defense to OT on the last timed down of the 4th quarter.  It would have to be taken on the try, if accepted, because you don't know if you are going to have an overtime session.  It could only carry over to OT if the foul occurred during the successful try, which forces overtime. 

[ncwingman]

You can't take a foul by the defense to OT on the last timed down of the 4th quarter.  It would have to be taken on the try, if accepted, because you don't know if you are going to have an overtime session.  It could only carry over to OT if the foul occurred during the successful try, which forces overtime.

Yes, that is what the rule was. However, if you read the just published interpretation (see bossman's post for the link, and my previous post for the relevant quote), the guidance is that states are free to adopt any overtime procedure they want, including how to handle enforcing such fouls, and they can choose to enforce on the first play of overtime.