Rule 8 Editorial Changes

[Ralph Damren]

If there was a foul by B on a TD on the last play of the game that resulted in a tie, wouldn't most coaches want the extra yardage on PAT to win the game in reg. time in lieu of OT ?

[Ralph Damren]

If there was a foul by B on a TD on the last play of the game that resulted in a tie, wouldn't most coaches want the extra yardage on PAT to win the game in reg. time in lieu of OT ?

I'll answer my own question, that came to me while walking my new pup...

         A scores TD to tie as clock reads 0:00 
         B  for PF
         A has an A+ place kicker ,used to kicking PATs from 10 yard line.
         If kicker fails , tack  foul on OT , they would have the ball @ B's 5 or B would have the 
         ball at 25.

I should walk our pup more often to think of useless stuff  . PS: If you are an octogenarian , I suggest choosing a goldfish for a pet in lieu of a pup 

[NVFOA_Ump]

I should walk our pup more often to think of useless stuff  . PS: If you are an octogenarian , I suggest choosing a goldfish for a pet in lieu of a pup 

But Ralph, goldfish don't cuddle very well!   

[bossman72]

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. 

PA just issued an interp that we can carry the foul over to the pending OT period.

[lawdog]

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.

This is the obviously intelligent and correct answer which can never be assumed to be correct when discussing matters coming from the NFHS Football Rules Editorial Committee! 

No rule is if your state believes in maybes and whatevers you can pretend there is another play before you know so, so the foul can go that hypothetical play that may not ever exist.  Or if you state appreciates reality and common sense, it still can't.

[UmpnRef]

My understanding is NC will not carry over to the pending OT period. That was verbal, don't get much written from NCHSAA. 

[Ralph Damren]

Remember, guys (gender neutral) , Rule 1-7-9 provides state rights to design their own overtime. The editorial change was just to clairfy that fouls on the last play can be carried over.

[ncwingman]

This is the obviously intelligent and correct answer which can never be assumed to be correct when discussing matters coming from the NFHS Football Rules Editorial Committee! 

No rule is if your state believes in maybes and whatevers you can pretend there is another play before you know so, so the foul can go that hypothetical play that may not ever exist.  Or if you state appreciates reality and common sense, it still can't.

I don't understand this take.

I understand the way the rule had been interpreted before, and I'm not arguing that is what is says. However, why does it feel that you are against enforcing the foul in OT? As the rule states, a foul on a TD play can skip over the try and be enforced on the following play (99.99999% of the time, a free kick), so why are you opposed to that 0.00001% of the time of it being the first play of overtime instead?

This can become a strategic gamble by the offended team, if they miss the try and the game doesn't go to OT, well, they lose out on enforcing the penalty as if they had just declined it. It's not like they get to enforce it on the opening kick off of the next game or replay the try with the penalty enforced this time.

I would even argue that insisting on this might even encourage "bad" fouls (flagrantly obvious, not flagrant as ejectable). A7 wants to throw a pass into the end zone, B56 just two hand grabs star receiver A81 to prevent the catch, so A7 throws to A82 instead. If the catch isn't made, okay, A gets another shot, but B gets another shot at stopping them as well. If the catch is made anyway, A now has the option of either screwing up their routine extra point or declining the penalty entirely. There's essentially no downside to B fouling here.

Also, the game tying (not winning) touchdown *as the last timed down* is also exceedingly rare. I'm sure it happens, but I've been doing this for almost 15 years now and I've never seen it -- lots of last second TDs, and even last timed down TDs, but none of those resulted in a tie score. We're not talking about a major rule change that is going to fundamentally reshape strategy. I'm sure some people will respond with that time it happened to them, which will demonstrate the saying "The exception that proves the rule" -- also, don't forget that foul by B during the play.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Remember, guys (gender neutral) , Rule 1-7-9 provides state rights to design their own overtime. The editorial change was just to clairfy that fouls on the last play can be carried over.

So that raises an interesting issue since the 2 states that I work (MA and RI) do have their "own OT rules" but do not address anything that happens before moving to the OT/extra period.  Based on that, IMHO I would say because of the new wording in the NFHS rules that unless the individual states rules EXPLICITY say that "carryovers" are prohibited, then they must be allowed, since it's 100% clear (well almost) that the current NFHS wording, as garbled as it is, allows the carryover to OT.

[ncwingman]

So that raises an interesting issue since the 2 states that I work (MA and RI) do have their "own OT rules" but do not address anything that happens before moving to the OT/extra period.  Based on that, IMHO I would say because of the new wording in the NFHS rules that unless the individual states rules EXPLICITY say that "carryovers" are prohibited, then they must be allowed, since it's 100% clear (well almost) that the current NFHS wording, as garbled as it is, allows the carryover to OT.

Where does it say that?

All I see is that states are free to set whatever rules they want regarding OT, and they should include specific guidance one way or another. There's liberal use of the word "may" in there.

If they don't provide specific guidance, I would argue that the previous interpretation should hold - succeeding spot after a field goal could be first play of OT, and after a TD is the try or kickoff with no kickoff in OT.

[Ralph Damren]

But Ralph, goldfish don't cuddle very well!   

But they are tastier in lieu of food shortage 

[NVFOA_Ump]

Where does it say that?

All I see is that states are free to set whatever rules they want regarding OT, and they should include specific guidance one way or another. There's liberal use of the word "may" in there.

If they don't provide specific guidance, I would argue that the previous interpretation should hold - succeeding spot after a field goal could be first play of OT, and after a TD is the try or kickoff with no kickoff in OT.

That's exactly what I said???   

[ncwingman]

That's exactly what I said???   

I would say because of the new wording in the NFHS rules that unless the individual states rules EXPLICITY say that "carryovers" are prohibited, then they must be allowed

I was saying the opposite of that - there is no place that states carryovers must be allowed unless explicitly forbidden.

To summarize:
1) The old rule (and rule interpretation) was that a penalty on a last-timed-play TD had to be enforced on the try because there was no succeeding kickoff.
2) This is an editorial change, not a rules change, so the default option should remain the same
3) The editorial change replaced "subsequent kickoff" with "succeeding spot" in Rule 8
4) The definition of "succeeding spot" in Rule 2 allows for the spot to be the "subsequent kickoff" for a penalty on a TD scoring play, since the succeeding spot after a TD is the try. This STILL says "subsequent kickoff". There was no edit to Rule 2.

There is no wording in the rule book that explicitly allows carryovers after a touchdown.

The new interpretation sent out is the only place where that is mentioned, and it explicitly says that states "may" adopt whatever rules they want regarding overtime. A strict, literal reading of the rule book does NOT include carryover possibility. So without a state adoption saying that you CAN, the default should be that you CAN NOT.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I was saying the opposite of that - there is no place that states carryovers must be allowed unless explicitly forbidden.

To summarize:
1) The old rule (and rule interpretation) was that a penalty on a last-timed-play TD had to be enforced on the try because there was no succeeding kickoff.
    - Agree on that
2) This is an editorial change, not a rules change, so the default option should remain the same
  - Except that the specific "edited" wording now clearly says otherwise so in reality it is not an editorial change
3) The editorial change replaced "subsequent kickoff" with "succeeding spot" in Rule 8
   - By no one's definition, except the wizards at NFHS, is that an editorial change. Succeeding spot has an explicit definition in Rule 2 that based on the new memo must allow carryovers to OT as CLEARLY written. (2026 NFHS Football Rules Interpretations memo).
4) The definition of "succeeding spot" in Rule 2 allows for the spot to be the "subsequent kickoff" for a penalty on a TD scoring play, since the succeeding spot after a TD is the try. This STILL says "subsequent kickoff". There was no edit to Rule 2.
   - But Rule 8, and the referenced 2026 rules memo say otherwise.

There is no wording in the rule book that explicitly allows carryovers after a touchdown. - There is now with the new 2026 memo which by NFHS definition is an integral part of the rules.

The new interpretation sent out is the only place where that is mentioned, and it explicitly says that states "may" adopt whatever rules they want regarding overtime. A strict, literal reading of the rule book does NOT include carryover possibility. So without a state adoption saying that you CAN, the default should be that you CAN NOT.  - We'll disagree on that, since we're being told that the state OT rules will have to EXPLICITLY prohibit the carryover since based on that memo, it is now part of the rule/case book set.

We are also being told that NFHS has acknowledged that the rule book will need to be "corrected" since these "clarifications" came too late to meet the 2026 book printing deadlines, hence the late memo.  Maybe Ralph would like to clarify this??? 

[Ralph Damren]

We are also being told that NFHS has acknowledged that the rule book will need to be "corrected" since these "clarifications" came too late to meet the 2026 book printing deadlines, hence the late memo.  Maybe Ralph would like to clarify this??? 

In Maine, you can carry the penalty enforcement over to overtime. SEZ' ME  What happens next year will be someone elses's worry. Your state can rule on OT as they wish.

[lawdog]

I don't understand this take.

I understand the way the rule had been interpreted before, and I'm not arguing that is what is says. However, why does it feel that you are against enforcing the foul in OT? As the rule states, a foul on a TD play can skip over the try and be enforced on the following play (99.99999% of the time, a free kick), so why are you opposed to that 0.00001% of the time of it being the first play of overtime instead?

This can become a strategic gamble by the offended team, if they miss the try and the game doesn't go to OT, well, they lose out on enforcing the penalty as if they had just declined it. It's not like they get to enforce it on the opening kick off of the next game or replay the try with the penalty enforced this time.

I would even argue that insisting on this might even encourage "bad" fouls (flagrantly obvious, not flagrant as ejectable). A7 wants to throw a pass into the end zone, B56 just two hand grabs star receiver A81 to prevent the catch, so A7 throws to A82 instead. If the catch isn't made, okay, A gets another shot, but B gets another shot at stopping them as well. If the catch is made anyway, A now has the option of either screwing up their routine extra point or declining the penalty entirely. There's essentially no downside to B fouling here.

Also, the game tying (not winning) touchdown *as the last timed down* is also exceedingly rare. I'm sure it happens, but I've been doing this for almost 15 years now and I've never seen it -- lots of last second TDs, and even last timed down TDs, but none of those resulted in a tie score. We're not talking about a major rule change that is going to fundamentally reshape strategy. I'm sure some people will respond with that time it happened to them, which will demonstrate the saying "The exception that proves the rule" -- also, don't forget that foul by B during the play.

Because you are allowing an option for a hypothetical play that doesn't exist at the time the option is chosen.  That makes no sense.  How about you just carry it over to a playoff game IF you play again and can use it?? 

[ncwingman]

Because you are allowing an option for a hypothetical play that doesn't exist at the time the option is chosen.  That makes no sense.  How about you just carry it over to a playoff game IF you play again and can use it??

That's an absurd argument, and you know it. Nobody has ever suggested that the penalty could be enforced in a different game. Sometimes penalties just cannot be enforced because games have to end. What happens if K kicks a game winning field goal as time expires, but R roughs the kicker on the play. K has the option to accept the score and enforce the penalty at the succeeding spot (8-4-3b) -- where is the succeeding spot? There is none. The game is over, you cannot enforce the penalty.

It becomes a strategic choice by A - if you choose to take it on the first play of overtime, but the result of the try means there is no overtime, then you effectively declined enforcing the penalty because there is no longer a succeeding spot.

[lawdog]

It becomes a strategic choice by A - if you choose to take it on the first play of overtime, but the result of the try means there is no overtime, then you effectively declined enforcing the penalty because there is NEVER WAS a succeeding spot.

Fixed it for you.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Fixed it for you.

I like the original there is "no longer a succeeding spot" language.  That is in fact the most accurate description at the time the enforcement option is offered by the R to team A.

[ncwingman]

Fixed it for you.

Other than being resistant to change, you still have never explained why you're opposed to it. What would it harm if it was allowed?

Also, what if the scenario was the other way around -- lets say it's 20-14 B, and A throws a TD pass as time expires, and B hits A late to try and knock the ball loose, but since it was late that's irrelevant (and say A hangs on anyway, so doubly moot). It's now 20-20. The game IS tied with no time on the clock. It's not potentially tied depending on the outcome of the try. A wants to kick the try from the 3 like they've practiced all year, but doesn't want B to "get away" with the late hit... so if they miss the try, they want to enforce the penalty on the first play of OT. If they make the try, they win the game and don't care anymore. Why are you opposed to allowing this as an option?

And your answer cannot be because that's not what the rule says. I'm asking why you're opposed to letting the rule allow this.

[lawdog]

I like the original there is "no longer a succeeding spot" language.  That is in fact the most accurate description at the time the enforcement option is offered by the R to team A.

But there is no existing spot unless the extra point is made.  So no longer a succeeding spot is factually wrong. It didn't disappear after they decided, it literally never existed.  So it couldn't be less accurate.

[NVFOA_Ump]

But there is no existing spot unless the extra point is made.  So no longer a succeeding spot is factually wrong. It didn't disappear after they decided, it literally never existed.  So it couldn't be less accurate.

Wow, you're a bit lost.  The revised rule and the revised guidance are CRYSTAL CLEAR on this.  The succeeding spot, potentially being the 1st play in the extra period, does not "go away" until the current play has ended. That's 100% clear and playing wordsmith here IMHO is VERY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.

[lawdog]

Wow, you're a bit lost.  The revised rule and the revised guidance are CRYSTAL CLEAR on this.  The succeeding spot, potentially being the 1st play in the extra period, does not "go away" until the current play has ended. That's 100% clear and playing wordsmith here IMHO is VERY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.

I'm far from lost or misguided and I know full well the fiction the Editorial Committee wants you to operate on.   Its created by very non-productive wordsmithing in fact. But it is based on a false premise you can't seem to grasp.  OT is not automatically there like you seem to believe.  So you can carry it over to something that doesn't exist but it ONLY starts to exist if the score becomes tied with zeroes on the clock which hasn't happened obviously before the try.
 
It seems like a simple enough concept even for you to grasp.  But alas, apparently not.

[NVFOA_Ump]

OT is not automatically there like you seem to believe. 

You are 100% missing the point here.  Until such time as the GAME ENDS and the score is NOT TIED, the possibility of OT is one of the enforcement options that by rule must be offered to the HC coach when the circumstances indicate that with a converted try, OT will in fact continue the game.  Agreed that this is contingent on the specific OT "rules" that can be controlled by individual state mandate, but the NFHS rules are 100% (if that's possible) clear. OT is, from a NFHS rules standpoint, simply to be a considered an extension of the 4th period, with the specific OT mechanics dictated by either the default NFHS guidelines, or the superseding state rules as adopted.


UPDATE: Massachusetts (MIAA) has just posted 2026 revised OT procedures and will be using the verbatim NFHS language for OT.  Fouls occurring during a score on the last play of the 4th period will be enforced on the try or the succeeding spot in OT.  We have been instructed to carefully offer the options to the HC as enforcement of carryover fouls into OT will be "different" based on who wins the toss and the selection of offense or defense.  MIAA memo is attached for your reading pleasure.

[toma]

There was a lengthy discussion with Mass (MIAA) to stay with existing wording, however they (MIAA the governing body) went with the change.
The word is the digital case book has the changed wording. Does anyone have a digital copy to share?