penalty enforcement

[MJT]

Debate on this enforcement.

A, 3/7 at B19.  A1 throws a pass, B22 intercepts the pass at B10 and runs it back to the A7 where he is tackled by A44.  During runback, A head coach is on the field yelling for dpi.  HL had to run around him.  After B22 is tackled, he gets up and flips the ball into A44's face and says a few choice words. 

My take is... A’s coaches sideline interference of 15 yards will be enforced ½ the distance to the 3.5. B22’s ball flip, UNS, will then be enforced back to the 18.5 where B will have the ball 1st and 10. My reference is 10-1-6-b, which says ARTICLE 6. When a live-ball foul by one team is followed by one or more dead-ball fouls (including live-ball fouls treated as dead-ball fouls) by an opponent or by the same team, the penalties are administered separately and in the order of occurrence (A.R. 10-1-6-I-V).

Others are saying that the sideline interference is always enforced last, even though it occurred 1st, when the ball was live. I have never heard of that, and cannot find anything different in Reddings.


 

[Hawkeye]

There were no live ball fouls penalized as live ball fouls.  I would use rule reference 9-2-1-b-1 for the coaches action (UNS penalized as a dead ball foul).  Then the UNS on B22 is a dead ball foul as well.

10-1-5-Exception tells us to offset these two penalties.

B 1/10 A-7

[Andrew McCarthy]

There were no live ball fouls penalized as live ball fouls.  I would use rule reference 9-2-1-b-1 for the coaches action (UNS penalized as a dead ball foul).  Then the UNS on B22 is a dead ball foul as well.

10-1-5-Exception tells us to offset these two penalties.

B 1/10 A-7

10-1-5-Exception specifically states "dead-ball unsportsmanlike".

I agree with MJT's enforcement.

[brownie]

10-1-5-Exception specifically states "dead-ball unsportsmanlike".

I agree with MJT's enforcement.

So are the comments on this post incorrect http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=8543.0

Here two dead ball PFs and 1 dead ball USC were offset

[MJT]

So are the comments on this post incorrect http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=8543.0

Here two dead ball PFs and 1 dead ball USC were offset

Those were all DBFouls, so they will all offset per rule 10-1-5. This was 1 LBF and one DBF, and thus 10-1-6 from everything I can find. I never even questioned it until another official said the non-player foul is always last, which I have never heard of.

[MJT]

There were no live ball fouls penalized as live ball fouls.  I would use rule reference 9-2-1-b-1 for the coaches action (UNS penalized as a dead ball foul).  Then the UNS on B22 is a dead ball foul as well.

10-1-5-Exception tells us to offset these two penalties.

B 1/10 A-7

The sideline interference was a LBFoul, which is enforced as a DBFoul.

[Hawkeye]

The sideline interference was a LBFoul, which is enforced as a DBFoul.

Which is why I said that you have no Live ball fouls penalized as live ball fouls.

---

10-1-5-Exception specifically states "dead-ball unsportsmanlike".

I agree with MJT's enforcement.

I'm going to read 10-1-5 Exception as dead ball UNS (including live ball fouls penalized as dead ball fouls) as is parenthetical in 10-1-6.

This play is the exact reason 10-1-5-Exception was added, so that there wouldn't be an inequity when enforcing 15 yard dead ball fouls inside the 30 yard lines.  I'm going to offset these under 10-1-5 Exception

[NVFOA_Ump]

This play is the exact reason 10-1-5-Exception was added, so that there wouldn't be an inequity when enforcing 15 yard dead ball fouls inside the 30 yard lines.  I'm going to offset these under 10-1-5 Exception

I have to agree with Hawkeye.  By rule the first USC while occurring during LB action is enforced as a DB foul while the 2nd USC is a plain vanilla DB-USC.  If we don't offset we end up with the inequitable result that the 10-1-5-Exception was added to address.

[MJT]

I totally understand 10-1-5 exception, but we do have a live ball foul here. It is simply enforced as a dead ball foul because it is a nonplayer foul, and why I think it is 10-1-6, not 10-1-5.

10-1-5 exception specifically says dead ball UNS, in fact the dead ball part is highlighted in blue.

This is a great discussion.

[NVFOA_Ump]

What would we be doing here if the play ended in a TD?

[Diablo]

The sideline interference was a LBFoul, which is enforced as a DBFoul.

I'd go with the Exception in 10-1-5.
Recall, not so many moons ago (last year), live-ball USC fouls were offset by an opponent's dead-ball personal foul.  And I believe the same was true for Head Coach A's infraction in the play on the table as well.  I don't think changing penalty enforcement for live-ball USC fouls this year affects the ability of HC A's foul to offset Team B's dead-ball PF. 

[Welpe]

Agreed ith Diablo. While that may not fit the letter of the new rule, I have to think it meets the intent.

[MJT]

This is a good one!! I'd love to here what RR would say about it.

[FatboyHL]

My understanding of the exception to the penalty enforcement is to take the pressure off of the officials in determining the order of occurrence in the dead ball situation.  In most cases we were already doing this and were not supported by rule.  In this situation you do have a clear order of occurrence and I would enforce as such.

With the issue in Texas we have to stand our ground with the sideline and coaches even though B did something wrong at the end of the play.

Team B is happy they have the ball.  Team A coach gets the message that he can't be on the field.

[clearwall]

Isnt the rule for subjected persons coming into the field of play ALWAYS a DB foul? I seem to remember an article coming out a while back that talked about a guy running in the clear and an opposing player came onto the field of play and tried to trip him. It was determined that it was a DB and enforced as such.

[jg-me]

MJT
 sorry to be late responding to request from another post to look at this play. I believe the proper rule reference is 9-2-3-a. The coach was on the field and interfered with an official. The specified penalty is whatever the referee deems appropriate. Since the foul did not materially affect the result of the play and the foul falls under the general category of conduct of persons associated with the game, I would go with treating this as any other USC and enforce as a DB. Because there is another DB foul involved prior to either being completed I would go with the penalties cancelling each other (barring advice to contrary by RR).